f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\A Comparative Essay on Never Cry Wolf .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For my book report, I have chosen the novel Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat. In this report I will give a brief summary of the novel as well as why I have chosen it for my report. Finally, I will give my reactions to the novel with regards to its analysis of the place of human beings in nature, whether the destiny of humans and nature is intertwined, and how nature is regarded by the different religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the novel. Never Cry Wolf is based upon the true story of the author's experiences during two years spent as a biologist studying a family of wolves in northern Canada during the mid nineteen fifties. When Mowat is sent on his expedition his goal is to bring back proof of the wolves decimating effect on the northern herds of Caribou. After arriving at the remote location, he finds a group of wolves and begins his research. He then discovers the differing peculiarities of the wolves and finds that they are more than the savage and merciless hunters that he had previously believed them to be. He discovers that they are in fact a very efficient and resourceful and have their own distinctive culture. For example he discovers that they in fact have a symbiotic relationship with the caribou in that they keep the caribou population strong by hunting down only the sick and weaker members of the herd. This leads to a situation where the strongest caribou survive and thus the herd is made stronger. As well they have their own social orders that ensure peaceful co-existence with one another instead of being reduced to fighting amongst themselves. Before Mowat's excursion conventional wisdom thought that that was the only interraction that the wolves were capable of. In his group he finds a monogamous pair who are raising their litter with assistance from another male wolf who Mowat terms to be an "uncle". His previous assumptions which portrayed the wolves as cold heated killers who lived only for the hunt, is challenged as he observes these animals play and interact within their environment his previous assumptions about the role that these animals play in nature. His attitude metamorphosis' from one of disdain and contempt to one of genuine respect and admiration. I chose this novel for study instead of Siddhartha because I felt that this novel speaks more directly to me. I felt this way firstly, because of the location of the novel, northern Canada, in which I traveled for a summer, and secondly because I enjoy spending time in the outdoors. This meant that I could more easily identify the setting and thus relate better to the author's feelings and perceptions. Meanwhile, Siddhartha was set in India and in my mind was dated and unreal humankind (society) seems today to have more of a desire and a need to get back to nature and the simple life. The spirit of peace that emanates from Mowat's book allows one to focus on what is possible when one has time to reflect In this I mean that Never Cry Wolf seemed to hold a more meaningful message for modern times. As well I found the style of writing in the Mowat novel to be clearer then in Siddhartha. These were some of the factors that combined to produce a situation where Never Cry Wolf captured my attention more than Siddhartha. It was for these reasons that I chose the novel by Farley Mowat. In my opinion, Never Cry Wolf placed humans in the role of intruders as far as nature is concerned. Mowat cites several instances where humans violate nature and represent a threat to its sanctity. Even though this threat is not reciprocated by nature, humans continue to infringe upon nature and then deny the consequences of their actions. Two prevalent examples of this occur: when Mowat accidentally wanders into the wolves den when the wolves' are there, and again when he discovers a herd of deer that have been slaughtered by hunters. Both examples show humans intruding upon nature and using it for their own purposes. In the first example Mowat decides to explore the wolves' den without realizing that they are still inside. Once inside he discovers that they are still there and he fears that he is going to be killed by them. Even though he is an intruder the wolves take no action against his presence and he manages to escape. The most disturbing aspect of this event is afterwards when he describes the rage and fear that overcame him at the thought of having been at their mercy: "I sat down on a stone and shakily lit a cigarette, becoming aware as I did that I was no longer frightened. Instead an irrational rage possessed me. If I had had my rifle I believe that I might have reacted in brute fury and tried to kill both wolves." (P. 175) In the second incident Mowat illustrates how humans brutally use nature for their own benefit and pleasure. The situation occurs when a trapper comes to Mowat to show him "proof" of the savage and merciless ways of wolves. Following the trapper they come to a spot where approximately 50 deer have been slaughtered. However, he quickly finds out that the deaths were the result of human hunters. Of the herd only two or three had been touched after the kill, their heads taken home as trophies. Despite the evidence Mowat is unable to convince people of the true nature of the predators and in response to the incidence the bounty on wolves is raised by twenty dollars. Overall I would say that Mowat's book makes the point that the destiny of humans and animals are closely entwined. Several times in the novel he illustrates how each affects the other. As well he also demonstrates how humans can still learn from nature. One example of this occurs when Mowat's food supplies run low and he adapts the fishing tactics of the wolves in order to catch fish. The final aspect of Never Cry Wolf that I will examine is how nature is regarded by the various religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the novel. The two different philosophies which are demonstrated are one which are diametrically opposed. The first philosophy is that of mainstream western culture. This philosophy views nature as something to be feared and ultimately conquered. Throughout the book there are examples where people with this viewpoint attempt to dominate nature or at least attempt to impose human moral judgment upon it. This is especially prevalent in people's attitudes towards wolves. They see the wolves bloodthirsty, merciless killers who are pillaging the caribou herds for mere blood sport. And yet those people fail to recognize that the true slaughterers are the human predators who blatantly overhunt the caribou herds. For instance, Mowat finds that conservatively, trappers kill a combined 112 000 deer every year but still blame the wolf for the caribous' decimation. The other philosophy demonstrated in Never Cry Wolf is that of the native Americans of northern Canada. Their philosophy, as presented by Mowat is one which views humans as only being a fraction of the total importance of nature. In their culture they are taught to have reverence for nature and to be efficient in their use of natural resources. This philosophy causes them to see wolves, not as bloodthirsty menaces, but as animals simply fulfilling their role in the natural chain. In conclusion I believe that Never Cry Wolf illustrates the various beliefs that different people have about nature and the environment. Mowat also effectively demonstrates how these beliefs influence people's interaction with nature. Finally, Mowat leaves no doubt that humans do have a large and sometimes traumatic impact upon nature. However with his experience changing Mowat's own change of thinking, we see that it is possible for humans to correct the error of their humanistic thinking. This can particularly be seen in Mowat's closing sentences... "I thought of Angeline and her pup cowering at the bottom of the den where they had taken refuge from the thundering apparition of the aircraft, and I was shamed." (P.175) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\A Comparitive Study Of The Work Of The Devil.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Comparitive Study Of The Work Of The Devil It is true that the study of the devil or evil in general as a part of the world has intrigued man for centuries. This is mostly because it is something people don't have concrete proof of and is also considered taboo in our society. Yet, studies and/or story telling on the devil and his evil forces seems to have been apart of all societies since the begining of time. Such as, Christpher Marlowe's play, The Tragical History of Dr. Faustas, written in the 16th century and the modern day film, The Devil's Advocate, starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves. The devil in Marlowe's play doesnt come to Dr. Faustas as himself , instead he sends one of his disciples named Mephistophilis. When Mephistophilis first comes to Dr. Faustas he comes as himself, a demon like creature that is not quite appealing to the eye and seems to frighten or sicken Dr.Faustas. Dr. Faustas immediatley asks Mephistophilis to come back as something more pleasant, such as a fransiscan friar. The devil immediatly does so. I assume he does this to please Dr. Faustas and to show him that with the type of power he possesses he can appear to be or even change into whom ever he wants. This being something that the doctor can also achieve by giving up his soul. He also offers Dr. Faustas many things such as, knowledge (something the Doctor can't get enough of) and tells the Doctor that he can basically have everything he desires in exchange for his soul. Something very similar to this instance also occurs in The Devils Advocate. In the beginning of the film Keanu Reeves is approached by a man( also a messenger of the devil's) in a bar offering him a job opportunity in Manhattan and to persuade him to come he offers him a very large sum of money. When Keanu arrives he is surrounded by all the materialistic things he could desire in addition to the power and acknowledgment he so strongly desires. This is all once again there to tempt him towards evil and persuade him to sell his soul. Another pertinant similarity between the 16th century play and the modern day film is the chance that both characters were given to give it all up, leave the devil and regain their souls, yet the outcome is far different. In Marlowe's play, Dr. Faustas is approached by an old man who tries to convince Faustas to leave the devil and regain his soul. Faustas declines this plea and continues on the path he already was on, despite the fact that he was beginning to doubt the actual rewards of his endeavor. In opposition to the play's character, during the film when Keanu Reeves is offered even more rewards to procreate with his sister and birth an anti-christ ,thus ending his life as he knows it and completely giving his soul to evil, he declines in the only way he thinks possible, commiting suicide. The major difference in the play and the film is the way the devil presents himself. In the play, Dr. Faustas calls the devil and is looking for another source of knowledge and power. The devil comes to him not trying to hide his persona or his pursuit of evil, but rather promoting the cause from the beginning. Knowing the outcome of his acceptance of the devil, Dr. Faustus knowingly accepted the devil and all of his gifts. On the other hand, in the film, Al Pacino (the devil) presents himself as a friendly successful lawyer who can offer Keanu Reeves everything he ever wanted such as, money, power, and most importantly a successful carrer. Yet in an honest fashion and without knowingly giving up his soul.On these terms Keanu Reeves accepts. That is where I feel the major differnce in the portrayal of the devil between the play and the film exists.The fact that Dr. Faustas willingly accepts all gifts and willingly gives up his soul, while Keanu Reeves only accepts all this on the merit that Al Pacino is a legitimate laywer. Yet, overall the modern day outlook on the devil isn't much different than the outlook of many years ago. In both portrayls the devil had to physically show himself in a disguise, he had to lie in one way or another to gain the soul of his concubines, and in both the film and the play the devil is there only to promote evil and only offers things to people that wil eventually benefit himself. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\A Martyrs Victory in a Spiritual Sense.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Martyr's Victory in a Spiritual Sense Bishop Francis X. Ford was a well educated, enormously gentle man, that was kicked, beaten, insulted, and surrounded by hatred. All this because of one mans beliefs. He was born in Brooklyn in 1892. He was the founder of the Maryknoll Missionaries and was the first bishop of Kwantung, China. He was killed in the late 1950's in China, he was charged with anti-Communist, counterrevolutionary, and espionage activities, his real "crime" was for being a Christian and a foreigner. During his life Bishop Ford illustrated the cardinal virtue of fortitude, which is the ability to overcome fear in order to pursue good; "it is an active sake to overcome evil for the sake of gods kingdom" said Huggard. When he took office in China, the country was already feeling the effects of the massive Japanese advance across Asia. In a short time millions lost there lives and were driven from there homes. Bishop ford refused to leave the war-torn country, even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the war. During this time he distinguished himself by the way he cared for war refugees. Chinese paid a terrible price during this war with Japan, but even more costly was a civil war that followed. Bishop Ford exemplified the virtue of fortitude, by not leaving the war-torn country and staying to try to pursue good. During this time of war, many would wonder what was the reason for him to stay in China, and what was his why to live? In the Novel A Mans Search For Meaning, Nietzsche says "he who has a why to live can bear with almost any how". If Ford had left the country during the time of war, there would have probably been no hope for the war refugees that didn't have the option to stay or go. His why to live was not to save himself, but to save others. In the Novel Frankl describes the human person as a meaning maker, who has the last human freedom namely to choose one attitude in a given set of circumstances. In 1950, he moved from his Diocese in Kaying China, to a political prison in Canton 200, miles away. At every stop along the way he was put on public display and humiliated. His attitude during these stops was not to give and let the humiliation make get to him, but to use it as a stepping stone to fight harder, he did the inevitable he used the humiliation to make him better. In his life he examplified many of the things Frankl wrote about, but he also depicted many of the quotes in the hallway of Kellenberg Memorial High School. There is one quote that stood out to me more than any of the quotes on the wall it is.......... COURAGE Don't follow where the path may lead ......go instead where there is no path and leave a trail". When Bishop was young he developed his own idealism. While a student in Cathedral college in New York he took an interest in the Christian Foreign Mission Society, this society was new and had few members. At the age of 20, he became the first seminarian of the Maryknoll Missionaries to go abroad. In time, many followed and the missionaries began a movement to Christianize foreign lands. Bishop Ford is consider the pioneer of this movement. Just like the quote said, he led the path.....and many followed. Bishop Ford died at the mercy of those who despised him, with-out any comfort or support. His death was martyrdom it's truest sense, despite the isolation and horror he held to his beliefs. Works Cited Funk & Wagnalls. Microsoft Encarta: Bishop Ford. New York: Houghton Mifflin Comp, 1994. Welk, Donald. Asian Missionaries. Minnesota: Patch Publishing, 1981. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\A Non Religious Contract in America.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Non-Religious Contract in America The religious standards of Americans today have plummeted to a new low. Fewer people are going to church than earlier in the century. Many people are marrying without even going to a priest by getting a judge to marry them. Divorce is steadily on the rise. Today's society accepts homosexuals! Now the issue arises over whether we should allow homosexuals to marry. And you know what? It is really none of the government's business. America can no longer deny its homosexual citizens the right to have a legal marriage. Looking at today's society, we can see that there is no good reason to deny gay couples the rights that straight couples have in getting married. The United States has always had the idea of separation of church and state, and marriage is one issue that must maintain that idealogy in the eyes of the government. The key to separating church and state in the debate over marriage is taking the definition of marriage that best applies to society today. To do that we must look at marriage's state in the 1990's. Religion is losing its dominance in the issue of marriage. We cannot argue the fact that there are more divorces in the country today that there were 20 years ago. This points to America's increasing acceptance of divorce. Therefore, we can conclude that religion has become less of an issue for many Americans when marrying because most religions strongly discourage divorce, some to the point of not allowing it at all. This leads to the question, "What is today's basis for marriage?" Some propose that the sole purpose of marriage be to bring life into the world. If this were true, then it would be unacceptable for many in this country to ever be married. There are many women and men who simply do not want to have children. Should we condemn them and not allow them to marry just because of this view? Should we not allow those who are physically unable to have children to experience the joy and happiness that marriage brings? Those who cannot bear children of their own can adopt children; would we rather they raised that child without one or the other parental figure? Obviously society does not operate with this as the basis for marriage. So the argument that homosexuals should not marry because they cannot have children is entirely ridiculous. Adoption is considered a noble act, and it brings joy into the lives of many heterosexual parents and their adopted children. There is no reason why the same cannot happen for homosexual couples. I am sure that many homosexual couples in the U.S. are better parents than some heterosexual couples. The fact that there are people that cannot physically have children together does not mean that they have no parental instincts or would be incapable as parents. Thus, this argument against homosexual marriages cannot hold in America. The government of America recognizes marriage as a secular entity, and with homosexual unions we must make sure that we look at marriage in this way. Marriage in the eyes of the government consists of a legal license that states that it can look at two people as one unit. A court of law can perform a marriage, thereby eliminating all religious aspects of it. So, the government looks at a marriage simply as something that is put in the records. This decade is the time of the paper marriage. More people sign pre- nuptial agreements, make sure their spouse has a space on their insurance policies, and have their own line on tax forms. While this seems impersonal (can you imagine someone proposing with "Will you be the answer to line #3a on my 1040 and W-2?"), the government must look at the entity marriage this way. Numbers and legal agreements are gender neutral, so government checks to make sure that all is well in those areas are feasible. But the spiritual part of marriage is for the couple involved, not the rest of society. What I've said until now makes it seem that marriage as a whole has lost all meaning to the country. This is not what I believe. Taking the religious implications of marriage away allows us to show how much the government should or should not be involved in marriage. However, two people get married because they love each other very much. They have decided that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. These reasons have nothing to do with religion; however, the Judeo-Christian religions use these two ideals in their services as the cornerstones of marriage. "To have and to hold, in sickness and in health, till death do you part." This statement is not religious, and most couples who marry think of this as the "contract" that they are agreeing to. I use contract in quotation marks because the contract I am referring to above relates to the religious ceremonies that take place in many marriages. There are no reasons for the government to be involved in making the decision of whether two people will be uphold that "contract." The marriage of two heterosexual people, no matter how public they may be, has no impact on the lives of everyday citizens. This will be true for homosexual couples as well. The government only needs to be involved in what affects the rest of the public. Thus, the only thing that it is acceptable for the government to regulate is how one's marriage should relate to the objective parts of society (such as taxes). The government does not have the right to decide who should and should not be allowed to get married. The United States prides itself on separating issues of the church from state related issues, and it must do the same with this one. Though some religious groups may have problems with allowing homosexuals to marry, America as a whole must not be so restrictive. The American government must look at marriage as strictly a financial issue, because the only parts of marriage that the government actually gets involved in are the financial issues. Let line #3a be filled by anyone, gay or straight. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\A NonReligious Contract in America.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Non-Religious Contract in America The religious standards of Americans today have plummeted to a new low. Fewer people are going to church than earlier in the century. Many people are marrying without even going to a priest by getting a judge to marry them. Divorce is steadily on the rise. Today's society accepts homosexuals! Now the issue arises over whether we should allow homosexuals to marry. And you know what? It is really none of the government's business. America can no longer deny its homosexual citizens the right to have a legal marriage. Looking at today's society, we can see that there is no good reason to deny gay couples the rights that straight couples have in getting married. The United States has always had the idea of separation of church and state, and marriage is one issue that must maintain that idealogy in the eyes of the government. The key to separating church and state in the debate over marriage is taking the definition of marriage that best applies to society today. To do that we must look at marriage's state in the 1990's. Religion is losing its dominance in the issue of marriage. We cannot argue the fact that there are more divorces in the country today that there were 20 years ago. This points to America's increasing acceptance of divorce. Therefore, we can conclude that religion has become less of an issue for many Americans when marrying because most religions strongly discourage divorce, some to the point of not allowing it at all. This leads to the question, "What is today's basis for marriage?" Some propose that the sole purpose of marriage be to bring life into the world. If this were true, then it would be unacceptable for many in this country to ever be married. There are many women and men who simply do not want to have children. Should we condemn them and not allow them to marry just because of this view? Should we not allow those who are physically unable to have children to experience the joy and happiness that marriage brings? Those who cannot bear children of their own can adopt children; would we rather they raised that child without one or the other parental figure? Obviously society does not operate with this as the basis for marriage. So the argument that homosexuals should not marry because they cannot have children is entirely ridiculous. Adoption is considered a noble act, and it brings joy into the lives of many heterosexual parents and their adopted children. There is no reason why the same cannot happen for homosexual couples. I am sure that many homosexual couples in the U.S. are better parents than some heterosexual couples. The fact that there are people that cannot physically have children together does not mean that they have no parental instincts or would be incapable as parents. Thus, this argument against homosexual marriages cannot hold in America. The government of America recognizes marriage as a secular entity, and with homosexual unions we must make sure that we look at marriage in this way. Marriage in the eyes of the government consists of a legal license that states that it can look at two people as one unit. A court of law can perform a marriage, thereby eliminating all religious aspects of it. So, the government looks at a marriage simply as something that is put in the records. This decade is the time of the paper marriage. More people sign pre-nuptial agreements, make sure their spouse has a space on their insurance policies, and have their own line on tax forms. While this seems impersonal (can you imagine someone proposing with "Will you be the answer to line #3a on my 1040 and W-2?"), the government must look at the entity marriage this way. Numbers and legal agreements are gender neutral, so government checks to make sure that all is well in those areas are feasible. But the spiritual part of marriage is for the couple involved, not the rest of society. What I've said until now makes it seem that marriage as a whole has lost all meaning to the country. This is not what I believe. Taking the religious implications of marriage away allows us to show how much the government should or should not be involved in marriage. However, two people get married because they love each other very much. They have decided that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. These reasons have nothing to do with religion; however, the Judeo-Christian religions use these two ideals in their services as the cornerstones of marriage. "To have and to hold, in sickness and in health, till death do you part." This statement is not religious, and most couples who marry think of this as the "contract" that they are agreeing to. I use contract in quotation marks because the contract I am referring to above relates to the religious ceremonies that take place in many marriages. There are no reasons for the government to be involved in making the decision of whether two people will be uphold that "contract." The marriage of two heterosexual people, no matter how public they may be, has no impact on the lives of everyday citizens. This will be true for homosexual couples as well. The government only needs to be involved in what affects the rest of the public. Thus, the only thing that it is acceptable for the government to regulate is how one's marriage should relate to the objective parts of society (such as taxes). The government does not have the right to decide who should and should not be allowed to get married. The United States prides itself on separating issues of the church from state related issues, and it must do the same with this one. Though some religious groups may have problems with allowing homosexuals to marry, America as a whole must not be so restrictive. The American government must look at marriage as strictly a financial issue, because the only parts of marriage that the government actually gets involved in are the financial issues. Let line #3a be filled by anyone, gay or straight. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\A Reveiw of the Jehovahs witnesses Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ An analysis of the Jehovah's witness's religion When the name of Jehovah's witness arises, most of the public of differing religions, a picture of an overly nice person or group of people all dressed in suits and nice clothes, arrive at your door and offer a sampling of pamphlets, (large or small). To most of the general public, the religion is a far cry from Christianity, but this is untrue, as a visit to one of the services that the congregation provides. Upon arriving at the building Kingdom hall of Jehova's Witnesses, there was nothing especially different about it except there was no cross on the outside nor a steeple. Arriving about a half an hour early we were greeted with a handshake and a almost too friendly smile from a member of the congregation. As we waited for the service to begin, more and more people started to pile into the building. Slowly conversations between members and nonmembers, including myself. After about twenty minutes, the talking reseeded and people started to seat themselves. The inside of the room was well lit up with no pews, but there were many chairs connected by metal bolts on the bottom of each chair. Amazingly though there was no cross and no altar. First the service started with singing, as any ordinary church would. We sung out of a book of songs that they provided for us. After the singing there was a guest speaker from Bagley, Minnesota. The speaker spoke to the congregation about topics in the bible, his speech lasted about three fourths of an hour. Afterwards the priest came to the podium and thanked the guest for coming. Then the priest leaded another song, sung from the song book. Next the congregation headed a bible discussion from an article from a Jehovah's Witness weekly magazine The Watch Tower. The article had to deal with what is paramount in our lives. The discussion lasted for another hour and a fifteen minutes, with questions at the end of each paragraph. The different thing about the questions was that people in the congregation actually answered some of the questions with the help of two men that stood in the back and held microphones on sticks so that they could be heard. After the bible discussion was over with, the service was ended in another song from the song book. The priest supplied me with the Watch Tower magazine that was discussed over during the service, and some further information on the church itself. Some of the beliefs of the church are most like that of most Christian religions with the exceptions that they do not regard the cross as highly as most Christians do. The Jehovah's Witness religion believes more in the guidelines of the Bible. One of the elder members of the Church was happy to answer some questions that I had. He was an elderly man with a full head of white hair, and a wide unreal smile. The members of the church were extremely friendly. However, as I talked with him, I realized that they were not entirely tolerant to the beliefs of others. On the standards of beliefs on the controversial subjects today such as abortion, same sex marriages, doctor assisted suicides, and Gay rights, they stand on similar ground along with other Christian religions. They do not believe in marriages of the same sex, not in abortions, nor doctor assisted suicides, and the concept of being gay is considered blasphemous in many parts of the bible as in Corinthians 1:8 and 1:9 so gay rights seems a mockery to the church. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christ/Jesus was the first divine creation of Jehovah/God and that he died on a torcher stake as ransom for the human race. Similar to the Christian faith, except that the emphasis on torcher stake was unnerving. The church views on other religions outside itself are as the an elder member said are like misguided sheep. I was slightly disturbed by this slightly rude and intolerant statement, but i had to respect their beliefs, so I said nothing. Kingdom Hall's members are concerned about the youth of today. The youth of today as they see it are relentlessly tempted on a regular basis by society and the press and fellow teens. Now more than ever, teens have more pressure on their beliefs than adults. Jehovah's Witnesses believe in most all of the bibles of today, but stick to the traditional versions such as the King James or the King George versions. But as for the newer bibles such as the new testament, or the man's Bible, or the woman's bible, they consider these versions a misguided representation of the bible. As I see the Jehovah's witnesses religion, as friendly as they were, was as closed minded as most other Christian religions. It had the same feel and atmosphere of A Christian religion, but it did not have the same beauty of a church, more like a seminar. As I went through the service, I learned that a Jehovah's Witness is not that different in their lives or in their beliefs. I find it hard to see why other faiths see the religion as straying from the Christian faith, when they follow the guidelines of the Bible itself. The reason for misunderstanding is ignorance and with knowledge that gape can be bridged, but even with knowledge gained, sometimes acceptance of that knowledge does not, as is all to true in religious society. Sadly there are to few religions that accept other faiths, religions that teach tolerance, maybe the religion is not at fault, maybe it is the people's basic stubbornness. From what I have seen religion today is like a cola you drink, a type of pizza you eat, a certain style of clothes you wear, rather than a way of life. From what I have seen, a small percentage of a religions people do not follow it's way outside of their place of worship, and outside of their homes. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\A Statistical Analysis of Religious Attitudes in America.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dave Ross SOCI 250/2 2/18/97 Computer Assignment #1 Religion used to be a very important component in an American's life. Protestantism was as American as Mom and apple pie. Families would don their "Sunday best" and go to church early on Sunday mornings. However, this situation has changed quite a bit. After reviewing the 1994 statistics I gathered from the Micase system and comparing them to the statistics received in class, I discovered a trend away from traditional religious beliefs and practices, and one toward atheism or alternative religious beliefs. After a resurgence in the 1970's and early 1980's, the Roman Catholic church began experiencing a slow, yet steady, decline in membership. As membership in the more orthodox Roman Catholic church decreased, membership in Protestant churches increased. In recent years, the Catholic Church has become politically active and more vociferous concerning its views on moral issues such as war, abortion, and euthanasia. It is my feeling that many Catholics are searching for sects that will allow them to retain their faith in Christ without a central body (i.e., the Vatican) speaking on behalf of them on issues that they are capable of rationalizing for themselves. Among Catholics and Protestants, there is a trend toward less rigid attendance of religious services. If we examine the figures from Stark and Glock's 1968 survey, 54% of Americans surveyed at the time attended church more often than once a month. This figure shrank to 40.7% in the 1994 survey. Though the Catholic church insists on weekly attendance of church, weekly attendance dropped from 52% in 1978 to 49% in 1986. Then, attendance plummeted, with only 28.3% of Catholics surveyed in 1994 claiming to have attended church in the last seven days. Even among those who remain with the traditional Christian sects, attendance is diminishing. Christianity used to be an integral part of most family and community customs and traditions in America. It seems that as Americans' lives become more complex, less time is available for formal religious commitments. Also, one may theorize that the exponential growth of technology and education has rendered traditional religious teachings, such as creationism, obsolete and people are leaving the Christian churches because their teachings do not agree with their personal beliefs. However, not everyone is leaving the Catholic church for Protestant denominations. In the last thirty years, the number of people claiming to have no religious affiliation have increased almost five-fold, with 2% of the people surveyed claiming no affiliation in 1967, and 9.2% claiming the same in 1994. Since the early 1980's, there has also been an increase in the number of people claiming "other" religious beliefs. This number jumped from 1% in the late 1970's to a constant 4% in the 1980's before dropping to 3.8% in 1994. Apparently, people feel that they aren't getting the guidance and support that they need from Christian churches, and are turning to other sources, either religious or humanistic, for them. Many alternative belief systems stress individual faith over adherence to dogma or excessive ritual. This may be attractive to Americans who are trying to make religion once again a part of their personal lives. The percentage of members of "other" religions who attend religious services several times a week is almost three times as high as their Catholic counterparts, and slightly higher than Protestants. 11.3% of members of alternative religions in 1994 claimed to attend several a week, compared to 4.7% for Catholics and 10.3% for Protestants. This is most likely due to these religions often being more intertwined with a persons daily life and routines. As an example, a Muslim must stop what they are doing to pray several times a day. This integration of prayer into everyday life reinforces the role of religion. Interestingly, one religion's membership has not changed much over the course of the last forty years. From 1957 through 1994, 2-3% of Americans surveyed claimed membership in the Jewish faith. This is not particularly surprising, as Jewish families tend to intermarry and spread the faith. To Jews, their religion is an important part of everyday family life. The loss of the religion could mean a disruption of family life as one knows it. In light of the small percentage of Americans claiming Jewish beliefs, the remaining Jews cling tightly to their beliefs and traditions in order to preserve them for future generations. The statistics presented show a trend away from Christian sects, most notably the Roman Catholic church, and an increase in the number of people who are claiming to have no religious affiliation or to be of other faiths. Of those that stay, the trend is toward less strict attendance of church services. As life becomes busier for Americans, they are distancing themselves from traditional faiths and finding faiths that suit their beliefs, ideals, and lifestyles. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\A Study on Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Study on Religion Mike Fehl Sociology-4 Mr. Winch January 6, 1997 Table of Contents Title Page Scientific Method 1 Introduction 2 Research 2 - 4 Survey Method 2 - 3 Statistical Analysis 3 Chart on responses 3 Historical Method 4 Summary 4 - 5 Footnotes 6 Bibliography 7 Scientific Method Isolating the Problem - Does religious involvement have any impact on how people act? I wanted to find out if how involved a person was in their religion had any effect on their moral standards, behavior, or grades in school. I felt that their might be a pattern formed with involvement and the afore-mentioned variables. Forming a Hypothesis - My hypothesis going into this paper was: Those people who are involve in their religion, on average, have higher moral standards, better behavior, and do better in school than those who are not as involved in their religion. Building a Research Design - In conducting my research I used three sociological research methods: survey method, statistical analysis, and the historical method. This involved a questionnaire, the data from the questionnaire, and studies from magazines and books. Collecting the Data - I collected the data from my questionnaires as well as found books that discussed the subject, and magazine articles on related topics. Analyzing the Data - I compared and contrasted the data I received, whether from my questionnaire or from the text. I tried to find similarities that either proved or disproved my hypothesis. Make Generalizations - After completing my studies, I found a connection between religious involvement; and was able to generalize that those who are involved act and behave better than those who aren't involved. Introduction My purpose for writing this paper on this particular subject was because I was curious to find out if there were any connections between religious involvement and if it affected how people acted. I found some similarities between those who felt that religious involvement affected behavior, and similarities between those who didn't. I also found similarities between those who replied that they were highly involved in their religion, as well as some similarities between those not as highly involved. Research I used three different methods to help me collect my data. The first was the survey method. I developed a questionnaire that I felt would get me the information I seeked. These surveys were distributed in Randolph high school (to Mr. Winch's classes), mostly to Seniors and Sophomores, as well as a few from the Freshman and Junior classes. This gave me a good sample of the teenage population in our area. The questionnaire had the following questions: - 1. What is your religion? - 2. How involved in your religion do you consider yourself? (1-10 1 being the lowest 10 being the highest) - 3. How would you rate your moral standards? 1-10 - 4. How would you rate your behavior? 1-10 - 5. What are your average grades? - 6. Do you feel your religious involvement affects your behavior? Through my questionnaire I found that the majority of the people who felt that they had high religious involvement ( a 6 or better on the 1-10 scale) felt that their religious involvement had an affect on their behavior, while the majority of those that felt that they had low religious involvement ( a 5 or lower) felt that their religious involvement had little or no impact on their behavior. Also I found that a larger percent of those who answered that yes their involvement had an impact on their behavior felt that they had high moral standards, good behavior, and good grades ( a 7 or better for the two former and B's or better for the former) than those who felt that their involvement had no impact on behavior. Responses compared to their religious involvement High involvement in their religion (6+) Low involvement (5-) 3)High moral standards (6+) 93% 3)High 63% Low moral standards (5-) 7% Low 37% 4)Good Behavior (6+) 86% 4)Good 66% Worse behavior (5-) 14% Worse 34% 5)Good Grades (B's +) 86% 5)Good 51% Mediocre Grades (C's) 14% Mediocre 39% Poor Grades (D's -) 0% Poor 10% 6)Yes, involvement does 6)Yes 36.5% impact behavior 88% No, involvement does No 63.5% not impact behavior 12% So the preceding table seems to show that, on average, those who are more highly involved in their religion feel they have better moral standards, better behavior, and better grades, as well as feel that their involvement affects these. 1 A related study, conducted by Bill Moyer, showed that involvement and influence of religion is increasing. In November of 1992 only 27% of Americans said the influence of religion was increasing while 38% of Americans in a December 1995 study said that the influence is increasing, an 11% leap in only a matter of 26 months. It was also noted that ". . . the historical role of religion is molding personal identities, shaping social identity, generating community and goals, transmitting values, sharpening critical moral sense, challenging the status quo and questioning authority." 2 Another past study showed similar results. This study noted "Christian teaching is intended to govern the soul." They found that 1970 75% of American people felt that religion didn't influence them, but only 46% were of that opinion in 1980. Their study was also able to show that those people who were considered successful in life, doctors, businessmen, artists, etc., the majority of them were involved in their religion as well as credited their success to the influence of their religion and their involvement in that religion. 3 In research, I found my hypothesis to be proven true. Those people who were involved in their religion, no matter what religion they were, were more likely to have higher moral standards, rate their behavior higher, and do better in school, as well as feel their involvement in their religion affected their behavior. These studies suggest that if more people were involved in their religion that there might be less behavioral problems in our school systems, society would have higher morals, and more people would receive good grades. So after doing these studies I feel that there is definitely a connection between religion and how people act and behave; and I found that those who are involved in religion, whatever religion it may be, act and behave better than those who are not actively involved in religion. So while not all the evidence I found while researching my topic was what I expected and some was inconclusive, the overwhelming feeling I got while studying my research is that my hypothesis is true. Footnotes 1. My Questionnaire on religion from a sample of Randolph High School. 2. Moyer, Bill America's Religious Mosaic, USA Weekend, Gannett Co. Inc., October 11 -13, 1996, pages 4 - 5 3.Bender L., David, Leone, Bruno Religion in America , Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, CA 1989 Bibliography Bender L., David, Leone, Bruno Religion in America , Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, CA 1989 Colombo, Furio, God In America, New York: Columbia University Press, 1984 Marx, Herbert L. Jr., The Reference Shelf: Religions in America, The H.W. Wilson Company, NY 1977 Moyer, Bill America's Religious Mosaic, USA Weekend, Gannett Co. Inc., October 11 -13, 1996, pages 4 - 5 My Questionnaire on religion from a sample of Randolph High School. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\AAnalysis Of The Jehovah.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ AAnalysis Of The Jehovah's Witnesses' Religion When the name of Jehovah's witness arises, most of the public of differing religions, a picture of an overly nice person or group of people all dressed in suits and nice clothes, arrive at your door and offer a sampling of pamphlets, (large or small). To most of the general public, the religion is a far cry from Christianity, but this is untrue, as a visit to one of the services that the congregation provides. Upon arriving at the building Kingdom hall of Jehova's Witnesses, there was nothing especially different about it except there was no cross on the outside nor a steeple. Arriving about a half an hour early we were greeted with a handshake and a almost too friendly smile from a member of the congregation. As we waited for the service to begin, more and more people started to pile into the building. Slowly conversations between members and nonmembers, including myself. After about twenty minutes, the talking reseeded and people started to seat themselves. The inside of the room was well lit up with no pews, but there were many chairs connected by metal bolts on the bottom of each chair. Amazingly though there was no cross and no altar. First the service started with singing, as any ordinary church would. We sung out of a book of songs that they provided for us. After the singing there was a guest speaker from Bagley, Minnesota. The speaker spoke to the congregation about topics in the bible, his speech lasted about three fourths of an hour. Afterwards the priest came to the podium and thanked the guest for coming. Then the priest leaded another song, sung from the song book. Next the congregation headed a bible discussion from an article from a Jehovah's Witness weekly magazine The Watch Tower. The article had to deal with what is paramount in our lives. The discussion lasted for another hour and a fifteen minutes, with questions at the end of each paragraph. The different thing about the questions was that people in the congregation actually answered some of the questions with the help of two men that stood in the back and held microphones on sticks so that they could be heard. After the bible discussion was over with, the service was ended in another song from the song book. The priest supplied me with the Watch Tower magazine that was discussed over during the service, and some further information on the church itself. Some of the beliefs of the church are most like that of most Christian religions with the exceptions that they do not regard the cross as highly as most Christians do. The Jehovah's Witness religion believes more in the guidelines of the Bible. One of the elder members of the Church was happy to answer some questions that I had. He was an elderly man with a full head of white hair, and a wide unreal smile. The members of the church were extremely friendly. However, as I talked with him, I realized that they were not entirely tolerant to the beliefs of others. On the standards of beliefs on the controversial subjects today such as abortion, same sex marriages, doctor assisted suicides, and Gay rights, they stand on similar ground along with other Christian religions. They do not believe in marriages of the same sex, not in abortions, nor doctor assisted suicides, and the concept of being gay is considered blasphemous in many parts of the bible as in Corinthians 1:8 and 1:9 so gay rights seems a mockery to the church. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christ/Jesus was the first divine creation of Jehovah/God and that he died on a torcher stake as ransom for the human race. Similar to the Christian faith, except that the emphasis on torcher stake was unnerving. The church views on other religions outside itself are as the an elder member said are like misguided sheep. I was slightly disturbed by this slightly rude and intolerant statement, but i had to respect their beliefs, so I said nothing. Kingdom Hall's members are concerned about the youth of today. The youth of today as they see it are relentlessly tempted on a regular basis by society and the press and fellow teens. Now more than ever, teens have more pressure on their beliefs than adults. Jehovah's Witnesses believe in most all of the bibles of today, but stick to the traditional versions such as the King James or the King George versions. But as for the newer bibles such as the new testament, or the man's Bible, or the woman's bible, they consider these versions a misguided representation of the bible. As I see the Jehovah's witnesses religion, as friendly as they were, was as closed minded as most other Christian religions. It had the same feel and atmosphere of A Christian religion, but it did not have the same beauty of a church, more like a seminar. As I went through the service, I learned that a Jehovah's Witness is not that different in their lives or in their beliefs. I find it hard to see why other faiths see the religion as straying from the Christian faith, when they follow the guidelines of the Bible itself. The reason for misunderstanding is ignorance and with knowledge that gape can be bridged, but even with knowledge gained, sometimes acceptance of that knowledge does not, as is all to true in religious society. Sadly there are to few religions that accept other faiths, religions that teach tolerance, maybe the religion is not at fault, maybe it is the people's basic stubbornness. From what I have seen religion today is like a cola you drink, a type of pizza you eat, a certain style of clothes you wear, rather than a way of life. From what I have seen, a small percentage of a religions people do not follow it's way outside of their place of worship, and outside of their homes. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Abortion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Home and Family Paper Prewrite family, bedroom. kitchen, bathroom, cousins, aunts and uncles, parents, guardians, marriage, what is a marriage, single parent households, low income housing, single mothers, single fathers, unwanted pregnancies, abortion is right or wrong, brothers, sisters, grandparents, working parents, generation gaps between children and parents, parents talking to their children about social i.e. sex, abortion, drug use, and other various issues, parents teaching their children rather than schools, family room, sitting down for dinner at the kitchen table, parents as role models, siblings taking care of younger siblings to help with responsibility at home, divorce, gay marriages, adoption, welfare system, child care, dead beat parents, guns at home, inner city homes as related to suburban homes, expansion of cities, overpopulation, t.v. families, family values, fidelity in marriages, chores to be done, finical problems at home, definition of a family, the ideal family, dysfunctional families, punishing parents for crimes their children did, " A family that prays together stays together", are there more responsibilities for children nowadays, classes on parenting, Topic: To explain why abortion should be illegal in all cases. Thesis statement: With every abortion that occurs another inaudible scream from the unborn child occurs and the rights of that child are taken away . Outline Topic: To argue why abortion should be illegal in all cases. Thesis Statement: With every abortion that occurs another inaudible scream from the unborn child occurs and the rights of that child are taken away . Main point #1: The first reason why abortion should be illegal is that abortion is murder. Subpoints: US Supreme ruling on Roe vs. Wade never stated when life begins and also only protects the life of the mother not the child. The hypocratic oath that doctors take says that the doctor must try to save the patient for dying; however abortion doctors are doing the opposite. Main point# 2: Cases involving rape and incest. subpoints: To explain that in most cases incest is rape. Why should the unborn baby be condemned? Solutions in case of rape. Main point#3: Should be abortion be illegal in cases that the mothers life is endanger. Subpoints: If the problem occurs as result of a cancerous uterus then an abortion as a result of a hysterectomy is acceptable. If the abortion is performed to save a mother's life then it is wrong, i.e. complications at birth. Solution is that the doctor should try do all they can for both the mother and child. Conclusion: Tying together all the topics and one last aruguementive to explain why abortion should. On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court legalized abortion. When the it ruled that abortion was legal, the court not only gave women the right to choose but also gave the unborn babies a right to die. Since that day, millions upon millions of unborn children have been ripped apart, burned with saline solutions, and sucked from their mothers' wombs. With every abortion that occurs another inaudible scream from the unborn child is silenced and the rights of that child are taken away . If someone where to be asked if murder was wrong, the general answer would be yes. When that same person is asked if abortion is murder, the answer may be yes, but most likely the answer is no. Why do most people think that murder is wrong, but do not agree that abortion is murder? The reason for this contradiction is that most people believe that the unborn infant is not a human, but an organ or part of the woman's body, which would make the act of aborting the child just the same as removing an appendix. This problem of when life begins stems from the inconsistencies which come from the case of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court interrupted that by the ninth and fourteenth amendments that a woman has the right to an abortion. The court that day, however, did not rule when a life begins for a human. If society is to assume that a fetus is a human the second it leaves the uterus, then what is the unborn baby three minutes from birth , a monkey. When an unborn baby is aborted, society must realize that an organ was not taken out, but a living human being. This would make abortion wrong because according to law, no one has the right to take away anther's life. With many people considering the cases of unwanted pregnancy due to rape or incest to be acceptable, they must realize that the child is not the crime. Society's reason behind this is, why should the woman suffer from the pain and remembrance that the pregnancy brings. Even though cases of abortion due to rape and incest only make up one percent of the total number abortion performed, there is no reason why 15,000 unborn babies should be murdered annually. Why should the baby be condemned to death because of a crime that was committed by another person. If innocent people should be condemned to death because they are the result of the crime, then instead of imprisoning or putting death a convicted murder we should kill one of that prisoner's family members. If the woman does not want to have the baby they could either carry the unborn baby until full term and give the child up for adoption, or go within twenty four hours to a hospital and have the rapist's semen removed before conception. The last reason why abortion should be wrong is the use of it as genocide. With the growing technologies in the world today, society is able to see and hear their child inside the mother. Technology today also allows humans to find out if there is something wrong with the child or if the child is male or a female. Many times this advanced warning can help the parents cope with the trauma if something is wrong with their baby; however, many couples are opting to have the unborn babies aborted rather than keeping them. The couple's logic is that they were looking out for the child's well-being or that they did not want a girl but a boy. If they are trying to protect their child, why do they kill the unborn baby? God for some reason is giving them a child who is not normal and rather then parents thinking that the child is a blessing the parents see the child as a freak of nature. God will not have giving that child to them if He knew the parents could not handle the child. Parents are also using the same technology, in order to see if the child will be a certain gender. There is nothing wrong with this, but many parents after finding out the child does not have the gender the want abort it. Almost fifty years ago the world stopped a man named Hitler because he was committing genocide. The reason he was murdering millions of people was because he wanted a race of blond hair and blue humans to rule the world. If the Holocausts were consider wrong fifty years ago, why is not the genocide that is happening in the United States. Also the world would be a dull place if society was made up of one gender and people with a certain eye or hair color. Many different reasons are given why women have abortions in this country. Since the decision of Roe v. Wade, twenty-two million unborn children have died. With these children dead, so are their dreams and ideas that could have revolutionized the world. When the government allowed abortions to be legal, they also put themselves in the same category with men like Stalin and Hitler. The citizens of the United States need to wake up and see that the holocausts did not end in Germany but continue today on American soil. At one time blacks did not have rights because the were consider below white and not citizens. America needs to realize that unborn children are also citizens and have rights. Even though these babies can not be heard and are not able to contact their congressmen to suggest that a law against the murdering of them should be legalized, society should realizes they have a voice through their vote. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Abraham 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Abraham Abraham, also known as Abram is most commonly known for being the Father of the Jewish people. The majority of the information found on Abraham is located in the Old Testament's Book of Genesis. Other than that, there are no real historical records on the life of Abraham, so the history of his life was passed by word of mouth, and were there after made into biblical stories. There is also the question if Abraham really lived, do to the little information available on his life. Abraham is most famous for making his Covenant with God. Abraham would have lived somewhere between the years of 2000 and 1500 BC. He was born in the city of Ur. Abraham's real name was Abram. The father of Abram , Terach, had two other sons , Haran and Nachor. While living in the city of Ur , Abram married his half-sister, Sarai who later took on the name of Sarah. The newlyweds later learned that Sarai was sterile. They then traveled north to Charan, accompanied by Abraham's father Terach. While in Charan Terach died. It was in Charan where God made his first of a series of revelations to Abram. God spoke to Abram, and told him that he would promise to bless him and make a great nation of him. Abram willingly decided to follow God to the city of Canaan. Abram not only traveled with his wife on this journey, but he also picked up his nephew, Lot. He lived his life in Canaan as a Nomad. Famine eventually struck the land of Canaan , forcing Abram and his family to move on to Egypt. In Egypt, Abram was fearful that the Egyptians would kill him and take his wife Sarai if they were to discover that the two were married. Abram attempted to cover this up by telling everyone that he and Sarai were just brother and sister. The Pharaoh demanded that Sarai be brought to his palace, and as result, God sent down plagues which devastated all of Egypt. In a desperate attempt to save his kingdom, Pharaoh decided it would be best to send Abram and Sarai away. Abram and his family returned to Canaan after the Famine had ended. Both Lot and Abraham had great wealth in Canaan. The two both owned livestock, and large quantities of silver and gold. Eventually Abram and Lot found that the land could no longer provide the resources that the two men required of it. The two went their separate ways, Lot going to the Jordan Plain, and Abram staying in Canaan. God once again appeared to Abram and revealed the land that he would some day give to Abram and his children. This time, God promised Abram that his offspring would be of so many that no one would be able to count them, just like the dust of the earth. By this time a great war had started up in the Jordan Plain. As a result of the war, Lot was made a imprisoned by King Chedorlaomer of Elam. When Abram got word that his cousin Lot was being held prisoner, he and a group of his servants went to battle the captors. The army was able to successfully rescue Lot and several other prisoners. Abram was then blessed by priest Melchizedek, the king of Salem, for his brave heroic actions. By this point, Abram and Saraia still have no children. Saria tells Abram to go and wed their slave Hagar, and to have Children with her. Abram does so, and has a son, Ishmael. While Hagar was pregnant, fights between Hagar and Saria began to break out questioning each other on who was the real mistress of the house. Abram showed no favoring judgment over the two women, and restored order in the house hold. Hagar eventually fled to the dessert due to the poor treatment that Sarai was giving her. God eventually came down to Hagar and told her to go back home and that some day the baby she was carrying would be blessed. Once Abram reached 99 years old, God made a Covenant with him promising to make him the father of nations and to give Canaan to him and his offspring. As part of the agreement of the Covenant, God required the circumcision of Abram and his male descendants, This was to seal the covenant. God then made another promise to Abram. God promised Abram that Sarai would soon bear a son, and that she would some day be the mother of nations. Abram was said to have found God's last promise rather amusing. It was probably because Sarai was 90 years old and incapable of bearing children anymore. Sarah was also witness to the promise of a child, for God sent angels to her promising that she would have a male son. The last part of God's covenant was that the name Abram be changed to Abraham, and Sarai changed to Sarah. Abraham means "Noble Father". Through this covenant, God was planning to send his savior. God once again confided in Abraham by telling him that he was plotting to soon destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah due to the corruptness of their inhabitants. Upon hearing this, Abraham pleads with God telling him that their are many innocent people that do not deserve to die. God reconsidered, and agreed that if he could find 50 innocent people he would not destroy the two cities. Under pressure from Abraham, he reduced the number to just 10 innocent people. God sent his Angels out in search of just 10 righteously guided people. Upon reporting back to God, the angels were only able to find Lot to be innocent and good. God then appeared to Lot and told him to take his entire family and to leave. Lot's wife later disobeys God's orders to leave, and she is turned into a pillar of salt. Abraham's family then migrated to Negev. While traveling through the city of Gerar, he once again is fearful of Sarah being taken from him, so he and Sarah tell everyone that they are Brother and Sister. This time, Abimelekh, the King of Gerar, took Sarah away. God then appeared to King Gerar in a dream. King Gerar later returns Sarah to Abraham and gave him extra compensation to make up for his mistake of taking Sarah away. Some time later, Sarah had the son that God promised her. Sarah laughed upon the birth of the child so they named the child Isaac. The term Issac means "he laughed" in Hebrew. Sarah finds that Ishmael is a terrible influence on Isaac, so she tells Abraham to send him away with his mother. Abraham at first is very reluctant to send away his first born son, but God suggests that Abraham listens to what his wife Sarah has asked. God also promised that some day Ishmael would have his own nation. Once Isaac was slightly older, God commanded Abraham to take Isaac to a mountain and to sacrifice him at the top. This was an ultimate test that God gave to Abraham. Being God's servant, Abraham went as he was told with Isaac to the top of a mountain in order to sacrifice his son. Abraham prepared to cut Isaac's throat, but just in the nick of time God's angels stopped him. Seeing that there was a ram caught in some bushes, Abraham sacrificed that to God instead. Sarah later died in Hebron. Abraham decided to buy the Makhpelah Cave and the adjoining field from Ephrom the Hittite for a burial site. Abraham then realized that Isaac should have a wife. Abraham sent one of his servants back to his homeland to search out a wife for Isaac. The servant was able to find Rebecca, Isaac's cousin, and was able to get her to come back and marry Isaac. Abraham also found himself marrying Keturah, a concubine. Abraham and Keturah had 6 children , Zimran, Yakshan, Medan, Midian, Yishbak, and Shuach, before dying at the biblical age of 175. Isaac and Ishmael buried their father in the Makhpelah Cave next to their mother, Sarah. In the end, God kept his promise with Abraham. Abraham was father to a new nation, that's how he got the title of Father to the Jewish people. The rest of the bible primarily tells about the children of Abraham. Abraham is therefore one of the most important early characters mentioned in the bible. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Abraham.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Abraham, also known as Abram is most commonly known for being the Father of the Jewish people. The majority of the information found on Abraham is located in the Old Testament's Book of Genesis. Other than that, there are no real historical records on the life of Abraham, so the history of his life was passed by word of mouth, and were there after made into biblical stories. There is also the question if Abraham really lived, do to the little information available on his life. Abraham is most famous for making his Covenant with God. Abraham would have lived somewhere between the years of 2000 and 1500 BC. He was born in the city of Ur. Abraham's real name was Abram. The father of Abram , Terach, had two other sons , Haran and Nachor. While living in the city of Ur , Abram married his half-sister, Sarai who later took on the name of Sarah. The newlyweds later learned that Sarai was sterile. They then traveled north to Charan, accompanied by Abraham's father Terach. While in Charan Terach died. It was in Charan where God made his first of a series of revelations to Abram. God spoke to Abram, and told him that he would promise to bless him and make a great nation of him. Abram willingly decided to follow God to the city of Canaan. Abram not only traveled with his wife on this journey, but he also picked up his nephew, Lot. He lived his life in Canaan as a Nomad. Famine eventually struck the land of Canaan , forcing Abram and his family to move on to Egypt. In Egypt, Abram was fearful that the Egyptians would kill him and take his wife Sarai if they were to discover that the two were married. Abram attempted to cover this up by telling everyone that he and Sarai were just brother and sister. The Pharaoh demanded that Sarai be brought to his palace, and as result, God sent down plagues which devastated all of Egypt. In a desperate attempt to save his kingdom, Pharaoh decided it would be best to send Abram and Sarai away. Abram and his family returned to Canaan after the Famine had ended. Both Lot and Abraham had great wealth in Canaan. The two both owned livestock, and large quantities of silver and gold. Eventually Abram and Lot found that the land could no longer provide the resources that the two men required of it. The two went their separate ways, Lot going to the Jordan Plain, and Abram staying in Canaan. God once again appeared to Abram and revealed the land that he would some day give to Abram and his children. This time, God promised Abram that his offspring would be of so many that no one would be able to count them, just like the dust of the earth. By this time a great war had started up in the Jordan Plain. As a result of the war, Lot was made a imprisoned by King Chedorlaomer of Elam. When Abram got word that his cousin Lot was being held prisoner, he and a group of his servants went to battle the captors. The army was able to successfully rescue Lot and several other prisoners. Abram was then blessed by priest Melchizedek, the king of Salem, for his brave heroic actions. By this point, Abram and Saraia still have no children. Saria tells Abram to go and wed their slave Hagar, and to have Children with her. Abram does so, and has a son, Ishmael. While Hagar was pregnant, fights between Hagar and Saria began to break out questioning each other on who was the real mistress of the house. Abram showed no favoring judgment over the two women, and restored order in the house hold. Hagar eventually fled to the dessert due to the poor treatment that Sarai was giving her. God eventually came down to Hagar and told her to go back home and that some day the baby she was carrying would be blessed. Once Abram reached 99 years old, God made a Covenant with him promising to make him the father of nations and to give Canaan to him and his offspring. As part of the agreement of the Covenant, God required the circumcision of Abram and his male descendants, This was to seal the covenant. God then made another promise to Abram. God promised Abram that Sarai would soon bear a son, and that she would some day be the mother of nations. Abram was said to have found God's last promise rather amusing. It was probably because Sarai was 90 years old and incapable of bearing children anymore. Sarah was also witness to the promise of a child, for God sent angels to her promising that she would have a male son. The last part of God's covenant was that the name Abram be changed to Abraham, and Sarai changed to Sarah. Abraham means "Noble Father". Through this covenant, God was planning to send his savior. God once again confided in Abraham by telling him that he was plotting to soon destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah due to the corruptness of their inhabitants. Upon hearing this, Abraham pleads with God telling him that their are many innocent people that do not deserve to die. God reconsidered, and agreed that if he could find 50 innocent people he would not destroy the two cities. Under pressure from Abraham, he reduced the number to just 10 innocent people. God sent his Angels out in search of just 10 righteously guided people. Upon reporting back to God, the angels were only able to find Lot to be innocent and good. God then appeared to Lot and told him to take his entire family and to leave. Lot's wife later disobeys God's orders to leave, and she is turned into a pillar of salt. Abraham's family then migrated to Negev. While traveling through the city of Gerar, he once again is fearful of Sarah being taken from him, so he and Sarah tell everyone that they are Brother and Sister. This time, Abimelekh, the King of Gerar, took Sarah away. God then appeared to King Gerar in a dream. King Gerar later returns Sarah to Abraham and gave him extra compensation to make up for his mistake of taking Sarah away. Some time later, Sarah had the son that God promised her. Sarah laughed upon the birth of the child so they named the child Isaac. The term Issac means "he laughed" in Hebrew. Sarah finds that Ishmael is a terrible influence on Isaac, so she tells Abraham to send him away with his mother. Abraham at first is very reluctant to send away his first born son, but God suggests that Abraham listens to what his wife Sarah has asked. God also promised that some day Ishmael would have his own nation. Once Isaac was slightly older, God commanded Abraham to take Isaac to a mountain and to sacrifice him at the top. This was an ultimate test that God gave to Abraham. Being God's servant, Abraham went as he was told with Isaac to the top of a mountain in order to sacrifice his son. Abraham prepared to cut Isaac's throat, but just in the nick of time God's angels stopped him. Seeing that there was a ram caught in some bushes, Abraham sacrificed that to God instead. Sarah later died in Hebron. Abraham decided to buy the Makhpelah Cave and the adjoining field from Ephrom the Hittite for a burial site. Abraham then realized that Isaac should have a wife. Abraham sent one of his servants back to his homeland to search out a wife for Isaac. The servant was able to find Rebecca, Isaac's cousin, and was able to get her to come back and marry Isaac. Abraham also found himself marrying Keturah, a concubine. Abraham and Keturah had 6 children , Zimran, Yakshan, Medan, Midian, Yishbak, and Shuach, before dying at the biblical age of 175. Isaac and Ishmael buried their father in the Makhpelah Cave next to their mother, Sarah. In the end, God kept his promise with Abraham. Abraham was father to a new nation, that's how he got the title of Father to the Jewish people. The rest of the bible primarily tells about the children of Abraham. Abraham is therefore one of the most important early characters mentioned in the bible. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Agnostic.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Agnostic I believe that I am agnostic because I don't know what to think about religion. When it comes to saying whether I believe in God or not, I feel that I have not yet come to a complete understanding of God's existence. This tends to be a vicious cycle which constantly runs through my head. Ever since I can remember, I was taught through my family and church that this being does exist, but as I grew older I began to question whether this almighty being really does exist. How can I believe that this being exists when every day I watch the news and hear of all the tragedy that is happening in the world. I have been taught through my family and church that God is the creator and supreme ruler of the universe. They also taught me that he has set up certain guidelines or rules for which we must obey. These are commonly known as the ten commandments. We have been told that if we disobey these commandments , we will ultimately go to hell. Furthermore, if we follow these commandments, we will go to heaven and live in peace eternally. We all basically have the same perception of what Heaven and Hell are like. Heaven is commonly thought of as a utopia. A place which is soft, beautiful and peaceful. Where there is total peace and harmony. Where as Hell is known as being a prison for evil doers. Hell is supposed to be a dark, hot, and gloomy place with much misery. A persons worst nightmare. As I have gotten older, I don't necessarily believe that God created these commandments or in these places. I do believe that they are still a good set of standards and values for everyone to live by. If we as individuals pray and hold God to be the almighty, How can we make sense of all of the bloodshed, disease, evil and hatred in this world which we live. If God creates, why would he create murderers, thieves, and rapist? How do we except all human beings dying from diseases such as cancer and aids. Can we really state that there is a God, when so many of the young have died in war, or who can account for a creature such as Hitler. I have seen far to much evil in this world to be totally sure there is one almighty being watching over and protecting us. Many people pray to God to keep evil away from all who we love. When in reality, there is no insurance to keep us safe from evil. Isn't it ironic that the one that many people pray to for forgiveness has the power to bring pain in our lives. In my opinion, God is an image for all of us to look up to or strive for his perfection. Everyone wants to be as perfect as the way we perceive God as being. Even if there is no God, this can only make our world better. In conclusion, I still have not been convinced that everything around me has been created by God. But, if it brings all of us closer and makes the world a much better place, I don't see anything wrong with having it. I believe that each individual should get out of religion what they want, not what society wants them to get out of it. 2 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Alcohol And The Church.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Alcohol And The Church It seems to be that our main questions are, Should we use alcohol and what about those that abuse it? How should the Church deal with those that do drink or should we as a society deal with it? While there is nothing in the Bible that says drinking is a sin, but drunkeness is. I believe as a society we do have a problem with alcohol abuse. But in the same respect I do not feel that the church should judge those who do drink socially, regularly, or abusively. When the time comes everyone will be judged individually by God alone. I feel it is his decision solely to do what is best for all. The church may teach not to use alcohol, but to discriminate against those in the congregation (or even those that are not) that do is not a solution to the problem. I feel in order to get alcohol abuse under control we as a society need to teach our children the risks of using alcohol, not only in the home but in the schools as well. To reach the heart of the problem is to face the problem head on. As a social drinker myself (I put my self in this classification) I don't feel I have an alcohol problem just because I enjoy a drink now and then. I do not abuse it and would never put myself behind the wheel of a car to take the risk of taking someone else's life. You don't need to be drunk to cause an accident, it's been proven in many cases only a few drinks can impair someone's stability. If more thought of this there would be less tragedies on our highways. When it comes to food and there are people starving in the world, when we could help by not converting food grains into alcohol, this should be made more aware to our society. I'm not sure most people are aware of this. It is supposedly our main concern to feed the hungry and shelter the poor. If giving up something that only contributes to loneliness and destruction than ever, because there are more that abuse than those who don't, it seems to me to be a logical solution. I think the best we can hope for in our future and our children's is that we have to communicate with one another the risks of alcohol and the damage it does to one's self, their families and all of those around who care about them. If you're going to drink to abuse it, then its best that you don't drink at all. There is not a better remedy than that. But how do we get people to the point in their life to where they don't want to take a risk of killing someone else or even themselves? What does it take for them to love their neighbor enough not to put them in that situation? f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\An Artists Life.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ An Artist's Life Much of the art of the Renaissance was extremely religious in its nature. The paintings from this time are almost entirely scenes from the Bible including: the enunciation of the Virgin Mary, depictions of the infant Jesus Christ, the crucifixion of Christ, and numerous other examples of Christian iconography. One would imagine that virtuous, upstanding artists would have created such angelic works of art. The stunning displays of morality, as seen in the works of many Renaissance painters, are not always a reflection of the artist's lifestyle. Two examples of artists whose paintings did not reflect their lifestyles were Michelangelo Merisi de Caravaggio and Fra Filippo Lippi. Both of these artists created works that portrayed Christian iconography with great aesthetic expertise. Among these works are Caravaggio's The Inspiration of Matthew and Lippi's Madonna with the Child and two Angels. Fra Angelico was another artist from this same time period. He is quite a contradiction compared to his contemporaries. Angelico led a very pure life following the Christian morals of the time, unlike his peers. Caravaggio, while a great artist, had a stormy personal history. Very little is known about his life until it began to be documented in the criminal courts. His teens and early twenties were scattered with bouts of abject poverty, until he became renowned as an artist. From this point on, his name appears every few months on the police blotter. He became well known for picking fights, threatening people with swords and being arrested for such deeds. He was sued for libel and built up enemies to the point where his murder was attempted. He was found in bed with wounds around his neck and left ear. Because of this event, Caravaggio was jailed in his house for an entire month. He was forbidden to leave without written permission from the governor of Rome. However, it seemed nothing could keep Caravaggio out of trouble. In the month of May 1606, he killed a man who had won a bet over a ball game that afternoon. After this event, he was left wounded himself. He fled Rome, going to a patron's house and eventually moved on to Naples. At the age of thirty-five, he left Naples and went to Malta, where he was well received for this renowned artwork. However, this situation did not last long. He got in a fight and was imprisoned. Shortly after arrest, he escaped and finally returned to Rome, where his reputation was still well known. His enemies had not forgotten him and he was nearly killed several times. He had been allowed hardly more than a decade of maturity as an artist, but he had established himself in history a position among the handful of painters whose originality made them genius. Caravaggio's rebellious life seems quite different from the moral stories his paintings portray. The artwork called The Inspiration of Matthew is a prime example of how his life is not part of his art. This painting originally showed Matthew as a laborer. His face and garments were of a common man and his bare feet were dirty as that of the worker Matthew really was. Because of his plain appearance church officials rejected this work. To replace this painting, Matthew was painted again but in the usual saintly robe. This compromise to the church is just one example of his emotional detachment from the making of his works. This painting has a great amount of Christian imagery involved in it. The most obvious is the fact the painting contains an apostle and an angel in it. This type of work was created for the specific purpose of promoting the church. Meanwhile, Caravaggio, even though he was a great artist and designed religious paintings specifically for the church, led a life not suitable to the religious practice he chose. Another painter who seemed to be quite a hypocrite in his painting was Fra Filippo Lippi. He was orphaned as a child and put under the care of Carmelite monks. He took the vows of the order at the age of fifteen, and at the age of fifty eloped with a young nun and raised a family. Much took place in these thirty-five years, including numerous transfers between Catholic institutions. Lippi was appointed head of several convents and was quickly removed from office because of his sexual appetite within the nunnery. When it came about that he finally eloped, he had convinced at least five nuns to run away with him. He lived with two of them and was accused of immoral behavior by the church of Florence. Through out all of this activity, Lippi never lost any support from his patronage and still maintained his fame as an extraordinary artist. Fra Filippo Lippi never allowed his adulterous life as a monk affect the content of his work. Nor did fifteenth-century Italy make any kind of connection between his creative achievement and his personal life. Lippi's artwork was heavily religious in nature. It is possible to say that the gentle Madonnas he painted greatly influenced Leonardo's sibylline females. This can be seen in the painting Madonna and Child. Lippi remains most famous for his Madonnas, which makes one wonder, when considering his personal life, if he preferred to paint women in bible scenes. One could speculate that he liked this best because of his same love of women over the church in personal life. Lippi is yet another painter whose content is not a reflection of his personal life. Not every painter's life is as detached from their work as Caravaggio's and Lippi's. Another Italian monk, named Fra Angelico did not follow the same path as these two artists. Fra Angelico's life was the epitome of purity, according to historical record. He was ordained as a monk around twenty-five years of age. Fra Angelico's life was one of the utmost Christian morality. He lived life as a monk and did not have the tendencies of Lippi and Caravaggio for women and violence. He exemplified what a monk was expected to be. Fra Angelico's life, by every evidence, ran its course without a question, in uninterrupted service to God. The nickname Angelico was given to him after his death and could not be more appropriate, since many would say no one has created art so angel-like and pure. One of the most common figures in his art were angels. Fra Angelico's angels sing the praises of the Lord as if there were no Satan. His paintings of virgins are seen with the dignity of women, but with the innocence of young girls. Fra Angelico's purity in life is most definitely seen in his artwork. He truly had the brush stroke of God. The artwork of the church was created by a large number of painters with extremely varied lives and morals. Every painter of this time can be said to portray God's creation as it was intended, but few can it be said allowed their own lives to effect their artwork. While the majesty of God can be seen in all of their works, few could say that each artist's life and values are shown. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Analysis of Contemporary Myths.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Throughout the history of human civilization, myths have been an integral part of human society. Myths have no cultural boundaries as they can be found in all cultural societies. The word myth can be referred to the classical Greek and Roman mythology or a contemporary myth. Regardless of the type of myth, they are stories used to give meaning to a phenomenon or symbolic manner to the natural cycles that surround humankind. Myths are used to explain and understand our existence in our world whether it is something that we can tangibly see or not. The saga of a myth is past down from one generation to the next. For the purpose of this assignment, I will be analyzing three articles that deal with a myth. With each of these articles, I will attempt to explain how the author uses the term within the context of the article. Finally, I will be concluding the analysis of the articles with reference to class notes on what we have learned to date. The first article is "Phyllis Burke: Exploding Myths of Male and Female." which is a book review. The author of the book, Phyllis Burke, writes of Gender Identity Disorder or GIS that effects both male and female children. A child labeled with GIS occurs when the child is not confirming to appropriate gender behaviour. For example, if a boy wants to play with dolls and dress up as the opposite sex. Burke reveals that at a young age all children in the gender socialization process are encouraged to play with gender appropriate toys and roles. If the child does not conform to these roles laid out by our gender conscious society, they are forbidden and discouraged to continue with their behaviour. Burke continues to write that GIS children may find themselves in play therapy or even in psychiatric hospitals. In analyzing the way in which myth is used in this article, it is found in the way our society has created gender roles for children, teenagers and even adults. There is no biological evidence that girls can not play rough with other girls and boys. It is the gender appropriate behaviour that has stereotyped our thinking that this activity is not appropriate. Most would rather see girls playing with dolls and boys being the ones who play rough. Burke analyzed GIS cases from the 1930s through to the early 1990s and found no biological evidence to support GIS. The behaviour that is deemed inappropriate is suppressed not by the child themselves but by others around them. In relation to this myth as being scientific or journalistic, I would have to say it is a bit of both. Through the media, gender roles are reinforced. For example, this can be found in television commercials of toys, where boys are depicted playing with trucks while girls are shown playing with dolls. In a recent article from the Toronto Star entitled "You gotta feel sad for banker bashed by 'myth'." by Joey Slinger, centers around the Bank of Montreal chairperson, Matthew Barrett. The subject of the article inspires the title of Slinger's article. Barrett claims that the public is bashing his as a result of 'stereotypes, myths and sheer misinformation'. This comment from Barrett was a result of public outcry of the banks making high profit and the chairpersons of the banks holding down a substantial salary. The article reports that the Bank of Montreal profit for 1996 was $1.17 billion while Barrett made $3.9 million. This is clearly an example of a journalistic myth. There is a sense of truth that Barrett wants to reveal and rid of the falseness from his point of view. The third article from The Humanist entitled "The Myth of the Middle Class" is a clear example of a journalistic myth. The article written by Lynn H. Ehrle looks at the disappearance of the American middle class. The author suggests with changes in the average household income there is a greater disparity between poor and rich households. Thus, summarizing the middle class is being divided with most going to the lower or poorer income groups. Ehrle throughout the article backs up in support of the title with statistics and charts and in doing so points the finger at the corporate world as the one seeing the middle class disappear. Changes in the corporate economy such as corporate downsizing, outsourcing, inflation and unemployment just to name a few. The word myth is used here is the sense that society wants to think that they are in the average or 'norm' group that being the middle class. However, with the changes in corporate economy mentioned, the middle class is a growing disparity. Myths are used in all aspects of our society and culture. Examples of myths can be found in science, sports, medicine, business and religion. The general view or opinion is that myth is something that is false or not true. The journalistic myth exposes the falsehood of myths. The living myth is a product of our culture is to dismiss myth. Today, humans are more reflective, philosophical and analytical of events placed before them. We are humans started out as mythical thinkers, moving to a mystic, asking questions approach. Then finally moving to an analytical way of thinking. Today, it is harder to believe in myths as we are focused on numbers, facts and statistics. Stories were told by the word using imaginative pictures, then transgressed to words, arguments and intensive language and finally a reliance on numbers and statistics. Regardless of the type of myth, we the reader should draw attention to the context in which it is written. Question what is being written, who is benefiting from the information and the power of the myth. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Anglo Saxon Belief In Fate And Christianity.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anglo-Saxon Belief In Fate And Christianity The Unity of the Unknown and the Eternal Security: The Anglo-Saxon Belief in Christianity and Fate Imagine a life in which one is simply a pawn at the hands of a mysterious higher force stumbling and meandering through life's tribulations. Until Pope Gregory the Great was sent to spread Christianity throughout England, the Anglo- Saxons believed solely in this passive, victimizing philosophy. These pagans still clung to much of their heathen culture after the wave of Christianity swept through England leaving no one behind. Literature derived from this period (including Beowulf, "The Seafarer," and "The Wanderer") directly reflects the maintaining of Christian ideals, as well as the belief in fate's unknown and often grim path. For example, the epic poem, Beowulf , declares, "...Fate will unwind as it must!" (line 284). Meanwhile, the same work implies God has the authority in this great world by stating, "And all his glorious band of Geats/Thanked God their leader had come back unharmed," (598-599) as if God was the deciding factor in the great protector's health. The joining convincedness in God and fate influences the culture, outlook on life, and the various independent life paths of Anglo- Saxons. These early Germanic people believe "fate"- an anonymous power - controls the present, future and past; yet, they also believe the power of God is a resolute supremecy not to be denounced. Our earliest warriors put aside their heroic independence and let wyrd's foreign agency control their views and their lives' paths time and time again. These pagans even allow destiny to influence their view of life which was fatalistic and desolate. "The Wanderer" proves the Anglo-Saxons had little to live for and much to fear as it tells the tale of an anonymous man stripped from his gold-lord. This literary work illustrates stoic solitude and grim hopelessness by using phrases like, "...what a bitter companion/Shoulder to shoulder sorrow can be,"(lines 26-27) and "Wretchedness fills the realm of earth," (98). Along with their outlook on life as a whole, fate controls the pagans decisions and lack there of. "The Seafarer" shows an example of the Anglo-Saxons submissive role by voicing the story of a sailor suffering through hardships because he was meant to be a sailor and is drawn to the familiar sea. The sailor explains his painful lifestyle by stating, "...my soul/Called me eagerly out..." (lines 36-37) implying this harrowing lifestlye is not a conscious choice, but more of an obligation to something other than his mind and heart. Even the bravest warrior fell victim to this unsafe and unpredictable fortress. Beowulf, who is "...-greater/And stronger than anyone anywhere in this world, " (110-111), explained on his deathbed that "Fate has swept our race away,/Taken warriors in their strength and led them/to the death that was waiting. And now I follow them." (834-836). The destiny pagans face is often sorrowful, beguiling and unfair. While Anglo-Saxons' lives are consistently at the mercy of destiny, they are still very influenced by their value of Christian ideals. Although these pagans believe fate is a force beyond their control deciding life's every turn, they also believe loving, honoring and obeying God will result in salvation and eternal happiness. These seemingly 'new' joys of God intrude their views on death, peace, humility, warfare and life in general. Christianity eases the vicious warriors' conduct and morale. Religious civility plays a key role in the softening and decrease of battles. "The Seafarer" reflects the Anglo-Saxon belief that depending on one's religious actions, heaven is one's reward and death one's punishment: "Death leaps at the fools who forget their God./He who lives humbly has angels from Heaven/To carry him courage and strength and belief." (106-109). "The Wanderer" proves death was once thought of as a grim and dark ending: "All this earth ages and droops unto death." (57), while "The Seafarer" conveys that death also became a hope of angelic grace: "...strewing his coffin/With treasures intended for Heaven..." ( 97-98). Both fate and Christianity influence the Anglo-Saxon culture, and their forces form a hybrid of uncertainty and assurance: "Thus the joys of God/ Are fervent with life, where life itself/ Fades quickly into the earth."(64-66). The Anglo-Saxon belief in God and fate influence their culture, outlook on life, and their own independent life paths. It is possible these sometimes contradictory ideals Pagans hold so sacred are symbols of human beings timeless desire to separate one's own behavior and the events of one's life. Fate is a disinclined method of rationalizing why things happen as they do, and a means of blaming occurances on an unrenowned supremacy. Possibly, the Anglo-Saxons hold Christianity with such high repute because it is the orthodox set of morals that these barbaric war-lords and lost souls need in their lifestyle and culture. Christianity offers an incentive to those who believe and honor the Lord- a seemingly simple exchange of faith and praise for eternal joy and Heaven. The unity of fate and Christianity results in an explaination for usually baffling and sometimes unfair events, as well as an eternal promise and protection from God . Perhaps one should not invest in a fate that simply happens regardless of how one acts, but invest in one's actions regardless of how a fate simply happens. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Apocalypse 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Apocalypse by: Luke Hoagland FOLLOWING IS AN IMPORTANT REVELATION BEING MADE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL BE CONTACTED. Disclaimer: The following information contains predictions of the future. This has been written for people who want to know what is on the horizon for humanity, and most importantly, WHAT THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT. Please understand that if you read this material, you will be doing it by your own choice. If your reaction causes you to want to report me to AOL for sending unsolicited email, it could result in my account being closed. I don't ask that anyone believe what I say just because I say it. I do ask that if you choose to read this material, please suspend your judgment of it until enough time passes for its validity to be proven or disproven. Please don't let your personal beliefs cause you to want to deprive others of receiving this. Written October 20, 1996 NOTE: This document is quite lengthy, so it might be best to either print it or copy it to your word processor so it may be read off-line. Dear Friend, The choice of whether or not to read this message all the way through may have important consequences for you as the events of our immediate future unfold. This is being done solely for the benefit of others so that people may understand what to do about the times now approaching humanity. What I'm about to explain will strike many people as ridiculous, because this kind of thing has been predicted over and over again and people are not inclined to take things like this seriously. I am not your average tabloid psychic. In fact, I'm not a psychic at all. I am what could be called a modern day seer, but I prefer to be thought of as just a human being with an important message. I have studied prophecy and the techniques used to produce it for many years now. Through a combination of my own findings, the prophecies of Nostradamus, the prophecies given by Jesus and the prophet Daniel, I have figured out the future of humanity. As stated above in the disclaimer, the reader's belief in what I say is not necessary at this point. This message has been written over and over again since I first set out to do this. In previous versions, I have tried to describe what will cause the rough times to come... but everyone is pretty much aware of the world's problems and they don't really need to have it all pointed out to them. Besides, it makes the message unnecessarily long. I have therefore decided to re-write this once again and limit myself to only listing the events to come and explaining what everyone can do to save themselves from destruction. What is about to happen in the world will be unfair to all of us and people will need to know the way out. The end times are upon us now, and the time has come for the way out to be explained more clearly. I feel that this is why I have been blessed with the ability to gain this knowledge and I feel urgently pressed to share what I know with others. First, I will list the events, complete with dates and biblical references. The explicit detail given here will seem to be just a bunch of nonsense I have pulled from out of the air. A lot of tedious study went into this though, and I have not been the only person involved in this study. I cannot give biblical references for all of it because the bible simply does not explain clearly enough, for it was not meant for this information to become understood so clearly until close to the time for it to happen. 1. Around New Year's, 1997- Saddam Hussein will defiantly force President Clinton to make a move. Most likely, Saddam will initiate another invasion and people will be slaughtered by the hundreds, as was done in Kuwait. 2. At the end of January, President Clinton will launch a massive strike against Iraq, and Saddam will be killed. This will anger the Russians because Iraq still owes them money from the cost of the war in 1990. As Russia is still having a hard time financially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, America's reaction to Saddam will be seen as inconsiderate of Russia's financial woes. France will join in the arguments, defending President Clinton's decision with the attitude that Saddam's destruction was in the best interest of keeping peace in the world. Russia will still feel that it's problems have not been given enough consideration. By June, the egotism between America, France and Russia will become so intense that the discussion of it will be cut off and a silent hatred will smolder for awhile. 3. In September 1997, even after a warning from the pope about the consequences of another world war, Russia will suddenly invade Western Europe, starting WWIII. As a Russian naval fleet from Murmansk positions itself along the French coast, Paris will be demolished overnight by the Russian Air Force. American troops will be sent to counter the invading Russian and Moslem forces, and battles will take place all over southern France. After fleeing from the invasion of Italy, the pope dies at Lyon on December 13th. 4. The war will last three years and seven months, ending in March 2001, immediately after the rapture. (Daniel 12:7) Fortunately for Americans, the fighting will be most heavily concentrated on the European continent as Russia attempts to take the whole place into its possession. (A vague description of WWIII can be found in the last chapters of Daniel.) 5. Jesus said no one knows the exact date or hour of His return, but the approximate period can be determined. The rapture lasts forty-five days, taking place in February and March 2001, beginning 1,290 days after the start of the war and ending 1,335 days after the start of the war. (Daniel 12:11-12) It begins when the second pope after John Paul II introduces a messiah in February 2001 (Matthew 24:15) 6. Jesus' description of the rapture: (Matthew 24:15-28) Jesus' description of extra-terrestrials targeting the aftermath of the false messiah scene: (Matthew 24:27-28) Jesus' description of the collection of the false messiahs after the rapture is completed and the stunned reaction of the people to the display of extra-terrestrial spacecraft in the skies: (Matthew 24:29-31) The remainder of this explanation should help the reader understand how to escape destruction. Some who read this will suspect that I am only creating confusion so that people will be misled. Some may even accuse me of being one of the false prophets I speak about. Some will automatically cringe at the sight of the name "Jesus" and assume I'm just a preaching holy roller. Others will laugh when they finish reading and assume I must be crazy. Indeed, this story will get harder and harder to believe as I go. There will be at least a few people though, who will recognize that the description given by Jesus has actually been clarified and the truth about the end will be understood clearly. I will leave it to the reader to make his own conclusions. Jesus foretold of His return near the end, to "cut the days short for His Father's children" because life will become so unlivable at the end that the entire race would be destroyed otherwise. When He was here, Jesus did three very important things. One, he taught us how to live together peacefully and successfully, although the majority of humanity has never understood what He meant. Thus, the paradox that is facing the world now. The second thing Jesus did was demonstrate what a human being is capable of if he/she can love enough. The third and most important thing He did was set up "part one" of a trick that will cause those who have not understood His teachings to separate themselves from those who have just prior to Armageddon. The way it will be done will make it clear to the savior as to where the true children of God can be found. Jesus foretold of many false messiahs who would rise and perform miracles so impressive that even His most committed followers would be misled by it if possible. Before He left, Jesus formed what is now known as the Catholic Church, appointing the apostle Peter as the world's first pope. In the beginning, His church was very simple. However, since it was His church, He knew what would happen. Peter was chosen because of his unshakable faith in Jesus. All of the heads of the church who have followed in the tradition have thus had one goal in mind-- to make the Catholic Church what Jesus Himself would have made it. When the rules were established in the Catholic Church, they were taken very seriously. They were considered absolute and must never be changed or abolished for any reason. Jesus knew how difficult it would become near the end of the world for a church dedicated to its doctrines and established methods. Therefore, in such trying times, He knew that His church could be relied on to introduce another person like Him when one finally comes along. So, where Jesus was actually rejected by religious authority because of His apparent rebellion against the established ways, something quite different will occur when religious authority actually introduces someone just like Him. Since authority itself will trust him, the world will also trust him, even though he is only a spiritual healer who wants to ease the world's pain and suffering. The public's attention will be dominated as this man goes around miraculously healing people of AIDS, Cancer and all sorts of other diseases, and producing food right out of thin air to feed everybody with. As the war rages on between the countries, humanity will desperately want to believe this man is the return of Christ, and after all, he will have been introduced by the church Jesus started Himself. The Catholic Church's intentions will have been completely honest and righteous, for the man they introduce will be as much like Jesus as anyone could ever be. It will be society itself that will take a good thing and turn it into something evil. This is exactly the way Jesus planned it, for He knew the world will have become very dependent on authority near the end, and will be ready to just completely hand itself over, expecting to never have to do anything again. But He warned about these false messiahs. Those of us who have learned Jesus' message will recognize what is really going on as this man goes around creating a social dependency on himself. Electricity will become too expensive to produce around this time, due to the cost of the war. As the world loses its ability to stay informed about foreign places, this man will begin popping up all over the planet and people will be drawn to him like moths to a flame. Everyone will respect his apparent authority too much to ask questions about how he transports himself from one place to the next. People will also wonder where all the followers have gone as he re-appears in new places, but it will be assumed that he has already taken them to Heaven. The man will be worshipped and everybody he touches will feel they have just felt the touch of God. Then after awhile, some innocent person will ask a question like, "Are you really Jesus? You don't look like him... and the bible warns about false messiahs." The reaction from those who would have died without his help will be one of angry protectiveness. "How DARE you question the Son of God! Don't you KNOW who he is?" they will shout. Then another innocent person will join the first one, insisting that the messiah be allowed to speak for himself. But he will never be allowed to speak. His followers will be too loyal to him to allow anyone to put him in the humbling position of explaining himself. The violent reactions of these devout followers will frighten many of the people and a division will begin to occur. The arguments will become more heated as the crowd divides, and those who are breaking away will look on with suspicion as they watch everyone defending their messiah with such zeal. Then the followers will become very disturbed by what is happening and they will want the people not to be afraid. They will plead for those who have become suspicious to please come back so they can all ascend to Heaven soon. But as they plead, the suspicion will only increase because the messiah himself has never been allowed to say anything. Then their pleading will turn into authoritativeness. The followers will be appalled by the sudden lack of respect that has overcome these people as the crowd divides further. Finally, force will begin to be exerted under the notion that the non-believers should be punished. As the non-believers put up further resistance, violence will break out. Innocent people will stand by and helplessly watch their loved ones being ruthlessly beaten. As the violence increases, those who are trying to fight back will be killed. The people who are left over will cry out in hysteria over the loss of their loved ones, yelling, "Why? Why did you have to kill them?" The followers will self-righteously maintain their positions, blaming the non-believers for their sudden demise. Then the followers will try to escape their guilt by abandoning these completely broken, weeping people. The crying will last for hours as these people sulk in confusion about what they ever did to deserve to be forsaken by the God they have always been committed to. Within three days though, something truly miraculous will occur for these people. Now this is where the story gets extremely unbelievable. It was meant to be this way though, because faith and understanding of Jesus' teachings is what will cause these people to end up in this situation. The sheer craziness of what happens next is what will make it okay for me to go ahead and reveal it. Nobody will believe it anyway unless they can thoroughly understand the cause of the division of the people as described above. Here is basically why the followers of the messiah will divide-- The people of the world are already divided right now. The false messiah's purpose is to lovingly draw everybody together. Those who want to remain in a divided state will cause the crowd to divide. Those who are frightened away will be the ones who genuinely want unity, although most of them won't understand this at the time because it will all be so confusing. The pain they will go through from witnessing the riot and then being left behind even though they didn't do anything wrong will leave an irrevocable impression on them. The lesson it will teach them is the reason they will be rescued. As these weeping people stay close to their dead friends and loved ones, feeling completely helpless, and starving half to death, with no way to provide for themselves, they will sit in the darkness of the night and see something strange in the sky. Beautiful, majestic lights will speed toward them, and in a flash, there will be these gigantic machines hovering in the air over them. Glorious colored floods of light will radiate from underneath and everyone will begin to float up through the air and into the beautifully lit crafts. Then, instantly, they will all be gone and since these people will have been left for dead anyway, nobody will even notice that they are missing. They will be transported to another planet far away from here, where they will be the honored guests of everyone there, visitors to a Heavenly Kingdom, respected by everyone because of what they had to go through. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the thousands of clones of the false messiah they have planted will be busy causing the same process all over the planet for a total period of forty-five days. Then, after every person in the world has had exposure to the messiah scene, the messiahs themselves will all be collected and the remaining people of the Earth will be stunned by the realization of what has happened. People will cry out in pain as everybody witnesses the beautiful displays of extra-terrestrial spacecraft dancing through the sky everywhere. The war will stop then, and the leaders of the countries will realize what they have been doing as they have just missed the rapture. The remaining people of the world will feel a pain that will last a long while and there will be a period of sober peace but everyone will still be suffering due to all the social damage. The leaders of the world will consider how the extra-terrestrials have succeeded in not doing what the world has been engaged in since 1997. Then the idea of a single government for the whole world will occur to them so that they can dispose of the nuclear weapons and stop fighting with each other. But they will find themselves in a dilemma over who should be the leader. The Russians will elect a new president of Asian Buddhist descent who has the same spiritual healing abilities as that of the false messiahs. Then when this choice is not accepted by the other leaders of the world, the conflict will start all over again. The Russians will require those who agree with the idea to accept a mark of identification so that they may be distinguished from everyone else. The citizens of Russia who refuse the mark will be tortured and if they don't give in, they will be killed. The U.S. government and the peoples of Asia will all recognize what has happened, and as the whole world tries to stop what Russia is doing, the Russians will finally launch nuclear weapons. Then the rest of the world will begin firing back at Russia and the holocaust will burn like the fires of Hell. Those who die from refusing the mark will have saved their souls, for they will have died in righteousness as Jesus did. They will therefore live again, as Jesus did. After the war of the antichrist finally ends in 2026 (according to Nostradamus,) those of us who were rescued will make a new start here, after the destruction of the war is cleaned up for us. No one will ever want there to be a need for authority figures, so no one will engage in crime. Those who try to commit a crime will have their peers to answer to and everyone will regard the harmony of the community as precious. There will be no monetary system and everyone will simply do the kind of work he or she enjoys (no taxes!) Everyone will simply go to the person or organization who provides whatever he or she needs, and everyone will gain their sense of security from how well they do their work. Instead of depending on money for security, people will get their security from the strength of their integration in the community. The community itself will be called "The Father" and the family these people will form together all over the globe will propel them into the technological age with such a force that they will soon expand the boundaries of what man calls home. Humanity will become part of the intergalactic neighborhood that has been out there all along, watching us quietly. Anyone who has done well enough to survive on their own until the messiah scene reaches his/her home town should avoid the chaos altogether by simply staying away from it as Jesus instructed. These fortunate people should stay aware of the scene from a distance though, until after the rioting passes and the messiah leads his followers away. Then they should join the crying people left over. The dead bodies scattered about the area is the sign the extra-terrestrials will be looking for. "As the lightning in the east flashes to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Where the carcass lies, there the vultures gather." -- Jesus (Matthew 24:27-28) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Apocalypse.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Apocalypse by: Luke Hoagland FOLLOWING IS AN IMPORTANT REVELATION BEING MADE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL BE CONTACTED. Disclaimer: The following information contains predictions of the future. This has been written for people who want to know what is on the horizon for humanity, and most importantly, WHAT THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT. Please understand that if you read this material, you will be doing it by your own choice. If your reaction causes you to want to report me to AOL for sending unsolicited email, it could result in my account being closed. I don't ask that anyone believe what I say just because I say it. I do ask that if you choose to read this material, please suspend your judgment of it until enough time passes for its validity to be proven or disproven. Please don't let your personal beliefs cause you to want to deprive others of receiving this. Written October 20, 1996 NOTE: This document is quite lengthy, so it might be best to either print it or copy it to your word processor so it may be read off-line. Dear Friend, The choice of whether or not to read this message all the way through may have important consequences for you as the events of our immediate future unfold. This is being done solely for the benefit of others so that people may understand what to do about the times now approaching humanity. What I'm about to explain will strike many people as ridiculous, because this kind of thing has been predicted over and over again and people are not inclined to take things like this seriously. I am not your average tabloid psychic. In fact, I'm not a psychic at all. I am what could be called a modern day seer, but I prefer to be thought of as just a human being with an important message. I have studied prophecy and the techniques used to produce it for many years now. Through a combination of my own findings, the prophecies of Nostradamus, the prophecies given by Jesus and the prophet Daniel, I have figured out the future of humanity. As stated above in the disclaimer, the reader's belief in what I say is not necessary at this point. This message has been written over and over again since I first set out to do this. In previous versions, I have tried to describe what will cause the rough times to come... but everyone is pretty much aware of the world's problems and they don't really need to have it all pointed out to them. Besides, it makes the message unnecessarily long. I have therefore decided to re-write this once again and limit myself to only listing the events to come and explaining what everyone can do to save themselves from destruction. What is about to happen in the world will be unfair to all of us and people will need to know the way out. The end times are upon us now, and the time has come for the way out to be explained more clearly. I feel that this is why I have been blessed with the ability to gain this knowledge and I feel urgently pressed to share what I know with others. First, I will list the events, complete with dates and biblical references. The explicit detail given here will seem to be just a bunch of nonsense I have pulled from out of the air. A lot of tedious study went into this though, and I have not been the only person involved in this study. I cannot give biblical references for all of it because the bible simply does not explain clearly enough, for it was not meant for this information to become understood so clearly until close to the time for it to happen. 1. Around New Year's, 1997- Saddam Hussein will defiantly force President Clinton to make a move. Most likely, Saddam will initiate another invasion and people will be slaughtered by the hundreds, as was done in Kuwait. 2. At the end of January, President Clinton will launch a massive strike against Iraq, and Saddam will be killed. This will anger the Russians because Iraq still owes them money from the cost of the war in 1990. As Russia is still having a hard time financially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, America's reaction to Saddam will be seen as inconsiderate of Russia's financial woes. France will join in the arguments, defending President Clinton's decision with the attitude that Saddam's destruction was in the best interest of keeping peace in the world. Russia will still feel that it's problems have not been given enough consideration. By June, the egotism between America, France and Russia will become so intense that the discussion of it will be cut off and a silent hatred will smolder for awhile. 3. In September 1997, even after a warning from the pope about the consequences of another world war, Russia will suddenly invade Western Europe, starting WWIII. As a Russian naval fleet from Murmansk positions itself along the French coast, Paris will be demolished overnight by the Russian Air Force. American troops will be sent to counter the invading Russian and Moslem forces, and battles will take place all over southern France. After fleeing from the invasion of Italy, the pope dies at Lyon on December 13th. 4. The war will last three years and seven months, ending in March 2001, immediately after the rapture. (Daniel 12:7) Fortunately for Americans, the fighting will be most heavily concentrated on the European continent as Russia attempts to take the whole place into its possession. (A vague description of WWIII can be found in the last chapters of Daniel.) 5. Jesus said no one knows the exact date or hour of His return, but the approximate period can be determined. The rapture lasts forty-five days, taking place in February and March 2001, beginning 1,290 days after the start of the war and ending 1,335 days after the start of the war. (Daniel 12:11-12) It begins when the second pope after John Paul II introduces a messiah in February 2001 (Matthew 24:15) 6. Jesus' description of the rapture: (Matthew 24:15-28) Jesus' description of extra-terrestrials targeting the aftermath of the false messiah scene: (Matthew 24:27-28) Jesus' description of the collection of the false messiahs after the rapture is completed and the stunned reaction of the people to the display of extra-terrestrial spacecraft in the skies: (Matthew 24:29-31) The remainder of this explanation should help the reader understand how to escape destruction. Some who read this will suspect that I am only creating confusion so that people will be misled. Some may even accuse me of being one of the false prophets I speak about. Some will automatically cringe at the sight of the name "Jesus" and assume I'm just a preaching holy roller. Others will laugh when they finish reading and assume I must be crazy. Indeed, this story will get harder and harder to believe as I go. There will be at least a few people though, who will recognize that the description given by Jesus has actually been clarified and the truth about the end will be understood clearly. I will leave it to the reader to make his own conclusions. Jesus foretold of His return near the end, to "cut the days short for His Father's children" because life will become so unlivable at the end that the entire race would be destroyed otherwise. When He was here, Jesus did three very important things. One, he taught us how to live together peacefully and successfully, although the majority of humanity has never understood what He meant. Thus, the paradox that is facing the world now. The second thing Jesus did was demonstrate what a human being is capable of if he/she can love enough. The third and most important thing He did was set up "part one" of a trick that will cause those who have not understood His teachings to separate themselves from those who have just prior to Armageddon. The way it will be done will make it clear to the savior as to where the true children of God can be found. Jesus foretold of many false messiahs who would rise and perform miracles so impressive that even His most committed followers would be misled by it if possible. Before He left, Jesus formed what is now known as the Catholic Church, appointing the apostle Peter as the world's first pope. In the beginning, His church was very simple. However, since it was His church, He knew what would happen. Peter was chosen because of his unshakable faith in Jesus. All of the heads of the church who have followed in the tradition have thus had one goal in mind-- to make the Catholic Church what Jesus Himself would have made it. When the rules were established in the Catholic Church, they were taken very seriously. They were considered absolute and must never be changed or abolished for any reason. Jesus knew how difficult it would become near the end of the world for a church dedicated to its doctrines and established methods. Therefore, in such trying times, He knew that His church could be relied on to introduce another person like Him when one finally comes along. So, where Jesus was actually rejected by religious authority because of His apparent rebellion against the established ways, something quite different will occur when religious authority actually introduces someone just like Him. Since authority itself will trust him, the world will also trust him, even though he is only a spiritual healer who wants to ease the world's pain and suffering. The public's attention will be dominated as this man goes around miraculously healing people of AIDS, Cancer and all sorts of other diseases, and producing food right out of thin air to feed everybody with. As the war rages on between the countries, humanity will desperately want to believe this man is the return of Christ, and after all, he will have been introduced by the church Jesus started Himself. The Catholic Church's intentions will have been completely honest and righteous, for the man they introduce will be as much like Jesus as anyone could ever be. It will be society itself that will take a good thing and turn it into something evil. This is exactly the way Jesus planned it, for He knew the world will have become very dependent on authority near the end, and will be ready to just completely hand itself over, expecting to never have to do anything again. But He warned about these false messiahs. Those of us who have learned Jesus' message will recognize what is really going on as this man goes around creating a social dependency on himself. Electricity will become too expensive to produce around this time, due to the cost of the war. As the world loses its ability to stay informed about foreign places, this man will begin popping up all over the planet and people will be drawn to him like moths to a flame. Everyone will respect his apparent authority too much to ask questions about how he transports himself from one place to the next. People will also wonder where all the followers have gone as he re-appears in new places, but it will be assumed that he has already taken them to Heaven. The man will be worshipped and everybody he touches will feel they have just felt the touch of God. Then after awhile, some innocent person will ask a question like, "Are you really Jesus? You don't look like him... and the bible warns about false messiahs." The reaction from those who would have died without his help will be one of angry protectiveness. "How DARE you question the Son of God! Don't you KNOW who he is?" they will shout. Then another innocent person will join the first one, insisting that the messiah be allowed to speak for himself. But he will never be allowed to speak. His followers will be too loyal to him to allow anyone to put him in the humbling position of explaining himself. The violent reactions of these devout followers will frighten many of the people and a division will begin to occur. The arguments will become more heated as the crowd divides, and those who are breaking away will look on with suspicion as they watch everyone defending their messiah with such zeal. Then the followers will become very disturbed by what is happening and they will want the people not to be afraid. They will plead for those who have become suspicious to please come back so they can all ascend to Heaven soon. But as they plead, the suspicion will only increase because the messiah himself has never been allowed to say anything. Then their pleading will turn into authoritativeness. The followers will be appalled by the sudden lack of respect that has overcome these people as the crowd divides further. Finally, force will begin to be exerted under the notion that the non-believers should be punished. As the non-believers put up further resistance, violence will break out. Innocent people will stand by and helplessly watch their loved ones being ruthlessly beaten. As the violence increases, those who are trying to fight back will be killed. The people who are left over will cry out in hysteria over the loss of their loved ones, yelling, "Why? Why did you have to kill them?" The followers will self-righteously maintain their positions, blaming the non-believers for their sudden demise. Then the followers will try to escape their guilt by abandoning these completely broken, weeping people. The crying will last for hours as these people sulk in confusion about what they ever did to deserve to be forsaken by the God they have always been committed to. Within three days though, something truly miraculous will occur for these people. Now this is where the story gets extremely unbelievable. It was meant to be this way though, because faith and understanding of Jesus' teachings is what will cause these people to end up in this situation. The sheer craziness of what happens next is what will make it okay for me to go ahead and reveal it. Nobody will believe it anyway unless they can thoroughly understand the cause of the division of the people as described above. Here is basically why the followers of the messiah will divide-- The people of the world are already divided right now. The false messiah's purpose is to lovingly draw everybody together. Those who want to remain in a divided state will cause the crowd to divide. Those who are frightened away will be the ones who genuinely want unity, although most of them won't understand this at the time because it will all be so confusing. The pain they will go through from witnessing the riot and then being left behind even though they didn't do anything wrong will leave an irrevocable impression on them. The lesson it will teach them is the reason they will be rescued. As these weeping people stay close to their dead friends and loved ones, feeling completely helpless, and starving half to death, with no way to provide for themselves, they will sit in the darkness of the night and see something strange in the sky. Beautiful, majestic lights will speed toward them, and in a flash, there will be these gigantic machines hovering in the air over them. Glorious colored floods of light will radiate from underneath and everyone will begin to float up through the air and into the beautifully lit crafts. Then, instantly, they will all be gone and since these people will have been left for dead anyway, nobody will even notice that they are missing. They will be transported to another planet far away from here, where they will be the honored guests of everyone there, visitors to a Heavenly Kingdom, respected by everyone because of what they had to go through. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the thousands of clones of the false messiah they have planted will be busy causing the same process all over the planet for a total period of forty-five days. Then, after every person in the world has had exposure to the messiah scene, the messiahs themselves will all be collected and the remaining people of the Earth will be stunned by the realization of what has happened. People will cry out in pain as everybody witnesses the beautiful displays of extra-terrestrial spacecraft dancing through the sky everywhere. The war will stop then, and the leaders of the countries will realize what they have been doing as they have just missed the rapture. The remaining people of the world will feel a pain that will last a long while and there will be a period of sober peace but everyone will still be suffering due to all the social damage. The leaders of the world will consider how the extra-terrestrials have succeeded in not doing what the world has been engaged in since 1997. Then the idea of a single government for the whole world will occur to them so that they can dispose of the nuclear weapons and stop fighting with each other. But they will find themselves in a dilemma over who should be the leader. The Russians will elect a new president of Asian Buddhist descent who has the same spiritual healing abilities as that of the false messiahs. Then when this choice is not accepted by the other leaders of the world, the conflict will start all over again. The Russians will require those who agree with the idea to accept a mark of identification so that they may be distinguished from everyone else. The citizens of Russia who refuse the mark will be tortured and if they don't give in, they will be killed. The U.S. government and the peoples of Asia will all recognize what has happened, and as the whole world tries to stop what Russia is doing, the Russians will finally launch nuclear weapons. Then the rest of the world will begin firing back at Russia and the holocaust will burn like the fires of Hell. Those who die from refusing the mark will have saved their souls, for they will have died in righteousness as Jesus did. They will therefore live again, as Jesus did. After the war of the antichrist finally ends in 2026 (according to Nostradamus,) those of us who were rescued will make a new start here, after the destruction of the war is cleaned up for us. No one will ever want there to be a need for authority figures, so no one will engage in crime. Those who try to commit a crime will have their peers to answer to and everyone will regard the harmony of the community as precious. There will be no monetary system and everyone will simply do the kind of work he or she enjoys (no taxes!) Everyone will simply go to the person or organization who provides whatever he or she needs, and everyone will gain their sense of security from how well they do their work. Instead of depending on money for security, people will get their security from the strength of their integration in the community. The community itself will be called "The Father" and the family these people will form together all over the globe will propel them into the technological age with such a force that they will soon expand the boundaries of what man calls home. Humanity will become part of the intergalactic neighborhood that has been out there all along, watching us quietly. Anyone who has done well enough to survive on their own until the messiah scene reaches his/her home town should avoid the chaos altogether by simply staying away from it as Jesus instructed. These fortunate people should stay aware of the scene from a distance though, until after the rioting passes and the messiah leads his followers away. Then they should join the crying people left over. The dead bodies scattered about the area is the sign the extra-terrestrials will be looking for. "As the lightning in the east flashes to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Where the carcass lies, there the vultures gather." -- Jesus (Matthew 24:27-28) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Arianism 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Arianism First among the doctrinal disputes which troubled Christians after Constantine had recognized the Church in A.D. 313, and the parent of many more during some three centuries, Arianism occupies a large place in ecclesiastical history. It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation of Christ to God was concerned. In the New Testament and in Church teaching Jesus of Nazareth appears as the Son of God. This name He took to Himself (Matt., xi, 27; John, x, 36), while the Fourth Gospel declares Him to be the Word (Logos), Who in the beginning was with God and was God, by Whom all things were made. A similar doctrine is laid down by St. Paul, in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. It is reiterated in the Letters of Ignatius, and accounts for Pliny's observation that Christians in their assemblies chanted a hymn to Christ as God. But the question how the Son was related to the Father (Himself acknowledged on all hands to be the one Supreme Deity), gave rise, between the years A. D. 60 and 200, to number of Theosophic systems, called generally Gnosticism, and having for their authors Basilides, Valentinus, Tatian, and other Greek speculators. Though all of these visited Rome, they had no following in the West, which remained free from controversies of an abstract nature, and was faithful to the creed of its baptism. Intellectual centers were chiefly Alexandria and Antioch, Egyptian or Syrian, and speculation was carried on in Greek. The Roman Church held steadfastly by tradition. Under these circumstances, when Gnostic schools had passed away with their "conjugations" of Divine powers, and "emanations" from the Supreme unknowable God (the "Deep" and the "Silence") all speculation was thrown into the form of an inquiry touching the "likeness" of the Son to His Father and "sameness" of His Essence. Catholics had always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God. They worshipped Him with divine honors; they would never consent to separate Him, in idea or reality, from the Father, Whose Word, Reason, Mind, He was, and in Whose Heart He abode from eternity. But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physics), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The adaptation of a vocabulary employed by Plato and Aristotle to Christian truth was a matter of time; it could not be done in a day; and when accomplished for the Greek it had to be undertaken for the Latin, which did not lend itself readily to necessary yet subtle distinctions. That disputes should spring up even among the orthodox who all held one faith, was inevitable. And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, "God neither begets, nor is He begotten" (Koran, cxii). We have learned to call that denial Unitarianism. It was the ultimate scope of Arian opposition to what Christians had always believed. But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be. Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing. But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism form an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi- Arians. They approached, in strict argument, to the heretical extreme; but many of them held the orthodox faith, however inconsistently; their difficulties turned upon language or local prejudice, and no small number submitted at length to Catholic teaching. The Semi-Arians attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind. Among the ante-Nicene writers, a certain ambiguity of expression may be detected, outside the school of Alexandria, touching this last head of doctrine. While Catholic teachers held the Monarchia, viz. that there was only one God; and the Trinity, that this Absolute One existed in three distinct subsistences; and the Circuminession, that Father, Word, and Spirit could not be separated, in fact or in thought, from one another; yet an opening was left for discussion as regarded the term "Son," and the period of His "generation" (gennesis). Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation. To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius. Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism. Petavius construed the same expressions in a reprehensible sense; but the Anglican Bishop Bull defended them as orthodox, not without difficulty. Even if metaphorical, such language might give shelter to unfair disputants; but we are not answerable for the slips of teachers who failed to perceive all the consequences of doctrinal truths really held by them. >From these doubtful theorizings Rome and Alexandria kept aloof. Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like "the second God," concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church - this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian. To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, "subordinate" to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed. HISTORY Paul of Samosata, who was contemporary with Dionysius, and Bishop of Antioch, may be judged the true ancestor of those heresies which relegated Christ beyond the Divine sphere, whatever epithets of deity they allowed Him. The man Jesus, said Paul, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton's later language, by merit was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence. Three councils held at Antioch (264-268, or 269) condemned and excommunicated the Samosatene. But these Fathers would not accept the Homoousian formula, dreading lest it be taken to signify one material or abstract substance, according to the usage of the heathen philosophies. Associated with Paul, and for years cut off from the Catholic communion, we find the well-known Lucian, who edited the Septuagint and became at last a martyr. From this learned man the school of Antioch drew its inspiration. Eusebius the historian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius himself, all came under Lucian's influence. Not, therefore, to Egypt and its mystical teaching, but to Syria, where Aristotle flourished with his logic and its tendency to Rationalism, should we look for the home of an aberration which had it finally triumphed, would have anticipated Islam, reducing the Eternal Son to the rank of a prophet, and thus undoing the Christian revelation. Arius, a Libyan by descent, brought up at Antioch and a school-fellow of Eusebius, afterwards Bishop of Nicomedia, took part (306) in the obscure Meletian schism, was made presbyter of the church called "Baucalis," at Alexandria, and opposed the Sabellians, themselves committed to a view of the Trinity which denied all real distinctions in the Supreme. Epiphanius describes the heresiarch as tall, grave, and winning; no aspersion on his moral character has been sustained; but there is some possibility of personal differences having led to his quarrel with the patriarch Alexander whom, in public synod, he accused of teaching that the Son was identical with the Father (319). The actual circumstances of this dispute are obscure; but Alexander condemned Arius in a great assembly, and the latter found a refuge with Eusebius, the Church historian, at Caesarea. Political or party motives embittered the strife. Many bishops of Asia Minor and Syria took up the defence of their "fellow-Lucianist," as Arius did not hesitate to call himself. Synods in Palestine and Bithynia were opposed to synods in Egypt. During several years the argument raged; but when, by his defeat of Licinius (324), Constantine became master of the Roman world, he determined on restoring ecclesiastical order in the East, as already in the West he had undertaken to put down the Donatists at the Council of Arles. Arius, in a letter to the Nicomedian prelate, had boldly rejected the Catholic faith. But Constantine, tutored by this worldly-minded man, sent from Nicomedia to Alexander a famous letter, in which he treated the controversy as an idle dispute about words and enlarged on the blessings of peace. The emperor, we should call to mind, was only a catechumen, imperfectly acquainted with Greek, much more incompetent in theology, and yet ambitious to exercise over the Catholic Church a dominion resembling that which, as Pontifex Maximus, he wielded over the pagan worship. From this Byzantine conception (labelled in modern terms Erastianism) we must derive the calamities which during many hundreds of years set their mark on the development of Christian dogma. Alexander could not give way in a matter so vitally important. Arius and his supporters would not yield. A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325. (See FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA). It is commonly said that Hosius of Cordova presided. The Pope, St. Silvester, was represented by his legates, and 318 Fathers attended, almost all from the East. Unfortunately, the acts of the Council are not preserved. The emperor, who was present, paid religious deference to a gathering which displayed the authority of Christian teaching in a manner so remarkable. From the first it was evident that Arius could not reckon upon a large number of patrons among the bishops. Alexander was accompanied by his youthful deacon, the ever-memorable Athanasius who engaged in discussion with the heresiarch himself, and from that moment became the leader of the Catholics during well-nigh fifty years. The Fathers appealed to tradition against the innovators, and were passionately orthodox; while a letter was received from Eusebius of Nicomedia, declaring openly that he would never allow Christ to be of one substance with God. This avowal suggested a means of discriminating between true believers and all those who, under that pretext, did not hold the Faith handed down. A creed was drawn up on behalf of the Arian party by Eusebius of Caesarea in which every term of honour and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed to Our Lord. Clearly, then, no other test save the Homoousion would prove a match for the subtle ambiguities of language that, then as always, were eagerly adopted by dissidents from the mind of the Church. A formula had been discovered which would serve as a test, though not simply to be found in Scripture, yet summing up the doctrine of St. John, St. Paul, and Christ Himself, "I and the Father are one". Heresy, as St. Ambrose remarks, had furnished from its own scabbard a weapon to cut off its head. The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven. Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable. Every bishop made this declaration except six, of whom four at length gave way. Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius. By the emperor, who considered heresy as rebellion, the alternative proposed was subscription or banishment; and, on political grounds, the Bishop of Nicomedia was exiled not long after the council, involving Arius in his ruin. The heresiarch and his followers underwent their sentence in Illyria. But these incidents, which might seem to close the chapter, proved a beginning of strife, and led on to the most complicated proceedings of which we read in the fourth century. While the plain Arian creed was defended by few, those political prelates who sided with Eusebius carried on a double warfare against the term "consubstantial", and its champion, Athanasius. This greatest of the Eastern Fathers had succeeded Alexander in the Egyptian patriarchate (326). He was not more than thirty years of age; but his published writings, antecedent to the Council, display, in thought and precision, a mastery of the issues involved which no Catholic teacher could surpass. His unblemished life, considerate temper, and loyalty to his friends made him by no means easy to attack. But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine's favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. The saint firmly declined. In 325 the heresiarch was absolved by two councils, at Tyre and Jerusalem, the former of which deposed Athanasius on false and shameful grounds of personal misconduct. He was banished to Trier, and his sojourn of eighteen months in those parts cemented Alexandria more closely to Rome and the Catholic West. Meanwhile, Constantia, the Emperor's sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine's leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated. Constantius, who nominally governed the East, was himself the puppet of his empress and the palace-ministers. He obeyed the Eusebian faction; his spiritual director, Valens, Bishop of Mursa, did what in him lay to infect Italy and the West with Arian dogmas. The term "like in substance", Homoiousion, which had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula, became a watchword. But as many as fourteen councils, held between 341 and 360, in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression, bore decisive witness to the need and efficacy of the Catholic touchstone which they all rejected. About 340, an Alexandrian gathering had defended its archbishop in an epistle to Pope Julius. On the death of Constantine, and by the influence of that emperor's son and namesake, he had been restored to his people. But the young prince passed away, and in 341 the celebrated Antiochene Council of the Dedication a second time degraded Athanasius, who now took refuge in Rome. There he spent three years. Gibbon quotes and adopts "a judicious observation" of Wetstein which deserves to be kept always in mind. From the fourth century onwards, remarks the German scholar, when the Eastern Churches were almost equally divided in eloquence and ability between contending sections, that party which sought to overcome made its appearance in the Vatican, cultivated the Papal majesty, conquered and established the orthodox creed by the help of the Latin bishops. Therefore it was that Athanasius repaired to Rome. A stranger, Gregory, usurped his place. The Roman Council proclaimed his innocence. In 343, Constans, who ruled over the West from Illyria to Britain, summoned the bishops to meet at Sardica in Pannonia. Ninety-four Latin, seventy Greek or Eastern, prelates began the debates; but they could not come to terms, and the Asiatics withdrew, holding a separate and hostile session at Philippopolis in Thrace. It has been justly said that the Council of Sardica reveals the first symptoms of discord which, later on, produced the unhappy schism of East and West. But to the Latins this meeting, which allowed of appeals to Pope Julius, or the Roman Church, seemed an epilogue which completed the Nicene legislation, and to this effect it was quoted by Innocent I in his correspondence with the bishops of Africa. Having won over Constans, who warmly took up his cause, the invincible Athanasius received from his Oriental and Semi-Arian sovereign three letters commanding, and at length entreating his return to Alexandria (349). The factious bishops, Ursacius and Valens, retracted their charges against him in the hands of Pope Julius; and as he travelled home, by way of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Syria, the crowd of court-prelates did him abject homage. These men veered with every wind. Some, like Eusebius of Caesarea, held a Platonizing doctrine which they would not give up, though they declined the Arian blasphemies. But many were time-servers, indifferent to dogma. And a new party had arisen, the strict and pious Homoiousians, not friends of Athanasius, nor willing to subscribe to the Nicene terms, yet slowly drawing nearer to the true creed and finally accepting it. In the councils which now follow these good men play their part. However, when Constans died (350), and his Semi-Arian brother was left supreme, the persecution of Athanasius redoubled in violence. By a series of intrigues the Western bishops were persuaded to cast him off at Arles, Milan, Ariminum. It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote, "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian". For the Latin bishops were driven by threats and chicanery to sign concessions which at no time represented their genuine views. Councils were so frequent that their dates are still matter of controversy. Personal issues disguised the dogmatic importance of a struggle which had gone on for thirty years. The Pope of the day, Liberius, brave at first, undoubtedly orthodox, but torn from his see and banished to the dreary solitude of Thrace, signed a creed, in tone Semi-Arian (compiled chiefly from one of Sirmium), renounced Athanasius, but made a stand against the so- called "Homoean" formulae of Ariminum. This new party was led by Acacius of Caesarea, an aspiring churchman who maintained that he, and not St. Cyril of Jerusalem, was metropolitan over Palestine. The Homoeans, a sort of Protestants, would have no terms employed which were not found in Scripture, and thus evaded signing the "Consubstantial". A more extreme set, the "Anomoeans", followed Aetius, were directed by Eunomius, held meetings at Antioch and Sirmium, declared the Son to be "unlike" the Father, and made themselves powerful in the last years of Constantius within the palace. George of Cappadocia persecuted the Alexandrian Catholics. Athanasius retired into the desert among the solitaries. Hosius had been compelled by torture to subscribe a fashionable creed. When the vacillating Emperor died (361), Julian, known as the Apostate, suffered all alike to return home who had been exiled on account of religion. A momentous gathering, over which Athanasius presided, in 362, at Alexandria, united the orthodox Semi-Arians with himself and the West. Four years afterwards fifty-nine Macedonian, i.e., hitherto anti-Nicene, prelates gave in their submission to Pope Liberius. But the Emperor Valens, a fierce heretic, still laid the Church waste. However, the long battle was now turning decidedly in favour of Catholic tradition. Western bishops, like Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercellae banished to Asia for holding the Nicene faith, were acting in unison with St. Basil, the two St. Gregories, and the reconciled Semi-Arians. As an intellectual movement the heresy had spent its force. Theodosius, a Spaniard and a Catholic, governed the whole Empire. Athanasius died in 373; but his cause triumphed at Constantinople, long an Arian city, first by the preaching of St. Gregory Nazianzen, then in the Second General Council (381), at the opening of which Meletius of Antioch presided. This saintly man had been estranged from the Nicene champions during a long schism; but he made peace with Athanasius, and now, in company of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, represented a moderate influence which won the day. No deputies appeared from the West. Meletius died almost immediately. St. Gregory Nazianzen (q. v.), who took his place, very soon resigned. A creed embodying the Nicene was drawn up by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but it is not the one that is chanted at Mass, the latter being due, it is said, to St. Epiphanius and the Church of Jerusalem. The Council became ecumenical by acceptance of the Pope and the ever-orthodox Westerns. From this moment Arianism in all its forms lost its place within the Empire. Its developments among the barbarians were political rather than doctrinal. Ulphilas (311-388), who translated the Scriptures into Maeso-Gothic, taught the Goths across the Danube an Homoean theology; Arian kingdoms arose in Spain, Africa, Italy. The Gepidae, Heruli, Vandals, Alans, and Lombards received a system which they were as little capable of understanding as they were of defending, and the Catholic bishops, the monks, the sword of Clovis, the action of the Papacy, made an end of it before the eighth century. In the form which it took under Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eunomius, it has never been revived. Individuals, among them are Milton and Sir Isasc Newton, were perhaps tainted with it. But the Socinian tendency out of which Unitarian doctrines have grown owes nothing to the school of Antioch or the councils which opposed Nicaea. Neither has any Arian leader stood forth in history with a character of heroic proportions. In the whole story there is but one single hero - the undaunted Athanasius - whose mind was equal to the problems, as his great spirit to the vicissitudes, a question on which the future of Christianity depended. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Arianism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Arianism A heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ. DOCTRINE First among the doctrinal disputes which troubled Christians after Constantine had recognized the Church in A.D. 313, and the parent of many more during some three centuries, Arianism occupies a large place in ecclesiastical history. It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation of Christ to God was concerned. In the New Testament and in Church teaching Jesus of Nazareth appears as the Son of God. This name He took to Himself (Matt., xi, 27; John, x, 36), while the Fourth Gospel declares Him to be the Word (Logos), Who in the beginning was with God and was God, by Whom all things were made. A similar doctrine is laid down by St. Paul, in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. It is reiterated in the Letters of Ignatius, and accounts for Pliny's observation that Christians in their assemblies chanted a hymn to Christ as God. But the question how the Son was related to the Father (Himself acknowledged on all hands to be the one Supreme Deity), gave rise, between the years A. D. 60 and 200, to number of Theosophic systems, called generally Gnosticism, and having for their authors Basilides, Valentinus, Tatian, and other Greek speculators. Though all of these visited Rome, they had no following in the West, which remained free from controversies of an abstract nature, and was faithful to the creed of its baptism. Intellectual centers were chiefly Alexandria and Antioch, Egyptian or Syrian, and speculation was carried on in Greek. The Roman Church held steadfastly by tradition. Under these circumstances, when Gnostic schools had passed away with their "conjugations" of Divine powers, and "emanations" from the Supreme unknowable God (the "Deep" and the "Silence") all speculation was thrown into the form of an inquiry touching the "likeness" of the Son to His Father and "sameness" of His Essence. Catholics had always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God. They worshipped Him with divine honors; they would never consent to separate Him, in idea or reality, from the Father, Whose Word, Reason, Mind, He was, and in Whose Heart He abode from eternity. But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physics), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The adaptation of a vocabulary employed by Plato and Aristotle to Christian truth was a matter of time; it could not be done in a day; and when accomplished for the Greek it had to be undertaken for the Latin, which did not lend itself readily to necessary yet subtle distinctions. That disputes should spring up even among the orthodox who all held one faith, was inevitable. And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, "God neither begets, nor is He begotten" (Koran, cxii). We have learned to call that denial Unitarianism. It was the ultimate scope of Arian opposition to what Christians had always believed. But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be. Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing. But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism form an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians. They approached, in strict argument, to the heretical extreme; but many of them held the orthodox faith, however inconsistently; their difficulties turned upon language or local prejudice, and no small number submitted at length to Catholic teaching. The Semi-Arians attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind. Among the ante-Nicene writers, a certain ambiguity of expression may be detected, outside the school of Alexandria, touching this last head of doctrine. While Catholic teachers held the Monarchia, viz. that there was only one God; and the Trinity, that this Absolute One existed in three distinct subsistences; and the Circuminession, that Father, Word, and Spirit could not be separated, in fact or in thought, from one another; yet an opening was left for discussion as regarded the term "Son," and the period of His "generation" (gennesis). Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation. To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius. Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism. Petavius construed the same expressions in a reprehensible sense; but the Anglican Bishop Bull defended them as orthodox, not without difficulty. Even if metaphorical, such language might give shelter to unfair disputants; but we are not answerable for the slips of teachers who failed to perceive all the consequences of doctrinal truths really held by them. >From these doubtful theorizings Rome and Alexandria kept aloof. Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like "the second God," concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church - this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian. To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, "subordinate" to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed. HISTORY Paul of Samosata, who was contemporary with Dionysius, and Bishop of Antioch, may be judged the true ancestor of those heresies which relegated Christ beyond the Divine sphere, whatever epithets of deity they allowed Him. The man Jesus, said Paul, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton's later language, by merit was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence. Three councils held at Antioch (264-268, or 269) condemned and excommunicated the Samosatene. But these Fathers would not accept the Homoousian formula, dreading lest it be taken to signify one material or abstract substance, according to the usage of the heathen philosophies. Associated with Paul, and for years cut off from the Catholic communion, we find the well-known Lucian, who edited the Septuagint and became at last a martyr. From this learned man the school of Antioch drew its inspiration. Eusebius the historian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius himself, all came under Lucian's influence. Not, therefore, to Egypt and its mystical teaching, but to Syria, where Aristotle flourished with his logic and its tendency to Rationalism, should we look for the home of an aberration which had it finally triumphed, would have anticipated Islam, reducing the Eternal Son to the rank of a prophet, and thus undoing the Christian revelation. Arius, a Libyan by descent, brought up at Antioch and a school-fellow of Eusebius, afterwards Bishop of Nicomedia, took part (306) in the obscure Meletian schism, was made presbyter of the church called "Baucalis," at Alexandria, and opposed the Sabellians, themselves committed to a view of the Trinity which denied all real distinctions in the Supreme. Epiphanius describes the heresiarch as tall, grave, and winning; no aspersion on his moral character has been sustained; but there is some possibility of personal differences having led to his quarrel with the patriarch Alexander whom, in public synod, he accused of teaching that the Son was identical with the Father (319). The actual circumstances of this dispute are obscure; but Alexander condemned Arius in a great assembly, and the latter found a refuge with Eusebius, the Church historian, at Caesarea. Political or party motives embittered the strife. Many bishops of Asia Minor and Syria took up the defence of their "fellow-Lucianist," as Arius did not hesitate to call himself. Synods in Palestine and Bithynia were opposed to synods in Egypt. During several years the argument raged; but when, by his defeat of Licinius (324), Constantine became master of the Roman world, he determined on restoring ecclesiastical order in the East, as already in the West he had undertaken to put down the Donatists at the Council of Arles. Arius, in a letter to the Nicomedian prelate, had boldly rejected the Catholic faith. But Constantine, tutored by this worldly-minded man, sent from Nicomedia to Alexander a famous letter, in which he treated the controversy as an idle dispute about words and enlarged on the blessings of peace. The emperor, we should call to mind, was only a catechumen, imperfectly acquainted with Greek, much more incompetent in theology, and yet ambitious to exercise over the Catholic Church a dominion resembling that which, as Pontifex Maximus, he wielded over the pagan worship. From this Byzantine conception (labelled in modern terms Erastianism) we must derive the calamities which during many hundreds of years set their mark on the development of Christian dogma. Alexander could not give way in a matter so vitally important. Arius and his supporters would not yield. A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325. (See FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA). It is commonly said that Hosius of Cordova presided. The Pope, St. Silvester, was represented by his legates, and 318 Fathers attended, almost all from the East. Unfortunately, the acts of the Council are not preserved. The emperor, who was present, paid religious deference to a gathering which displayed the authority of Christian teaching in a manner so remarkable. From the first it was evident that Arius could not reckon upon a large number of patrons among the bishops. Alexander was accompanied by his youthful deacon, the ever-memorable Athanasius who engaged in discussion with the heresiarch himself, and from that moment became the leader of the Catholics during well-nigh fifty years. The Fathers appealed to tradition against the innovators, and were passionately orthodox; while a letter was received from Eusebius of Nicomedia, declaring openly that he would never allow Christ to be of one substance with God. This avowal suggested a means of discriminating between true believers and all those who, under that pretext, did not hold the Faith handed down. A creed was drawn up on behalf of the Arian party by Eusebius of Caesarea in which every term of honour and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed to Our Lord. Clearly, then, no other test save the Homoousion would prove a match for the subtle ambiguities of language that, then as always, were eagerly adopted by dissidents from the mind of the Church. A formula had been discovered which would serve as a test, though not simply to be found in Scripture, yet summing up the doctrine of St. John, St. Paul, and Christ Himself, "I and the Father are one". Heresy, as St. Ambrose remarks, had furnished from its own scabbard a weapon to cut off its head. The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven. Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable. Every bishop made this declaration except six, of whom four at length gave way. Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius. By the emperor, who considered heresy as rebellion, the alternative proposed was subscription or banishment; and, on political grounds, the Bishop of Nicomedia was exiled not long after the council, involving Arius in his ruin. The heresiarch and his followers underwent their sentence in Illyria. But these incidents, which might seem to close the chapter, proved a beginning of strife, and led on to the most complicated proceedings of which we read in the fourth century. While the plain Arian creed was defended by few, those political prelates who sided with Eusebius carried on a double warfare against the term "consubstantial", and its champion, Athanasius. This greatest of the Eastern Fathers had succeeded Alexander in the Egyptian patriarchate (326). He was not more than thirty years of age; but his published writings, antecedent to the Council, display, in thought and precision, a mastery of the issues involved which no Catholic teacher could surpass. His unblemished life, considerate temper, and loyalty to his friends made him by no means easy to attack. But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine's favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. The saint firmly declined. In 325 the heresiarch was absolved by two councils, at Tyre and Jerusalem, the former of which deposed Athanasius on false and shameful grounds of personal misconduct. He was banished to Trier, and his sojourn of eighteen months in those parts cemented Alexandria more closely to Rome and the Catholic West. Meanwhile, Constantia, the Emperor's sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine's leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated. Constantius, who nominally governed the East, was himself the puppet of his empress and the palace-ministers. He obeyed the Eusebian faction; his spiritual director, Valens, Bishop of Mursa, did what in him lay to infect Italy and the West with Arian dogmas. The term "like in substance", Homoiousion, which had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula, became a watchword. But as many as fourteen councils, held between 341 and 360, in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression, bore decisive witness to the need and efficacy of the Catholic touchstone which they all rejected. About 340, an Alexandrian gathering had defended its archbishop in an epistle to Pope Julius. On the death of Constantine, and by the influence of that emperor's son and namesake, he had been restored to his people. But the young prince passed away, and in 341 the celebrated Antiochene Council of the Dedication a second time degraded Athanasius, who now took refuge in Rome. There he spent three years. Gibbon quotes and adopts "a judicious observation" of Wetstein which deserves to be kept always in mind. From the fourth century onwards, remarks the German scholar, when the Eastern Churches were almost equally divided in eloquence and ability between contending sections, that party which sought to overcome made its appearance in the Vatican, cultivated the Papal majesty, conquered and established the orthodox creed by the help of the Latin bishops. Therefore it was that Athanasius repaired to Rome. A stranger, Gregory, usurped his place. The Roman Council proclaimed his innocence. In 343, Constans, who ruled over the West from Illyria to Britain, summoned the bishops to meet at Sardica in Pannonia. Ninety-four Latin, seventy Greek or Eastern, prelates began the debates; but they could not come to terms, and the Asiatics withdrew, holding a separate and hostile session at Philippopolis in Thrace. It has been justly said that the Council of Sardica reveals the first symptoms of discord which, later on, produced the unhappy schism of East and West. But to the Latins this meeting, which allowed of appeals to Pope Julius, or the Roman Church, seemed an epilogue which completed the Nicene legislation, and to this effect it was quoted by Innocent I in his correspondence with the bishops of Africa. Having won over Constans, who warmly took up his cause, the invincible Athanasius received from his Oriental and Semi-Arian sovereign three letters commanding, and at length entreating his return to Alexandria (349). The factious bishops, Ursacius and Valens, retracted their charges against him in the hands of Pope Julius; and as he travelled home, by way of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Syria, the crowd of court-prelates did him abject homage. These men veered with every wind. Some, like Eusebius of Caesarea, held a Platonizing doctrine which they would not give up, though they declined the Arian blasphemies. But many were time-servers, indifferent to dogma. And a new party had arisen, the strict and pious Homoiousians, not friends of Athanasius, nor willing to subscribe to the Nicene terms, yet slowly drawing nearer to the true creed and finally accepting it. In the councils which now follow these good men play their part. However, when Constans died (350), and his Semi-Arian brother was left supreme, the persecution of Athanasius redoubled in violence. By a series of intrigues the Western bishops were persuaded to cast him off at Arles, Milan, Ariminum. It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote, "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian". For the Latin bishops were driven by threats and chicanery to sign concessions which at no time represented their genuine views. Councils were so frequent that their dates are still matter of controversy. Personal issues disguised the dogmatic importance of a struggle which had gone on for thirty years. The Pope of the day, Liberius, brave at first, undoubtedly orthodox, but torn from his see and banished to the dreary solitude of Thrace, signed a creed, in tone Semi-Arian (compiled chiefly from one of Sirmium), renounced Athanasius, but made a stand against the so-called "Homoean" formulae of Ariminum. This new party was led by Acacius of Caesarea, an aspiring churchman who maintained that he, and not St. Cyril of Jerusalem, was metropolitan over Palestine. The Homoeans, a sort of Protestants, would have no terms employed which were not found in Scripture, and thus evaded signing the "Consubstantial". A more extreme set, the "Anomoeans", followed Aetius, were directed by Eunomius, held meetings at Antioch and Sirmium, declared the Son to be "unlike" the Father, and made themselves powerful in the last years of Constantius within the palace. George of Cappadocia persecuted the Alexandrian Catholics. Athanasius retired into the desert among the solitaries. Hosius had been compelled by torture to subscribe a fashionable creed. When the vacillating Emperor died (361), Julian, known as the Apostate, suffered all alike to return home who had been exiled on account of religion. A momentous gathering, over which Athanasius presided, in 362, at Alexandria, united the orthodox Semi-Arians with himself and the West. Four years afterwards fifty-nine Macedonian, i.e., hitherto anti-Nicene, prelates gave in their submission to Pope Liberius. But the Emperor Valens, a fierce heretic, still laid the Church waste. However, the long battle was now turning decidedly in favour of Catholic tradition. Western bishops, like Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercellae banished to Asia for holding the Nicene faith, were acting in unison with St. Basil, the two St. Gregories, and the reconciled Semi-Arians. As an intellectual movement the heresy had spent its force. Theodosius, a Spaniard and a Catholic, governed the whole Empire. Athanasius died in 373; but his cause triumphed at Constantinople, long an Arian city, first by the preaching of St. Gregory Nazianzen, then in the Second General Council (381), at the opening of which Meletius of Antioch presided. This saintly man had been estranged from the Nicene champions during a long schism; but he made peace with Athanasius, and now, in company of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, represented a moderate influence which won the day. No deputies appeared from the West. Meletius died almost immediately. St. Gregory Nazianzen (q. v.), who took his place, very soon resigned. A creed embodying the Nicene was drawn up by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but it is not the one that is chanted at Mass, the latter being due, it is said, to St. Epiphanius and the Church of Jerusalem. The Council became ecumenical by acceptance of the Pope and the ever-orthodox Westerns. From this moment Arianism in all its forms lost its place within the Empire. Its developments among the barbarians were political rather than doctrinal. Ulphilas (311-388), who translated the Scriptures into Maeso-Gothic, taught the Goths across the Danube an Homoean theology; Arian kingdoms arose in Spain, Africa, Italy. The Gepidae, Heruli, Vandals, Alans, and Lombards received a system which they were as little capable of understanding as they were of defending, and the Catholic bishops, the monks, the sword of Clovis, the action of the Papacy, made an end of it before the eighth century. In the form which it took under Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eunomius, it has never been revived. Individuals, among them are Milton and Sir Isasc Newton, were perhaps tainted with it. But the Socinian tendency out of which Unitarian doctrines have grown owes nothing to the school of Antioch or the councils which opposed Nicaea. Neither has any Arian leader stood forth in history with a character of heroic proportions. In the whole story there is but one single hero - the undaunted Athanasius - whose mind was equal to the problems, as his great spirit to the vicissitudes, a question on which the future of Christianity depended. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Art History 1993.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ American Civil Liberties Union Briefing Paper Number 8 +-----------------+ THE DEATH PENALTY +-----------------+ Since our nation's founding, the government -- colonial, federal and state -- has punished murder and, until recent years, rape with the ultimate sanction: death. More than 13,000 people have been legally executed since colonial times, most of them in the early 20th Century. By the 1930s, as many as 150 people were executed each year. However, public outrage and legal challenges caused the practice to wane. By 1967, capital punishment had virtually halted in the United States, pending the outcome of several court challenges. In 1972, in _Furman v. Georgia_, the Supreme Court invalidated hundreds of scheduled executions, declaring that then existing state laws were applied in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner and, thus, violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process. But in 1976, in _Gregg v. Georgia_, the Court resuscitated the death penalty: It ruled that the penalty "does not invariably violate the Constitution" if administered in a manner designed to guard against arbitrariness and discrimination. Several states promptly passed or reenacted capital punishment laws. Thirty-seven states now have laws authorizing the death penalty, as does the military. A dozen states in the Middle West and Northeast have abolished capital punishment, two in the last century (Michigan in 1847, Minnesota in 1853). Alaska and Hawaii have never had the death penalty. Most executions have taken place in the states of the Deep South. More than 2,000 people are on "death row" today. Virtually all are poor, a significant number are mentally retarded or otherwise mentally disabled, more than 40 percent are African American, and a disproportionate number are Native American, Latino and Asian. The ACLU believes that, in all circumstances, the death penalty is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, and that its discriminatory application violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Here are the ACLU's answers to some questions frequently raised by the public about capital punishment. ========================================================= Doesn't the Death Penalty deter crime, especially murder? ========================================================= No, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment, or instituted it, show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been discredited by social science research. The death penalty has no deterrent effect on most murders because people commit murders largely in the heat of passion, and/or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, giving little thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand -- for example, professional executioners -- intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. Some self-destructive individuals may even hope they _will_ be caught and executed. Death penalty laws falsely convince the public that government has taken effective measures to combat crime and homicide. In reality, such laws do nothing to protect us or our communities from the acts of dangerous criminals. ================================= Don't murderers _deserve_ to die? ================================= Certainly, in general, the punishment should fit the crime. But in civilized society, we reject the "eye for an eye" principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. We should not, therefore, punish the murderer with death. When the government metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life. ====================================================== If execution is unacceptable, what is the alternative? ====================================================== INCAPACITATION. Convicted murderers can be sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including life, as they are in countries and states that have abolished the death penalty. Most state laws allow life sentences for murder that severely limit or eliminate th e possibility of parole. At least ten states have life sentences without the possibility of parole for 20, 25, 30 or 40 years, and at least 18 states have life sentences with _no_ possibility of parole. A recent U. S. Justice Department study of public attitudes about crime and punishment found that a majority of Americans support alternatives to capital punishment: When people were presented the facts about several crimes for which death was a possible punishment, a majority chose lengthy prison sentences as alternatives to the death penalty. ================================================================== Isn't the Death Penalty necessary as just retribution for victims' families? ================================================================== All of us would feel extreme anger and a desire for revenge if we lost a loved one to homicide; likewise, if the crime was rape or a brutal assault. However, satisfying the needs of victims cannot be what determines a just response by society to such crimes. Moreover, even within the same family, some relatives of murder victims approve of the death penalty, while others are against it. What the families of murder victims really need is financial and emotional support to help them recover from their loss and resume their lives. ===================================================================== Have strict procedures eliminated discrimination in death sentencing? ===================================================================== No. A 1990 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report summarizing several capital punishment studies confirmed "a consistent pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in charging, sentencing and the imposition of the death penalty...." Eighty-two percent of the studies the GAO reviewed revealed that "those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." In addition, the GAO uncovered evidence (though less consistent) that a convict's race, as well as the race of the victim, also influences imposition of the death penalty. A 1987 study of death sentencing in New Jersey found that prosecutors sought the death penalty in 50 percent of the cases involving a black defendant and a white victim, but in only 28 percent of the cases involving black defendants and black victims. A 1985 study found that, in California, six percent of those convicted of killing whites got the death penalty compared to three percent of those convicted of killing blacks. In Georgia, a landmark 1986 study found that, overall, those convicted of killing whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites. African Americans are approximately 12 percent of the U. S. population, yet of the 3,859 persons executed for a range of crimes since 1930, more than 50 percent have been black. Other minorities are also death-sentenced disproportionate to their numbers in the population. This is not primarily because minorities commit more murders, but because they are more often sentenced to death when they do. Poor people are also far more likely to be death sentenced than those who can afford the high costs of private investigators, psychiatrists and expert criminal lawyers. Indeed, capital punishment is "a privilege of the poor," said Clinton Duffy, former warden at California's San Quentin Prison. Some observers have pointed out that the term "capital punishment" is ironic because "only those without capital get the punishment." ============================================================ Maybe it used to happen that innocent people were mistakenly executed, but hasn't that possibility been eliminated? ============================================================ No. A study published in the _Stanford Law Review_ documents 350 capital convictions in this century, in which it was later proven that the convict had not committed the crime. Of those, 25 convicts were executed while others spent decades of their lives in prison. Fifty-five of the 350 cases took place in the 1970s, and another 20 of them between l980 and l985. Our criminal justice system cannot be made fail-safe because it is run by human beings, who are fallible. Execution of innocent persons is bound to occur. ======================================================= Only the worst criminals get sentenced to death, right? ======================================================= Wrong. Although it is commonly thought that the death penalty is reserved for those who commit the most heinous crimes, in reality only a small percentage of death-sentenced inmates were convicted of unusually vicious crimes. The vast majority of individuals facing execution were convicted of crimes that are indistinguishable from crimes committed by others who are serving prison sentences, crimes such as murder committed in the course of an armed robbery. The only distinguishing factors seem to be race and poverty. Who gets the death penalty is largely determined, not by the severity of the crime, but by: the race, sex and economic class of the criminal and victim; geography -- some states have the death penalty, others do not; and vagaries in the legal process. The death penalty is like a lottery, in which fairness always loses. ============================================================= Does the law permit execution of juveniles and people who are mentally retarded or mentally ill? ============================================================= Yes. In 1989, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the execution of 16 and 17 year-old (though not 15 year-old) juvenile murderers. The Court likewise upheld the constitutionality of executing mentally retarded people. Although juries are permitted to consider retardation as a mitigating factor, many people on death row today are mentally retarded. Regarding people who are mentally ill, the Court has held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits execution only if the illness prevents the person from comprehending the reasons for the death sentence or its implications. ============================================================= "Cruel and unusual punishment" -- those are strong words, but aren't executions relatively swift and painless? ============================================================= The history of capital punishment is replete with examples of botched executions. But no execution is painless, whether botched or not, and all executions are certainly cruel. Hanging was the most common form of execution throughout the 19th century and is still practiced in a few states. Problems often attend hanging: If the drop is too short, death comes through gradual strangulation; if too long, the jerk of the rope rips the head off. Electrocution succeeded hanging in the early 20th century. When the switch is thrown, the body jerks, smoke frequently rises from the head, and there is a smell of burning flesh. Science has not determined how long an electrocuted individual retains consciousness, but in May l990, Florida prisoner Jesse Tafero gurgled, and his head bobbed while ashes fell from it, for four minutes. And in 1983, it took three jolts of electricity and ten minutes to kill an individual in Alabama. The gas chamber was intended to improve on electrocution. The condemned is strapped in a chair and a cyanide pellet is dropped into a container of sulfuric acid under the chair to form lethal gas. The person struggles for air and may turn purple and drool. Unconsciousness may not come for several minutes. The firing squad is still administered in Idaho and Utah. The condemned is strapped in a chair and hooded, and a target is pinned to the chest. Five marksmen, one with blanks, take aim and fire. Lethal injection is the latest technique, first used in Texas in l982 and now mandated by law in more than a dozen states. Although this method is defended as more humane, efficient and inexpensive than others, one federal judge observed that even "a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation." In Texas, there have been three botched injection executions since 1985. In one, it took 24 minutes to kill an individual, after the tube attached to the needle in his arm leaked and sprayed noxious chemicals toward witnesses. Another, in 1989, caused Stephen McCoy to choke and heave for several minutes before dying because the dosage of lethal drugs was too weak. Eyewitness accounts confirm that execution by any of these means is often an excruciatingly painful, and always degrading, process that ends in death. Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of uncivilized society. It is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice. It assures the execution of some innocent people. As a remedy for crime, it has no purpose and no effect. Capital punishment ought to be abolished _now_. +-+ | Capital punishment does not deter crime. | | Capital punishment is discriminatory and arbitrary. | | Capital punishment assures the execution of innocent people. | | Capital punishment has no place in civilized society. | +-+ f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Art in the Bible 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Art in the Bible An abstract look at a renaissance perception of the Bible Table of Contents Part 1 The Painting Part 2 A compalation of abstract ideas Part 3 Components of the picture Part 4 A few thesis statements Part 5 The essay Art in the Bible Many percieve this world as completly dichotomus. For many people they will go through their whole life thinking that there is nothing in between black and white. This may present a formidable situation for many, however, for Michelangelo this was not clear enough. He took the Christian religion that was important to him and the society that he lived in and percieved it a way more accoustomed to the modern world. He created a sense of greyness in a world that was previously percieved as only black and white. In his depiction of Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden of Eden he sets up a dichotomus world but through subtile and not so subtile hints he shows the observer that he doesn't percieve the world in this way. He creates this grey world to show the observer that the world is not all really black and white. The painting is really divided into two separate pictures. One depictng the "good" scene inside the Garden of Eden. The other side depicting the "bad" scence, outside the garden of Eden. Michelangelo splits the picture like this so that he can create the dichotomus world on which his painting will be based. Although the whole theme is the non-dichotomusness of the world he must do this so that people will have something to relate to. Once this has been achieved he can continue to paint in the greyness whick joins the good and the evil. The dichotomus world, however, serves a very important purpose in this picture. It sets the defination of right and wrong. Michelangelo is trying to say that there is not eivil and that there is no good. He knows that this cant be true. However Michelangelo defines a black and a white, as two very separate and istinct things. He does this by pining the picture in two parts and thus enabiling us to see the difference. Once we have seen this very obvious difference we are prepared to look at they grey. Through the use of placement of objects in the picture Michelangelo is able to define both the good and the evil as well as the surrounding grey. The good side poses an arry of items which are asscociated with the good of the garden. The evil side poses a new set of objects that ore asscociated the the evil and darkness of the world that we are living in. For example in the good side the tree of knowledge of good and evil is very bushy and green. The leaves are depicted as having a life like splendor andlook as if they are real. These leaves cover a large proportion of that side of the painting , allmost 1/3. These are importain because they denote the life like quality of the garden or Eden. On the other hand behind Eve sits a dear barren tree. This tree is much smaller but still exists in this apparent world of perfect goodness. The tree has no leaves on, and looks quite barren. The tree also has an unintresting charecteristicabout it. Having no branches it looks quite dark. Tthe shading of the trunk of the tree also depicts this. The brown is o a much deeper shade than of the the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This darkenss thank then be taken to represent the evil or greyness that occurs in the dichotomus world. The tree represents the hardships of people because they sinned. It is part of the "dust to dust ashes to ashes" parable that God told Adam and Eve. There is also evidence of this in the other side of the painting too. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Art In The Bible.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Art in the Bible An abstract look at a renaissance perception of the Bible Table of Contents Part 1 The Painting Part 2 A compalation of abstract ideas Part 3 Components of the picture Part 4 A few thesis statements Part 5 The essay Art in the Bible Many percieve this world as completly dichotomus. For many people they will go through their whole life thinking that there is nothing in between black and white. This may present a formidable situation for many, however, for Michelangelo this was not clear enough. He took the Christian religion that was important to him and the society that he lived in and percieved it a way more accoustomed to the modern world. He created a sense of greyness in a world that was previously percieved as only black and white. In his depiction of Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden of Eden he sets up a dichotomus world but through subtile and not so subtile hints he shows the observer that he doesn't percieve the world in this way. He creates this grey world to show the observer that the world is not all really black and white. The painting is really divided into two separate pictures. One depictng the "good" scene inside the Garden of Eden. The other side depicting the "bad" scence, outside the garden of Eden. Michelangelo splits the picture like this so that he can create the dichotomus world on which his painting will be based. Although the whole theme is the non-dichotomusness of the world he must do this so that people will have something to relate to. Once this has been achieved he can continue to paint in the greyness whick joins the good and the evil. The dichotomus world, however, serves a very important purpose in this picture. It sets the defination of right and wrong. Michelangelo is trying to say that there is not eivil and that there is no good. He knows that this cant be true. However Michelangelo defines a black and a white, as two very separate and istinct things. He does this by pining the picture in two parts and thus enabiling us to see the difference. Once we have seen this very obvious difference we are prepared to look at they grey. Through the use of placement of objects in the picture Michelangelo is able to define both the good and the evil as well as the surrounding grey. The good side poses an arry of items which are asscociated with the good of the garden. The evil side poses a new set of objects that ore asscociated the the evil and darkness of the world that we are living in. For example in the good side the tree of knowledge of good and evil is very bushy and green. The leaves are depicted as having a life like splendor andlook as if they are real. These leaves cover a large proportion of that side of the painting , allmost 1/3. These are importain because they denote the life like quality of the garden or Eden. On the other hand behind Eve sits a dear barren tree. This tree is much smaller but still exists in this apparent world of perfect goodness. The tree has no leaves on, and looks quite barren. The tree also has an unintresting charecteristicabout it. Having no branches it looks quite dark. Tthe shading of the trunk of the tree also depicts this. The brown is o a much deeper shade than of the the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This darkenss thank then be taken to represent the evil or greyness that occurs in the dichotomus world. The tree represents the hardships of people because they sinned. It is part of the "dust to dust ashes to ashes" parable that God told Adam and Eve. There is also evidence of this in the other side of the painting too. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Atonement 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Atonement Atonement in the larger sense deals with a common factor which is sin. The definition is a making at on which points to a process of bringing those who are enstranged into a unity(Douglas, 107). It is a theological term which derives from the Anglo-Saxon. The word atonement appears eighty seven times in the Old Testament in the RSV Bible(Nelson, 55). According to Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, which is using the King James Version, appears seventy seven times in the Old Testament and only once in the New Testament. In Leviticus, atonement appears fifty one times, more than any other book of the bible. In Numbers it appears seventeen times and in Exodus eleven times. The reason why it is used so much in Leviticus is that during that time period priest were intercessor's between the people and God. In the New Revised Standard Concordance, atonement appears eighty seven times. Out of those eighty seven times, eighty one appear with the word make or made. This would constitute that an atonement in these uses would cause the person who prepares the atonement to work at making an atonement. We find that in the New Testament we don't have to work to receive a pardon from our sins. The whole bible leads up to the cross and everything after the cross points back to the cross. Christ was the ultimate and final atonement for us. In the Old Testament their atonement to God was to always be unblemished for the sake of perfection (Morris, 147). They believed that the perfect atonement would set them free from all their sins and thus make them clean in God's eyes. The Hebrew word for atone is. It is used frequently for the process of sacrifice. It was thought that a man must make and atonement to God that was adequate to give to Him to pay for his sin. In Ezekiel 16:63 atonement is translated to mean "forgive". Words in the Old Testament are translated from the kpr word group in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for atonement is Kaphar. This is the main usage of the word but there are other words that are associated with atonement. or Kaphar means to cover. The figurative word which is used quite often is to expiate or condone. Other words associated with Kaphar are to be merciful, pardon, to pitch, purge(away), and to make reconcile. Or Kaphar is used for a village that is protected by walls. Or Kopher is also a cover or village covered. It is also bitumen which was used for a coating and dyeing colors. Words associated with Kopher are redemption, price, bribe, camphire, pitch, ransom, satisfaction, village. An interesting side point to the word Kopher is that it also denotes finger nail polish. Oriental females make a powder of camphire leaves then made the powder into a paste by use of water and put in on their finger which gave them a reddish color. The word camphire comes from the same root as atonement just as a sinner could pray for a colorful cover for his soul that was ruined by sin. Or Kippur means expiation but only in the plural. Expiation is found numerous times in the Old Testament for example in 2 Samuel 21:3, 1 Chronicles 6:49, and 2 Chronicles 29:24. The denominative verb which is to make an atonement, make reconciliation, or to purge is or Kapar. There are three parent nouns for atonement and they are Koper, Kippur, and Kapporet. Koper or means ransom or gift to secure favor. Exodus 30:12 and Isaiah 43:3 uses ransom and this is parallel to the word redeem. In 1 Samuel 12:3 Koper is used as "bribe". Kapar means to atone by offering a substitute. This may be better understood if you use ransom with Koper (Harris, 453). Kippur or is used in the "Day of the Atonement". This was celebrated by a special sin offering for the whole nation and only the high priest could be allowed to sacrifice a goat. A second goat was released as an escape goat to symbolize a total removal of sin. Kapporet is a noun which means mercy seat. It is used twenty seven times and always refers to the golden cover of the sacred chest in the inner shrine of the tabernacle or temple (Harris 453). Kapar or is to cover over with pitch. The cognate word is used in the Babylonian flood story and denominative verb is used only once in Genesis 6:14 in waterproofing of the ark. Atonement is use much more in the Old Testament because all of this was before Christ suffered for our sins. A lot of the books always kept saying that He died for our sins and that's true. But He also rose from the dead and they often times leave that part out. Sacrifices were made to redeem themselves in the eyes of God before Christ but since he atoned our sins, we no longer must give sacrifices. In the New Testament, atonement is found only once according to Strong's exhaustive concordance and that is in Romans 5:1. In the NRSV it is found twice in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 2:17. Translated in Greek it means Katallage or reconciliation. Reconcile is found two times, reconciled five times, reconciling one time, and reconciliation four times. In Greek the most common verb is and the noun. Paul is the only other in the New Testament that uses the word atonement or reconciliation. The basic meaning of reconciliation is to make otherwise. The transitive of it is to alter or to give exchange (Kittel, 251). Is to alter by removal, to do away, to liberate, to withdraw, or to escape. Means to reconcile. Means the exchange effected. Then the reconciliation, ( for which and are generally use). "It denotes the result of the diving salvation, i.e. the new molding of the relation in which the world stands to God, so far as it no longer remains the object of His wrath(Bullinger, 75). Reconciled or reconciliation seems to be the main usage in the New Testament. In 2 Corinthians 5:19, Paul writes "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, no longer holding people's misdeeds against them, and has entrusted us with the message of reconciliation." Christ was referred to as reconciling the world to himself. He was atoning the world to himself. He no longer held our bad deeds against us, our sins where forgiven and that is the message of reconciliation. There are two main different ways of using atonement. One is in a human trying to make an atonement so that he may be forgiven. The other is that we no longer need to make an atonement because the price has been paid with Jesus Christ. As said in class by yourself, "words don't have meaning, they have uses." There are many uses of the word atonement in the Old Testament but that was before the cross. After the cross there was no need to make an atonement for ones sins. Without sin, there would be no atonement in the Old Testament. Sin is the factor that of all atonement's. Sin is the reason for atonement which is no longer needed because of Christ. On a personal note, I would like to express how much more this paper did for me just learning about how to do a word study or learning about atonement. I was hungry one night so I headed to McDonalds to go eat. I took my research with me to organize it and work on it. I met this couple with a five year old daughter. They began asking me what I was working on and why. What my major was and questions like that. I began to witness to them and they were so receptive and want to know what I believed and stuff like that. They did not seem to know a whole lot about the church, they did not even know what a youth minister was. I felt sorry for their daughter. She probably didn't have the best home life and they did not seem to care about her a whole lot. I don't write this to try to get a better grade, I hope it doesn't affect my grade at all. I just wanted to share with you how this paper was the reason I was able to witness to a couple and their daughter and to spread happiness into their lives. Bibliography George V. Wigram. The Englishmans Hebrew Concordance. Grand Rapids MI, Baker Book House, 1980 John R. Kohlenberger III. NRSV Concordance Unabridged. Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan Publishing House. 1991 Gerhard Kittel. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. I and Vol X. Grand Rapids, MI/London WM. Eerdmanus Publishing Co. 1964 J.D. Douglas. New Bible Dictionary. Intervarsity Fellowship. 1982 James Strong. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1984 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L Archer Jr., Bruce K. Walter. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago, IL. 1980 Samuel Pri Deaux Tregelles. Hebrew and English Lexicon. Grand Rapids, MI WM B. Eerdman's Pub. 1949 Colin Brown. The New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids MI. Zondervan Publishing House. 1978 J.B. Smith. Greek-English Concordance. Scottsdale, Penn. Herald Press. 1955 Al Novak. Hebrew Honey. New York. Vantage Press. 1965 C.C. Morris. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Pt. 1. Intervarsity Press. 1980 John W. Ellison. Nelson's Complete Concordance of the RSV Bible. Nashville, TN. . Thomas Nelson Publishing. 1984 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Atonement.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Atonement Atonement in the larger sense deals with a common factor which is sin. The definition is a making at on which points to a process of bringing those who are enstranged into a unity(Douglas, 107). It is a theological term which derives from the Anglo-Saxon. The word atonement appears eighty seven times in the Old Testament in the RSV Bible(Nelson, 55). According to Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, which is using the King James Version, appears seventy seven times in the Old Testament and only once in the New Testament. In Leviticus, atonement appears fifty one times, more than any other book of the bible. In Numbers it appears seventeen times and in Exodus eleven times. The reason why it is used so much in Leviticus is that during that time period priest were intercessor's between the people and God. In the New Revised Standard Concordance, atonement appears eighty seven times. Out of those eighty seven times, eighty one appear with the word make or made. This would constitute that an atonement in these uses would cause the person who prepares the atonement to work at making an atonement. We find that in the New Testament we don't have to work to receive a pardon from our sins. The whole bible leads up to the cross and everything after the cross points back to the cross. Christ was the ultimate and final atonement for us. In the Old Testament their atonement to God was to always be unblemished for the sake of perfection (Morris, 147). They believed that the perfect atonement would set them free from all their sins and thus make them clean in God's eyes. The Hebrew word for atone is . It is used frequently for the process of sacrifice. It was thought that a man must make and atonement to God that was adequate to give to Him to pay for his sin. In Ezekiel 16:63 atonement is translated to mean "forgive". Words in the Old Testament are translated from the kpr word group in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for atonement is Kaphar. This is the main usage of the word but there are other words that are associated with atonement. or Kaphar means to cover. The figurative word which is used quite often is to expiate or condone. Other words associated with Kaphar are to be merciful, pardon, to pitch, purge(away), and to make reconcile. Or Kaphar is used for a village that is protected by walls. Or Kopher is also a cover or village covered. It is also bitumen which was used for a coating and dyeing colors. Words associated with Kopher are redemption, price, bribe, camphire, pitch, ransom, satisfaction, village. An interesting side point to the word Kopher is that it also denotes finger nail polish. Oriental females make a powder of camphire leaves then made the powder into a paste by use of water and put in on their finger which gave them a reddish color. The word camphire comes from the same root as atonement just as a sinner could pray for a colorful cover for his soul that was ruined by sin. Or Kippur means expiation but only in the plural. Expiation is found numerous times in the Old Testament for example in 2 Samuel 21:3, 1 Chronicles 6:49, and 2 Chronicles 29:24. The denominative verb which is to make an atonement, make reconciliation, or to purge is or Kapar. There are three parent nouns for atonement and they are Koper, Kippur, and Kapporet. Koper or means ransom or gift to secure favor. Exodus 30:12 and Isaiah 43:3 uses ransom and this is parallel to the word redeem. In 1 Samuel 12:3 Koper is used as "bribe". Kapar means to atone by offering a substitute. This may be better understood if you use ransom with Koper (Harris, 453). Kippur or is used in the "Day of the Atonement". This was celebrated by a special sin offering for the whole nation and only the high priest could be allowed to sacrifice a goat. A second goat was released as an escape goat to symbolize a total removal of sin. Kapporet is a noun which means mercy seat. It is used twenty seven times and always refers to the golden cover of the sacred chest in the inner shrine of the tabernacle or temple (Harris 453). Kapar or is to cover over with pitch. The cognate word is used in the Babylonian flood story and denominative verb is used only once in Genesis 6:14 in waterproofing of the ark. Atonement is use much more in the Old Testament because all of this was before Christ suffered for our sins. A lot of the books always kept saying that He died for our sins and that's true. But He also rose from the dead and they often times leave that part out. Sacrifices were made to redeem themselves in the eyes of God before Christ but since he atoned our sins, we no longer must give sacrifices. In the New Testament, atonement is found only once according to Strong's exhaustive concordance and that is in Romans 5:1. In the NRSV it is found twice in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 2:17. Translated in Greek it means Katallage or reconciliation. Reconcile is found two times, reconciled five times, reconciling one time, and reconciliation four times. In Greek the most common verb is and the noun . Paul is the only other in the New Testament that uses the word atonement or reconciliation. The basic meaning of reconciliation is to make otherwise. The transitive of it is to alter or to give exchange (Kittel, 251). Is to alter by removal, to do away, to liberate, to withdraw, or to escape. Means to reconcile. Means the exchange effected. Then the reconciliation, ( for which and are generally use). "It denotes the result of the diving salvation, i.e. the new molding of the relation in which the world stands to God, so far as it no longer remains the object of His wrath(Bullinger, 75). Reconciled or reconciliation seems to be the main usage in the New Testament. In 2 Corinthians 5:19, Paul writes "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, no longer holding people's misdeeds against them, and has entrusted us with the message of reconciliation." Christ was referred to as reconciling the world to himself. He was atoning the world to himself. He no longer held our bad deeds against us, our sins where forgiven and that is the message of reconciliation. There are two main different ways of using atonement. One is in a human trying to make an atonement so that he may be forgiven. The other is that we no longer need to make an atonement because the price has been paid with Jesus Christ. As said in class by yourself, "words don't have meaning, they have uses." There are many uses of the word atonement in the Old Testament but that was before the cross. After the cross there was no need to make an atonement for ones sins. Without sin, there would be no atonement in the Old Testament. Sin is the factor that of all atonement's. Sin is the reason for atonement which is no longer needed because of Christ. On a personal note, I would like to express how much more this paper did for me just learning about how to do a word study or learning about atonement. I was hungry one night so I headed to McDonalds to go eat. I took my research with me to organize it and work on it. I met this couple with a five year old daughter. They began asking me what I was working on and why. What my major was and questions like that. I began to witness to them and they were so receptive and want to know what I believed and stuff like that. They did not seem to know a whole lot about the church, they did not even know what a youth minister was. I felt sorry for their daughter. She probably didn't have the best home life and they did not seem to care about her a whole lot. I don't write this to try to get a better grade, I hope it doesn't affect my grade at all. I just wanted to share with you how this paper was the reason I was able to witness to a couple and their daughter and to spread happiness into their lives. Bibliography George V. Wigram. The Englishmans Hebrew Concordance. Grand Rapids MI, Baker Book House, 1980 John R. Kohlenberger III. NRSV Concordance Unabridged. Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan Publishing House. 1991 Gerhard Kittel. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. I and Vol X. Grand Rapids, MI/London WM. Eerdmanus Publishing Co. 1964 J.D. Douglas. New Bible Dictionary. Intervarsity Fellowship. 1982 James Strong. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1984 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L Archer Jr., Bruce K. Walter. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago, IL. 1980 Samuel Pri Deaux Tregelles. Hebrew and English Lexicon. Grand Rapids, MI WM B. Eerdman's Pub. 1949 Colin Brown. The New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids MI. Zondervan Publishing House. 1978 J.B. Smith. Greek-English Concordance. Scottsdale, Penn. Herald Press. 1955 Al Novak. Hebrew Honey. New York. Vantage Press. 1965 C.C. Morris. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Pt. 1. Intervarsity Press. 1980 John W. Ellison. Nelson's Complete Concordance of the RSV Bible. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson Publishing. 1984 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Aztec Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Aztec Religion Like all the Mexican peoples, the Aztecs worshiped a multitude of gods, each of whom demanded offerings and sacrifices. Above all, the Aztecs considered themselves the chosen people of HUITZILOPOCHTLI, the sun and war god, in whose name they were destined to conquer all rival nations. Huitzilopochtli shared the main temple at Tenochtitlan with Tlaloc, the rain god, important to the farmers in a land where drought was a constant threat. Another important god was QUETZALCOATL, the feathered serpent, patron of arts and crafts and the god of self- sacrifice. Religion was ever present. Each place and each trade had its patron deity: each day, and each division of the day, was watched over by its own god. Priests were expected to live in chastity, to mortify their flesh, and to understand astronomy, astrology, the complex rituals and ceremonies, and the art of picture writing. Games also formed part of the religious ritual. A popular ball game was lachtli, in which a small rubber ball had to be struck by the hips or thighs and knocked across a special court. In another ritual game, men attired as birds and attached to ropes were slung in a wide circle around a pole. The official state religion of the soldiers and noblemen was concerned primarily with the great and powerful gods: the creators, the solar deities, the patrons of the warrior orders. By contrast, the common people seem to have preferred the lesser, more accessible gods: the patrons of the craft guilds, the protectors of local shrines, and the deities who looked after the things of everyday life. For everyone, however, rich or poor, each month of the Aztec calendar had its festival, with music, dancing, processions, and sacrifices. All this came to an end with the Spanish conquest and the introduction of the Christian religion, although at the peasant level certain traditions from the Aztec heritage still survive in modern Mexico. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Baptism 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian History 102 Nicholas Ferrar Nicholas Ferrar was assumed to be born in 1592. I have found that his most probable birth date was in February of 1593. This is due to the usual calendar confusion: England was not at that time using the new calendar adopted in October 1582. It was 1593 according to our modern calendar, but at the time the new year in England began on the following March 25th. Nicholas Ferrar was one of the more interesting figures in English history. His family was quite wealthy and were heavily involved in the Virginia Company, which had a Royal Charter for the plantation of Virginia. People like Sir Walter Raleigh were often visitors to the family home in London. Ferrars niece was named Virginia, the first known use of this name. Ferrar studied at Cambridge and would have gone further with his studies but the damp air of the fens was bad for his health and he traveled to Europe, spending time in the warmer climate of Italy. On his return to England he found his family had fared badly. His brother John had become over extended financially and the Virginia Company was in danger of loosing its charter. Nicholas dedicated himself to saving the family fortune and was successful. He served for a short time as Member of Parliament, where he tried to promote the cause for the Virginia Company. His efforts were in vain for the company lost their charter anyway. Nicholas is given credit for founding a Christian community called the English Protestant Nunnery at Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire, England. After Ferrar was ordained as a deacon, he retired and started his little community. Ferrar was given help and support with his semi-religious community by John Collet, as well as Collet s wife and fourteen children. They devoted themselves to a life of prayer, fasting and almsgiving (Matthew 6:2,5,16). The community was founded in 1626, when Nicholas was 34 years old. Banning together, they restored an abandoned church that was being used as a barn. Being of wealthy decent, Ferrar purchased the manor of Little Gidding, a village which had been discarded since the Black Death (a major outbreak of the bubonic plague in the 14th century), a few miles off the Great North Road, and probably recommended by John Williams, Bishop of Lincoln whose palace was in the nearby village of Buckden. About thirty people along with Mary Ferrar (Ferrars mother) moved into the manor house. Nicholas became spiritual leader of the community. The community was very strict under the supervision of Nicholas. They read daily offices of the Book of Common Prayer, including the recital of the complete Psalter. every day. Day and night there was at least one member of the community kneeling in prayer at the alter, that they were keeping the word, Pray without ceasing. They taught the neighborhood children, and looked after the health and well being of the community. They fasted and in many ways embraced voluntary poverty so that they might have as much money as possible for the relief of the poor. They wrote books and stories dealing with various aspects of Christian faith and practice. The memory of the community survived to inspire and influence later undertakings of Christian communal living, and one of T.S. Eliots Four Quartets is called Little Gidding. Nicholas was a bookbinder and he taught the community the craft as well as gilding and the so-called pasting printing by means of a rolling press. The members of the community produced the remarkable Harmonies of the scriptures, one of which was produced by Mary Collet for King Charles I.. Some of the bindings were in gold toothed leather, some were in velvet which had a considerable amount of gold tooling. Some of the embroidered bindings of this period have also been attributed to the so-called nuns of Little Gidding. The community attracted much attention and was visited by the king, Charles I. He was attracted by a gospel harmony they had produced. The king asked to borrow it only to return it a few months later in exchange for a promise of a new harmony to give his son, Charles, Prince of Wales. This the Ferrars did, and the superbly produced and bound manuscript passed through the royal collection, and is now on display at the British Library. Nicholas Ferrar, who was never married, died in 1637, and was buried outside the church in Little Gidding. Nicholass brother John assumed the leadership of the community. John did his best to make the community thrive. He was visited by the king several times. At one time the king came for a visit with the Prince of Wales, he donated some money that he had won in a card game from the prince. The kings last visit was in secret and at night. He was fleeing from defeat from the battle of Naseby and was heading north to try to enlist support from the Scots. John brought him secretly to Little Gidding and got him away the next day. The community was now in much danger. The Presbyterian Puritans were now on the rise and the community was condemned with a series of pamphlets calling them an Arminian Nunnery (Ariminius was a Dutch reformer and theologian who opposed the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and election) In 1646 the community was forcibly broken up by Parliamentary soldiers. Their brass baptismal font was damaged, cast into the pond and not recovered until 200 years later. The village remained in the Ferrar family but it was not until the 18th century that the church was restored by another Nicholas Ferrar. Ferrar restored the church, shortened the nave by about 8 feet and built the dull facade that Eliot spoke of. In the mid 19th century, William Hodgkinson came along and restored the church more. He installed the armorial stain glass windows, (4 windows with the arms of Ferrar, Charles the 1st and Bishop Williams inserted). He then put in a rose window at the east end (this rose window was later replaced by a Palladian-style plain glass window). Hodgkinson recovered the brass font, restored it and reinstalled it in the church. An elaborate 18th century chandelier now hangs in the church, installed by Hodgkinson. from _Little Gidding_ by T.S. Eliot If you came this way, Taking any route, starting from anywhere, At any time or at any season, It would always be the same: you would have to put off Sense and notion. You are not here to verify, Instruct yourself, or inform curiosity Or carry report. You are here to kneel Where prayer has been valid. And prayer is more Than an order of words, the conscious occupation Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying. And what the dead had no speech for, when living, They can tell you, being dead: the communication Of the dead is tongued with fire beyond the language of the living. Here, the intersection of the timeless moment Is England and nowhere. Never and always. Bibliography Etherington & Roberts. Dictionary--Ferrar, Nicholas - Bookbinding and the Conservation of Books A Dictionary of Descriptive Terminology. Ferrar, Nicholas ( 1592-1637 ) Columbia Encyclopedia - Table Of Contents - Columbia Encyclopedia. F. Faber, Frederick William. Faber, Johannes. Fabian, Saint. Fabian Society. Fabius. Fabius, Laurent. fable. fabliau, plural... Christian Biographies Commemorated in November - FOR THE FEAST OF ALL SAINTS (1 NOV) FIRST READING: Ecclesiasticus 44:1-10,13-14 ("Let us now praise famous men...."; a commemoration of patriarchs,... A History Of The Church In England, J.R.H.Moorman, Morehouse Publishing copyright 1980 The Story Of Christianity, Justo L Gonzalez, Harper Collins Publishers copyright 1984 The Episcopal Church, David Locke Hippocrene Books, New York copyright 1991 4 4 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Baptism 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Baptism Baptism is the door to life and to the kingdom of God. Baptism in Christian churches, the universal rite of initiation, performed with water, usually in the name of the Trinity or in the name of Christ. Orthodox and Baptist churches require baptism by total immersion. In other churches, pouring and sprinkling are more common. Most churches regard baptism as a sacrament, or sign of grace; some regard it simply as an ordinance, or rite, commanded by Christ. Therefore, Baptism is the sacrament of faith by which we, enlightened by the Spirit's grace, respond to the Gospel of Christ. Scriptural Basis Jesus was baptized by John at the beginning of his public ministry. Although it is uncertain that Jesus himself baptized, the risen Christ commanded his disciples to preach to and baptize the nations as the sign of God's coming rule. Thus, from the outset, baptism became the Christian rite of initiation. Purpose and Symbols The purpose of this sacrament is to purify your soul and to destroy all evil. That is one of the main reasons why water is used for a symbol. Water is both destructive and creative which matches baptism. Water was used as a symbol of purification in many religions at a very early date. Other symbols of baptism include oil, a white cloth, and a candle. People able to receive Baptism Infants were probably baptized in the early church. Baptism was often postponed as long as possible. Between the 4th and 6th centuries, however, infant baptism began to be required. Now almost anyone can receive this sacrament old or young depending on what religion you are. The church believes that baptismal celebration should be: a) Made as soon as possible, and even before the child is born, the parish priest should be informed so that the proper preparations can be made. b) Done without delay, if the child is in danger of death. c) Made within the first weeks after birth if everything is all right. Part II Interview Mom- My mom was a baby when receiving baptism so it didn't mean much to her. She said that once you receive baptism that you cannot receive again so she would not like to receive it again. Her life changed because she became a member of the Church. Her godparents went through a two week course, she did nothing. Dad- My dad said, "I felt saved and believed I will go to heaven." Yes was his answer right away to the question, "Would you go through the sacrament again." He replied that he is a very religious guy. He felt it was a milestone in his religious development. He received this sacrament a late stage so he prepared by praying and reading the bible with his parents. Sister- My sister was a child when receiving this sacrament and didn't recall what it meant to her. She said that she would go through it again because it is a sign that you are a Christian. Her life has changed because she is now a Christian. She didn't go through any kind of preparation because she was so young. Part III I believe that this sacrament is a very special one. It is so important that you get godparents to help your spiritual growth. I have received this sacrament at an early age and if given the chance to receive it again, I would. In my opinion baptism should be given around the age of seven when the child is able to commit sin in the eyes of God. Never-the-less baptism is a very important step in one's life no matter when it was received. Bibliography Bible Encarta 96 Encyclopedia CD ROM. "Baptism." Windows 95 version Catechism of the Catholic Church c. 1983 Sacraments Today. "Baptism" p. 28, c.1978 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Baptism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Baptism is the door to life and to the kingdom of God. Baptism in Christian churches, the universal rite of initiation, performed with water, usually in the name of the Trinity or in the name of Christ. Orthodox and Baptist churches require baptism by total immersion. In other churches, pouring and sprinkling are more common. Most churches regard baptism as a sacrament, or sign of grace; some regard it simply as an ordinance, or rite, commanded by Christ. Therefore, Baptism is the sacrament of faith by which we, enlightened by the Spirit's grace, respond to the Gospel of Christ. Scriptural Basis Jesus was baptized by John at the beginning of his public ministry. Although it is uncertain that Jesus himself baptized, the risen Christ commanded his disciples to preach to and baptize the nations as the sign of God's coming rule. Thus, from the outset, baptism became the Christian rite of initiation. Purpose and Symbols The purpose of this sacrament is to purify your soul and to destroy all evil. That is one of the main reasons why water is used for a symbol. Water is both destructive and creative which matches baptism. Water was used as a symbol of purification in many religions at a very early date. Other symbols of baptism include oil, a white cloth, and a candle. People able to receive Baptism Infants were probably baptized in the early church. Baptism was often postponed as long as possible. Between the 4th and 6th centuries, however, infant baptism began to be required. Now almost anyone can receive this sacrament old or young depending on what religion you are. The church believes that baptismal celebration should be: a) Made as soon as possible, and even before the child is born, the parish priest should be informed so that the proper preparations can be made. b) Done without delay, if the child is in danger of death. c) Made within the first weeks after birth if everything is all right. Part II Interview Mom- My mom was a baby when receiving baptism so it didn't mean much to her. She said that once you receive baptism that you cannot receive again so she would not like to receive it again. Her life changed because she became a member of the Church. Her godparents went through a two week course, she did nothing. Dad- My dad said, "I felt saved and believed I will go to heaven." Yes was his answer right away to the question, "Would you go through the sacrament again." He replied that he is a very religious guy. He felt it was a milestone in his religious development. He received this sacrament a late stage so he prepared by praying and reading the bible with his parents. Sister- My sister was a child when receiving this sacrament and didn't recall what it meant to her. She said that she would go through it again because it is a sign that you are a Christian. Her life has changed because she is now a Christian. She didn't go through any kind of preparation because she was so young. Part III I believe that this sacrament is a very special one. It is so important that you get godparents to help your spiritual growth. I have received this sacrament at an early age and if given the chance to receive it again, I would. In my opinion baptism should be given around the age of seven when the child is able to commit sin in the eyes of God. Never-the-less baptism is a very important step in one's life no matter when it was received. Bibliography Bible Encarta 96 Encyclopedia CD ROM. "Baptism." Windows 95 version Catechism of the Catholic Church c. 1983 Sacraments Today. "Baptism" p. 28, c.1978 Word Count: 630 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Barnabas 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Barnabas I. Who was Barnabas? II. Where is he first mentioned in the Bible? III. Barnabas' introduction of Saul to the apostles IV. His mission work with Paul V. His departure from Paul VI. Barnabas as a writer VII. His Death Barnabas was a native of the island of Cyprus. His birthplace makes him a Jew of the Diaspora, the dispersion of Jews outside Palestine or modern Israel. He was originally named Joseph but the apostles called him Barnabas, he probably acquired this name because of his ability as a preacher. The name Barnabas was understood by Luke to mean "Son of Encouragement" (Acts 4:36). Barnabas was an apostle of the secondary group, companion of Paul on his mission to Cyprus and the Pisidian mainland. Barnabas first appears in Luke's account of communal living in the Jerusalem church, as a man of some means who gave to the church the proceeds from the sale of a piece land, "Barnabas sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet" (Acts 4:36-37). After the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7:54-8:1, the church was persecuted and scattered, "On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison" Acts 8:1-3. In Acts 9:26-27, "Saul tries to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus." Barnabas thus belongs to the company of first converts in Jerusalem who were won by the apostolic preaching, if not by Jesus himself. Though not a native, Barnabas had the confidence of the apostles. Later he was sent to join the company of workers at Antioch, to preach to Jews, Hellenists, and Greeks (Acts 11:19-22). As the work of the Antioch church expanded and more workers were needed, Barnabas went over to Tarsus and brought back with him Saul. It seems that Barnabas was the leader of the Antioch church, and the order which Luke gives, "Barnabas and Saul," indicates the pre-eminence. It was "Barnabas and Saul" who carried relief funds from Antioch to the famine- stricken Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). Barnabas was commissioned by the Antioch church, along with Saul and John Mark, to undertake the missionary journey which led them to Cyprus and later to the provinces of the mainland. While on the island of Cyprus, two major changes occur, Saul is now called Paul and the leadership role changes from Barnabas to Paul (Acts 13:9). Once on the mainland the group would be referred to as "Paul and his company" (Acts 13:13). In Lystra there was a wave of enthusiasm on the part of the natives, and Barnabas was given the title "Zeus", while Paul was only "Hermes" the spokesman (Acts 14:12). The reason for the fanfare in honor of Barnabas and Paul was occasioned by an ancient legend that told of a supposed visit to the same general area by Zeus and Hermes. They were, however, not recognized by anyone except an old couple. So the people of Lystra were determined not to allow such an oversight to happen again. Leadership again changes back to Barnabas after the stoning of Paul in Lystra and "he and Barnabas left for Derbe" (Acts 14:19-20). Luke's account of the conference at Jerusalem (Acts 15) again places Barnabas at the front, indicating that Barnabas was in better standing than Paul in Jerusalem. "Barnabas and Paul" made the report in the conference relating to the work which had been done among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). The document which was sent by the conference recommending "Barnabas and Paul" to the Syrian and Cilician churches again shows Luke's knowledge of the relative standing of the two men in Jerusalem. The separation of Barnabas from Paul and their divergent missionary activity began in Antioch after the Jerusalem conference. The issue which Luke gives was the taking of John Mark on another journey (Acts 15:36). John Mark's defection at Cyprus (Acts 13:13) seemed to Paul to be sufficient grounds for dropping him from the party. Barnabas was extremely devoted to John Mark because they were cousins (Col 4:10), and leaving Paul, Barnabas took John Mark on a separate mission again to Cyprus. Luke's cryptic words "sailed away to Cyprus" (Acts 15:39) are his farewell to Barnabas. The testimony of the later church gives Barnabas a role as writer. Tertullian assigned to him the authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews. Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen gave him credit for the epistle which bears his name and they gave it canonical standing because they rated its author as an apostle. However, the nature of both Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas is hard to reconcile with the conservative tendencies of Barnabas as indicated in Galatians, and the identification of Barnabas with Jerusalem in the book of Acts. Moreover, the Epistle of Barnabas seems to be dated A.D. 130 on internal evidence, and too late for our Barnabas. An exact date for the death of Barnabas was not found, Luke ends the book of Acts around A.D. 67 so Barnabas must have died sometime after this. However, Barnabas died by martyrdom in Cyprus. Scriptures from the Holy Bible, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) 356. Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible, The NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995) 1654. Scriptures from the Holy Bible, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) 356. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\BARNABAS.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Barnabas I. Who was Barnabas? II. Where is he first mentioned in the Bible? III. Barnabas' introduction of Saul to the apostles IV. His mission work with Paul V. His departure from Paul VI. Barnabas as a writer VII. His Death Barnabas was a native of the island of Cyprus. His birthplace makes him a Jew of the Diaspora, the dispersion of Jews outside Palestine or modern Israel. He was originally named Joseph but the apostles called him Barnabas, he probably acquired this name because of his ability as a preacher. The name Barnabas was understood by Luke to mean "Son of Encouragement" (Acts 4:36). Barnabas was an apostle of the secondary group, companion of Paul on his mission to Cyprus and the Pisidian mainland. Barnabas first appears in Luke's account of communal living in the Jerusalem church, as a man of some means who gave to the church the proceeds from the sale of a piece land, "Barnabas sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet" (Acts 4:36-37). After the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7:54-8:1, the church was persecuted and scattered, "On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison" Acts 8:1-3. In Acts 9:26-27, "Saul tries to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus." Barnabas thus belongs to the company of first converts in Jerusalem who were won by the apostolic preaching, if not by Jesus himself. Though not a native, Barnabas had the confidence of the apostles. Later he was sent to join the company of workers at Antioch, to preach to Jews, Hellenists, and Greeks (Acts 11:19-22). As the work of the Antioch church expanded and more workers were needed, Barnabas went over to Tarsus and brought back with him Saul. It seems that Barnabas was the leader of the Antioch church, and the order which Luke gives, "Barnabas and Saul," indicates the pre-eminence. It was "Barnabas and Saul" who carried relief funds from Antioch to the famine-stricken Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). Barnabas was commissioned by the Antioch church, along with Saul and John Mark, to undertake the missionary journey which led them to Cyprus and later to the provinces of the mainland. While on the island of Cyprus, two major changes occur, Saul is now called Paul and the leadership role changes from Barnabas to Paul (Acts 13:9). Once on the mainland the group would be referred to as "Paul and his company" (Acts 13:13). In Lystra there was a wave of enthusiasm on the part of the natives, and Barnabas was given the title "Zeus", while Paul was only "Hermes" the spokesman (Acts 14:12). The reason for the fanfare in honor of Barnabas and Paul was occasioned by an ancient legend that told of a supposed visit to the same general area by Zeus and Hermes. They were, however, not recognized by anyone except an old couple. So the people of Lystra were determined not to allow such an oversight to happen again. Leadership again changes back to Barnabas after the stoning of Paul in Lystra and "he and Barnabas left for Derbe" (Acts 14:19-20). Luke's account of the conference at Jerusalem (Acts 15) again places Barnabas at the front, indicating that Barnabas was in better standing than Paul in Jerusalem. "Barnabas and Paul" made the report in the conference relating to the work which had been done among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). The document which was sent by the conference recommending "Barnabas and Paul" to the Syrian and Cilician churches again shows Luke's knowledge of the relative standing of the two men in Jerusalem. The separation of Barnabas from Paul and their divergent missionary activity began in Antioch after the Jerusalem conference. The issue which Luke gives was the taking of John Mark on another journey (Acts 15:36). John Mark's defection at Cyprus (Acts 13:13) seemed to Paul to be sufficient grounds for dropping him from the party. Barnabas was extremely devoted to John Mark because they were cousins (Col 4:10), and leaving Paul, Barnabas took John Mark on a separate mission again to Cyprus. Luke's cryptic words "sailed away to Cyprus" (Acts 15:39) are his farewell to Barnabas. The testimony of the later church gives Barnabas a role as writer. Tertullian assigned to him the authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews. Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen gave him credit for the epistle which bears his name and they gave it canonical standing because they rated its author as an apostle. However, the nature of both Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas is hard to reconcile with the conservative tendencies of Barnabas as indicated in Galatians, and the identification of Barnabas with Jerusalem in the book of Acts. Moreover, the Epistle of Barnabas seems to be dated A.D. 130 on internal evidence, and too late for our Barnabas. An exact date for the death of Barnabas was not found, Luke ends the book of Acts around A.D. 67 so Barnabas must have died sometime after this. However, Barnabas died by martyrdom in Cyprus.  Scriptures from the Holy Bible, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) 356.  Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible, The NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995) 1654.  Scriptures from the Holy Bible, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) 356.  f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Betrayal by God.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ To tell you the truth I have never really felt betrayed by God. It's most likely due to the fact that I haven't had many significant life experiences come up. Also when something goes wrong I don't look at God as a scapegoat. I feel you should blame whoever or whatever caused the tragedy. Blaming God is just the easy way out or just a quick answer to your problems. All this aside and even though I've never felt betrayed, I know others who have. I work at a deli in my town and it recently burnt down. If I were the owner, I would have felt betrayed or denied. I mean, it's his life. It's the way he supports his family. One day he woke up and it was gone. Even worse is the time of year it happened, Christmas. This is the time when you need every penny but the only thing he's getting now is lost-wages paid by his insurance company. It doesn't even close to what he would be making if the deli were still up and running. But it's better than nothing, I guess. His business has been through a lot of hardships over the last 16 years. Another difficulty was the building of the Blue Route near his business. The construction blocked almost everyone from entering the building. I don't know if you could blame God for that sort of problem or maybe it was just fate. But with these dilemmas and problems, he didn't question why God allowed these things to happen. He looked insstead to the way he benefited from the experiences. One benefit was it made him stronger mentally aand spiritually. To keep a business going for three years with minimal customers is hard. It takes dedication and will to show up every morning and basically prepare for nothing, but he did . He was much more grateful when people came in and developed a better business. Perhaps God knew what He was doing. Even the fire was a blessing in disguise. Some of the equipment was getting old and things just weren't all in top condition. So now he will have new equipment, walls, ceiling and so on. He wouldn't have had the pocket money to do this alone. Now you might be thinking it was just an insurance scam, but he had many inspectors come in and checked the cause . It was faulty wiring. God might have seen that things weren't exactly great and things needed to be done to help out in the future. The deli equipment might have not been falling apart but in the future it could have and possible at an even worse moment when money was even more scarce. So having a fire around now might have been easier to deal with then say if his daughter was getting married and then equipment broke. Money for a wedding is ten fold compared to the money for Christmas. My boss didn't dispair when the fire took his business. He trusted God. In a sense maybe everything did work out for the better becaause he will have newer deli to better support himself and his family. . Now I don't really know if any of this had anything to do with God but if my boss looked to God to comfort, he probably got it. For some people God is involved in everything and therefore people look to Him for help and guidance and that's how they pull through things. I don't think you should blame your problems on God. Instead think about them, look to God for strength and possibly problems and disappointments will be easier to bear. Peter Surrena - Period 2 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Betrayed By God.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Betrayed By God To tell you the truth I have never really felt betrayed by God. It's most likely due to the fact that I haven't had many significant life experiences come up. Also when something goes wrong I don't look at God as a scapegoat. I feel you should blame whoever or whatever caused the tragedy. Blaming God is just the easy way out or just a quick answer to your problems. All this aside and even though I've never felt betrayed, I know others who have. I work at a deli in my town and it recently burnt down. If I were the owner, I would have felt betrayed or denied. I mean, it's his life. It's the way he supports his family. One day he woke up and it was gone. Even worse is the time of year it happened, Christmas. This is the time when you need every penny but the only thing he's getting now is lost-wages paid by his insurance company. It doesn't even close to what he would be making if the deli were still up and running. But it's better than nothing, I guess. His business has been through a lot of hardships over the last 16 years. Another difficulty was the building of the Blue Route near his business. The construction blocked almost everyone from entering the building. I don't know if you could blame God for that sort of problem or maybe it was just fate. But with these dilemmas and problems, he didn't question why God allowed these things to happen. He looked insstead to the way he benefited from the experiences. One benefit was it made him stronger mentally aand spiritually. To keep a business going for three years with minimal customers is hard. It takes dedication and will to show up every morning and basically prepare for nothing, but he did . He was much more grateful when people came in and developed a better business. Perhaps God knew what He was doing. Even the fire was a blessing in disguise. Some of the equipment was getting old and things just weren't all in top condition. So now he will have new equipment, walls, ceiling and so on. He wouldn't have had the pocket money to do this alone. Now you might be thinking it was just an insurance scam, but he had many inspectors come in and checked the cause . It was faulty wiring. God might have seen that things weren't exactly great and things needed to be done to help out in the future. The deli equipment might have not been falling apart but in the future it could have and possible at an even worse moment when money was even more scarce. So having a fire around now might have been easier to deal with then say if his daughter was getting married and then equipment broke. Money for a wedding is ten fold compared to the money for Christmas. My boss didn't dispair when the fire took his business. He trusted God. In a sense maybe everything did work out for the better becaause he will have newer deli to better support himself and his family. . Now I don't really know if any of this had anything to do with God but if my boss looked to God to comfort, he probably got it. For some people God is involved in everything and therefore people look to Him for help and guidance and that's how they pull through things. I don't think you should blame your problems on God. Instead think about them, look to God for strength and possibly problems and disappointments will be easier to bear. Peter Surrena - Period 2 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Bhagavad Gita.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bhagavad-Gita The Bhagavad-Gita begins with the preparation of battle between the two opposing sides: on the left stands the collected armies of the one hundred sons of Dhritarashtra and on the right lies the soldiers of the Pandava brothers. Warring relatives feuding over the right to govern the land of Kurukshetra, both forces stand poised and ready to slaughter one another. The warrior Arjuna, leader of the Pandava armies, readies himself as his charioteer, the god Krishna, steers toward the opposition when the armies are ready to attack. Arjuna stops Krishna short before the two sides clash together. Hesitation and pity creeps into Arjuna's heart as he surveys his family and relatives on the other side; he loses his will to win at the cost of the lives he still loves. As Arjuna sets down his bow and prepares for his own death, the god Krishna begins his council with Arjuna, where Krishna uses various ideas on action, self-knowledge, and discipline to reveal to Arjuna the freedom to be attained from the suffering of man once Arjuna finds his devotion to Krishna. Before Krishna begins his teachings, Arjuna analyzes his emotions and describes to Krishna the way his heart feels. "Krishna, I seek no victory, or kingship or pleasures" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 25). Arjuna admits that he stands to gain nothing of real worth from the war. He knows he cannot consciously triumph over family for his own wealth and glory. "We [Pandava brothers] sought kingships, delights, and pleasures for the sake of those assembled to abandon their lives and fortunes in battle" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 25). Arjuna continues on to state that once the family is destroyed and family duty is lost, only chaos is left to overcome what remains. He goes so far as to describe how chaos swells to corrupt even the women in the families, creating disorder in society. Arjuna tells Krishna that the punishment for men who undermine the duties of the family are destined for a place in hell. Finally, Arjuna asks Krishna which is right: the tie to sacred duty or reason? Krishna begins his explanation by stating that all life on earth is indestructible. "Never have I not existed, nor you, nor these kings; and never in the future shall we cease to exist" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 31). Because life has always been, reasons Krishna, then how can man kill or be killed when there is no end to the self? Also, Krishna tells Arjuna that his emotions of sorrow and pity are fleeting, and that endurance is all that is necessary to outlast the temporary thoughts. "If you fail to wage this war of sacred duty, you will abandon your own duty and fame only to gain evil" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 34). Krishna reinforces the idea of dharma, reminding Arjuna of the consequences faced when one does not fulfill the duty set before him. "Your own duty done imperfectly is better than another man's done well. It is better to die in one's own duty, another man's duty is perilous" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 46). Doing one's job poorly is preferable to doing another's well. Even if talents lie in a different area, the duty one is assigned to is the responsibility of the individual. Failure of Arjuna to abide by his duty would have a profound effect on his worldly life as well. Enemies would slander Arjuna and companions would lose faith and respect in the man they once held in such high favor. If Arjuna loses his life, then he gains heaven and if he wins then he gains the earth; thus there is no need for Arjuna to fear for his own fate. To complete his sacred duty, Arjuna must perform the necessary actions for the duty to be achieved. "Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attractions to the fruits and attachment to inaction!" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 36). In the third teaching, the abstinence from action fails because one cannot merely reject one's actions and find success. Inaction threatens the well-being of the physical body, warns Krishna. Discovered through techniques like yoga and inner reflection, action allows the freedom of the self to be found and attained. Once Arjuna loses desire in the consequences of his actions, then a new kind of discipline can be realized. Understanding, rated superior to action by the god Krishna, provides the necessary tools to perform the skills needed to execute the action. Krishna warns Arjuna that this understanding can be lost once man begins a downward process by lusting after pleasurable objects which creates desire, and from desire anger is born, from anger arises confusion, from confusion comes memory loss, and from this the loss of understanding, signaling the ruin of man. Krishna blames Arjuna's current emotions on worldly desires, and encourages Arjuna to seek a detachment from these worldly ties, so that the duty may be completed and Arjuna will achieve his release from human suffering. The discussion of passion in the fourteenth teaching illustrates one of many inconsistencies in Krishna's argument. "Know that passion is emotional, born of craving and attachment, it binds the embodied self with attachment to action" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 122). Previously, Krishna counseled that a strong detachment from action, as well as from the fruits of action, is necessary for the success of the endeavor. In a sense, Krishna says that passion creates the drive and will needed to accomplish an action. "When passion increases, Arjuna, greed and activity, involvement in actions, disquiet, and longing arise" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 122). Exactly what merits the longing remains to be seen; Krishna gives the impression that this craving may deal with the fruits of action, a clear contradiction to Krishna's past words. In this sense, Krishna describes a unit of the three qualities that bind man to the self. Including passion, lucidity, and dark inertia, these qualities (while being praised by Krishna) must be transcended for the achievement of liberation. To receive all knowledge of the cosmos and the self, Arjuna learns of Krishna himself. Krishna describes himself as having eight aspects: earth, fire, water, wind, space, mind, understanding, and individuality. These are his more worldly factors labeled as his lower nature. His upper nature is Krishna's ability to sustain the universe, and be the source of all in existence. The three qualities of nature arise from him, as well as the beneficial aspects of strength without desire and desire without imposing on the duty all man must possess. "The disciplined man of knowledge is set apart by his singular devotion; I am dear to the man of knowledge, and he is dear to me" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 73). To Krishna, the man of wisdom and knowledge goes hand in hand with the man who has complete devotion to the god. Krishna likens the man of knowledge to himself, saying "...self-disciplined, he holds me to be the highest way" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 73), once again establishing the need for complete submission. Knowledge, while seen as a way to achieve freedom, requires enough discipline to be able to fully devote oneself to the god Krishna. It is through devotion, Krishna reveals, that man can truly achieve freedom from life and death. "By devotion alone can I, as I really am, be known and seen and entered into, Arjuna" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 108). In his teaching on devotion, Krishna tells Arjuna to "renounce all actions to me" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 112) In the fifth teaching, Krishna calls for the release from attachment and the fruit of the action, saying that once this occurs, then joy is found in the detached individual. Yet, freedom can not be achieved through renunciation alone; it is action with discipline that is essential for the success of the enlightened. As Krishna continues his discourse, he begins to talk about the divine and demonic qualities inherent in all of man. "All creatures in the world are either divine or demonic;" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 133). Apparently, all creatures are naturally good or evil. "...do not despair, Arjuna, you were born with the divine" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 133). Born with the quality of good or evil, the individual is fated to be what is in his nature. If it is his duty to be evil, then it is at evil that the man will succeed. Krishna states that living in evil leads to the bondage of the self in worldly things. Unable to free himself, the demonic man is forced to repeat the cycle of life and death in an everlasting pattern as Krishna casts each evil man back into demonic wombs. Krishna also identifies the evil man as a slave to his own desires. Controlled and dictated by futile efforts, "they hoard wealth in stealthy ways to satisfy their desires" (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 134). The god also warns against three gates of hell: desire, anger, and greed. The renunciation of these allows for the release of the self. In the seventeenth teaching, Krishna discusses the differences in the nature of man. As stated before, these three aspects (also thought of as aspects of faith) are lucidity, passion, and dark inertia. The lucid man sacrifices to the gods, eats of the rich and savory foods, and sacrifices with all the traditions met. The man of passion sacrifices to the spirits and demons, eats harsh and bitter food that cause suffering, and sacrifices only to gain. The man of dark inertia sacrifices to the dead and ghosts, eats food that has long spoiled, and sacrifices void of faith or any real emotion. Into one of these three types fits every human on earth. Krishna praises the lucid while warning of the passionate and the darkly inert. The discussion comes to a close when Krishna begins to summarize and conclude the points he has already mentioned. He specifies the difference between "renunciation" and "relinquishment". Renunciation is the refusal of action grounded in desire, while relinquishment is the rejection of the fruit of action. In death, the relinquishing of the fruits allows the self to lose all ties to the body and the desires that go with it. Krishna reminds him that resistance to his duty, that is, refusal to go into battle is futile because Arjuna's nature compels him to it. Krishna spurns Arjuna to go against his will and do what his heart forbids. Arjuna learns to take refuge in Krishna and to commit fully to him. Krishna vows that Arjuna will be received to him in good time. "Arjuna, have you listened with you full powers of reason? Has the delusion of ignorance now been destroyed?" "Krishna, my delusion is destroyed, and by your grace I have regained memory; I stand here, my doubt dispelled, ready to act on your words." (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 153) Thus Arjuna, through his discourse with the god Krishna, accepted his duty with devotion and learned how to overcome his desire, while freeing himself from all worldly suffering. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Bible Book of Job.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bible - Book of Job One area in the bible which I have a problem understanding is the story in the beginning of Job. In this book, God talks to Satan and brags about His servant Job. He then goes on to bet with Satan, that whatever Job does, he will not renounce his faith in God. There are a couple of reasons this strikes me as odd. First of all, why would God, who is all knowing want to have anything to do with making deals with Satan? Secondly, why would Satan be interested in making deals with God, if he knows God already has the future planned out? Lastly, why would God put unnecessary affliction on His best man if it were only to prove a point to Satan? Maybe one of the reasons God would take a bet on by Satan in the book of Job is to teach a lesson to, not only Job and Satan, but the reader of the story. I think an important point of the story is the underlying theme; bad things don't just happen to bad people. There is no other apparent justification for what God put on Job. Maybe something has to happen to one person, to be able to save a thousand. The other side of the story is seen on the part of the Satan, who unwisely, decided to challenge God to a contest, which you think he would know he was unable to win. So why would Satan waste his time making a bet that he knew he would lose? The only reason I can see is that he truly thought Job would fall under the circumstances. This exchange between Satan and God seems like a no win situation. God, on one hand would never have made a bet, which would result in Him, appearing weaker or him losing. But, Satan was stupid enough to make a bet with God, which he surely knew wasn't going to result in a victory. The last question I presented was, why God would put unnecessary affliction on his most honorable and blameless man? This part of the story is what I think of as the most important. Job, just because he was righteous, thought that he didn't deserve to have anything bad happen to him. God made a point in the story when he chose Job as the object of His bet. Not only did God prove something to Satan, but to Job as well. I think Job put it best when he said "With nothing from the ground I came, and with nothing I shall return." In conclusion, I think it important to acknowledge how strong Job was during his time of trial. If we can all learn something from this story, it's that we have to have faith, in ourselves, in each other and in God. Without faith one is sure to crumble. If Job were any less of a man, he surely would not have delt with the scrutiny place on him. Maybe the real reason God displayed his power over Job is because He knew he could take it. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Bishop Francis X Ford.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Martyr's Victory in a Spiritual Sense Bishop Francis X. Ford was a well educated, enormously gentle man, that was kicked, beaten, insulted, and surrounded by hatred. All this because of one mans beliefs. He was born in Brooklyn in 1892. He was the founder of the Maryknoll Missionaries and was the first bishop of Kwantung, China. He was killed in the late 1950's in China, he was charged with anti-Communist, counterrevolutionary, and espionage activities, his real "crime" was for being a Christian and a foreigner. During his life Bishop Ford illustrated the cardinal virtue of fortitude, which is the ability to overcome fear in order to pursue good; "it is an active sake to overcome evil for the sake of gods kingdom" said Huggard. When he took office in China, the country was already feeling the effects of the massive Japanese advance across Asia. In a short time millions lost there lives and were driven from there homes. Bishop ford refused to leave the war-torn country, even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the war. During this time he distinguished himself by the way he cared for war refugees. Chinese paid a terrible price during this war with Japan, but even more costly was a civil war that followed. Bishop Ford exemplified the virtue of fortitude, by not leaving the war-torn country and staying to try to pursue good. During this time of war, many would wonder what was the reason for him to stay in China, and what was his why to live? In the Novel A Mans Search For Meaning, Nietzsche says "he who has a why to live can bear with almost any how". If Ford had left the country during the time of war, there would have probably been no hope for the war refugees that didn't have the option to stay or go. His why to live was not to save himself, but to save others. In the Novel Frankl describes the human person as a meaning maker, who has the last human freedom namely to choose one attitude in a given set of circumstances. In 1950, he moved from his Diocese in Kaying China, to a political prison in Canton 200, miles away. At every stop along the way he was put on public display and humiliated. His attitude during these stops was not to give and let the humiliation make get to him, but to use it as a stepping stone to fight harder, he did the inevitable he used the humiliation to make him better. In his life he examplified many of the things Frankl wrote about, but he also depicted many of the quotes in the hallway of Kellenberg Memorial High School. There is one quote that stood out to me more than any of the quotes on the wall it is.......... COURAGE "Don't follow where the path may lead ......go instead where there is no path and leave a trail". When Bishop was young he developed his own idealism. While a student in Cathedral college in New York he took an interest in the Christian Foreign Mission Society, this society was new and had few members. At the age of 20, he became the first seminarian of the Maryknoll Missionaries to go abroad. In time, many followed and the missionaries began a movement to Christianize foreign lands. Bishop Ford is consider the pioneer of this movement. Just like the quote said, he led the path.....and many followed. Bishop Ford died at the mercy of those who despised him, with-out any comfort or support. His death was martyrdom it's truest sense, despite the isolation and horror he held to his beliefs. Works Cited Funk & Wagnalls. Microsoft Encarta: Bishop Ford. New York: Houghton Mifflin Comp, 1994. Welk, Donald. Asian Missionaries. Minnesota: Patch Publishing, 1981. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Bodily Resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bodily Resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15: 42-54 By: Joe Scholar One of the most significant issues concerning nearly all religions, Christianity among them, concerns the fate of men following their death. Believing in an inevitable resurrection of the body among the faithful, Paul, a principle founder of Christianity, asserted his beliefs on the nature of bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15: 42-54. As eternity tends to last a long time, believing Christians (even agnostics such as myself) would likely be somewhat eager to arrive at an accurate interpretation of Paul's message found in the above verses, so as to glean insight as to what might await them following their last heartbeat. The approach I will take in analyzing 1 Corinthians: 42-54 will be to: 1) explain how the verses fit in with the overall structure of the book; 2) to explain and paraphrase the meaning behind the passage; 3) relate the verses to similar passages expressed elsewhere by Paul; 4) and lastly to touch upon some of the controversy associated with the verses. 1 Corinthians was written around 54 C.E. and was addressed to the congregation which was made up primarily of gentiles and was located in Corinth. At the time, Corinth was a highly urbanized and religiously diverse city which made it very conducive to the early Christian movement. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was written as a response to a letter he had received (which did not survive) from the Corinthians in which Paul was asked to settle various disputes that were arising within the struggling congregation. Writing in apostolic fashion to the congregation he had founded, Paul's letter while pastoral, answered numerous questions and demanded numerous changes ranging from: the rich eating with the poor at the church suppers (11:18-22); to curbing the acceptance of sexual immorality (5:1-13); to abstaining from taking fellow Christians to court (6:12-20); to answering the question on the acceptability of eating meat begot from pagan sacrifice (8:1-13); to the role of women in the church (11:2-16); to the importance of prophesying (14:1-40); and much, much more. It was under these auspices that Paul answered the question of whether man would be with or without a body following resurrection. Although all of the 15th chapter deals with issues of resurrection, the place of the body is curtly addressed in verses 42-54 and is prefaced with the 35th verse which asks, "But someone will ask, ŒHow are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?'"(15:35). Paul believed that at the time of the resurrection the perishable body would be transformed into an imperishable body, that would neither be a ghost- like spirit nor a fleshly body, but rather some sort of combination of the two. As Sanders phrases it, "...resurrection means transformed body, not walking corpse or disembodied spirit." As William Wrede describes Paul's transformation of the body, "He says that they Œare dead' or Œare risen again' Œwith Christ'; or more specifically Œthey are dead to sin, to the Law,' Œcrucified to the world' ; Œthe body of sin is destroyed'; Œthey are no longer in the flesh'; or else he says simply that they are Œdead'" Paul, whether because he does not recognize the need for further elaboration, or equally as likely, as he does not know how to accurately elaborate further, does not offer any greater explanation as to the nature of the new imperishable body. Seemingly similar to changing one's clothes, Paul simply explains the transformation, in the capacity of the mortal body Œputting on' immortality. The nearly tautological backbone behind Paul's reasoning is that the since the mortal, by definition isn't immortal, in order to gain an eternal life, the mortal must necessarily become immortal. As Wrede interestingly interprets it, " If the misery of man consists in his habitation in the flesh, his happiness must depend on his liberation from the flesh, that is, on his death." Moreover, once immortality is put on, death, the previously inevitable enemy of the mortal, will be destroyed. As Paul crisply writes in verse 54, "When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: ŒDeath has been swallowed up in victory.'"(15:54). The single implied description Paul does make sure to include regarding the body, is the notion that the resurrected imperishable body will bear a likeness and similarity to the fleshly body that preceded it. Having believed he had seen Jesus's resurrected body (as he wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:1) which presumably outwardly appeared as Jesus's previously fleshly body, in order to establish the continuity of personhood, in verses 37-38 Paul used the analogy of man as a seed that although when planted is in one form (physical-earthly) becomes something different when grown (spiritual-heavenly) yet throughout the metamorphasis it is still the same plant. Maintaining the theme of continuity in verse 44 Paul writes, "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body."(15:44). In verses 45-49 Paul refers to both passages from the Old Testament and also some of his other letters in order to explain the different domains of the two Adams. Believing in an actually historic Adam, in verse 45 Paul writes "Thus it is written, "The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (15:45). Demonstrating his command of the scriptures (at that time the bible only consisted of the Old Testament) takes this from the verse in Geneis 2:7 which says, "then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man [Adam] became a human being."(Genesis 2:7). The last Adam refers to Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul writes, "For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ."(21-22). The idea that the presence of death can be destroyed and that man can gain eternal life through the grace given by Jesus Christ (who is considered the second Adam) is congruent with other letters written by Paul. In Romans 5:21 Paul writes, "...so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."(Romans 5:21). Because he believed the Lord's return was very near, Paul thought that not everyone living at the time of his writing would die. More specifically, Barrett argues that Paul thought that not only was the coming of the Christ very near, but that it was already actually taking place. Arguing for what he believes Paul thought, Barrett writes, "The coming of Christ is not an event that has somehow to be hurried along; it has already happenned. Yet it has not finally happened; he has come, and he will come." In verses 51-52 Paul writes, "Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."(51-52). The above passage has well generated a good deal of controversy for some modern day Christians. When we are all changed, will we all Œbe zapped' up into heaven? If we aren't zapped into heaven, will we remain living for eternity on this earth? Since in verse 52, Paul mentions the dead rising before the transformation among the living, will the dead necessarily rise prior to our transformation? When they do rise, will they, like Jesus, remain on this earth for any period of time? Or rather will they go straight to heaven? If they do go straight to heaven, will we see them? Perhaps more importantly, if the dead will rise only after the trumpet has sounded, assuming the trumpet hasn' t sounded, where or in what state are the dead now? Are they not currently in heaven? Of particular interest (via necessity) to this author, what happens to bad persons when they die? Do or will they be forced to put on an immortal body that will allow them to suffer forever in an eternal torment? Is not an immortal body only for the righteous? Does not the last trumpet have to play for them to gain that immortal body? If so, when will that last trumpet sound? As Paul thought, has the first trumpet really began yet? As people have a natural curiosity of what awaits them following death, issues related to resurrection and Paul's views concerning those issues, will likely be sought for years to come. Although we know that Paul thought the perishable body must be transformed into an imperishable body in order to gain everlasting life, and that the spiritual body would be congruent with the physical body; as we do not have much concensus regarding the answers to the questions in the preceding paragraph, it is evident that there is much we do not (and perhaps cannot) know concerning the truths of life after death, according to Paul or any other biblical author for that matter. Perhaps, if and when the Lord does return, we will be made aware. Hopefully, the experience of gaining that awareness will be a pleasant one for us all. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Bodily Resurrection and 1 Corinthians 154254.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bodily Resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15: 42-54 By: Joe Scholar One of the most significant issues concerning nearly all religions, Christianity among them, concerns the fate of men following their death. Believing in an inevitable resurrection of the body among the faithful, Paul, a principle founder of Christianity, asserted his beliefs on the nature of bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15: 42-54. As eternity tends to last a long time, believing Christians (even agnostics such as myself) would likely be somewhat eager to arrive at an accurate interpretation of Paul¹s message found in the above verses, so as to glean insight as to what might await them following their last heartbeat. The approach I will take in analyzing 1 Corinthians: 42-54 will be to: 1) explain how the verses fit in with the overall structure of the book; 2) to explain and paraphrase the meaning behind the passage; 3) relate the verses to similar passages expressed elsewhere by Paul; 4) and lastly to touch upon some of the controversy associated with the verses. 1 Corinthians was written around 54 C.E. and was addressed to the congregation which was made up primarily of gentiles and was located in Corinth. At the time, Corinth was a highly urbanized and religiously diverse city which made it very conducive to the early Christian movement. Paul¹s first letter to the Corinthians was written as a response to a letter he had received (which did not survive) from the Corinthians in which Paul was asked to settle various disputes that were arising within the struggling congregation. Writing in apostolic fashion to the congregation he had founded, Paul¹s letter while pastoral, answered numerous questions and demanded numerous changes ranging from: the rich eating with the poor at the church suppers (11:18-22); to curbing the acceptance of sexual immorality (5:1-13); to abstaining from taking fellow Christians to court (6:12-20); to answering the question on the acceptability of eating meat begot from pagan sacrifice (8:1-13); to the role of women in the church (11:2-16); to the importance of prophesying (14:1-40); and much, much more. It was under these auspices that Paul answered the question of whether man would be with or without a body following resurrection. Although all of the 15th chapter deals with issues of resurrection, the place of the body is curtly addressed in verses 42-54 and is prefaced with the 35th verse which asks, ³But someone will ask, ŒHow are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?¹²(15:35). Paul believed that at the time of the resurrection the perishable body would be transformed into an imperishable body, that would neither be a ghost-like spirit nor a fleshly body, but rather some sort of combination of the two. As Sanders phrases it, ³...resurrection means transformed body, not walking corpse or disembodied spirit.² As William Wrede describes Paul¹s transformation of the body, ³He says that they Œare dead¹ or Œare risen again¹ Œwith Christ¹; or more specifically Œthey are dead to sin, to the Law,¹ Œcrucified to the world¹; Œthe body of sin is destroyed¹; Œthey are no longer in the flesh¹; or else he says simply that they are Œdead¹² Paul, whether because he does not recognize the need for further elaboration, or equally as likely, as he does not know how to accurately elaborate further, does not offer any greater explanation as to the nature of the new imperishable body. Seemingly similar to changing one¹s clothes, Paul simply explains the transformation, in the capacity of the mortal body Œputting on¹ immortality. The nearly tautological backbone behind Paul¹s reasoning is that the since the mortal, by definition isn¹t immortal, in order to gain an eternal life, the mortal must necessarily become immortal. As Wrede interestingly interprets it, ³If the misery of man consists in his habitation in the flesh, his happiness must depend on his liberation from the flesh, that is, on his death.² Moreover, once immortality is put on, death, the previously inevitable enemy of the mortal, will be destroyed. As Paul crisply writes in verse 54, ³When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: ŒDeath has been swallowed up in victory.¹²(15:54). The single implied description Paul does make sure to include regarding the body, is the notion that the resurrected imperishable body will bear a likeness and similarity to the fleshly body that preceded it. Having believed he had seen Jesus¹s resurrected body (as he wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:1) which presumably outwardly appeared as Jesus¹s previously fleshly body, in order to establish the continuity of personhood, in verses 37-38 Paul used the analogy of man as a seed that although when planted is in one form (physical-earthly) becomes something different when grown (spiritual-heavenly) yet throughout the metamorphasis it is still the same plant. Maintaining the theme of continuity in verse 44 Paul writes, ³It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.²(15:44). In verses 45-49 Paul refers to both passages from the Old Testament and also some of his other letters in order to explain the different domains of the two Adams. Believing in an actually historic Adam, in verse 45 Paul writes ³Thus it is written, ³The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit² (15:45). Demonstrating his command of the scriptures (at that time the bible only consisted of the Old Testament) takes this from the verse in Geneis 2:7 which says, ³then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man [Adam] became a human being.²(Genesis 2:7). The last Adam refers to Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul writes, ³For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.²(21-22). The idea that the presence of death can be destroyed and that man can gain eternal life through the grace given by Jesus Christ (who is considered the second Adam) is congruent with other letters written by Paul. In Romans 5:21 Paul writes, ³...so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.²(Romans 5:21). Because he believed the Lord¹s return was very near, Paul thought that not everyone living at the time of his writing would die. More specifically, Barrett argues that Paul thought that not only was the coming of the Christ very near, but that it was already actually taking place. Arguing for what he believes Paul thought, Barrett writes, ³The coming of Christ is not an event that has somehow to be hurried along; it has already happenned. Yet it has not finally happened; he has come, and he will come.² In verses 51-52 Paul writes, ³Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.²(51-52). The above passage has well generated a good deal of controversy for some modern day Christians. When we are all changed, will we all Œbe zapped¹ up into heaven? If we aren¹t zapped into heaven, will we remain living for eternity on this earth? Since in verse 52, Paul mentions the dead rising before the transformation among the living, will the dead necessarily rise prior to our transformation? When they do rise, will they, like Jesus, remain on this earth for any period of time? Or rather will they go straight to heaven? If they do go straight to heaven, will we see them? Perhaps more importantly, if the dead will rise only after the trumpet has sounded, assuming the trumpet hasn¹t sounded, where or in what state are the dead now? Are they not currently in heaven? Of particular interest (via necessity) to this author, what happens to bad persons when they die? Do or will they be forced to put on an immortal body that will allow them to suffer forever in an eternal torment? Is not an immortal body only for the righteous? Does not the last trumpet have to play for them to gain that immortal body? If so, when will that last trumpet sound? As Paul thought, has the first trumpet really began yet? As people have a natural curiosity of what awaits them following death, issues related to resurrection and Paul¹s views concerning those issues, will likely be sought for years to come. Although we know that Paul thought the perishable body must be transformed into an imperishable body in order to gain everlasting life, and that the spiritual body would be congruent with the physical body; as we do not have much concensus regarding the answers to the questions in the preceding paragraph, it is evident that there is much we do not (and perhaps cannot) know concerning the truths of life after death, according to Paul or any other biblical author for that matter. Perhaps, if and when the Lord does return, we will be made aware. Hopefully, the experience of gaining that awareness will be a pleasant one for us all. Bodily Resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15: 42-54 One of the most significant issues concerning nearly all religions, Christianity among them, concerns the fate of men following their death. Believing in an inevitable resurrection of the body among the faithful, Paul, a principle founder of Christianity, asserted his beliefs on the nature of bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15: 42-54. As eternity tends to last a long time, believing Christians (even agnostics such as myself) would likely be somewhat eager to arrive at an accurate interpretation of Paul¹s message found in the above verses, so as to glean insight as to what might await them following their last heartbeat. The approach I will take in analyzing 1 Corinthians: 42-54 will be to: 1) explain how the verses fit in with the overall structure of the book; 2) to explain and paraphrase the meaning behind the passage; 3) relate the verses to similar passages expressed elsewhere by Paul; 4) and lastly to touch upon some of the controversy associated with the verses. 1 Corinthians was written around 54 C.E. and was addressed to the congregation which was made up primarily of gentiles and was located in Corinth. At the time, Corinth was a highly urbanized and religiously diverse city which made it very conducive to the early Christian movement. Paul¹s first letter to the Corinthians was written as a response to a letter he had received (which did not survive) from the Corinthians in which Paul was asked to settle various disputes that were arising within the struggling congregation. Writing in apostolic fashion to the congregation he had founded, Paul¹s letter while pastoral, answered numerous questions and demanded numerous changes ranging from: the rich eating with the poor at the church suppers (11:18-22); to curbing the acceptance of sexual immorality (5:1-13); to abstaining from taking fellow Christians to court (6:12-20); to answering the question on the acceptability of eating meat begot from pagan sacrifice (8:1-13); to the role of women in the church (11:2-16); to the importance of prophesying (14:1-40); and much, much more. It was under these auspices that Paul answered the question of whether man would be with or without a body following resurrection. Although all of the 15th chapter deals with issues of resurrection, the place of the body is curtly addressed in verses 42-54 and is prefaced with the 35th verse which asks, ³But someone will ask, ŒHow are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?¹²(15:35). Paul believed that at the time of the resurrection the perishable body would be transformed into an imperishable body, that would neither be a ghost-like spirit nor a fleshly body, but rather some sort of combination of the two. As Sanders phrases it, ³...resurrection means transformed body, not walking corpse or disembodied spirit.² As William Wrede describes Paul¹s transformation of the body, ³He says that they Œare dead¹ or Œare risen again¹ Œwith Christ¹; or more specifically Œthey are dead to sin, to the Law,¹ Œcrucified to the world¹; Œthe body of sin is destroyed¹; Œthey are no longer in the flesh¹; or else he says simply that they are Œdead¹² Paul, whether because he does not recognize the need for further elaboration, or equally as likely, as he does not know how to accurately elaborate further, does not offer any greater explanation as to the nature of the new imperishable body. Seemingly similar to changing one¹s clothes, Paul simply explains the transformation, in the capacity of the mortal body Œputting on¹ immortality. The nearly tautological backbone behind Paul¹s reasoning is that the since the mortal, by definition isn¹t immortal, in order to gain an eternal life, the mortal must necessarily become immortal. As Wrede interestingly interprets it, ³If the misery of man consists in his habitation in the flesh, his happiness must depend on his liberation from the flesh, that is, on his death.² Moreover, once immortality is put on, death, the previously inevitable enemy of the mortal, will be destroyed. As Paul crisply writes in verse 54, ³When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: ŒDeath has been swallowed up in victory.¹²(15:54). The single implied description Paul does make sure to include regarding the body, is the notion that the resurrected imperishable body will bear a likeness and similarity to the fleshly body that preceded it. Having believed he had seen Jesus¹s resurrected body (as he wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:1) which presumably outwardly appeared as Jesus¹s previously fleshly body, in order to establish the continuity of personhood, in verses 37-38 Paul used the analogy of man as a seed that although when planted is in one form (physical-earthly) becomes something different when grown (spiritual-heavenly) yet throughout the metamorphasis it is still the same plant. Maintaining the theme of continuity in verse 44 Paul writes, ³It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.²(15:44). In verses 45-49 Paul refers to both passages from the Old Testament and also some of his other letters in order to explain the different domains of the two Adams. Believing in an actually historic Adam, in verse 45 Paul writes ³Thus it is written, ³The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit² (15:45). Demonstrating his command of the scriptures (at that time the bible only consisted of the Old Testament) takes this from the verse in Geneis 2:7 which says, ³then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man [Adam] became a human being.²(Genesis 2:7). The last Adam refers to Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul writes, ³For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.²(21-22). The idea that the presence of death can be destroyed and that man can gain eternal life through the grace given by Jesus Christ (who is considered the second Adam) is congruent with other letters written by Paul. In Romans 5:21 Paul writes, ³...so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.²(Romans 5:21). Because he believed the Lord¹s return was very near, Paul thought that not everyone living at the time of his writing would die. More specifically, Barrett argues that Paul thought that not only was the coming of the Christ very near, but that it was already actually taking place. Arguing for what he believes Paul thought, Barrett writes, ³The coming of Christ is not an event that has somehow to be hurried along; it has already happenned. Yet it has not finally happened; he has come, and he will come.² In verses 51-52 Paul writes, ³Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.²(51-52). The above passage has well generated a good deal of controversy for some modern day Christians. When we are all changed, will we all Œbe zapped¹ up into heaven? If we aren¹t zapped into heaven, will we remain living for eternity on this earth? Since in verse 52, Paul mentions the dead rising before the transformation among the living, will the dead necessarily rise prior to our transformation? When they do rise, will they, like Jesus, remain on this earth for any period of time? Or rather will they go straight to heaven? If they do go straight to heaven, will we see them? Perhaps more importantly, if the dead will rise only after the trumpet has sounded, assuming the trumpet hasn¹t sounded, where or in what state are the dead now? Are they not currently in heaven? Of particular interest (via necessity) to this author, what happens to bad persons when they die? Do or will they be forced to put on an immortal body that will allow them to suffer forever in an eternal torment? Is not an immortal body only for the righteous? Does not the last trumpet have to play for them to gain that immortal body? If so, when will that last trumpet sound? As Paul thought, has the first trumpet really began yet? As people have a natural curiosity of what awaits them following death, issues related to resurrection and Paul¹s views concerning those issues, will likely be sought for years to come. Although we know that Paul thought the perishable body must be transformed into an imperishable body in order to gain everlasting life, and that the spiritual body would be congruent with the physical body; as we do not have much concensus regarding the answers to the questions in the preceding paragraph, it is evident that there is much we do not (and perhaps cannot) know concerning the truths of life after death, according to Paul or any other biblical author for that matter. Perhaps, if and when the Lord does return, we will be made aware. Hopefully, the experience of gaining that awareness will be a pleasant one for us all. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Book of Job Suffering.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Book of Job: Suffering The book of Job 1:3, in The New Oxford Annonated Bible, states "Job was the greatest man among all in the East." He was a faithful servant of God, he owned thousands of animals, and had many servants and friends. Job had a very large family with seven sons and three daughters. Why was Job chosen to suffer and receive punishment at the hands of the Lord one may ask? The major themes in the book describe the ways Job deals with suffering and despair the Lord handed him. How one deals with despair and suffering is what makes a person who he or she is. The Lord is not a stranger to suffering. Psalms 69:33-36, states "The Lord hears the needy and does not despise his captive people. Let heaven and earth praise him. The seas and all that move in them. For God will save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah. Then people will settle there and possess it; the children of his servants will inherit it; and those who love his name will dwell there." God does not intentionally inflict despair and heartache on his believers for no reason at all. I think the despair we experience, and how we deal with it, is a test to show our true selves. The Lord does not make us suffer because of what we have done. Through suffering, we become better people and grow as an individual. You find your identity through terrible experiences. I have dealt with serious heartache and do believe that I have grown from it. I have learned how to react to certain situations and how to overcome them. I looked up the word "suffering" in the bible, I was directed to Psalms 73:21-26. It states, "When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered, I was senseless and ignorant; I was a brute beast before you. Yet I am always with you; you hold me by my right hand. You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever". These verses explain that God is always with us. No matter how bad circumstances get, God will be beside us through it all. This is the main reason that Job does not understand why God is making him suffer. Job had always been true to the Lord's word and had never done anything to deserve what he was being handed. His fame, fortune, family, and health were stripped of him for no apparent reason. In Job 1:21, Job says, " Naked I came from my mothers womb. naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. May the name of the Lord be praised." Still Job was faithful to the Lord, Jobs faith was stronger than his anguish. What makes people believe in the Lord and stand beside him through everything? Wars, natural disasters, and disease are all events that can make people doubt God, but the strong believers stick with the Lord. When Job had basically his whole life taken away from him, he was all alone except for his friends. His friends were there for him, but not in a way that he wanted them to be. His friends kept asking him what he had done to deserve the suffering God placed upon him. They told him that if he repented his sins, he would get all he lost back. Job still insisted that he had done nothing wrong. His friends were not giving him the support he wanted. Job was in a lot of pain, physically and emotionally. He wanted to know why God chose him to suffer. In comparing the book of Job to modern day, I think of the Olympic Park bombing this last summer at the Summer Games. Richard Jewell was the targeted suspect for a good 4 months, he was eventually dropped as a suspect. This was good news for Jewell, but he will never be the same person. He will forever live his life in the shadow of this terrible incident. I wonder if Richard Jewell feels that he has become a better person due to his suffering? In the end, Job does finally get back all he had lost, and then some. The unfortunate thing about this is he got back his children, but they were not the same children as before. I am not a parent, but if I were to have my child taken away from me and then be given a different one, it would be a horrible experience. The love a parent has for his or her child can never be substituted. There is no replacement for a human being, you can replace just about anything else, however, no one can replace a lost life. If I were Job, I would have given up on the Lord. After what had happened I still would be very upset about how I was treated. It is the people that deal with adversity this way who are rewarded in the end. All we can do is just keep on having faith in the Lord and he will have faith in ourselves. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\book report on khalil gibrans the prophet.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Information on the Author Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931), a poet, philosopher, and an artist was born in Lebanon, a land which has produced many prophets. The millions of Arabic speaking people, familiar with his writing consider him a genius of his age. However, his fame and influence was not limited to the Near East only, but far beyond these borders. His poetry has been translated into more than twenty languages. His drawings and paintings have been exhibited in the great capitals of the world and compared by Auguste Rodin to the work of William Blake. In the United States, which he made his home for the last twenty years of his life., he began to write in English. The Prophet and his other books of poetry, illustrated with his mystical drawings are known and loved by innumerable Americans who find them an expression of the deepest impulses of mans heart and mind. Introduction This book is one of Kahlil Gibrans masterpieces and has become a beloved classic of this era. This book contains poetry about a prophet-called Al-Mustafa- who tells people about different subjects which are all related to subjects in everyday life; for example love, hate etc.. The book also contains a series of illustrations created by the author himself. The book is based slightly on fiction, but the topics discussed in the poetry are all very realistic. If a person read the poetry today it would still be relative to the things happening around us. The poetry is in composition form, and a major part of the book contains dialogue. Summary In the first Chapter the location and story line is shown. A prophet; by the name of Al-Mustafa, has been stranded in the city of Orphalese for twelve years, and has been awaiting the arrival of his ship. During this time in Orphalese this Prophet has become accustomed to the cultures and traditions of the land. The native accepted him as one of their own, and he was no longer a stranger. Thus it was quite painful for him to think of leaving Oorphalese, however he had to go to his homeland in any circumstances. When it was time for him to leave the people of Orpahalese asked him to stay, but he couldnt stop. Then a wise woman called Altmira, came up with a solution. She did not ask him to stay but asked him to give them the knowledge that he has obtained and been revealed to him by God. Thus he tells them how to handle everyday situations and what is right and wrong about such things. Among the twenty-six subjects (each given a chapter) that are written about; a few of them are Love, Marriage, Laws, Freedom, Time and Death. The form of expression used in the book can be explained with the help of a few examples: About love Gibran says, "When love beckons you, follow him, Though his ways are hard and steep. And when his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you ." (From the chapter "Love") About Laws he says, "You delight in laying down laws, Yet you delight more in bAAbout Laws he says, "You delight in laying down laws, Yet you delight more in breaking them. Like children playing by the ocean who build sand-towers with constancy and then destroy them with laughter." From the chapter "Laws" About Death he says, "You would know the secret of death. But how should you find it unless you seek it in the heart of life? The owl whose night-bound eyes are blind unto the day cannot unveil the mystery of light ." (From the chapter "Death") From the above examples it is clear that the author of the book is trying to get a message across. All the subjects discussed in the book are about everyday lifAAbout Laws he says, "You delight in laying down laws, Yet you delight more in breaking them. Like children playing. The text gives some explanation to the facts of life a lot of advice to people on the subjects discussed. Main Characters The story line of the book is does not discuss certain individuals in any detail at all except "The Prophet". Instead people on the whole are discussed in each of the chapters. This is so beacause the topics include happenings in the life of all common people. In the case of Al-Mustafa (The name of the Prophet in this story), only his attachment to the land where he haad been stranded to for 12 years was discussed. His background was not shown, only that he was a Prophet. Another character who could be considered important is Altmira. She is a seer who persuaded Al-Mustafa to sty for a while and tell the people the truth of nature and all that was around them. "that you speak to . The text gives some explanation to the facts of life a lot of advice to people on the subjects disck. The poetry used is very good, and at the same time not too hard to understand. In most cases poetry which is considered good usually contains difficult word and hidden meaning. This can be interesting but in longer poems it gets dull. "The Prophet" contains a large amount of poetry but it never gets dull in any portion of the book. I would suggest this book to anyone, because it deals with reality and can be very useful because of the advice about everyday topics found in the book. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Budddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Budddhism In the early parts of my life, I learned about all of the laws that restrict our actions, as practitioners of Buddhism. I was educated about the four basic truths that all Buddhists believe. The four basic truths are Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha, and Marga (Anderson 24). Dukkha, or its meaning in English, suffering, tells of all the frustration in life. In order to find the end of suffering, I found that one must review the purpose for the suffering to being in one's life (Harvey 49). the second holy truth, Samudaya deals with the origin of suffering. In my studies and from what material I was instructed, I learnedin order to deal with suffering one must find out its cause in their life. After one has found the cause, then we can begin to do something about it ( "Four Noble Truths Part I" 3). Nirodha, the third truth, is the extinction of suffering. To be able to end the sufferingone must think that the suffering can end and have confidence in attaining the end of suffering ( "Four Noble Truths Part I" 5/6). Marga, or the fourth noble truth is also known as the eight-fold path. Avoiding indulgences in pleasure and temptation are the ways to walk down this path ( "Four Noble Truths Part II" 3). As I was instructed on the eight-fold path I learned that in order to attain the end of suffering I needed to have all of the "right" pieces of the puzzle. These are right understanding, thought, speech, action, livelihook, effort, mindfulness, and concentration ("Buddhist Teachings" 1). In my religion we have a code of ethics that tells our followers to avoid stealing, lying, killing all living organisms, committing improper sexual activity, and destructive occupations (Anderson 26/27). the five governing precepts explain more in depth about the code of ethics. The first precpt says to refrain form taking life away from all that are breathing (Harvey 202). I and many other followers are vegetarians because of this precept. In the second precept stealing is prohibited. Improper sexual activity is covered in the third precept. In it, it tells us that sexual activity is only to be used in order to conceive children. Polygamy, adultery, and incest are also forbidden in this precept. Lying, or as the fourth precept calls it, false speech is also forbidden (Harvey 206). The fifth precept covers alcohol and improper drug use. It is said that if one breaks this precept that person is more likely to break any or all of the previous precepts (Harvey 207). In my family we go by the Buddhist values and traditions. Parents have special duties that they have to do for their children. My parents trained me to my father's profession, found a suitable marriage for myself, and they gave me my inheritance at the time that they felt was suitable (Harvey 213). As their child, I also had duties for my parents, but only when I grew old enough to take responsibility for them. My duties included to keep the family name or lineage, the tradition in the family, to be worthy of my heritage, and to give alms on their behalf when they die (Harvey 213). Marriages are arranged by the parents because of the thought that because the parents have more experience in life and can pick a better mate for their child. Even though the parents arrange thethe marriages, each person of the impending marriage has the choice to either agree to the marriage or to say no and not marry that person (Penney 46). Weddings take place in the bride's home. Most are usually performed by a male in the family. The two people getting married exchange rings and the thumbs of both right hands are tied together. It is a symbol of being tyed together forever as husband and wife. The ceremony is then ended with a promise of respect, love and faithfulness. After the wedding, celebrations go on for days (Penney 46). When a person dies in our family, we either go through on or the other way of putting the dead to rest. It is not a sad event because of our belief in rebirth. A monk will come and give a talk about the after death. The five precepts and three Jewels are repeated. The body is usually cremated in this ceremony(Penney 46/47). Another method of putting the dead to rest is to keep it around for a couple of days and after proper rituals are performed, then the body is carried to a certain area where it is left for the scavenger animals(Anderson 150). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddha 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Siddhartha Gautama was born about 563 BC in what is now modern Nepal. His father, Suddhodana, was the ruler of the Sakya people and Siddhartha grew up living the extravagant life on a young prince. According to custom, he married at the young age of sixteen to a girl named Yasodhara. His father had ordered that he live a life of total seclusion, but one day Siddhartha ventured out into the world and was confronted with the reality of the inevitable suffering of life. The next day, at the age of twenty-nine, he left his kingdom and new-born son to lead an modest life and determine a way to relieve universal suffering. For six years, Siddhartha meditated under a bodhi tree. But he was never fully satisfied. One day he was offered a bowl of rice from a young girl and he accepted it. In that moment, he realized that physical hardships were not the means to freedom. From then on, he encouraged people not to use extremes in their life. He called this The Middle Way. That night Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree, and meditated till dawn. He cleared his mind of all worldly things and claimed to get enlightenment at the age of thirty-five, thus earning the title Buddha, or "Enlightened One." For the remainder of his eighty years, the Buddha preached the dharma in an effort to help other people reach enlightenment. When Siddhartha is a Brahmin, he believes in the existence of many gods, and performs sacrifices to them. After a while he realizes this is meaningless and decides to leave his family and community and become a Samana. As a Samana, he tries to destroy himself in may ways. He feels if he kills himself, with its passions and emotions, he will find the great secret. Siddhartha doesn't spend much time as Buddha, although he has an important revelation. He discovers he can't find peace by learning from a master. He finds the only way to have peace with the world is by finding it for himself. When Siddhartha leaves Buddha, he is enthralled with the world. He starts paying more attention to the world because he knows he must get experience for himself. As he walks he comes upon a town. He stays and becomes a merchant. At first he looks at his actions as a game. After a while he becomes more serious. He starts drinking and gambling and becomes lazy. Siddhartha sees this and decides to leave the town. He wanders through a forest and comes upon a river. Just as he's about to kill himself he hears Om. Siddhartha decides there is much to live for. He looks a this experience as a rebirth, and starts a new life. Siddhartha stays by the river and looks for a ferryman he met years ago who's name was Vasudeua. Vasudeua had found peace with himself, and Siddhartha stays with him. He comes to peace with the world and learns he must love everything, because everything has good in it. He also sees the difference between past, present, and future is just a myth. In his hometown, Siddhartha's social status was very high. He was popular, and lived by everyone, but he decided that he could not stay. When he was with the Samanas, this social status sunk to an all time low. He was considered a beggar. When Siddhartha visited the Buddha, his social status was changing. Siddhartha is involved with Brahmin rituals in his hometown. He lives with his family and is in good health. He eats well, has good hygiene, and wears decent clothes. But when the Samanas come to his village, he decides to leave his family for life in the forest. He travels with the Samanas in the Forrest. He often meditates. He doesn't eat good or clean himself, and only wears a loin cloth. He leaves the Samanas by hypnotizing the leader and convinces him to let him go. Siddhartha goes to see Buddha. HE soon leaves Buddha and travels on his own as an independent Samana. Eventually he becomes weary of his lifestyle and decides to live in a village. There he finds Kamala, a beautiful prostitute. He works hard to get clothes, shoes, and money for Kamala. Joining Kamaswami, a merchant. Siddhartha becomes rich. This gets him nice clothes, shoes, tasteful meals, and good hygiene. After a while he becomes tired of his life in the village and leaves. He tries to commit suicide, but then decides not to kill himself. He falls asleep and sleeps for a long, long time. When he wakes up he decides he wants to be a ferryman and join Vasudeva. Siddhartha lives in Vasudeva's hut with him and occasionally talks with him. Siddhartha now wears few clothing, eats small meals, and keeps poor hygiene. Soon, he has to take care of his son, this takes time. Siddhartha eventually completely takes over Vasudeva's business Siddhartha was unhappy following Hinduism. He says, that since Atman created the other gods, then he is the only true god, and the others are temporary. Siddhartha's discontent with Hinduism grows strong enough to drive him from home. Siddhartha's experience with the Buddha shows his growing doubt of teachings. He sees Nirvana in Buddha, but knows in his heart that teachings cannot bring it. After leaving Buddha Siddhartha becomes depressed and decides to leave virtue for vices. After living with Samsara for may years, Siddhartha becomes depressed. He realizes that the beautiful bird that once sang in his soul has become silent. When he reaches the river he sits above it, and hears of his soul the holy Om, this is proof that the bird exists. The river teaches him more than any human teacher could have, like the fact that time is an illusion. Siddhartha finally finds peace in this. . f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddha.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What is Buddhism? Buddhism is a path of teaching and practice. Buddhist practices such as meditation are means of changing oneself in order to develop the qualities of awareness, kindness, and wisdom. The experience developed within the Buddhist tradition over thousands of years has created an incomparable resource for all those who wish to follow the path of spiritual development. Ultimately, the Buddhist path culminates in Enlightenment or Buddhahood. Who was the Buddha? The word Buddha is a title not a name. It means 'one who is awake' in the sense of having 'woken up to reality'. The title was first given to a man called Siddharta Guatemala, who lived about 2,500 years ago in Northern India. When he was 35 he found Enlightenment whist in profound mediation, after searching for years. In the next 45 years of his life he spent it traveling through India teaching his way of life. His teaching is known as Buddha-dharma. Traveling from place to place, the Buddha gained many disciples. They also taught of the enlightment, and the chain has continued on to this present day. The Buddha was not a God, and he made no claim to divinity. There is no concept of a creator in Buddhism. He was a human being who, thought tremendous efforts, transformed himself. The state of Enlightenment which he reached has three main facets. It is a state of wisdom, of insight into the true nature of things. It is also a source or boundless compassion, manifesting itself in activity for the benefit of all beings. and it the total liberation of all the energies of the mind and the body so they are at the service of the fully conscious mind. What Happened After the Buddha's Death? Buddhism died out in India a thousand years ago, though it has recently revived. In the last century Buddhism has emphatically arrived in the West and up to one million westerners have become Buddhists. What Does Buddhism Teach? Buddhism sees life as being in process of constant change and its practices aim to take advantage of this fact. It means that one can change for the better. The decisive factor in changing ourselves is the mind and Buddhism has developed many methods for working on the mind. Most importantly, Buddhists practice meditation which is a way of developing more positive states of mind which are characterized by calm, concentration, awareness, and emotions such as friendliness. How do you become a Buddhist? To become a Buddhist in the full sense means committing oneself to the central ideas of Buddhism. The Buddhist path is open to all equally: men and women, young and old, people of all nationalities, races and backgrounds. Rebirth Rebirth in the Six Realms Buddhism teaches that birth, death and rebirth are part of the continuing process of change. The is similar to the continuous process of growth, decay, and replacement of cells in ones' body. According to medical experts, after every seven years, all the cells in one's body are replaced by new ones. At the moment of death, and the body can no longer survive, the mind is separated from the body. At that time, the craving for lives causes one to seek a new existence, and the karma done previously determine the place of one's rebirth. There are six realms which one may be reborn after death. They are the realms of gods, the demigods, human beings, animals, hungry ghosts, and the hells. In general, wholesome actions like good conduct, charity, a and mental development, are the cause of rebirth in the happy realms of gods, demigods, and human beings. On the other hand, unwholesome actions like immoral conduct, miserliness and cruelty cause rebirth in the unhappy realm of animals, hungry ghosts and the hells. Of all the six realms, the realm of human beings is considered the most desirable. In the realm of human beings, the conditions for attaining Nirvana are better. In general, in the unhappy realms, the suffering of living beings is so intense and their ignorance so great that they are unable to recognize the Truth and follow the path to attain freedom. Alternatively, living beings in the realms of the gods and demigods experience so much happiness and have so many distractions that they do not think of rebirth until it is too late. Then they may be reborn in one of the lower realms of suffering. In the realm of human beings, however, people experience both happiness and suffering, and are intelligent enough to recognize the Truth and follow the path to attain freedom from the cycle of birth and death. Therefore, one is indeed fortunate to be born as a human being, and should remember that the principal cause of birth in the realm is Good Conduct. The Cycle of Birth and Death The Buddha pointed out that whenever one is reborn, whether as a human being, as an animal, or as a god, non of these states of exticence is permanent. The average life span of the living beings in the six realms of existence differ but none of them lasts forever. Eventually, rebirth will take place. The realm into which one is reborn and one's conditions of rebirth are determined by ones' past and present actions. This is the law of Karma at work. Because of the force of their karma, people are born are reborn endlessly, in one realm of existence or in another. The Buddha declared that there is no permanent rest in the cycle of birth and death. It is only when one follows the Noble Eightfold path taught by the Buddha and eventually attains Nirvana, that one finally becomes free from the ceaseless cycle and gains supreme and permanent happiness. Karma Karma is the law of moral causation. It is action and reaction in the ethical realm. It is natural law that every action produces a certain effect. So if one performs wholesome actions, one will experience happiness. on the other hand, if one performs unwholesome actions, one will experience suffering. The is the law of cause and effect at work. In this way, the effect of one's past karma determine that nature of one's present situation in life. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddhis1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Buddhism Buddhism is a religion founded by an ex-Prince Siddhartha Gaumata. Gaumata was a prince who was brought up in a perfect surrounding. When the prince left the palace he saw all the poverty. At the age of twenty nine, the prince left his wife and his infant son to meditate and practice Yoga to find peace and enlightenment. Gaumata was meditating for a long time when finally while he was sitting under a Bo tree he had attained the enlightenment he was looking for. It is for this reason he got the name Buddha, meaning the enlightened one. Buddha became a traveling teacher and taught everyone his discovery. Buddha did not write any of his lessons down. He taught about the Four Noble Truths, (1) life is suffering, (2) all suffering is caused by ignorance, (3) Ending ignorance will end suffering, and (4) The path to the destruction of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path consists of (1) Knowledge of the truth, (2) the intention to resist evil, (3) not saying anything that will hurt someone else, (4) respecting life, (5) having a job that doesn't injure anyone, (6) striving free one's mind of evil, (7) controlling one's feelings, and (8) concentrating properly. Buddha preached that the life was a continuing cycle of death and rebirth. The well-being of oneself was determined on your behavior in your previous life. Buddha said that by ridding oneself of worldly things he would be in nirvana, peace and happiness. After Buddha's death, his followers collected his teachings that became the dharma. The sangha is what sometimes referred to as an ideal Buddhist community. All the people in the community follow all the laws and seek nirvana. The arrangement of the monks that had a role in the sangha. The monks' arrangement kept the preserving and the spreading of Buddhism. In many Buddhist countries the monks had to live in poverty and meditate. The monks wore very long robes. In a sangha everyone, including the common Buddhists. The Buddhists have a book called Tripitika, meaning three baskets. The first part of the book is about the Basket of Discipline, which talks about regulating the order of Buddhist monks. The second part is the Basket of Discourses, which talks about the sermons of Buddha. The last part is about the Basket of the Higher Dharma, which talks about systematic discussions of principle. All Buddhists have the obligation to pray to Buddha whenever they see a statue of him. There are different customs in Buddhism. The three places that these different customs come from are from the Theravadas, the Mahayanas, and the Zens. The Zens are the group that originated in China. The marriage and death follow the different customs. The Theravadas have a wedding by going to a monastery, after the legal wedding. There they give a generous gift to the sangha. They get a special chant for themselves to have a great future. When someone dies their body is sent to the monastery and is burned by the monks. Wesak is a Tibetan holiday. It is celebrated in may to honor the birth, enlightenment and death of the Buddha. Some people fast, but others are picnicking, dancing, acting and playing sports. Buddhism sounds like a funny religion, but in fact there are about 300 million Buddhists in the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddhis2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Buddhism For over 2000 years Buddhism has existed as an organized religion. By religion we mean that it has a concept of the profane, the sacred, and approaches to the sacred. It has been established in India, China, Japan and other eastern cultures for almost 2000 years and has gained a strong foothold in North America and Europe in the past few centuries. However, one might ask; what fate would Buddhism face had Siddartha Guatama been born in modern times; or more specifically in modern day North America? Would his new found enlightenment be accepted now as it was thousands of years ago? Would it be shunned by society as another "cult" movement? What conflicts or similarities would it find with modern science; physics in particular? The answers to these questions are the aim of this paper, as well as a deeper understanding of modern Buddhism. Although I will stick with traditional ideas raised by Buddhism, one detail in the story of Siddartha Guatama must be addressed in order for it to be relevant to the main question being asked: What obstacles would Siddartha Guatama face had he been born in modern day North America. Primarily, it must be recognized that rather than being born into the Hindu religion (which in itself is mystical), Siddartha would have most likely been born into a Christian family. This in itself presents the first obstacle, that being that Christianity is a strictly monotheistic and non-mystical faith. Hence from the outset, although in the traditional story Siddartha faced a conflict with his father (Ludwig 137), in the North American scenario the conflict would have been heightened by the fact that his search for enlightenment was not even closely similar to the Christian faith. As with science, changes in religious thought are often met with strong opposition. It is interesting to note though, that many parallels can be found between modern physics and Eastern Mysticism. As Fritjof Capra writes: The changes, brought about by modern physics . . . all seem to lead towards a view of the world which is very similar to the views held in Eastern Mysticism. The concepts of modern physics often show surprising parallels to the ideas expressed in the religious philosophies of the Far East. (17-18) Thus by examining some of the obstacles imposed by typical western thought on modern physicists attempting to develop new theories, we can apply the same conclusions to the situation that would be faced by Siddartha Guatama in modern day North America. Traditionally, western thought can be summed up by French philosopher RenJ Descartes' famous saying, "Cogito ergo sum" or "I think therefor I exist". That is, typically, western man has always equated identity with his mind, instead of his whole organism (Capra 23). This same line of thought can be found in traditional Newtonian Mechanics in which the observer of an event is never taken into account when describing the event. Rather, all things are said to occur at an "absolute time" in space, never taking into account the observer's position or speed relative to the event or the rest of the Universe. However, in the beginning of the 20th century, new developments in physics began to shake the framework of the scientific world. Due mostly to work by Albert Einstein, but also Ernest Rutherford and others, the scientific view of the universe took a drastic turn. These scientists recognized flaws in the classical Newtonian view of the universe. The recognition of these flaws led to the development of the Quantum Theory of Matter as well as Einstein's Relativity Theory. These theories, as well as the discoveries that they led to, incorporated the entire universe as being comprised of energy, and that particles, time, and space, are just different representations of this energy. Naturally this faced strict opposition. So much so that in spite of it's ground-breaking nature as well as the fact that it had been proven, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity failed to earn him the Nobel Prize. Even to this day many find it difficult to comprehend these more abstract theories. Both concepts - that of empty space and that of solid material bodies (Newtonian Mechanics) - are deeply ingrained in our habits of thought, so it is extremely difficult for us to imagine a physical reality where they do not apply (Capra 64). Thus, by applying the obstacles faced by modern physicists, it easy to see how a more close-minded western way of thought would be skeptical of Siddartha's new philosophy. Rather than accept, or even recognize, the more abstract theory of reality that Siddartha would be presenting, western society would rather push it off to the side and stick with it's more concrete concept; that being Christianity. However, as with modern physics, this opposition would not be out of stubbornness but simply out of a lack of the ability to grasp the concepts that Siddartha would be trying to portray. By hypothesizing what would happen had Buddhism been formed in 20th century North America rather than 5th century BCE India, we would be putting Buddhism into a category of Fringe religions. By Fringe religions we mean: all those groups not accorded full social respectability nor recognized as being of equal status with those religious groups in which most important societal spokespersons participate and with which they identify (Shupe 7). Since Buddhism, had it been formed by Siddartha in 20th century North America, would be viewed as a Fringe religion at first, we can also apply western societies reaction towards actual Fringe religions to the thesis. It is not a far leap of imagination to move from the observation that a fringe religious group is "odd" to a sense that its religious challenge really possess a serious potential threat to one's way of life and valued social relations (Shupe 27). It is this common misconception, imposed upon virtually all new religions, that would prove to be the main obstacle in the formation of Buddhism. Currently such religious movements as the Jehovah's Witness, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, and the Black Muslims - established and relevant as they are - face this type of obstacle (Shupe 7). Be it through negative exposure by the media or trouble with the law (one is reminded of Waco Texas) these new Fringe religious face a constant barrage of opposition. The opposition can often get so trumped up, especially by the media, that the religion will often be dismissed as a cult. the media picked up on the term (cult) undoubtedly because of it's vaguely exotic, unsavory connotation . . . in the 1970's, many "cults" included Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses . . . and Zen Buddhists . . . irrespective of their differing affinities to Judeo-Christian tradition (Shupe 8). With such a backlash against new religions, it is amazing that Buddhism was even able to get a foothold in North America, despite being a established religion for over 2 millenniums. Despite having these obstacle to overcome, Siddartha's new found religion would not have to fight on it's own. As stated earlier, there are many parallels that can be drawn between Buddhism and modern physics. As a matter of fact, Siddartha Guatama stated over 2000 years ago what has only come into realization by physicists today: He proclaimed it as shiki soku zeku and ku soku zeshiki1. Ku, literally "emptiness" or "void," does not mean "nothingness" but "equality." Shiki soku zeku indicates the idea that all things . . . originate from the same foundation . . . Similarly, ku soku zeshiki means that all things . . . are produced by ku, and therefore ku is identical with shiki (Niwano 207). It is through this main parallel that it is likely that scientists, physicists in particular, would embrace this new concept of reality. Through personal experience it is my interest in modern physics that piqued my interest in Eastern Mysticism. Therefor through the western ideal of attaining as much knowledge of the universe as possible (read: space exploration, particle accelerators, etc) it is quite possible that Buddhism, had it been formed in 20th century North America, could become a mainstream religion after surviving the initial onslaught of opposition. Thus, had Siddartha Guatama been born in modern day North America, there would be a number of obstacles for him to face in the founding of Buddhism. He would have to overcome the problems of being born into a Christian family/society; a society not used to such abstract ideas of reality, the close- minded nature of western thought, and the problems posed by a media that likes to jump on anything new and unusual and tear it to shreds. However, if it were to overcome these obstacles it is quite probable that it would become a deeply rooted religion in North America due to the likely support it would gain from the scientific community. Bibliography Capra, Fritjof. The Tao Of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Berkley: Shamhala Publications, 1975 Ludwig, Theodore M. The Sacred Paths: Understanding the Religions of the World. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996 Niwano, Nikky. Buddhism For Today: A Modern Interpretation of the Threefold Lotus Sutra. New York: WeatherHill, 1980 Richardson, Allen E. East Comes West: Asian Religions and Cultures in North America. New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1985 Shupe Anson D. Six Perspectives On New Religions: A Case Study Approach. New York:: f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddhism 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Buddhism Buddhas Liv För ca 2500 år sedan regerade kung Suddhoana i norra Indien i Kapilavastu. Han var gift med prinsessan Maya. Under en lång period väntade folket på en prins men Maya ville inte ha något samliv med kungen eller någon annan. Men hon blev ändå med barn, så här gick det till: En natt drömde Maya att hon fördes till toppen av Silverberget, där hon lades i en säng i ett gyllene hus. Då uppenbarade sig en elefant med lotusblommor i snaben. Så avlades Buddha. Efter exakt tio månader när drottningen i en park kände att barnet var redo att komma till världen, böjde ett träd vänligt ner en gren som drottningen kunde luta sig på, medan hon stående födde barnet. Innan barnet han falla till marken fångades det upp av fyra gudaväsen som sade till drottningen. "Gläd dig o drottning du har givit liv åt en stor gestalt". Sedan vände sig Buddha (Sidharta Gatuama) till de uppvaktade gudarna och till människorna och sade: "Jag är världens herre. Detta är min sista födsel". Detta hände någon gång på 500-talet f kr. Föräldrarna blev då mycket förbryllade och gick genast till en spåman för att få en förklaring. Då sade spåmannen till kungen och drottningen att barnet antingen skulle bli en världshärskare eller en religionsstiftare. Fadern blev då mycket orolig och bestämde att Sidharta Gatuama skulle få leva i lyx och i överflöd, men han fick bara vistas innanför portarna. Men allteftersom Sidharta Gatuama växte upp blev han allt mera nyfiken på världen utanför dom stora portarna. Så han började att åka ut på hemliga åkturer utan att någon viste om det. När han var ute mötte han på fattigdom och sjukdom. När han såg dom döda brännas på strandkanten försvann all trygghet och glädje. På vägen hem mötte han en vandrande asket med bara utslitna trasor och smuts på kroppen, men asketen var fortfarande glad. Det var därför att han hade funnit livets mening. Då bestämde sig Sidharta Gatuama att lämna både hustru, barn och palats för att söka sanningen om livet. Men det gav inga svar. Det hjälpte inte heller be till gudarna eller att plåga sig. Tills slut gick det så långt att han bara levde på ett riskorn och en droppe vatten om dagen. Han satt och mediterade i flera dagar helt stilla, så helt plötsligt förstod han hur det hela hängde ihop, han upplevde Nirvana, Då upphörde han att vara Sidharta Gatuama och förblev "Buddha". Buddha stannade ett tag för att hämta sina krafter, men då blev han uppvaktad av den onde guden Mara. Med hot och smicker försökte Mara att få Buddha att gå in i Nirvana igen och lämna detta jordliv. Men Buddha kände kärlek för människorna, så han avstod från lycka. I över 40 år vandrade han i norra Indien med sina lärjungar för att predika Läran. Alla människor fick då möjligheten att uppnå Nirvana. Men på väg tillbaka till sina hemtrakter avled han av ålder och sjukdom. Innan han dog gick han dock in i Nirvana. Jorden började då att skaka av skalv och åskan dånade i himlen. På sjunde dödsdagen brände lärjungarna hans kropp och fördelade dom heliga benen mellan sig. Buddhas Lära Strax efter Buddhas upplysning begav han sig till en stor park för att hålla sin första predikan, om dom 4 sanningarna: Den första av dom ädla sanningarna talar om att allt är lidande. Buddha utryckte det så här: "Födelsen är lidande, åldrande är lidande, sjukdom är lidande, bekymmer, smärta, oro, olycka och förtvivlan är lidande; att inte få vad man vill ha är lidande." Den andra ädla sanningen talar om att lidandet beror på vår livstörst. Vi vill till varje pris leva och förlänga våra liv och hela tiden längtar vi efter glädje och njutning. Begäran efter makt och pengar driver oss in i lidandet. Det skapar en livstörst som inte går att släcka. Den tredje ädla sanningen att lidandet kan upphöra. Genom att var och en tar ansvar för sitt eget liv och gör sig fri från alla begär kan lidandet upphöra. Men då måste människan också kontrollera alla sina sinnen. Ingen får bli lockad av det sköna som ögat ser eller den ljuvliga smak som tungan upplever. Livstörsten måste släckas. Den fjärde av dom ädla sanningarna talar om vägen till lidandets upphörande. Lidandet upphör om man kan följa den åttafaldiga vägen. Den åttafaldiga vägen Inom buddhismen finns en åttafaldiga vägen. Genom dessa åtta regler sa Buddha att man kunde undkomma lidandet genom återfödelse. Dessa åtta regler är: 1. Rätt kunskap. Att människan förstår de fyra heliga sanningarna. 2. Rätt sinnelag. Ingen människa får drivas av begär, hat eller våldstänkande. 3. Rätt tal. Varken lugn, förtal, skvaller eller kallprat får förekomma. 4. Rätt handlande. Att ta avstånd från dödande, stölder och ett ansvarslöst liv i sus och dus 5. Rätt liv. Spådomskonst, förförelser bedrägerier och ocker får inte förekomma. 6. Rätt strävan. Varje troende måste ständigt vara uppmärksam på vad som är gott och ont och noga följa läran. 7. Rätt uppmärksamhet. Det betyder att människan skall vara uppmärksam och kunna behärska sina känslor och begär. 8. Rätt koncentration eller meditation. Genom att öva sig på meditation når de troende fram till en känsla av frihet. Hela tillvaron betraktas lugn och jämnmord. Dom två första reglerna anger förutsättningarna för att människan skall nå sanningen. Dom tre följande reglerna talar om vad livet skall innehålla. Dom tre sista reglerna visa hur människan genom kunskap och tänkande ska nå sanningarna. Varför blir somliga buddhistmunkar ? , Hur lever dom ? Dom flesta blir det nog därför att dom vill söka inre frid eller för att söka efter meningen med livet (uppnå Nirvana). I klostren är det inte tillåtet att dricka alkohol eller att ha sena måltider. Det är därför att Buddha mycket starkt påpekade att den som blir fet återföds om och om igen. Det får inte häller förekomma någon form av njutning t.ex. mjuka sängar, dans eller skådespel. En munk får dessutom bara äga tre klädnader i form av en vandringsstav, en rakkniv, en synål, en tiggarskål och en sil. En annan grej som skiljer deras livsstil med våran är att dom måste leva i celibat. Buddhismens högtider och ceremonier I alla buddistiska länder firar man Buddhas födelse med en fest. Denna äger rum i april-maj. Festen kallas Wesak-festen. Då färdas pilgrimer till olika platser där man säger sig ha olika reliker, t.ex. tänder eller hårstrån från Buddha. Där samlas man och mediterar över läran. Buddhismens utbredning Buddhismen spreds inte med våld som kristendommen gjorde, dom skickade häller inte ut missionärer som dom kristna. Buddhism och kristendom är lika varandra. Buddhism och kristendom har mycket gemensamt. Buddha hade t.ex. lärjungar, det hade Jesus också. Båda predikade som profeter. Båda var fredliga. Bådas mammor hade inget samliv med någon, ändå hade fick dom barn. Båda var maskulina. Båda levde ett fattigt liv. Mitt intryck av Buddhismen Jag har alltid trott att buddhismen verkar vara lite mystisk och inte riktig samma sak som andra religioner som Islam och kristendomen m.m.. Det är det som gör religionen så intressant tycker jag. Jag märkte efter hand som arbetet fortlöpte att religionen inte var så konstig som jag tidigare trott utan att den bara var lite speciell. Det roliga med buddhismen var att det skapats av en vanlig person som faktiskt inte var så märkvärdig utan faktiskt ganska vardaglig. Jag gillar verkligen att det aldrig har funnits några religiösa motsättning som har lett till våldsaktioner inom den buddistiska tron. 1996-11-26 Buddhism Buddhas Liv För ca 2500 år sedan regerade kung Suddhoana i norra Indien i Kapilavastu. Han var gift med prinsessan Maya. Under en lång period väntade folket på en prins men Maya ville inte ha något samliv med kungen eller någon annan. Men hon blev ändå med barn, så här gick det till: En natt drömde Maya att hon fördes till toppen av Silverberget, där hon lades i en säng i ett gyllene hus. Då uppenbarade sig en elefant med lotusblommor i snaben. Så avlades Buddha. Efter exakt tio månader när drottningen i en park kände att barnet var redo att komma till världen, böjde ett träd vänligt ner en gren som drottningen kunde luta sig på, medan hon stående födde barnet. Innan barnet han falla till marken fångades det upp av fyra gudaväsen som sade till drottningen. "Gläd dig o drottning du har givit liv åt en stor gestalt". Sedan vände sig Buddha (Sidharta Gatuama) till de uppvaktade gudarna och till människorna och sade: "Jag är världens herre. Detta är min sista födsel". Detta hände någon gång på 500-talet f kr. Föräldrarna blev då mycket förbryllade och gick genast till en spåman för att få en förklaring. Då sade spåmannen till kungen och drottningen att barnet antingen skulle bli en världshärskare eller en religionsstiftare. Fadern blev då mycket orolig och bestämde att Sidharta Gatuama skulle få leva i lyx och i överflöd, men han fick bara vistas innanför portarna. Men allteftersom Sidharta Gatuama växte upp blev han allt mera nyfiken på världen utanför dom stora portarna. Så han började att åka ut på hemliga åkturer utan att någon viste om det. När han var ute mötte han på fattigdom och sjukdom. När han såg dom döda brännas på strandkanten försvann all trygghet och glädje. På vägen hem mötte han en vandrande asket med bara utslitna trasor och smuts på kroppen, men asketen var fortfarande glad. Det var därför att han hade funnit livets mening. Då bestämde sig Sidharta Gatuama att lämna både hustru, barn och palats för att söka sanningen om livet. Men det gav inga svar. Det hjälpte inte heller be till gudarna eller att plåga sig. Tills slut gick det så långt att han bara levde på ett riskorn och en droppe vatten om dagen. Han satt och mediterade i flera dagar helt stilla, så helt plötsligt förstod han hur det hela hängde ihop, han upplevde Nirvana, Då upphörde han att vara Sidharta Gatuama och förblev "Buddha". Buddha stannade ett tag för att hämta sina krafter, men då blev han uppvaktad av den onde guden Mara. Med hot och smicker försökte Mara att få Buddha att gå in i Nirvana igen och lämna detta jordliv. Men Buddha kände kärlek för människorna, så han avstod från lycka. I över 40 år vandrade han i norra Indien med sina lärjungar för att predika Läran. Alla människor fick då möjligheten att uppnå Nirvana. Men på väg tillbaka till sina hemtrakter avled han av ålder och sjukdom. Innan han dog gick han dock in i Nirvana. Jorden började då att skaka av skalv och åskan dånade i himlen. På sjunde dödsdagen brände lärjungarna hans kropp och fördelade dom heliga benen mellan sig. Buddhas Lära Strax efter Buddhas upplysning begav han sig till en stor park för att hålla sin första predikan, om dom 4 sanningarna: Den första av dom ädla sanningarna talar om att allt är lidande. Buddha utryckte det så här: "Födelsen är lidande, åldrande är lidande, sjukdom är lidande, bekymmer, smärta, oro, olycka och förtvivlan är lidande; att inte få vad man vill ha är lidande." Den andra ädla sanningen talar om att lidandet beror på vår livstörst. Vi vill till varje pris leva och förlänga våra liv och hela tiden längtar vi efter glädje och njutning. Begäran efter makt och pengar driver oss in i lidandet. Det skapar en livstörst som inte går att släcka. Den tredje ädla sanningen att lidandet kan upphöra. Genom att var och en tar ansvar för sitt eget liv och gör sig fri från alla begär kan lidandet upphöra. Men då måste människan också kontrollera alla sina sinnen. Ingen får bli lockad av det sköna som ögat ser eller den ljuvliga smak som tungan upplever. Livstörsten måste släckas. Den fjärde av dom ädla sanningarna talar om vägen till lidandets upphörande. Lidandet upphör om man kan följa den åttafaldiga vägen. Den åttafaldiga vägen Inom buddhismen finns en åttafaldiga vägen. Genom dessa åtta regler sa Buddha att man kunde undkomma lidandet genom återfödelse. Dessa åtta regler är: 1. Rätt kunskap. Att människan förstår de fyra heliga sanningarna. 2. Rätt sinnelag. Ingen människa får drivas av begär, hat eller våldstänkande. 3. Rätt tal. Varken lugn, förtal, skvaller eller kallprat får förekomma. 4. Rätt handlande. Att ta avstånd från dödande, stölder och ett ansvarslöst liv i sus och dus 5. Rätt liv. Spådomskonst, förförelser bedrägerier och ocker får inte förekomma. 6. Rätt strävan. Varje troende måste ständigt vara uppmärksam på vad som är gott och ont och noga följa läran. 7. Rätt uppmärksamhet. Det betyder att människan skall vara uppmärksam och kunna behärska sina känslor och begär. 8. Rätt koncentration eller meditation. Genom att öva sig på meditation når de troende fram till en känsla av frihet. Hela tillvaron betraktas lugn och jämnmord. Dom två första reglerna anger förutsättningarna för att människan skall nå sanningen. Dom tre följande reglerna talar om vad livet skall innehålla. Dom tre sista reglerna visa hur människan genom kunskap och tänkande ska nå sanningarna. Varför blir somliga buddhistmunkar ? , Hur lever dom ? Dom flesta blir det nog därför att dom vill söka inre frid eller för att söka efter meningen med livet (uppnå Nirvana). I klostren är det inte tillåtet att dricka alkohol eller att ha sena måltider. Det är därför att Buddha mycket starkt påpekade att den som blir fet återföds om och om igen. Det får inte häller förekomma någon form av njutning t.ex. mjuka sängar, dans eller skådespel. En munk får dessutom bara äga tre klädnader i form av en vandringsstav, en rakkniv, en synål, en tiggarskål och en sil. En annan grej som skiljer deras livsstil med våran är att dom måste leva i celibat. Buddhismens högtider och ceremonier I alla buddistiska länder firar man Buddhas födelse med en fest. Denna äger rum i april-maj. Festen kallas Wesak-festen. Då färdas pilgrimer till olika platser där man säger sig ha olika reliker, t.ex. tänder eller hårstrån från Buddha. Där samlas man och mediterar över läran. Buddhismens utbredning Buddhismen spreds inte med våld som kristendommen gjorde, dom skickade häller inte ut missionärer som dom kristna. Buddhism och kristendom är lika varandra. Buddhism och kristendom har mycket gemensamt. Buddha hade t.ex. lärjungar, det hade Jesus också. Båda predikade som profeter. Båda var fredliga. Bådas mammor hade inget samliv med någon, ändå hade fick dom barn. Båda var maskulina. Båda levde ett fattigt liv. Mitt intryck av Buddhismen Jag har alltid trott att buddhismen verkar vara lite mystisk och inte riktig samma sak som andra religioner som Islam och kristendomen m.m.. Det är det som gör religionen så intressant tycker jag. Jag märkte efter hand som arbetet fortlöpte att religionen inte var så konstig som jag tidigare trott utan att den bara var lite speciell. Det roliga med buddhismen var att det skapats av en vanlig person som faktiskt inte var så märkvärdig utan faktiskt ganska vardaglig. Jag gillar verkligen att det aldrig har funnits några religiösa motsättning som har lett till våldsaktioner inom den buddistiska tron. 1996-11-26 Buddhism Buddhas Liv För ca 2500 år sedan regerade kung Suddhoana i norra Indien i Kapilavastu. Han var gift med prinsessan Maya. Under en lång period väntade folket på en prins men Maya ville inte ha något samliv med kungen eller någon annan. Men hon blev ändå med barn, så här gick det till: En natt drömde Maya att hon fördes till toppen av Silverberget, där hon lades i en säng i ett gyllene hus. Då uppenbarade sig en elefant med lotusblommor i snaben. Så avlades Buddha. Efter exakt tio månader när drottningen i en park kände att barnet var redo att komma till världen, böjde ett träd vänligt ner en gren som drottningen kunde luta sig på, medan hon stående födde barnet. Innan barnet han falla till marken fångades det upp av fyra gudaväsen som sade till drottningen. "Gläd dig o drottning du har givit liv åt en stor gestalt". Sedan vände sig Buddha (Sidharta Gatuama) till de uppvaktade gudarna och till människorna och sade: "Jag är världens herre. Detta är min sista födsel". Detta hände någon gång på 500-talet f kr. Föräldrarna blev då mycket förbryllade och gick genast till en spåman för att få en förklaring. Då sade spåmannen till kungen och drottningen att barnet antingen skulle bli en världshärskare eller en religionsstiftare. Fadern blev då mycket orolig och bestämde att Sidharta Gatuama skulle få leva i lyx och i överflöd, men han fick bara vistas innanför portarna. Men allteftersom Sidharta Gatuama växte upp blev han allt mera nyfiken på världen utanför dom stora portarna. Så han började att åka ut på hemliga åkturer utan att någon viste om det. När han var ute mötte han på fattigdom och sjukdom. När han såg dom döda brännas på strandkanten försvann all trygghet och glädje. På vägen hem mötte han en vandrande asket med bara utslitna trasor och smuts på kroppen, men asketen var fortfarande glad. Det var därför att han hade funnit livets mening. Då bestämde sig Sidharta Gatuama att lämna både hustru, barn och palats för att söka sanningen om livet. Men det gav inga svar. Det hjälpte inte heller be till gudarna eller att plåga sig. Tills slut gick det så långt att han bara levde på ett riskorn och en droppe vatten om dagen. Han satt och mediterade i flera dagar helt stilla, så helt plötsligt förstod han hur det hela hängde ihop, han upplevde Nirvana, Då upphörde han att vara Sidharta Gatuama och förblev "Buddha". Buddha stannade ett tag för att hämta sina krafter, men då blev han uppvaktad av den onde guden Mara. Med hot och smicker försökte Mara att få Buddha att gå in i Nirvana igen och lämna detta jordliv. Men Buddha kände kärlek för människorna, så han avstod från lycka. I över 40 år vandrade han i norra Indien med sina lärjungar för att predika Läran. Alla människor fick då möjligheten att uppnå Nirvana. Men på väg tillbaka till sina hemtrakter avled han av ålder och sjukdom. Innan han dog gick han dock in i Nirvana. Jorden började då att skaka av skalv och åskan dånade i himlen. På sjunde dödsdagen brände lärjungarna hans kropp och fördelade dom heliga benen mellan sig. Buddhas Lära Strax efter Buddhas upplysning begav han sig till en stor park för att hålla sin första predikan, om dom 4 sanningarna: Den första av dom ädla sanningarna talar om att allt är lidande. Buddha utryckte det så här: "Födelsen är lidande, åldrande är lidande, sjukdom är lidande, bekymmer, smärta, oro, olycka och förtvivlan är lidande; att inte få vad man vill ha är lidande." Den andra ädla sanningen talar om att lidandet beror på vår livstörst. Vi vill till varje pris leva och förlänga våra liv och hela tiden längtar vi efter glädje och njutning. Begäran efter makt och pengar driver oss in i lidandet. Det skapar en livstörst som inte går att släcka. Den tredje ädla sanningen att lidandet kan upphöra. Genom att var och en tar ansvar för sitt eget liv och gör sig fri från alla begär kan lidandet upphöra. Men då måste människan också kontrollera alla sina sinnen. Ingen får bli lockad av det sköna som ögat ser eller den ljuvliga smak som tungan upplever. Livstörsten måste släckas. Den fjärde av dom ädla sanningarna talar om vägen till lidandets upphörande. Lidandet upphör om man kan följa den åttafaldiga vägen. Den åttafaldiga vägen Inom buddhismen finns en åttafaldiga vägen. Genom dessa åtta regler sa Buddha att man kunde undkomma lidandet genom återfödelse. Dessa åtta regler är: 1. Rätt kunskap. Att människan förstår de fyra heliga sanningarna. 2. Rätt sinnelag. Ingen människa får drivas av begär, hat eller våldstänkande. 3. Rätt tal. Varken lugn, förtal, skvaller eller kallprat får förekomma. 4. Rätt handlande. Att ta avstånd från dödande, stölder och ett ansvarslöst liv i sus och dus 5. Rätt liv. Spådomskonst, förförelser bedrägerier och ocker får inte förekomma. 6. Rätt strävan. Varje troende måste ständigt vara uppmärksam på vad som är gott och ont och noga följa läran. 7. Rätt uppmärksamhet. Det betyder att människan skall vara uppmärksam och kunna behärska sina känslor och begär. 8. Rätt koncentration eller meditation. Genom att öva sig på meditation når de troende fram till en känsla av frihet. Hela tillvaron betraktas lugn och jämnmord. Dom två första reglerna anger förutsättningarna för att människan skall nå sanningen. Dom tre följande reglerna talar om vad livet skall innehålla. Dom tre sista reglerna visa hur människan genom kunskap och tänkande ska nå sanningarna. Varför blir somliga buddhistmunkar ? , Hur lever dom ? Dom flesta blir det nog därför att dom vill söka inre frid eller för att söka efter meningen med livet (uppnå Nirvana). I klostren är det inte tillåtet att dricka alkohol eller att ha sena måltider. Det är därför att Buddha mycket starkt påpekade att den som blir fet återföds om och om igen. Det får inte häller förekomma någon form av njutning t.ex. mjuka sängar, dans eller skådespel. En munk får dessutom bara äga tre klädnader i form av en vandringsstav, en rakkniv, en synål, en tiggarskål och en sil. En annan grej som skiljer deras livsstil med våran är att dom måste leva i celibat. Buddhismens högtider och ceremonier I alla buddistiska länder firar man Buddhas födelse med en fest. Denna äger rum i april-maj. Festen kallas Wesak-festen. Då färdas pilgrimer till olika platser där man säger sig ha olika reliker, t.ex. tänder eller hårstrån från Buddha. Där samlas man och mediterar över läran. Buddhismens utbredning Buddhismen spreds inte med våld som kristendommen gjorde, dom skickade häller inte ut missionärer som dom kristna. Buddhism och kristendom är lika varandra. Buddhism och kristendom har mycket gemensamt. Buddha hade t.ex. lärjungar, det hade Jesus också. Båda predikade som profeter. Båda var fredliga. Bådas mammor hade inget samliv med någon, ändå hade fick dom barn. Båda var maskulina. Båda levde ett fattigt liv. Mitt intryck av Buddhismen Jag har alltid trott att buddhismen verkar vara lite mystisk och inte riktig samma sak som andra religioner som Islam och kristendomen m.m.. Det är det som gör religionen så intressant tycker jag. Jag märkte efter hand som arbetet fortlöpte att religionen inte var så konstig som jag tidigare trott utan att den bara var lite speciell. Det roliga med buddhismen var att det skapats av en vanlig person som faktiskt inte var så märkvärdig utan faktiskt ganska vardaglig. Jag gillar verkligen att det aldrig har funnits några religiösa motsättning som har lett till våldsaktioner inom den buddistiska tron. 1996-11-26 Buddhism Buddhas Liv För ca 2500 år sedan regerade kung Suddhoana i norra Indien i Kapilavastu. Han var gift med prinsessan Maya. Under en lång period väntade folket på en prins men Maya ville inte ha något samliv med kungen eller någon annan. Men hon blev ändå med barn, så här gick det till: En natt drömde Maya att hon fördes till toppen av Silverberget, där hon lades i en säng i ett gyllene hus. Då uppenbarade sig en elefant med lotusblommor i snaben. Så avlades Buddha. Efter exakt tio månader när drottningen i en park kände att barnet var redo att komma till världen, böjde ett träd vänligt ner en gren som drottningen kunde luta sig på, medan hon stående födde barnet. Innan barnet han falla till marken fångades det upp av fyra gudaväsen som sade till drottningen. "Gläd dig o drottning du har givit liv åt en stor gestalt". Sedan vände sig Buddha (Sidharta Gatuama) till de uppvaktade gudarna och till människorna och sade: "Jag är världens herre. Detta är min sista födsel". Detta hände någon gång på 500-talet f kr. Föräldrarna blev då mycket förbryllade och gick genast till en spåman för att få en förklaring. Då sade spåmannen till kungen och drottningen att barnet antingen skulle bli en världshärskare eller en religionsstiftare. Fadern blev då mycket orolig och bestämde att Sidharta Gatuama skulle få leva i lyx och i överflöd, men han fick bara vistas innanför portarna. Men allteftersom Sidharta Gatuama växte upp blev han allt mera nyfiken på världen utanför dom stora portarna. Så han började att åka ut på hemliga åkturer utan att någon viste om det. När han var ute mötte han på fattigdom och sjukdom. När han såg dom döda brännas på strandkanten försvann all trygghet och glädje. På vägen hem mötte han en vandrande asket med bara utslitna trasor och smuts på kroppen, men asketen var fortfarande glad. Det var därför att han hade funnit livets mening. Då bestämde sig Sidharta Gatuama att lämna både hustru, barn och palats för att söka sanningen om livet. Men det gav inga svar. Det hjälpte inte heller be till gudarna eller att plåga sig. Tills slut gick det så långt att han bara levde på ett riskorn och en droppe vatten om dagen. Han satt och mediterade i flera dagar helt stilla, så helt plötsligt förstod han hur det hela hängde ihop, han upplevde Nirvana, Då upphörde han att vara Sidharta Gatuama och förblev "Buddha". Buddha stannade ett tag för att hämta sina krafter, men då blev han uppvaktad av den onde guden Mara. Med hot och smicker försökte Mara att få Buddha att gå in i Nirvana igen och lämna detta jordliv. Men Buddha kände kärlek för människorna, så han avstod från lycka. I över 40 år vandrade han i norra Indien med sina lärjungar för att predika Läran. Alla människor fick då möjligheten att uppnå Nirvana. Men på väg tillbaka till sina hemtrakter avled han av ålder och sjukdom. Innan han dog gick han dock in i Nirvana. Jorden började då att skaka av skalv och åskan dånade i himlen. På sjunde dödsdagen brände lärjungarna hans kropp och fördelade dom heliga benen mellan sig. Buddhas Lära Strax efter Buddhas upplysning begav han sig till en stor park för att hålla sin första predikan, om dom 4 sanningarna: Den första av dom ädla sanningarna talar om att allt är lidande. Buddha utryckte det så här: "Födelsen är lidande, åldrande är lidande, sjukdom är lidande, bekymmer, smärta, oro, olycka och förtvivlan är lidande; att inte få vad man vill ha är lidande." Den andra ädla sanningen talar om att lidandet beror på vår livstörst. Vi vill till varje pris leva och förlänga våra liv och hela tiden längtar vi efter glädje och njutning. Begäran efter makt och pengar driver oss in i lidandet. Det skapar en livstörst som inte går att släcka. Den tredje ädla sanningen att lidandet kan upphöra. Genom att var och en tar ansvar för sitt eget liv och gör sig fri från alla begär kan lidandet upphöra. Men då måste människan också kontrollera alla sina sinnen. Ingen får bli lockad av det sköna som ögat ser eller den ljuvliga smak som tungan upplever. Livstörsten måste släckas. Den fjärde av dom ädla sanningarna talar om vägen till lidandets upphörande. Lidandet upphör om man kan följa den åttafaldiga vägen. Den åttafaldiga vägen Inom buddhismen finns en åttafaldiga vägen. Genom dessa åtta regler sa Buddha att man kunde undkomma lidandet genom återfödelse. Dessa åtta regler är: 1. Rätt kunskap. Att människan förstår de fyra heliga sanningarna. 2. Rätt sinnelag. Ingen människa får drivas av begär, hat eller våldstänkande. 3. Rätt tal. Varken lugn, förtal, skvaller eller kallprat får förekomma. 4. Rätt handlande. Att ta avstånd från dödande, stölder och ett ansvarslöst liv i sus och dus 5. Rätt liv. Spådomskonst, förförelser bedrägerier och ocker får inte förekomma. 6. Rätt strävan. Varje troende måste ständigt vara uppmärksam på vad som är gott och ont och noga följa läran. 7. Rätt uppmärksamhet. Det betyder att människan skall vara uppmärksam och kunna behärska sina känslor och begär. 8. Rätt koncentration eller meditation. Genom att öva sig på meditation når de troende fram till en känsla av frihet. Hela tillvaron betraktas lugn och jämnmord. Dom två första reglerna anger förutsättningarna för att människan skall nå sanningen. Dom tre följande reglerna talar om vad livet skall innehålla. Dom tre sista reglerna visa hur människan genom kunskap och tänkande ska nå sanningarna. Varför blir somliga buddhistmunkar ? , Hur lever dom ? Dom flesta blir det nog därför att dom vill söka inre frid eller för att söka efter meningen med livet (uppnå Nirvana). I klostren är det inte tillåtet att dricka alkohol eller att ha sena måltider. Det är därför att Buddha mycket starkt påpekade att den som blir fet återföds om och om igen. Det får inte häller förekomma någon form av njutning t.ex. mjuka sängar, dans eller skådespel. En munk får dessutom bara äga tre klädnader i form av en vandringsstav, en rakkniv, en synål, en tiggarskål och en sil. En annan grej som skiljer deras livsstil med våran är att dom måste leva i celibat. Buddhismens högtider och ceremonier I alla buddistiska länder firar man Buddhas födelse med en fest. Denna äger rum i april-maj. Festen kallas Wesak-festen. Då färdas pilgrimer till olika platser där man säger sig ha olika reliker, t.ex. tänder eller hårstrån från Buddha. Där samlas man och mediterar över läran. Buddhismens utbredning Buddhismen spreds inte med våld som kristendommen gjorde, dom skickade häller inte ut missionärer som dom kristna. Buddhism och kristendom är lika varandra. Buddhism och kristendom har mycket gemensamt. Buddha hade t.ex. lärjungar, det hade Jesus också. Båda predikade som profeter. Båda var fredliga. Bådas mammor hade inget samliv med någon, ändå hade fick dom barn. Båda var maskulina. Båda levde ett fattigt liv. Mitt intryck av Buddhismen Jag har alltid trott att buddhismen verkar vara lite mystisk och inte riktig samma sak som andra religioner som Islam och kristendomen m.m.. Det är det som gör religionen så intressant tycker jag. Jag märkte efter hand som arbetet fortlöpte att f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddhism 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Buddhism 1.) The First Noble Truth - "Dukkha" A.) The First Noble Truth seems to be an intrinsic understanding that all things are impermanent. This impermanence causes us to feel frustrated when we can't hold on to people or things we think we need. This need helps us feel wanted and/or important. Dukkha can also be described as the suffering we experience and see in our lives. Unpleasant conditions such as being sick, seeing our loved ones get sick and die, getting aggravated over things our children do, losing a job, etc. cause us to experience Dukkha. The Buddha felt that this suffering was brought on by our attachment to people and things. Only by detachment and selfless acts can we become free from the unpleasantness of Dukkha. Another aspect of Dukkha deals with the belief in the importance of oneself. The Five Aggregates are the foundation of this aspect. The "I" saying "I" creates the illusion of "I" which consists of matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. These five items produce the compound being that experiences Dukkha. B.) I Believe I give significance to things or events that aren't intentionally producing Dukkha. I'm leaving my house to go to work and I happen to leave a couple of minutes late knowing that there is a possibility that I might be late. As I'm driving someone pulls in front of me and is maybe doing the speed limit. I immediately go into reaction mode. This is where I have to realize that the person in front of me is not intentionally trying to make me late for work. (not until I flash my highbeams or honk my horn) Looking at situations objectively and being more proactive can help us deal with Dukkha better. I believe the Buddha understood that "Dukkha Happens" so its how we deal with it that can cause the frustration, sadness, and suffering. C.) I have mixed feelings on the concept of Dukkha. Specifically with the element of detachment. I agree with the idea of detachment from material things but I don't agree when it comes to people. Although I believe material things come and go with memories of them fading as time goes on, I feel as people come and go through our lives, the memories of attachment stay with us embedded in our hearts as well as in our mind. (Darshana ?) The idea of everything being an illusion or Maya is tough to conceptualize. I do believe we are the thinker behind the thought. The "I" creates the illusion of who we are and how we behave. I also believe that by combining the Five Aggregates, The "I" saying "I" helps us to be "Ever- changing physical and mental forces" capable of realizing our potential but within our limitations. 2.) The Second Noble Truth - "Tanha" A.) I'm struggling to find differences between the first and second Noble Truths. I see the definition of Dukkha encompassing all the elements of Tanha. I guess that's why it is so important to remember when trying to understand Dukkha that "The arising of Dukkha is within Dukkha itself, and not outside". Also, "The destruction of Dukkha, is also within Dukkha, and not outside". Within Tanha, the concept of Karma is explained. The force to continue whether good or bad is the cause of Karma. It's not the effect when something happens but the act that causes something to happen. The idea of life after death is also discussed within Tanha. The Buddha explains that because there is no self, only a combination of the Five Aggregates which the "I" creates, "One thought moment conditions the next thought moment". We are in a constant state of change which explains why nothing is permanent. B.) Our Ego causes us to want to have things our way. This desire or craving is apparent in our everyday lives. When I feel I have an idea on how my children should behave, there is a desire for them to do something as I would do it. Not letting them grow in there own way and watching as a helpful observer causes Dukkha within me. If the craving for a new car causes me to lose track of immediate needs, frustration knowing that I have a need that has a priority over a want also causes Dukkha. When I saw a colleague get a job that I thought I was more capable and qualified to do my reaction was to become angry. "Who is He getting the job over a more qualified Me?". C.) For the same reasons I wrote about in question 1 section C, there are ideas within Tanha I agree with and ideas I don't agree with. Maybe the items I don't agree with I just don't understand fully. I feel the objectiveness the Buddha spoke of is real important although I don't believe there can be true objectivity. I try to back away and see situations as objectively as possible. Everything we see or do is based on our view from our experience which is our frame of reference. It seems to be almost human nature for us to react instead of looking at the situation, thinking about the effects of our actions or reactions, and making a decision based on those effects. 3.) Samsara & Karma Because of all the trouble we experience in life (Dukkha), Samsara or the wheel of life consisting of birth, death and rebirth, is not desirable in Buddhism. There is a "Fundamental dissatisfaction with the human condition as we know it". This dissatisfaction causes us to experience Dukkha and react accordingly. When we react we produce Karma which keeps us in the loop of Samsara. Karma is produced when we act selfishly under the illusion that everything is separate. This illusion causes us to give significance to elements within the "Whole" illusion, or life as we know it. When we have a desire to want more, grow more, be more, the illusion becomes real for us. These desires can be good or bad but once we give them significance we want them to continue. We want to follow through with them. This craving is within Samsara. Only after we create more selfless acts and eliminate our ego led selfishness do we reduce the Karma we have. Samsara ends when we get to a state of pure selflessness which is called Nirvana. Intellectual knowledge can not get you there which is why this concept is hard for the analytical mind to understand. Going inside our thoughts and realizing what fears, habits, limitations, obsessions, etc. are running our lives and maybe even listening to our intuition is a start to understanding. 4.) The Eightfold Path - "Magga" A.) First, I think it's important to understand and realize that the Buddha did not create this path of self development as a moral or ethical doctrine. His whole focus was on the end result of achieving enlightenment. If people took this as a way of behaving according to the Buddha, they would be giving significance to an attachment to the Buddha himself. Through self help and discipline, using the Eightfold Path as a guide, you can follow a path to enlightenment. There is no sequential order in following the elements within Magga. Each one should be practiced to it's full extent and each one relies on the others to make the individual "Whole". Magga consists of three disciplines Wisdom, Ethical Conduct, and Mental Discipline. Wisdom consists of Right Understanding which is the "Understanding of things as they are". Here you have to understand the Four Noble Truths before you can assimilate them into action. Right Thought is having the attitude that drives your action once you have the understanding. This is where we decide what we really want and put our heart into it. What we think about expands into our actions. Ethical Conduct is based on love and compassion. Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood make up Ethical Conduct. With Right Speech, we have to notice how we speak to each other and understand how what we say reflects our character. We have to abstain from gossiping, lying, abusing, etc. not only in the obvious form of directness but also in the covert or subtle form where a sneak attack is used. Right Action is where the Five Precepts are explained and is the understanding that how we act also reflects our character. The Five Precepts are Don't kill or injure living things, Don't steal, Don't lie, Have self control in matters of sex (here we should pursue a loving relationship over unmeaning sensual pleasure), and Abstain from intoxicants. Right Livelihood is having an occupation that "Promotes life instead of destroying it". Occupations such as bartender, butcher, and prostitute go against the Five Precepts and would not promote spiritual growth. Mental Discipline is the third essential element in the Eightfold Path. Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration are the factors of Mental Discipline. Right Effort is the Steady pursuit of attaining your goal. The Buddha said that "We can escape misery only by earnestly and steadfastly persevering in the way". We may meet stumbling blocks along the way to enlightenment but our Right Effort will draw us through them. Right Mindfulness is the constant awareness of our feelings, thoughts, and actions. The Buddha wanted us to be in control of these things instead of them being in control of us. Right Concentration is an element of the Eightfold Path that addresses stillness or being aware of a still center as everything around us is flowing and changing. This is the idea I have the most trouble understanding. B.) I believe that true intelligence is Wisdom providing a synthesis between the mind and heart. The knowledge gained from studying the Eightfold Path is worthless without the compassion for others. Under wisdom, I would learn as much as possible about Magga by studying different texts and possibly going to a Buddhist retreat. This would help me get to Right Understanding. Understanding and believing in Magga would change my attitude and eventually change my behavior. Realizing how important my character is, using Right Mindfulness I will be more aware of how I speak to people. Practicing better listening skills and not shooting from the hip would prevent me from saying things I don't mean. Being true to people and not talking about them behind their back would also be a virtue. Watching my actions and making sure they don't contradict my thoughts or beliefs would be something very important to attain. Right Livelihood is an area I would have a problem with right now. If I were to follow the Path I would have to find something else to do and am not ready to give up the security. Right Effort is something that can help me deal with and ultimately get rid of any fears, anxieties, and compulsions. Together with Right Mindfulness the freedom from these evils would come by being "In Control" and being self aware. Right Mindfulness would help me enjoy the things in life I take for grant f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddhism Questioning Our self.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Buddhism- Questioning Our "self" Questioning our 'Self' Something that interests us all is ourselves - because we are the subject and main focus of our lives. No matter what you think of yourself, there is a natural interest because you have to live with yourself for a lifetime. The self view is therefore something that can give us a lot of misery if we see ourselves in the wrong way. Even under the best of circumstances, if we don't see ourselves in the right way we still end up creating suffering in our minds. The Buddha was trying to point out that the way to solve the problem isn't through trying to make everything right and pleasant on the external dimension, but to develop the right understanding, the right attitude towards ourselves, and to overall just do what we can. Living in the US at this time, we expect comfort and all kinds of privileges and material comforts. This makes life more pleasant in many ways, but when our every need is provided for and life is too comfortable, something in us just doesn't develop. Sometimes it is the struggle through hardship that develops and matures us as human beings. But when we give up or surrender to restriction and to restraint through wisdom, we find liberation. Life is the experience of restriction and restraint, being born in our own skin and having to live under the laws of nature. Mentally we can fly to the sky, but physically we are bound to limitations that get more and more restrictive the older we get. This isn't seen as suffering by us because that's just the way things are. The sense of oneself is something that we are aware of when we are children; when we're born there is no sense of a self as being anything. As we grow up we learn what we are supposed to be, if we are good or bad, if we are pretty or ugly, if we are smart or stupid. So we develop a sense of ourselves. Even when we get older, sometimes we still have very adolescent attitudes or childish emotional reactions to life that we have been unable to resolve except by suppressing or ignoring them. There is one way of talking about the self that makes it sound very doctrinal. It seemed to me that Buddhists can sometimes say that there is no self, as if it was a proclamation that they have to believe in; as if there were some higher being saying "THERE IS NO SELF BOYS AND GIRLS!" It doesn't seem true to just go announcing that there isn't any self- because what is this experience that we are feeling right now? Where I am now there seems to be very much a sense of oneself. I'm feeling, I'm breathing, I see, I hear; I react to things - people can praise me or criticize me and I feel happy or sad. " 'All states are without self', when one sees this in wisdom, then he becomes dispassionate towards the painful. This is the Path to Purity." (134 Rahula) So if this isn't me then what is it? And am I supposed to go around as a Buddhist believing that I don't have a self? Or if I am going to believe, should it be in something like God where I can believe that I have a self, because then I can say things like "my true self is perfect and pure" even if it's not? That at least gives me some kind of inspiration and reason to live my life, rather than saying that there is no self and no soul, leaving a total of zero possibilities. These are just examples of the use of language; we can say "there is no self" as a proclamation, or "there is no self" as a reflection. The reflective way is to encourage us to contemplate the self. The Buddha was pointing to the fact that when we really look at these changing conditions that we tend to identify with, we can begin to see that these are not self. What we believe in is not what we really are: it's a position, it's a condition, it's something that changes according to time and place. Each one of us is experiencing consciousness through the human body that we have. There are moments in our lives when the self does stop functioning and we get in touch with the pure state of conscious experience. That is what is known as bliss. But when we have those blissful experiences, immediately the desire to have them again takes over, and no matter how hard we try to have it again, as long as we're attached to the view of wanting bliss again, we will never get it. But in this state of attentive awareness, we begin to see what is actually taking place, then we can let go of the causes of our suffering. We see how it actually is, and we have that intuitive wisdom to let go. So in this life as a human being from birth to death every moment is an opportunity for understanding in the right way. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddhism religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Buddhism 1.) The First Noble Truth - "Dukkha" A.) The First Noble Truth seems to be an intrinsic understanding that all things are impermanent. This impermanence causes us to feel frustrated when we can't hold on to people or things we think we need. This need helps us feel wanted and/or important. Dukkha can also be described as the suffering we experience and see in our lives. Unpleasant conditions such as being sick, seeing our loved ones get sick and die, getting aggravated over things our children do, losing a job, etc. cause us to experience Dukkha. The Buddha felt that this suffering was brought on by our attachment to people and things. Only by detachment and selfless acts can we become free from the unpleasantness of Dukkha. Another aspect of Dukkha deals with the belief in the importance of oneself. The Five Aggregates are the foundation of this aspect. The "I" saying "I" creates the illusion of "I" which consists of matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. These five items produce the compound being that experiences Dukkha. B.) I Believe I give significance to things or events that aren't intentionally producing Dukkha. I'm leaving my house to go to work and I happen to leave a couple of minutes late knowing that there is a possibility that I might be late. As I'm driving someone pulls in front of me and is maybe doing the speed limit. I immediately go into reaction mode. This is where I have to realize that the person in front of me is not intentionally trying to make me late for work. (not until I flash my highbeams or honk my horn) Looking at situations objectively and being more proactive can help us deal with Dukkha better. I believe the Buddha understood that "Dukkha Happens" so its how we deal with it that can cause the frustration, sadness, and suffering. C.) I have mixed feelings on the concept of Dukkha. Specifically with the element of detachment. I agree with the idea of detachment from material things but I don't agree when it comes to people. Although I believe material things come and go with memories of them fading as time goes on, I feel as people come and go through our lives, the memories of attachment stay with us embedded in our hearts as well as in our mind. (Darshana ?) The idea of everything being an illusion or Maya is tough to conceptualize. I do believe we are the thinker behind the thought. The "I" creates the illusion of who we are and how we behave. I also believe that by combining the Five Aggregates, The "I" saying "I" helps us to be "Ever-changing physical and mental forces" capable of realizing our potential but within our limitations. 2.) The Second Noble Truth - "Tanha" A.) I'm struggling to find differences between the first and second Noble Truths. I see the definition of Dukkha encompassing all the elements of Tanha. I guess that's why it is so important to remember when trying to understand Dukkha that "The arising of Dukkha is within Dukkha itself, and not outside". Also, "The destruction of Dukkha, is also within Dukkha, and not outside". Within Tanha, the concept of Karma is explained. The force to continue whether good or bad is the cause of Karma. It's not the effect when something happens but the act that causes something to happen. The idea of life after death is also discussed within Tanha. The Buddha explains that because there is no self, only a combination of the Five Aggregates which the "I" creates, "One thought moment conditions the next thought moment". We are in a constant state of change which explains why nothing is permanent. B.) Our Ego causes us to want to have things our way. This desire or craving is apparent in our everyday lives. When I feel I have an idea on how my children should behave, there is a desire for them to do something as I would do it. Not letting them grow in there own way and watching as a helpful observer causes Dukkha within me. If the craving for a new car causes me to lose track of immediate needs, frustration knowing that I have a need that has a priority over a want also causes Dukkha. When I saw a colleague get a job that I thought I was more capable and qualified to do my reaction was to become angry. "Who is He getting the job over a more qualified Me?". C.) For the same reasons I wrote about in question 1 section C, there are ideas within Tanha I agree with and ideas I don't agree with. Maybe the items I don't agree with I just don't understand fully. I feel the objectiveness the Buddha spoke of is real important although I don't believe there can be true objectivity. I try to back away and see situations as objectively as possible. Everything we see or do is based on our view from our experience which is our frame of reference. It seems to be almost human nature for us to react instead of looking at the situation, thinking about the effects of our actions or reactions, and making a decision based on those effects. 3.) Samsara & Karma Because of all the trouble we experience in life (Dukkha), Samsara or the wheel of life consisting of birth, death and rebirth, is not desirable in Buddhism. There is a "Fundamental dissatisfaction with the human condition as we know it". This dissatisfaction causes us to experience Dukkha and react accordingly. When we react we produce Karma which keeps us in the loop of Samsara. Karma is produced when we act selfishly under the illusion that everything is separate. This illusion causes us to give significance to elements within the "Whole" illusion, or life as we know it. When we have a desire to want more, grow more, be more, the illusion becomes real for us. These desires can be good or bad but once we give them significance we want them to continue. We want to follow through with them. This craving is within Samsara. Only after we create more selfless acts and eliminate our ego led selfishness do we reduce the Karma we have. Samsara ends when we get to a state of pure selflessness which is called Nirvana. Intellectual knowledge can not get you there which is why this concept is hard for the analytical mind to understand. Going inside our thoughts and realizing what fears, habits, limitations, obsessions, etc. are running our lives and maybe even listening to our intuition is a start to understanding. 4.) The Eightfold Path - "Magga" A.) First, I think it's important to understand and realize that the Buddha did not create this path of self development as a moral or ethical doctrine. His whole focus was on the end result of achieving enlightenment. If people took this as a way of behaving according to the Buddha, they would be giving significance to an attachment to the Buddha himself. Through self help and discipline, using the Eightfold Path as a guide, you can follow a path to enlightenment. There is no sequential order in following the elements within Magga. Each one should be practiced to it's full extent and each one relies on the others to make the individual "Whole". Magga consists of three disciplines Wisdom, Ethical Conduct, and Mental Discipline. Wisdom consists of Right Understanding which is the "Understanding of things as they are". Here you have to understand the Four Noble Truths before you can assimilate them into action. Right Thought is having the attitude that drives your action once you have the understanding. This is where we decide what we really want and put our heart into it. What we think about expands into our actions. Ethical Conduct is based on love and compassion. Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood make up Ethical Conduct. With Right Speech, we have to notice how we speak to each other and understand how what we say reflects our character. We have to abstain from gossiping, lying, abusing, etc. not only in the obvious form of directness but also in the covert or subtle form where a sneak attack is used. Right Action is where the Five Precepts are explained and is the understanding that how we act also reflects our character. The Five Precepts are Don't kill or injure living things, Don't steal, Don't lie, Have self control in matters of sex (here we should pursue a loving relationship over unmeaning sensual pleasure), and Abstain from intoxicants. Right Livelihood is having an occupation that "Promotes life instead of destroying it". Occupations such as bartender, butcher, and prostitute go against the Five Precepts and would not promote spiritual growth. Mental Discipline is the third essential element in the Eightfold Path. Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration are the factors of Mental Discipline. Right Effort is the Steady pursuit of attaining your goal. The Buddha said that "We can escape misery only by earnestly and steadfastly persevering in the way". We may meet stumbling blocks along the way to enlightenment but our Right Effort will draw us through them. Right Mindfulness is the constant awareness of our feelings, thoughts, and actions. The Buddha wanted us to be in control of these things instead of them being in control of us. Right Concentration is an element of the Eightfold Path that addresses stillness or being aware of a still center as everything around us is flowing and changing. This is the idea I have the most trouble understanding. B.) I believe that true intelligence is Wisdom providing a synthesis between the mind and heart. The knowledge gained from studying the Eightfold Path is worthless without the compassion for others. Under wisdom, I would learn as much as possible about Magga by studying different texts and possibly going to a Buddhist retreat. This would help me get to Right Understanding. Understanding and believing in Magga would change my attitude and eventually change my behavior. Realizing how important my character is, using Right Mindfulness I will be more aware of how I speak to people. Practicing better listening skills and not shooting from the hip would prevent me from saying things I don't mean. Being true to people and not talking about them behind their back would also be a virtue. Watching my actions and making sure they don't contradict my thoughts or beliefs would be something very important to attain. Right Livelihood is an area I would have a problem with right now. If I were to follow the Path I would have to find something else to do and am not ready to give up the security. Right Effort is something that can help me deal with and ultimately get rid of any fears, anxieties, and compulsions. Together with Right Mindfulness the freedom from these evils would come by being "In Control" and being self aware. Right Mindfulness would help me enjoy the things in life I take for grant f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Buddhism 1.) The First Noble Truth - "Dukkha" A.) The First Noble Truth seems to be an intrinsic understanding that all things are impermanent. This impermanence causes us to feel frustrated when we can't hold on to people or things we think we need. This need helps us feel wanted and/or important. Dukkha can also be described as the suffering we experience and see in our lives. Unpleasant conditions such as being sick, seeing our loved ones get sick and die, getting aggravated over things our children do, losing a job, etc. cause us to experience Dukkha. The Buddha felt that this suffering was brought on by our attachment to people and things. Only by detachment and selfless acts can we become free from the unpleasantness of Dukkha. Another aspect of Dukkha deals with the belief in the importance of oneself. The Five Aggregates are the foundation of this aspect. The "I" saying "I" creates the illusion of "I" which consists of matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. These five items produce the compound being that experiences Dukkha. B.) I Believe I give significance to things or events that aren't intentionally producing Dukkha. I'm leaving my house to go to work and I happen to leave a couple of minutes late knowing that there is a possibility that I might be late. As I'm driving someone pulls in front of me and is maybe doing the speed limit. I immediately go into reaction mode. This is where I have to realize that the person in front of me is not intentionally trying to make me late for work. (not until I flash my highbeams or honk my horn) Looking at situations objectively and being more proactive can help us deal with Dukkha better. I believe the Buddha understood that "Dukkha Happens" so its how we deal with it that can cause the frustration, sadness, and suffering. C.) I have mixed feelings on the concept of Dukkha. Specifically with the element of detachment. I agree with the idea of detachment from material things but I don't agree when it comes to people. Although I believe material things come and go with memories of them fading as time goes on, I feel as people come and go through our lives, the memories of attachment stay with us embedded in our hearts as well as in our mind. (Darshana ?) The idea of everything being an illusion or Maya is tough to conceptualize. I do believe we are the thinker behind the thought. The "I" creates the illusion of who we are and how we behave. I also believe that by combining the Five Aggregates, The "I" saying "I" helps us to be "Ever-changing physical and mental forces" capable of realizing our potential but within our limitations. 2.) The Second Noble Truth - "Tanha" A.) I'm struggling to find differences between the first and second Noble Truths. I see the definition of Dukkha encompassing all the elements of Tanha. I guess that's why it is so important to remember when trying to understand Dukkha that "The arising of Dukkha is within Dukkha itself, and not outside". Also, "The destruction of Dukkha, is also within Dukkha, and not outside". Within Tanha, the concept of Karma is explained. The force to continue whether good or bad is the cause of Karma. It's not the effect when something happens but the act that causes something to happen. The idea of life after death is also discussed within Tanha. The Buddha explains that because there is no self, only a combination of the Five Aggregates which the "I" creates, "One thought moment conditions the next thought moment". We are in a constant state of change which explains why nothing is permanent. B.) Our Ego causes us to want to have things our way. This desire or craving is apparent in our everyday lives. When I feel I have an idea on how my children should behave, there is a desire for them to do something as I would do it. Not letting them grow in there own way and watching as a helpful observer causes Dukkha within me. If the craving for a new car causes me to lose track of immediate needs, frustration knowing that I have a need that has a priority over a want also causes Dukkha. When I saw a colleague get a job that I thought I was more capable and qualified to do my reaction was to become angry. "Who is He getting the job over a more qualified Me?". C.) For the same reasons I wrote about in question 1 section C, there are ideas within Tanha I agree with and ideas I don't agree with. Maybe the items I don't agree with I just don't understand fully. I feel the objectiveness the Buddha spoke of is real important although I don't believe there can be true objectivity. I try to back away and see situations as objectively as possible. Everything we see or do is based on our view from our experience which is our frame of reference. It seems to be almost human nature for us to react instead of looking at the situation, thinking about the effects of our actions or reactions, and making a decision based on those effects. 3.) Samsara & Karma Because of all the trouble we experience in life (Dukkha), Samsara or the wheel of life consisting of birth, death and rebirth, is not desirable in Buddhism. There is a "Fundamental dissatisfaction with the human condition as we know it". This dissatisfaction causes us to experience Dukkha and react accordingly. When we react we produce Karma which keeps us in the loop of Samsara. Karma is produced when we act selfishly under the illusion that everything is separate. This illusion causes us to give significance to elements within the "Whole" illusion, or life as we know it. When we have a desire to want more, grow more, be more, the illusion becomes real for us. These desires can be good or bad but once we give them significance we want them to continue. We want to follow through with them. This craving is within Samsara. Only after we create more selfless acts and eliminate our ego led selfishness do we reduce the Karma we have. Samsara ends when we get to a state of pure selflessness which is called Nirvana. Intellectual knowledge can not get you there which is why this concept is hard for the analytical mind to understand. Going inside our thoughts and realizing what fears, habits, limitations, obsessions, etc. are running our lives and maybe even listening to our intuition is a start to understanding. 4.) The Eightfold Path - "Magga" A.) First, I think it's important to understand and realize that the Buddha did not create this path of self development as a moral or ethical doctrine. His whole focus was on the end result of achieving enlightenment. If people took this as a way of behaving according to the Buddha, they would be giving significance to an attachment to the Buddha himself. Through self help and discipline, using the Eightfold Path as a guide, you can follow a path to enlightenment. There is no sequential order in following the elements within Magga. Each one should be practiced to it's full extent and each one relies on the others to make the individual "Whole". Magga consists of three disciplines Wisdom, Ethical Conduct, and Mental Discipline. Wisdom consists of Right Understanding which is the "Understanding of things as they are". Here you have to understand the Four Noble Truths before you can assimilate them into action. Right Thought is having the attitude that drives your action once you have the understanding. This is where we decide what we really want and put our heart into it. What we think about expands into our actions. Ethical Conduct is based on love and compassion. Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood make up Ethical Conduct. With Right Speech, we have to notice how we speak to each other and understand how what we say reflects our character. We have to abstain from gossiping, lying, abusing, etc. not only in the obvious form of directness but also in the covert or subtle form where a sneak attack is used. Right Action is where the Five Precepts are explained and is the understanding that how we act also reflects our character. The Five Precepts are Don't kill or injure living things, Don't steal, Don't lie, Have self control in matters of sex (here we should pursue a loving relationship over unmeaning sensual pleasure), and Abstain from intoxicants. Right Livelihood is having an occupation that "Promotes life instead of destroying it". Occupations such as bartender, butcher, and prostitute go against the Five Precepts and would not promote spiritual growth. Mental Discipline is the third essential element in the Eightfold Path. Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration are the factors of Mental Discipline. Right Effort is the Steady pursuit of attaining your goal. The Buddha said that "We can escape misery only by earnestly and steadfastly persevering in the way". We may meet stumbling blocks along the way to enlightenment but our Right Effort will draw us through them. Right Mindfulness is the constant awareness of our feelings, thoughts, and actions. The Buddha wanted us to be in control of these things instead of them being in control of us. Right Concentration is an element of the Eightfold Path that addresses stillness or being aware of a still center as everything around us is flowing and changing. This is the idea I have the most trouble understanding. B.) I believe that true intelligence is Wisdom providing a synthesis between the mind and heart. The knowledge gained from studying the Eightfold Path is worthless without the compassion for others. Under wisdom, I would learn as much as possible about Magga by studying different texts and possibly going to a Buddhist retreat. This would help me get to Right Understanding. Understanding and believing in Magga would change my attitude and eventually change my behavior. Realizing how important my character is, using Right Mindfulness I will be more aware of how I speak to people. Practicing better listening skills and not shooting from the hip would prevent me from saying things I don't mean. Being true to people and not talking about them behind their back would also be a virtue. Watching my actions and making sure they don't contradict my thoughts or beliefs would be something very important to attain. Right Livelihood is an area I would have a problem with right now. If I were to follow the Path I would have to find something else to do and am not ready to give up the security. Right Effort is something that can help me deal with and ultimately get rid of any fears, anxieties, and compulsions. Together with Right Mindfulness the freedom from these evils would come by being "In Control" and being self aware. Right Mindfulness would help me enjoy the things in life I take for grant f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Buddi.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Buddhism is a religion founded by an ex-Prince Siddhartha Gaumata. Gaumata was a prince who was brought up in a perfect surrounding. When the prince left the palace he saw all the poverty. At the age of twenty nine, the prince left his wife and his infant son to meditate and practice Yoga to find peace and enlightenment. Gaumata was meditating for a long time when finally while he was sitting under a Bo tree he had attained the enlightenment he was looking for. It is for this reason he got the name Buddha, meaning the enlightened one. Buddha became a traveling teacher and taught everyone his discovery. Buddha did not write any of his lessons down. He taught about the Four Noble Truths, (1) life is suffering, (2) all suffering is caused by ignorance, (3) Ending ignorance will end suffering, and (4) The path to the destruction of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path consists of (1) Knowledge of the truth, (2) the intention to resist evil, (3) not saying anything that will hurt someone else, (4) respecting life, (5) having a job that doesn't injure anyone, (6) striving free one's mind of evil, (7) controlling one's feelings, and (8) concentrating properly. Buddha preached that the life was a continuing cycle of death and rebirth. The well-being of oneself was determined on your behavior in your previous life. Buddha said that by ridding oneself of worldly things he would be in nirvana, peace and happiness. After Buddha's death, his followers collected his teachings that became the dharma. The sangha is what sometimes referred to as an ideal Buddhist community. All the people in the community follow all the laws and seek nirvana. The arrangement of the monks that had a role in the sangha. The monks' arrangement kept the preserving and the spreading of Buddhism. In many Buddhist countries the monks had to live in poverty and meditate. The monks wore very long robes. In a sangha everyone, including the common Buddhists. The Buddhists have a book called Tripitika, meaning three baskets. The first part of the book is about the Basket of Discipline, which talks about regulating the order of Buddhist monks. The second part is the Basket of Discourses, which talks about the sermons of Buddha. The last part is about the Basket of the Higher Dharma, which talks about systematic discussions of principle. All Buddhists have the obligation to pray to Buddha whenever they see a statue of him. There are different customs in Buddhism. The three places that these different customs come from are from the Theravadas, the Mahayanas, and the Zens. The Zens are the group that originated in China. The marriage and death follow the different customs. The Theravadas have a wedding by going to a monastery, after the legal wedding. There they give a generous gift to the sangha. They get a special chant for themselves to have a great future. When someone dies their body is sent to the monastery and is burned by the monks. Wesak is a Tibetan holiday. It is celebrated in may to honor the birth, enlightenment and death of the Buddha. Some people fast, but others are picnicking, dancing, acting and playing sports. Buddhism sounds like a funny religion, but in fact there are about 300 million Buddhists in the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Can One Believe Simultaneously In God And The Big Bang.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Can One Believe Simultaneously In God And The Big Bang? Where are the boundaries of our mind and soul? Is there a point beyond which we cannot look anymore, where our sights become dim and vaguely disappear in the forever darkness and quietness of eternity? Has our limited knowledge and, at the same time, undeniable need to be able to explain everything, become so obvious and intense that we have to have the answer to every question out there? Religion sometimes may present the answer to our questions, but can one sincerely search for our beginnings by strictly following His word? Anyone who has ever gazed at the bright summer sky at night, even just for a while, can't help not to ask himself - Where do we come from? How did all this happen? Who did this and why? Those are the essential questions to which no one up to this date knows the answer. Curiosity of our nature has launched us to the skies in search for those answers. Countless hours of sitting behind the telescopes around the world lurking for that one signal they need to reveal the grand secret and take a peek into those very first seconds of creation - what is known as the Big Bang. Nowadays there is well established idea that whole universe as we know it became from one little tiny spot and in the split of a second it inflated to enormous size and it keeps expanding ever since. How do you explain that to someone who has been raised whole his life in a belief that there is a God up there beyond the sky and the Sun and the stars and that it couldn't be anyone but Him who created this world that goes far beyond our realms of understanding. How do you explain to such person without breaking his whole concept of existence that somehow it can all be explained logically by the laws of nature, only we don't exactly know how just yet? Furthermore, how do you encourage them to help exploring in that direction, to contribute and dedicate their whole life to explaining something they don't really believe in? Maybe it would be wrong thing to do. Still, there are people who have different, modern viewing of religion and the God. To them religion is more like a clinging stone - an island in an ocean of everyday troubles and confusion; peaceful hideaway where they can be alone with themselves and spend some time with their thoughts in quiet. Such people are not to be categorized for their behavior, my opinion is that the number of such believers is growing among the religious people as we are pressured more and more with dynamics of everyday routine and don't have time for ceremonies and traditional ways of worshipping the Almighty. They maybe don't go to the Sunday's mass nor have a cross hanging on their living room wall, but they need to have someone or something to believe in to help them get through in the time of adversity, so they turn to that something - God. And their God may be totally different from THE God - it doesn't matter. It is that something inner inside of everyone of us, need to believe that pushes us further and keeps us going faster and faster into the unknown. Ironically, maybe such faith in God helped those who created the concept of the Big Bang and the beginning of all universe. Is there more than one way of believing in God and how do we measure strength of someone's belief? Is the one who claims to believe in God and in the theory of Big Bang the "traitor" amongst the religious people? Is the Church by its definition so crude and conservative that it mustn't accept any way of thinking that alters the sayings of the Holy book? The truth is one and only and can not be artificially created or made up. The fact still remains that something cannot be created out of nothing, and that the source of everything can be found, only sometimes the answer is out of our domain of knowledge and understanding. It is up to every one of us individually to decide if we are strong enough to embrace the challenge of struggle with the nature and the unknown for the pleasure of finding out the right answers to our questions or if we rather accept the traditional believing and settle for the answers we get from the past generations who got them from those before them and so on. One can't stay true to him self if he follows those two paths at the same time, nor if he wants to move forward. There are some things that can't be explained and comprehended by human reasoning. Sometimes because they are so abstract and distant, sometimes because they are so obvious we cannot see them - either way, in a need for a solution some turn to religious sources and thus turn their back to the science and man's strive for the truth that is out there. They seem to be content with the written word of something that cannot be proved or explained by human experience. However, some accept it just as an icon, a sanctuary to which they escape when they need to be with themselves and still find plenty of room in their mind for vast spaces of unexplored, allowing the possibility of another beginning. And then there are those who firmly reject any religious explanation and let the pure science lead the way. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Capital Punishment 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Capital Punishment "He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man created."(Genesis 9:6) "Anyone who by violence causes a death must be put to death."(Exodus 21:12) "But should any person dare to kill another with deliberate planning, you will take that person even from my altar to be put to death."(Exodus 21:14) Capital Punishment can be described as a the punishment of death for a very bad or heinous crime like murder. Not all states have got capital punishment, otherwise known as the "Death Penalty." The states which do not have this type of punishment are Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The remaining states do have some form of capital punishment ranging from hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection. If somebody killed someone they would not automatically get the death penalty, there are several circumstances that a judge, jury, and prosecutioner must look at to see how bad the crime was. In some states if you kidnap someone, and do heinous things to them, you could still be eligible for the death penalty. Each state which carries a death sentence has got their own requirements that a person must meet to decide whether they get life in prison, or the sentence of death. Below is each state which carries a death sentence and the requirements that a person must meet and be convicted of in order to receive the death sentence. In Alabama in order to receive the death penalty you must murder during a kidnapping, robbery, rape, sodomy, burglary, sexual assault, or arson. Also, someone would get the death penalty if they murdered a peace officer, correctional officer, public official, or murder under a life sentence. They're many more but they are kind of useless to my paper. In the state of Arizona, the only way you could receive the death penalty was if you committed first degree murder and had one of ten "aggravating" factors associated with the murder. In Arkansas you must kill someone with arson, kill a law enforcement officer on purpose, a teacher or school worker, kill a prison worker, a jail attendant, correctional worker, or someone who is in the military. Also if you are a hit man, otherwise known as contract murder. In California you must commit treason, which are acts to try to overthrow the government, homicide by a prisoner serving a life term, train wrecking, and lastly perjury causing execution. For Colorado, it is almost the same as Arkansas but it also includes referees and judges. In Connecticut "murder of a public safety or correctional officer, murder for pecuniary gain; murder in the case of a felony; murder by a defendant with a previous conviction for intentional murder; murder while under a life sentence; murder during kidnapping; illegal sale of cocaine, methadone, or heroin to a person who dies from using these drugs; murder during first- degree sexual assault; multiple murders; the defendant committed the offense(s) with an assault weapon."(AOL1) For the state of Delaware murder with aggravating circumstances, "including murder of a child victim fourteen years of age or younger by an individual who was atleast four years older than the victim,"(AOL1) and the same like killing police officers or other peace people. In Florida you must "commit felony murder; first-degree murder; sexual battery on a child under age twelve; destructive devices which result in death, and capital drug trafficking."(AOL1) In Georgia its about the same with the exception of hijacking an airplane when someone dies. For the state of Illinois, if you commit first degree murder with atleast only one of fourteen aggravating circumstances, you will be sentenced to death. It seems hardest to get the death penalty in Indiana because you must murder someone and include all fourteen aggravating circumstances. Kansas is roughly the same as in Colorado but if you killed two people in the same incident you will most likely get the death penalty also. In Kentucky, you could possibly get the death penalty without even killing someone if you kidnap someone and there is an aggravating factor, also if you murder with only one aggravating factor. In Louisiana, all you have to do is murder someone or commit treason. In Maryland, "commit first degree murder, either premeditated or during the commission of a felony."(AOL1) Mississippi's death penalty is exactly like this: "capital murder includes murder of a police officer or correctional guard, murder under life sentence, murder by bomb or explosive, contract murder murder committed during specific felonies which include (rape, burglary, unnatural intercourse with a child, and nonconsentual unnatural intercourse); and murder of an elected official. Capital rape in Mississippi is defined as forcible rape of a child under fourteen years of age by a person eighteen or older."(AOL1) Missouri just says that you must commit first degree murder. In Montana you must kill someone on purpose, kidnap a person and they die or someone trying to help them dies, try to break someone out of prison who has killed someone already. For Nebraska, just kill someone on purpose. In Nevada you have to kill someone with atleast nine aggravating factors. New Hampshire is about the same as Colorado. In New Jersey, if you kill someone or know someone is going to be killed, also contract murder. In New Mexico, kill someone or commit murder with felony circumstances. For North Carolina, just commit first degree felony murder. Ohio states "aggravated murder, including assassination; contract murder; murder during escape; murder while in a correctional facility; murder after conviction for a prior purposeful killing or prior attempted murder; murder of a peace officer; murder arising from specific felonies(rape, kidnapping, arson, robbery, burglary); murder of a witness to prevent testimony in a criminal proceeding or in retaliation."(AOL1) Oklahoma is the same except it adds that murder when the victim is a child who has been maimed, tortured, or injured. Oregon says that all you have to do is commit aggravated murder. In Pennsylvania and South Carolina just commit murder and have an aggravating circumstance. In South Dakota, you would get the death penalty if you committed first degree murder or kidnapped someone and did permanent physical injury to them. In Tennessee you would get the death sentence if you killed someone while you were committing a felony. Texas which executes the most people has a whole list of offenses which someone could get the death penalty for they are "murder of a public safety officer, fireman, or correctional employee; murder during the commission of specified felonies like kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated rape, or arson; murder for remuneration [means gain], multiple murders, murder during prison escape, murder by a Stateprison inmate who is serving a life sentence for any of five offenses; murder of an individual under six years of age."(AOL1) In Utah, if you committed murder or you were a prisoner and committed aggravated assault while under a life sentence. Virginia has got capital punishment for crimes like murdering someone while involved in felonies like abduction, armed robbery, rape, and forcible sodomy, also for contract murder, murder of a cop or killing someone under twelve years of age. In Washington you get the death penalty if you commit premeditated murder. In Wyoming you get the punishment of death if you commit "premeditated murder; felony murder in the perpetration [attempts] of sexual assaults, arson, robbery, burglary escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping, or abuse of a child under sixteen years of age."(AOL1) There are many different forms of capital punishment used today throughout the United States, they are hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, and a lethal injection. When someone is hanged today they are killed execution style by strangling or snapping the neck by a suspended noose. When someone is executed in front of a firing squad, they are put attached to a pole in the ground and expert shooters shoot at him and aim to explode his heart. When someone is sentenced to die in the electric chair, they have to wear a leather mask to cover their face not because they aren't to see what is going to happen to them but to keep their eyeballs from popping across the room. When someone is electrocuted their body temperature reaches one hundred thirty eight degrees farenheight.(AOL2) When someone is electrocuted they will experience a heaping chest, foaming mouth, bloody sweat, burning skin and hair, and their eyeballs pop out of their face.(AOL2) At first the electric chair was used as an alternative to hanging. The way of executing someone through lethal injection is when a doctor comes in and mixes a solution which poisons the body and makes all the person's organs fail. It is described by inmates as the "ultimate high."(AOL2) In the gas chamber, a prisoner is put in a type of room where the fumes can't escape and a lethal gas is released into the air and the person who is strapped in a chair is killed eventually by the fumes. Its kind of like how the Nazis gassed the Jews, but the Jews didn't do anything to deserve the punishment. Each state which has got a form or forms of capital punishment has their own way of executing someone. Lethal injection is used today in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.(AOL1) Hanging is used in Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Washington.(AOL1) Electrocution is used in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.(AOL1) The gas chamber is used in states like Arizona, California, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Wyoming.(AOL1) Utah is the only state which uses a firing squad.(AOL1) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Capital Punishment.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Capital Punishment "He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man created."(Genesis 9:6) "Anyone who by violence causes a death must be put to death."(Exodus 21:12) "But should any person dare to kill another with deliberate planning, you will take that person even from my altar to be put to death."(Exodus 21:14) Capital Punishment can be described as a the punishment of death for a very bad or heinous crime like murder. Not all states have got capital punishment, otherwise known as the "Death Penalty." The states which do not have this type of punishment are Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The remaining states do have some form of capital punishment ranging from hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection. If somebody killed someone they would not automatically get the death penalty, there are several circumstances that a judge, jury, and prosecutioner must look at to see how bad the crime was. In some states if you kidnap someone, and do heinous things to them, you could still be eligible for the death penalty. Each state which carries a death sentence has got their own requirements that a person must meet to decide whether they get life in prison, or the sentence of death. Below is each state which carries a death sentence and the requirements that a person must meet and be convicted of in order to receive the death sentence. In Alabama in order to receive the death penalty you must murder during a kidnapping, robbery, rape, sodomy, burglary, sexual assault, or arson. Also, someone would get the death penalty if they murdered a peace officer, correctional officer, public official, or murder under a life sentence. They're many more but they are kind of useless to my paper. In the state of Arizona, the only way you could receive the death penalty was if you committed first degree murder and had one of ten "aggravating" factors associated with the murder. In Arkansas you must kill someone with arson, kill a law enforcement officer on purpose, a teacher or school worker, kill a prison worker, a jail attendant, correctional worker, or someone who is in the military. Also if you are a hit man, otherwise known as contract murder. In California you must commit treason, which are acts to try to overthrow the government, homicide by a prisoner serving a life term, train wrecking, and lastly perjury causing execution. For Colorado, it is almost the same as Arkansas but it also includes referees and judges. In Connecticut "murder of a public safety or correctional officer, murder for pecuniary gain; murder in the case of a felony; murder by a defendant with a previous conviction for intentional murder; murder while under a life sentence; murder during kidnapping; illegal sale of cocaine, methadone, or heroin to a person who dies from using these drugs; murder during first-degree sexual assault; multiple murders; the defendant committed the offense(s) with an assault weapon."(AOL1) For the state of Delaware murder with aggravating circumstances, "including murder of a child victim fourteen years of age or younger by an individual who was atleast four years older than the victim,"(AOL1) and the same like killing police officers or other peace people. In Florida you must "commit felony murder; first-degree murder; sexual battery on a child under age twelve; destructive devices which result in death, and capital drug trafficking."(AOL1) In Georgia its about the same with the exception of hijacking an airplane when someone dies. For the state of Illinois, if you commit first degree murder with atleast only one of fourteen aggravating circumstances, you will be sentenced to death. It seems hardest to get the death penalty in Indiana because you must murder someone and include all fourteen aggravating circumstances. Kansas is roughly the same as in Colorado but if you killed two people in the same incident you will most likely get the death penalty also. In Kentucky, you could possibly get the death penalty without even killing someone if you kidnap someone and there is an aggravating factor, also if you murder with only one aggravating factor. In Louisiana, all you have to do is murder someone or commit treason. In Maryland, "commit first degree murder, either premeditated or during the commission of a felony."(AOL1) Mississippi's death penalty is exactly like this: "capital murder includes murder of a police officer or correctional guard, murder under life sentence, murder by bomb or explosive, contract murder murder committed during specific felonies which include (rape, burglary, unnatural intercourse with a child, and nonconsentual unnatural intercourse); and murder of an elected official. Capital rape in Mississippi is defined as forcible rape of a child under fourteen years of age by a person eighteen or older."(AOL1) Missouri just says that you must commit first degree murder. In Montana you must kill someone on purpose, kidnap a person and they die or someone trying to help them dies, try to break someone out of prison who has killed someone already. For Nebraska, just kill someone on purpose. In Nevada you have to kill someone with atleast nine aggravating factors. New Hampshire is about the same as Colorado. In New Jersey, if you kill someone or know someone is going to be killed, also contract murder. In New Mexico, kill someone or commit murder with felony circumstances. For North Carolina, just commit first degree felony murder. Ohio states "aggravated murder, including assassination; contract murder; murder during escape; murder while in a correctional facility; murder after conviction for a prior purposeful killing or prior attempted murder; murder of a peace officer; murder arising from specific felonies(rape, kidnapping, arson, robbery, burglary); murder of a witness to prevent testimony in a criminal proceeding or in retaliation."(AOL1) Oklahoma is the same except it adds that murder when the victim is a child who has been maimed, tortured, or injured. Oregon says that all you have to do is commit aggravated murder. In Pennsylvania and South Carolina just commit murder and have an aggravating circumstance. In South Dakota, you would get the death penalty if you committed first degree murder or kidnapped someone and did permanent physical injury to them. In Tennessee you would get the death sentence if you killed someone while you were committing a felony. Texas which executes the most people has a whole list of offenses which someone could get the death penalty for they are "murder of a public safety officer, fireman, or correctional employee; murder during the commission of specified felonies like kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated rape, or arson; murder for remuneration [means gain], multiple murders, murder during prison escape, murder by a Stateprison inmate who is serving a life sentence for any of five offenses; murder of an individual under six years of age."(AOL1) In Utah, if you committed murder or you were a prisoner and committed aggravated assault while under a life sentence. Virginia has got capital punishment for crimes like murdering someone while involved in felonies like abduction, armed robbery, rape, and forcible sodomy, also for contract murder, murder of a cop or killing someone under twelve years of age. In Washington you get the death penalty if you commit premeditated murder. In Wyoming you get the punishment of death if you commit "premeditated murder; felony murder in the perpetration [attempts] of sexual assaults, arson, robbery, burglary escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping, or abuse of a child under sixteen years of age."(AOL1) There are many different forms of capital punishment used today throughout the United States, they are hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, and a lethal injection. When someone is hanged today they are killed execution style by strangling or snapping the neck by a suspended noose. When someone is executed in front of a firing squad, they are put attached to a pole in the ground and expert shooters shoot at him and aim to explode his heart. When someone is sentenced to die in the electric chair, they have to wear a leather mask to cover their face not because they aren't to see what is going to happen to them but to keep their eyeballs from popping across the room. When someone is electrocuted their body temperature reaches one hundred thirty eight degrees farenheight.(AOL2) When someone is electrocuted they will experience a heaping chest, foaming mouth, bloody sweat, burning skin and hair, and their eyeballs pop out of their face.(AOL2) At first the electric chair was used as an alternative to hanging. The way of executing someone through lethal injection is when a doctor comes in and mixes a solution which poisons the body and makes all the person's organs fail. It is described by inmates as the "ultimate high."(AOL2) In the gas chamber, a prisoner is put in a type of room where the fumes can't escape and a lethal gas is released into the air and the person who is strapped in a chair is killed eventually by the fumes. Its kind of like how the Nazis gassed the Jews, but the Jews didn't do anything to deserve the punishment. Each state which has got a form or forms of capital punishment has their own way of executing someone. Lethal injection is used today in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.(AOL1) Hanging is used in Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Washington.(AOL1) Electrocution is used in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.(AOL1) The gas chamber is used in states like Arizona, California, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Wyoming.(AOL1) Utah is the only state which uses a firing squad.(AOL1) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Cardinal Bernadine.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cardinal Joseph Bernardin Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was born on April 2,1928, in Columbia, South Carolina. He was son of Mrs. Marie M. Simon Bernardin, and the late Joseph Bernardin. Cardinal Bernardin attended Catholic and public schools and the University of South Carolina in Columbia. He was later accepted as a candidate for the priesthood by Most Rev. John J. Russell, then Bishop of Charleston. He studied at the following Colleges: St.Mary's, St. Mary, Kentucky, St.Mary Seminary, Baltimore, Maryland, where he received the Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy. He also attended the Catholic University of America, Washington D.C. where he received the Master of Arts degree in Education in 1952. He was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop John J. Russell on April 26,1952, in St. Joseph Church, Columbia. His administrative skills were immediately recognized. During his 14 years in the Diocese of Charleston, he served under four bishops in many capacities, including the officed of chancellor, vicar general, diocesan consular, and administrator of the diocese. On March 9,1966, Pope Paul VI appointed Msgr. Bernardin Auxiliary Bishop of Atlanta. In doing this he became the youngest Bishop in the county. On July 10,1982, Pope John Paul II reappointed Archbishop Bernardin to Archbishop of Chicago. His installation took (continued from page 1) at Holy Name Cathedral on August 25,1982. Later Archbishop Bernardin went to the College of Cardinals. On February 2,1983 he received his "red hat." On September 9,1996 President Clinton awarded Cardinal Bernardin the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In presenting the Metal, the President cited Cardinal Bernardin's work on behalf of racial equality and arms control and noted he "has been a persistent voice for moderation." Cardinal Bernardin was Chancellor of the Catholic Extension Society and the University of St. Mary of the Lake,Mundelein,IL. He is a founding member and Vice-Chairman of the Religious Alliance Against Pornography. In the more recent years before his death, he was a member of the Catholic Charities USA National Development Task Force and the Board of Trustees of the Catholic Health Association as well as chairman of the ad hoc Committee on the Structure and function of the NCCB/USCC. Cardinal Bernardin received numerous honorary doctorates from colleges and universities in the US and Europe. Cardinal Bernardin's extensive writings touch open a variety of topics, religious, moral and social. One of these is the famous and challenging Consistent Ethic of Life, a collection of ten major addresses on the topic of the "Consistent Ethic." He touched us all! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cardinal Joseph Bernardin Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was born on April 2,1928, in Columbia, South Carolina. He was son of Mrs. Marie M. Simon Bernardin, and the late Joseph Bernardin. Cardinal Bernardin attended Catholic and public schools and the University of South Carolina in Columbia. He was later accepted as a candidate for the priesthood by Most Rev. John J. Russell, then Bishop of Charleston. He studied at the following Colleges: St.Mary's, St. Mary, Kentucky, St.Mary Seminary, Baltimore, Maryland, where he received the Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy. He also attended the Catholic University of America, Washington D.C. where he received the Master of Arts degree in Education in 1952. He was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop John J. Russell on April 26,1952, in St. Joseph Church, Columbia. His administrative skills were immediately recognized. During his 14 years in the Diocese of Charleston, he served under four bishops in many capacities, including the officed of chancellor, vicar general, diocesan consular, and administrator of the diocese. On March 9,1966, Pope Paul VI appointed Msgr. Bernardin Auxiliary Bishop of Atlanta. In doing this he became the youngest Bishop in the county. On July 10,1982, Pope John Paul II reappointed Archbishop Bernardin to Archbishop of Chicago. His installation took at Holy Name Cathedral on August 25,1982. Later Archbishop Bernardin went to the College of Cardinals. On February 2,1983 he received his "red hat." On September 9,1996 President Clinton awarded Cardinal Bernardin the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In presenting the Metal, the President cited Cardinal Bernardin's work on behalf of racial equality and arms control and noted he "has been a persistent voice for moderation." Cardinal Bernardin was Chancellor of the Catholic Extension Society and the University of St. Mary of the Lake,Mundelein,IL. He is a founding member and Vice-Chairman of the Religious Alliance Against Pornography. In the more recent years before his death, he was a member of the Catholic Charities USA National Development Task Force and the Board of Trustees of the Catholic Health Association as well as chairman of the ad hoc Committee on the Structure and function of the NCCB/USCC. Cardinal Bernardin received numerous honorary doctorates from colleges and universities in the US and Europe. Cardinal Bernardin's extensive writings touch open a variety of topics, religious, moral and social. One of these is the famous and challenging Consistent Ethic of Life, a collection of ten major addresses on the topic of the "Consistent Ethic." He touched us all! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Cathedrals and Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Introduction The Gothic Age ³As the third year that followed the year on thousand grew near, there was to be seen over almost all the earth, but especially in Italy and in Gaul, a great renewal of church buildings; each Christian community was driven by a spirit of rivalry to have a more glorious church than the others. It was as if the world had shaken itself, and casting off its old garments, had dressed itself again in every part in a white robe of churches.² Raoul Glaber, Historia, c.1003 The Gothic Age (c. AD 1130-1530) marked the end to an age of chaos, primarily caused by the sacking and pillaging of the Vikings. After the great minds of Western Europe were freed from using their vast knowledge to defend against invaders or plagues, they now had the time and the resources needed to design any and everything in this era from bridges to city walls and castles to cathedrals. This was also a very religious age, with plenty of money being pumped into the Church, some from the crusades, with all of its included looting, and a lot more from all of the tithes all of the people who were born in the population explosion gave faithfully. Another even bigger source of income for the Church came to it in the shape of power and prestige, when the power of the church peaked in AD 1277. Not only was this a good time for the Church, but this was also a very good time for all of humanity. The standard of living dramatically rose, and along with it, the population of Western Europe shot up. In 1346, the estimated population of Europe was fifty-four point four million just before the plague hit and wiped out more than a third of the population.1 2 This was more than twice the population of Europeans in the year 950 when it was 22,600,0003 . While the population was exploding there were so many new cathedrals built that in the relatively short time period of two hundred and fifty years, there was more stone quarried to be used in cathedrals (several million tons) than was quarried during the age of the pyramids in Egypt, where there are pyramids that are over two hundred and fifty million cubic meters big.4 The Gothic age survived many crusades, a plague that didn¹t leave Europe until the late 18th century, and many other horrible atrocities. Following this great age, there was a period without the great accomplishments as in this age, since everyone was just happy using what their forefathers had done. If not for this age, we would today be without many of our modern conveniences, so I firmly believe that this age was essential to modern day living. Body of Knowledge Gothic Architecture Anyone who has ever walked into a true Gothic cathedral knows how much of an impact one can have on a person . The sheer magnificence of it will shut even the noisiest of tourists up. One can only imagine the impact seeing such a place would have on a person who has never had the opportunity to see one of the great wonders of the modern world, such as a skyscraper. The name alone is enough to bring visions of grandeur, or Las Vegas, a place known for its flashy style and glitz. Just think what a person who has never seen either one of these places, or any place anything like it, would think when they saw a choir with a roof so high a fourteen story building could fit in there* and not even touch the rafters.5 And Imagine what you would think of a stadium that was so large it could hold one million people (the largest one today holds a ²mere² forty-two thousand people1). This is what Ameins Cathedral was like when it was built. The entire town of ten thousand people could fit into it all at the same time to go to the same mass. It had a floor that was seven thousand, seven hundred square meters. New Ideas in the Cathedral that Reflected Christianity There were many aspects about Gothic cathedrals that reflected the then modern-day ways of life, such as how a common belief in those times was that the closer you were to God, the holier you were. The architects would build huge spires and high ceilings which would make the building look absolutely massive. Another clever technique of the time was to create picture stories on the windows with stained glass since the vast majority of the people couldn¹t read or write to help the common folk learn the Bible without having someone read it to them. -Walls The walls in a Gothic cathedral were way ahead of the walls in the style that preceded Gothic, Romanesque. The walls in Gothic were thin and had a lot of stained glass in them, not to mention the fact that the new style was a lot higher. The reason that the architect could put up thinner, higher walls was because of two new inventions, the flying buttresses and ribbed vaults. The latter of the two, ribbed vaults, sounds simple enough, but it is effective and ingenious enough to have earned a place in history. All they really are, are supports that go from corner to corner like rafters, although, unlike rafters, they are up against the actual ceiling, therefore putting the weight on the corners and, at the same time, effectively supporting the ceiling. The former of the two inventions, flying buttresses, was also very important, since they, like the ribbed vaults, allowed the architect to build the walls thinner and higher, but it also supported the weight of the walls and the roof. Flying buttresses are basically kickstands that rest up against the side of a cathedral, giving it a wider base, and, a lot like an arching bridge, they put equal pressure from two opposite sides on a keystone. -Stained Glass ³[Stained glass windows were] ...a bearer of holy images, an intrinsically rich material resembling valuable stones, and a mystery, because it glowed without fire.² -Abbot Sugar It was very common in this day for a person not to know how to read, and there was also a great burden on the Church for the villagers to know basic important scriptures, so there had to be pictures on the wall. Since one can only go so far using frescoes, paintings and other ways to portray a picture, stained glass was an interesting alternative. Before since the walls were thicker and build more as a means to support the high ceilings, stained glass never really was an option, but now with the help of the two previously mentioned means of support, the walls could be made thinner so glass also could be used now. -Spires The function of spires goes far beyond just being there for the appearances, since the church bells are kept in the spires. These bells would tell the town what to do, as in time to go to church, time to eat and among many other different things, time itself, and could be heard clearly throughout the entire town. Even though spires were present before the beginning of the Gothic age, this was the first time they could be built so high, thanks to flying buttresses and ribbed vaults. Cathedrals When funds were readily available, cathedrals didn¹t take very long to build, usually two stages,? although, some times, it took as many as two hundred years. The fastest, though was Chartes, which was built in exactly twenty seven years.6 My Two Favorites There were many different cathedrals built in the Gothic age, but I think that the two most important ones are the cathedral at Notre-Dame in France, and Abbot Sugar¹s masterpiece, St. Denis, which was mentioned previously for its tremendous size. Notre Dame of Paris is famous because it was the first cathedral to use flying buttresses as a means of support, 7 and it also was known for its incredible detail. It has many spectacular figures carved into the stone covering its famous portholes. Notre Dame also has some very famous Rose windows, which show the lines of ancestry (the begating) in the Bible The St. Denis cathedral is famous for its prodigious size, and the fact that it was the first cathedral to use ribbed vaults. I also really admired the architect of St. Denis, Abbot Sugar, because I agreed with a lot of his points of view on cathedral design. One such example can be found in the quote that I used above, about the stained glass. I totally agree with him that point, because I think cathedrals used to have a strong foundation in first impressions; that if you want your cathedral to make the money necessary for upkeep, you must be willing to impress whomever will be going to the church. Conclusion At one time in France, there were over eighty cathedrals, or in other words, a cathedral for every two hundred people. All of these cathedrals being built, not only in France, but also all over Western Europe, needed a lot of stone, and most of it came from France. In fact, by the end of this era, there was so much stone quarried out of Northern France, that the only way to get the rocks needed to build a cathedral, they had to get their bricks from old, run down cathedrals and castles. A Wonderful Time For the Church The reason, I think that there were so many cathedrals, not just as a whole, since the amount per capita is just as staggering, was because this was a great time for the church. As I said before, there were no shortages in men and money to build cathedrals, so the only difficulty was just getting your hands on this money. A Wonderful Time For Mankind Besides all of the advances in the field of architecture, there also were a great deal of inventions for the everyday man. Inventions that greatly increased the standard of living, and eating habits. Reasons for this Being such a Wonderful Age In the Gothic Era, now that there was a high standard of living, the commoners were a little bit closer to being equal with the nobles, which I think was the most important breakthrough that ³broke through² in this age. Bibliography Gothic Architecture By Robert Brammer (c)1961 George Brazzillier New York Beverly Hills public Library 723.5 B The Cathedral Builders By Jean Grinner (c)1993 by Editions du Seuil Beverly Hills Public Library 726.6 The Gothic Cathedral By Christopher Wilson (c)1990 Thames and Hudson Ltd. London Beverly Hills Public Library 726.6 Wilson Cathedrals and Castles: Building in the Middle Ages By Alain Erlande Translated from French by Rosemary Stone Hewer (c)1993 Gallimard-- English Translation (c)1995 By Harry N. Abrahms New York and Thames and Hudson Led., London Beverly Hills Public Library 726.6 Cathedral: The Story of It¹s Construction By David Macaulay (c) 1973 Houlton Mufflin Inc. Boston Crespi Carmalite High School 726.6Mac Churches: Their Plan and Furnishing By Peter F. Anson (c)1948 By the Bruce Publishing Co. Crespi Carmalite High School 726.1Ans Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia, Macintosh Edition (c)1992 Compton's NewMedia, Inc. Version 1.00M f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Cathedrals of the 12th Century.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For nearly four hundred years Gothic style dominated the architecture of Western Europe. It originated in northern France in the twelfth century, and spread rapidly across England and the Continent, invading the old Viking empire of Scandinavia. It confronted the Byzantine provinces of Central Europe and even made appearances in the near East and the Americas. Gothic architects designed town halls, royal palaces, courthouses, and hospitals. They fortified cities and castles to defend lands against invasion. But it was in the service of the church, the most prolific builder of the Middle Ages, that the Gothic style got its most meaningful expression, providing the widest scope for the development of architectural ideas.1 Although by 1400 Gothic had become the universal style of building in the Western world, its creative heartland was in northern France in an area stretching from the royal domain around Paris, including Saint-Denis and Chartres, to the region of the Champagne in the east and southward to Bourges. Within this restricted area, in the series of cathedrals built in the course of the 12th and 13th centuries, the major innovations of Gothic architecture took place.2 The supernatural character of medieval religious architecture was given a special form in the Gothic church. "Medieval man considered himself but an imperfect refraction of Divine Light of God, Whose Temple stood on earth, according to the text of the dedication ritual, stood for the Heavenly City of Jerusalem."3 The Gothic interpretation of this point of view was a cathedral so grand that seems to belittle the man who enters it, for space, light, structure and the plastic effects of the stonework are made to produce a visionary scale. The result of the Gothic style is distortion as there is no fixed set of proportions in the parts. Such architecture did not only express the physical and spiritual needs of the Church, but also the general attitude of the people of that time. Gothic was not dark, massive, and contained like the older Romanesque style, but light, open, and aerial, and its appearance in all parts of Europe had an enduring effect on the outlook of succeeding generations.4 Gothic architecture evolved at a time of profound social and economic change in Western Europe. In the late eleventh and twelfth centuries trade and industry were revived, particularly in northern Italy and Flanders, and a lively commerce brought about better communications, not only between neighboring towns but also between far-distant regions. Politically, the twelfth century was also the time of the expansion and consolidation of the State. Along with political and economic developments, a powerful new intellectual movement arose that was stimulated by the translation of ancient authors from Greek and Arabic into Latin, and a new literature came into being. Gothic architecture both contributed to these changes and was affected by them.5 The Gothic style was essentially urban. The cathedrals of course were all situated in towns, and most monasteries, had by the twelfth century become centers of communities which possessed many of the functions of civic life. The cathedral or abbey church was the building in which the people congregated on major feast days. It saw the start and the end of splendid and colorful ceremonies, and it held the earliest dramatic performances. The abbey traditionally comprised at least a cloister, a dormitory and a refectory for the monks. But the cathedral also was around a complex of buildings, the bishop's palace, a cloister and the house of canons, a school, a prison, and a hospital. However the cathedral dominated them all, rising high above the town like a marker to be seen from afar.6 The architectural needs of the Church were expressed in both physical and iconographical terms. Like its Romanesque predecessor, the Gothic cathedral was eminently adaptable. It could be planned larger or smaller, longer or shorter, with or without transepts and ambulatory, according to the traditions and desires of each community. It had no predetermined proportions or number of parts, like the Roman temple or the centrally planned church of the Renaissance. Its social and liturgical obligations demanded a main altar at the end of a choir where the chapter and the various dignitaries would be seated, a number of minor altars, and an area for processions within the building.7 There were rarely more than about two hundred persons participating in the service, even though the smallest Gothic cathedral could easily contain that number. The rest of the building simply supplemented this core and provided space for the laity, who were not permitted to enter the choir or sanctuary. Still, after the middle of the twelfth century, the choir was usually isolated by a monumental screen that effectively prevented laymen from even seeing the service, and special devotional books came into use to supply the congregation with suitable subjects of meditation during mass.8 The program of the Gothic church fulfilled iconographical as well as social requirements. The intellectual centers of the Middle Ages had long been associated with the Church, and the tradition of learning that had been preserved in monastic and cathedral schools gave rise to universities such as Paris and Oxford in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Such an association obviously had an effect on the arts, which were still primarily religious in nature. Scholarly clerics, for instance, were appointed to arrange the intricate, theological programs for the sculpture and the stained glass that decorated the church. The relationship is thought by some historians to have been even closer, for scholastic thinking first took shape in Paris early in the twelfth century, at the very time that Gothic architecture came into being there. It is possible that architects, who were "abstract" thinkers in their own right, may occasionally have absorbed some of the habits of thought of the philosophers. In the absence of written documents, however, it cannot be proved whether these habits were consistently embodied in the design of the buildings.9 The Gothic age, as has often been observed, was an age of vision. The supernatural manifested itself to the senses. In the religious life of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the desire to behold sacred reality with bodily eyes appeared as the dominant theme. Architecture was designed and experienced as a representation of an ultimate reality.10 The Gothic cathedral was originated in the religious experience and in the political and even physical realities, of twelfth-century France. It was described as an illusionistic image of the Celestial City as evoked in the Book of Revelation. The essence of Gothic style was most fully developed in its conquest of space and its creation of a prodigious, visionary scale in the cathedrals of the twelfth century.11 Bibliography Branner, Robert. The Great Ages of World Architecture: Gothic Architecture. New York: George Braziller, 1967. Gimpel, Jean. The Cathedral Builders. New York: Grove Press, 1983. Mitchell, Ann. Great Buildings of the World: Cathedrals of Europe. Feltham: The Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1968. Panofsky, E. Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism. Latrobe: Faber and Faber Limited, 1951. Simson, Otto von. The Gothic Cathedral. New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1956. Worringer, Wilhelm. Form In Gothic. New York: Alec Tiranti Limited, 1957. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Cathedrals.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ~Cathedrals~ Throughout the centuries, beautiful Medieval cathedrals have been towering above every building and till this day, still survive with their astonishing appearance. Their structure resemble the power and glory of heavens. Today, they are known as "prayers in stone" because they are respected as holy places. Taking literally hundreds of years to build these great Gothic buildings, the skillful carpenters and masons responsible for the construction are respected for constructing these powerful buildings that tell us about the past (Macdonald 1). The construction of the cathedrals were more than hundreds of years (Macdonald 14). The overall shape of appearance was planned out before any construction was started. The contractors were usually peasants of the low class. Cathedrals were built on old church sites throughout Europe and the world to spread the religion of Christianity. There were many architectural styles for the churches. Carpenters used long lasting materials such as stone and strong wood. Some of the best stone came from France. Cranes and pulleys powered by men and animals were used to haul these stones, especially in the dangerous job of quarrying. The appearance of the cathedrals were magnificent. As one of the largest buildings of its time period, they represented the heavens in which people believed was peaceful and serene. Walls and pillars were massive structures enclosing hundreds of yards. Stone arches and gargoyles were put in various places for decoration. The elevating towers on top of the cathedrals were called "fingers" pointing to heaven. Inside these enormous "fingers," immense bells and clocks were placed. Stained-glass windows on the sides describe the lord, Jesus, and his life. The ever going ceilings and their paintings represent heaven. Statues symbolized sacred priests of the church (Macdonald Intro.). The purpose of these cathedrals were to praise and thank God. People offer prayers and offerings to God at the great cathedrals thinking it would bring a prosperous and healthy life. In the Middle Ages, these "prayers in stone" were made to spread Christianity throughout the world. Being the Bishop's church, the greatest centers of studies were inside the depths of the cathedrals. The pope answered the most theorized questions about Christianity. Cathedrals and the people inside implored that God is the most important part of a person's life and should be thanked for everything. At anytime were the townspeople feeling downhearted or prosperous for any particular reason, their first priority would be to go to the center of the town and thank God at the cathedral. Praising the lord became a ritual of everyday life. The cathedrals expressed all through the Gothic Age, caused a sense of meaning to construct others in surrounding areas. Each one served as an invigorating temple of deep rooted mysteries of Christianity (Macaulay 65). The time period in which these extraordinary churches were built in are part of the Middle Ages, also known as the Gothic Age. During this time period, the world was divided into regions ruled by the Bishop. The regions were called dioceses because of the church governments and administration, therefore, the headquarters became the cathedrals. The church's power was symbolized by the Bishops throne. Usually, the throne was located in the holiest part of the cathedral. The throne was set facing west next to relics founded by an earlier saint. Making the cathedrals was not an easy process. Money came from gifts of land, farms, houses, and jewels. Many people even believed that donating money would forgive their sins. All the money was controlled by the clergymen. Cathedrals were expensive to build as well as maintain, especially because of the damages on the roof. The workers such as the highly skilled architects, sculptors, blacksmiths, and many more, believed that being a part of the construction would bring them fame and fortune. "Ironically, the initial classification of Gothic was assigned to the cathedrals as a derogatory description denoting darkness from an earlier age" (no author, Internet). Cathedrals portray a dark side to the Middle Ages, however, they supposedly resemble the heavens and bring happiness (No Author Internet). Cathedrals across the world come in different shapes and sizes just as humans do. Many cathedrals stand as one of most holiest places in the world, such as Bourges, Charites, and Reims. Spanish cathedrals are bigger than most other cathedrals throughout the world of Christianity. English cathedrals combine the art of Romanesque and Gothic architecture. Some examples of English cathedrals are Cantbury and Durham. Out of the hundreds of cathedrals scattered all through the world, Italian cathedrals show the most magnificent materials and fine points of workmanship for the religion of Christianity (Coles Internet). As cathedrals still tower up around the world being noticed as one of the most largest and magnificent buildings ever made, they are respected today for their variety of architectural designs and for their purpose as well. They come in different shapes and sizes but all have the same purpose, to serve as a place to praise Jesus. Some cathedrals such as Cantbury and Durham express Gothic structures (Coles Internet). They will always be around to show the roots of Christianity and portray the architectural skills served by the people of the Middle Ages. ~Works Cited~ Coles, Jill.. Cathedrals. Timpview Highschool. 8 Dec 1994. http://www.byu.edu/ipt/projects/middleages/LifeTimes/Cathedrals.htm Macaulay, David. Cathedral. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1973. Macdonald, Fiona. A Medieval Cathedral. New York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1991. No Author, "Gothic Dreams." Earthlore Explorations. Media Content Copyright: 1995-1999. Http://elore.com/el-ti-04.html f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Celebrating Religious Holidays In Public.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Celebrating Religious Holidays In Public It is unconstitutional for local, state or federal governments to favor one religion over another? Government can show favoritism toward religion by displaying religious symbols in public places at taxpayer expense, by sponsoring events like Christmas concerts, caroling, or by supporting the teaching of religious ideas. It appears the United States government has had a history of favoring Christianity. The United States government's favoritism of Christianity is a clear violation of the First Amendment. This amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There is another reference to religion in Article 6, Section 3. This clause states "the United States and the several States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." There have been several court cases on this and related issues which include Engel vs. Vitale, Everson vs. the Board of Education, and Lynch vs. Donnelly, the "Creche case". In 1947, in the Everson vs. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment prevented the States and the and the Federal government from setting up a church, passing laws that favor any religion, or using tax money to support any religion. Justice Hugo Black "incorporated" the First Amendment's establishment clause into the 14th Amendment which states that "the State shall not deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws and due process. After this trial, people began to question whether school prayer was constitutional (pg. 93-94, Klinker). The "creche case," Lynch vs. Donnelly, came from Rhode Island in 1980. In this case, the city offical included a creche, or nativity scene, in their city's annual Christmas display that included all traditional Christmas symbols. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger represented the court's opinion when he stated that, "Nor does the constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any." Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackman, and Stevens dissented. They thought the "primary effect of including a nativity scene in the city's display is. . . to place the government's impremature approval on the particular religion's beliefs exemplified by the creche." They argued that it clearly violated the First Amendment (p. 99, Witt). These cases demonstrate a pattern of Constitutional thought by high courts prohibiting the promotion of particular religious ideas, and the spending of tax dollars on events that promote particular religious views. A logical extension of this pattern can be made to the spending of tax dollars for decorating towns on religious holidays, such as Christmas. Local, state, and federal governments attempt to get around the prohibitions of the Everson and Lynch cases by decorating the streets in town with non-religious symbols such as lights, trees, wreaths and other objects that symbolize the season. But, religious people think the season itself has religious meaning. Using tax money to decorate for a religious holiday not celebrated by everyone is unconstitutional because these symbols support one religion over no religion. The First Amendment prohibits this. We understand that public school prayer discriminates against some religious views so it is prohibited in public schools. Similarly, Christmas concerts play a role similar to the teaching of creationism and prayer. The Christmas concerts subconsiously influence students toward the beliefs of Christianity. To be fair to non-Christian groups, converting "Christmas" concerts to "Holiday" concerts would maintain the "separation of church and state." One could recognize the beliefs of many religions or none. One could play music from several religions or non-religious music. Religion is a personal belief. There are so many religions to choose from, including the choice of no religion. It is impossible to decide that one belief is right and another is wrong. So it is reasonable to say that it is unconstitutional for government to favor Christianity over other religions, including Athieism. Instead of using tax dollars to decorate the streets for the holidays, we could use the money for other things like playgrounds and helping the homeless. Also, students could play music that has no religious meaning to please every belief or offend none. This way, government would be prevented from favoring one religion over another. Henry, Richard, "Government in America", Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1994 pg.141, 146, 148. Klinker, Philip A., "The American Heritage History of the Bill of Rights", Silver Burdett Press., 1991 pg. 99-100, 109, 93. "Darrow, Clarence Steward", "The American Peoples Encyclopedia vol.6 ", Grolier Incorporated, New York 1962, pg. 796. Witt, Elder ,"The Supreme Court and Individual Rights", Second Edition, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington D.C., 1988, pg. 99 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Changes of the Catholic Church as Portrayed in the Literature during the Late Fourteenth.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Changes of the Catholic Church as Portrayed in the Literature during the Late Fourteenth In reading the poems Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, it is evident that the church played a major role in the lives of the English people during the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church was going through many changes during the late middle ages. After the people of England were able to read the Bible many of them started to stray from the church. During this time period many great works of literature were written that expressed these ideas. Sir Gawain is an Arthurian romance written by an unknown author in the late fourteenth-century. It is the story of Sir Gawain and his adventure to find the Green Knight. Religious faith and the Christian idea of chivalry play a large role in Sir Gawain's adventure. The Canterbury Tales is a collection of poems written by Geoffrey Chaucer. Many of the tales and characters in the story have to do with the church and its corruption during medieval times. The poem ,Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, was written during the late 1300's. It is a story that was already hundreds of years old. In the poem, Sir Gawain is being measured against a moral and Christian ideal of chivalry. Chivalry is the moral code that knights lived by during the Middle Ages. Chivalrous knights fought for glory and the Christian purpose and not for profit or gain. In the poem, Gawain's chivalry, along with his faith, are tested to prove his worth as a knight. This poem shows the importance of faith and the church, yet it also shows that although knights are held to a code of chivalry and strict Christianity, they are still human and make mistakes. The mistake, or sin that Gawain committed in the poem showed the more human side of the knight. This was a change from the more normal approach of a strict, almost unbelievably good character that a knight usually portrayed in the Middle Ages.Around the same time that the story of Sir Gawain was written Geoffrey Chaucer wrote the poem The Canterbury Tales. The Canterbury Tales is the story of a group of people who decide to make a pilgrimage to the Canterbury Cathedral. During their journey each person tells a story to the group. What makes the tales interesting is Chaucer's ability to know how different types of people act. One of the interesting aspects of the story is the way the people related to the church are portrayed by Chaucer. Chaucer portrays his clergy member characters as ironic figures. He portrays some of them as greedy and dishonest, despite their social status. The Nun, the Monk, and the Pardoner are the religious characters in Chaucer's work. By creating ironies between their characterizations and their duties, Chaucer expresses the corruption of the church during the late fourteenth-century. Chaucer also shows the human side of the clergy. Even though the clergy were held to a higher standard, they still made mistakes and had vices. Chaucer's character, the Prioress, is an interesting portrayal of a nun in the late middle ages. She is described as a gentle woman, simple and coy. She does not behave as you would think a nun should. She speaks an odd dialect of French, but not to communicate or help others. She speaks this language for her own vain reasons. She tries to act like she is in a more refined social class. It is ironic that she is even on this pilgrimage. Normally a nun would stay inside of the convent walls. One of the most ironic characteristics of the nun is that she wears a large gold brooch around her neck, which reads, "Love conquers all". This is wrong because nuns were not supposed to wear jewelry. The Monk is another one of Chaucer's characters that didn't fit into social norms. The Monk is described as noticeably sarcastic, piggish, and selfish. Like the nun, he seems to be a vain servant of God. He wears expensive clothing and is not separated from the world as a Monk is supposed to be. The tale that he tells about hunting is looked at as a sexual connotation, the hunting meaning hunting women. This would be improper for a Monk to think, let alone talk about to a group of people. He seems to be a misguided servant of God who does not fit the stereotypical description of a monk. The way Chaucer describes him, as not caring for the monastic rules written by St. Maurus and St. Benedict shows that the Monk was a corrupt figure in the church. The Pardoner is probably the most vile and corrupt character in the story. During the middle ages, pardoners were supposed to issue papal forgiveness from sins in exchange for money. This money in turn was supposed to be given to the sick, poor, or any other worthy cause. Many pardoners were frauds. They kept the money forthemselves, and sold fake relics and pardons. This pardoner claimed to have come "straight from the court of Rome", yet it is known that he has never even set foot out of England. The pardoner uses stories to trick people into buying his fake relics. In essence, he was a good B.S. salesman. Ironically, the stories that the pardoner tells are all moral stories against greed, gluttony, and other sins. The moral of his tale, "money is the root of all evil" is also very ironic, since all he seems to care about is money. The pardoner is an excellent example of corruption in the Catholic Church during this period. In closing, all of these stories have one thing in common. Whether it was Sir Gawain and the sin he committed, or the mistakes and vices of the three corrupt members of the church in The Canterbury Tales. They all knowingly committed sins. This shows the more human side of the church. At a point when the rules of the church were enforced strictly on the people of England, these stories show that even the people who were supposed to set the example and represent the church made mistakes and committed sins. With this corruption in the Church came change. When the common people began to read the Bible written in the vernacular, English, they realized that they didn't need the corrupt Church to tell them about the teachings of God. Around the time period that these stories were written the Renaissance was beginning, and with the renaissance came new ideas. Many of these new ideas, e.g. humanism, had an effect on the Church and ultimately the monarch in England. As the saying goes, "No Bishop, No King". f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christ EXAMINATION.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Death of Christ EXAMINATION I chose to look into Jesus death and the people who were involved in it. The first group of people who got hold of Jesus was the Roman soldiers. They were probably the most innocent in the whole thing. Granted they did perform the actual act of crucifying Christ, but it was because of the order that Pilate gave them. As I looked into crucifixion and how it started I found that before Jesus was crucified, more than 30,000 men, in Israel alone, had already been crucified. It all started by this guy named Ormazd from Persia. He thought that the earth was sacred, so he did not want to defile the earth by killing criminals on it so he put them on a large pole and left them there to die. After Pilate gave the order to crucify Christ the soldiers took him. The part of their wickedness was not the act of crucifying Christ, it was by what they did to Jesus before they crucified him. The scripture says in Matthew 27, that the soldiers, "gathered a full Roman cohort around Him." I looked into what a "full Roman cohort" was. It seems that a total of 600 soldiers make up a full Roman cohort. I also learned that Jewish people were given the right not to be in the Roman military. I also fount out the cohort was traveling around with the governor as a military escort. Because of that it is pretty safe to say they never heard of Jesus, other than the fact that He was being crucified because he was claiming to be some sort of king.. The soldiers knew that he claimed to be a king so they stripped him down and put a scarlet robe on him. Next they took thorns and thistles and weaved a crown together and put it on Jesus head. My understanding is that Caesar wore a wreath on his head and the soldiers were mimicking Him. As they put the crown of thorns on Jesus head blood ran down on Jesus face, which made him even more unrecognizable. The final piece of dress that the soldiers put on Jesus was a reed in his right hand. The way John MacAuthur, Jr. explained the reed was that it was to represent royalty, authority, and power. After giving Jesus the reed the soldiers were making fun of Jesus by getting on their knees and pretending to worship Him. They then took the reed from his hand and beat Jesus on the head with it while they were saying this like, "Look how easy we strip you of your power and authority. We now beat you with your own staff." During all this not one time, that I could find in anything that I read, did Jesus say anything. Never once did he try to defend Himself, but just took the undeserved torture quietly. Afterwards Jesus stood before Pilate during this meeting what stand out most to me is the first thing that Jesus responded to. Pilate said to Jesus, "...where did you come from?" But Jesus did not answer him. Then Pilate said, "You won't talk? Don't you know that I have the authority to pardon you and the authority to crucify you?" Jesus said, "You haven't a shed of authority over me except what has been given to you from heaven. That is why the one who betrayed me to you has committed a far greater fault," John 19:10 -11. That is the part that gets me curious and excited...it is almost like, if something like that would happen on Jerry Springer the audience would go, "Ohh." It makes me think and probably Pilate think, "Who exactly is in control right now?" After that took place Pilate felt bad or understood what he had done and sort of walked away from the situation but did not stop it. He told the Jews to take him themselves and crucify Him. When Jesus left there MacAuthur says that Jesus, "...was bleeding profusely from the scouring, with terrible lacerations from His shoulders down, exposing muscles, ligaments, blood vessels, and perhaps even internal organs." To add to all of this, the night before Jesus had no sleep because of trials. Even though Jesus was in this poor of shape, the people still forced Him to carry his own cross. From reading and research I feel it is safe to say that Jesus did not just carry a section of the cross but the entire thing. This would mean that Jesus was beaten and then forced to carry a cross weighing more than 200 pounds. To make sure that this happened 4 soldiers escorted Him. The were also there to help Him get through the crowds and lead the way. These 4 soldiers are called a quaternion. Once Jesus made it to a town south of Greece called Cyrene He was not able to carry the cross any more. His body was giving out, because of this the Roman soldiers picked a guy named Simon to carry the cross for Jesus. I wish I had more time to study Simon but what I did learn was that he was a pilgrim who came to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. The reason, that I can best understand, that Simon was picked is because he looked strong. I also found out that after Simon carried the cross both him and other family members found faith in Christ, but that is a whole other report. They finally made the trip to the final destination. The place was named Golgatha, and it means, place of a skull. The reason for the name was explained to me in the past. I was told that people were buried there up to their necks and their heads were poking out of the ground. MacAurthor says that it got its name from its appearance, "the name refereed to a particular site that had the appearance of a skull." A question I had about this place named Golgatha was, why there, for the crucifixion? The reason I found was refereed to me in the book of Numbers 15:35. It says that there was a law that required executions be performed outside the city. Once to Golgatha, the soldiers tried to give Jesus a drink, Jesus tasted it and spit it out. The reason? I found that the soldiers the person who was being crucified something for the pain, and to keep them from struggling during the nailing. When Jesus tasted something in the drink he spit it out because He didn't want his senses dulled. Once everything was in place the soldiers first nailed His feet to the upright beam and His hands through the wrist to the horizontal beam (I could not find out which hand was nailed first). After He was nailed to the cross it was raised and there was room for Jesus to bend His knees. I couldn't find anywhere saying Jesus was tied to the cross, even though many pictured I have seen have ropes also. I was going to try to explain what happened to His body next but I found that in a book called, The Life of Christ, it is explained very well on pages 403 - 404. It says, "A death by crucifixion seems to include all that pain and death can have of the horrible and ghastly - dizziness, cramp, thirst, starvation, sleeplessness, traumatic fever, shame, publicity of shame, long continuance of torment, horror of anticipation, mortification of intended wounds - all intensified just up to the point at which they can be endured at all, but all stopping just short of the point which would give to the sufferer the relief of unconsciousness. The unnatural position made every movement painful; the lacerated veins and crushed tendons throbbed with incessant anguish; the wounds inflamed by exposure gradually gangrened [when a victim took several days to die]; the arteries - especially at the head and stomach - became swollen and oppressed with surcharged blood, and while each variety of misery went on gradually increasing, there was added to them the intolerable pang of burning and raging thirst, and all these physical complications caused an internal excitement and anxiety, which made the prospect of death itself - of death, the unknown enemy, at whose approach man usually shudders most - bear the aspect of a delicious and exquisite release. One thing is clear. The first century executions were not like the modern ones, for they did not seek a quick, painless death nor the preservation of any measure of dignity for the criminal. On the contrary, they sought an agonizing torture, which completely humiliated him. And it is important that we understand this, for it helps us realize the agony of Christ's death." While Jesus was on the cross many things happened. A sign of mockery was hung above his head that read, "This is Jesus the king of the Jews." Jesus was crucified along with two other criminals, one on each side. At first both of them mocked and yelled at Jesus. There were many people standing around watching. Most of these people at one time admired Jesus and even followed Him. The reasoning behind them being at the cross this time (at least what I understand) was to make sure He was crucified. I read in many books that the people were yelling at Jesus and mocking Him. It says in John 2:19 -21 that they were mocking the fact that He said he would rebuild the temple in 3 days. Another groups at the cross were the Pharisees. From as far back in Jesus life that I go these people who were trying to destroy Jesus. Because of this paper I learned that they were probably a big part of the crucifixion. They have a lot of power and pressured people into agreeing with them. Now these people were at the cross doing the same thing that they always did. Harassing Jesus. During the mocking done by all these people, one of the others being crucified changed his mind about Christ. I don't really know why, and I couldn't find much on it. At first I thought it was probably out of fear, but later changed my mind. I think he was hearing and seeing what the people were doing but also watched the reaction of Jesus. I feel because of Jesus reactions he started to believe in who he said he was. He told this to Jesus and Jesus promised him in Luke 23:42-43 that he would be with Jesus in heaven. CONCLUSION Just before Jesus died it is said that he cried out and yielded up his spirit. What I never thought about before was what that meant. Even though Jesus had been through incredible pain and suffering, he was still very strong. I say this because it takes a lot of energy to yell. I feel because of this fact Jesus was able to keep living, but it says that He gave up his spirit. What I think that reassures is that he was still in total control of everything, even His own life. While on the cross..."The son took upon himself out transgressions, our iniquities. Jesus delivered up because of our transgression..." and by giving up His life He, "who knew no sin became sin on our behalf, and became a curse for us. He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross and died for sins once and for all, the just for the unjust, and became the propitiation for our sins." Jesus life was concluded on the cross by Him saying, "It is finished." And giving up His spirit for and to us. APPLICATION THE SOILDIERS The conclusion of these people is that their wickedness was because of their lack of knowing who Jesus was THE PEOPLE STANDING AROUND THE CROSS What I think of when I think of these people is the people at my church whether in youth group or other areas, who were raised in the church and live the Christian life, but when something isn't going right they only live the Christian life with their mouths and not by their actions. When things get even worse they jump ship and we don't see them until they are tired of trying to fix things on their own and come back to Jesus for help. THE PHARISIES What cracks me up about these guys is that they probably know more scripture than anyone in the Bible, most of them even devoted their lives to studying scripture but they were still blind. If anyone should have known what was going to happen it was them and it was happening before their eyes. Yet they were still blind to the truth. At the end of this paper I am very pleased. I really hope that this is what you were wanting. I tried to research something that you assigned and something that I know nothing about. The people and their reactions on the way to and from the cross was just that. If I had to relate myself to any of the people in this research project it would probley be the soldiers. I say this because a lot of times I do things to Jesus without even knowing. Once I know life is a lot easier to see. Does that make sense? My next biggest thing would be the knowledge of what is wrong but giving into the flesh. I guess that would be what the people standing around the cross were doing. It might seem a little weird but I kind of want to be like the Pharisees. Not what they did but what they know. This paper has pushed me just a little closer to that and I'm pretty happy with the outcome and cant wait until I can use what I have now learned in real life. Douglas, J.D. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Publisher House,1978 MacArthur, John The MacArthur New Testiment Commentary Library of Congress in Publication Data, 1989 Tenney, Merrill C. The Zondervan Pictoral Encyclopedia of the Bible Zondervan Publishing House, Douglas, J.D. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 2 Inter-Varsity Press, Cross, F.L. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Oxford University Press, 1968 Green, Joel B. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels Inter Varsity Press, Bible translations used: NIV, The Message, New Living, and New American Standard The Death of Christ f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christianit1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christianity Christianity is one of the major religions of mankind. It has been the dominant religion in Europe and America, Christianity has also spread throughout the world and has a greater number of adherents then any other religion. The Jewish teacher known as Jesus of Nazareth founded Christianity. Christianity drew on the expectations for a Messiah common in the region during these centuries. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, near Jerusalem, and grew up in the town of Nazareth. He was educated from the Pharisaic school of thought and was practicing as an observant Jew. He was not preaching to non-Jews so therefore only Jews could follow him. they started to think of him as their Messiah. As he traveled through towns in Judea he gathered small groups of followers. He chose twelve from these groups and they became known as the twelve apostles. They traveled around the world preaching. According to the gospels, he created great excitement among the people. In 30 CE Jesus traveled to Jerusalem. There he was hailed as the Messiah. Others denied that he was the messiah and regarded him as a revolutionary. The Romans feared that Jesus wanted to lead an uprising, and they considered him an enemy of the state. Jesus was tried before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. He eventually agreed to have Jesus crucified. According to the gospels, Jesus rose from his grave, and went back to his followers for forty days and preaches. Before 45 CE a man named Peter comes along and tries to spread Christianity to Jews. In 45 CE a Jew named Saul comes along. Saul is born in Tarsus in Asia Minor. He goes to Judea and Learns with Raban Gamleael; he becomes involved in persecuting Christians. Eventually, according to a legend Saul is blinded by a vision. He goes on the road and Jesus comes to him and asks him why he is persecuting the Christians, Jesus blinds him. Jesus toells Saul to go to a certain Christian to get healed. Saul did that and then he changes his name to Paul, because Paul means healed. Paul has a great influence on spreading Christianity to non-Jews, and forming it as a separate religion. Between 45 and 65 CE, he journeyed throughout the eastern Mediterranean region, spreading the teaching of Jesus and founding Christian communities. Paul visited Rome, where, according to tradition he was put to death. Paul's Epistles to Christian congregations form an important part of the New Testament. The New Testament was a combination of four gospels written by Paul and a book of Revolution; this is in relation to the Old Testament, which was the Torah. Paul insisted that Jesus was not just the Jewish Messiah but a savior for all human races. By following the teachings of Jesus, all people could be saved from the consequences of their sins. They could avoid damnation and instead enjoy the bliss of salvation in paradise after death. In 100 CE Christianity was recognized as a different sect. Christians had to make a hard decision whether to keep on following, even though they were in danger or not. The Christians who defied Roman religion and law were persecuted and used as scapegoats. In 200 CE there was a civil war in the empire and many people turned to Christianity. City dwellers converted. By the end of the 200's, the Christian church had become so big that the government couldn't punish everyone, Roman law had accepted Christianity as a religion. The position of Christianity vastly improved when Emperor Constantine became a supporter of Christianity. The religions of Christianity and Judaism both accept everyone and charge nothing. They welcome the poor and rich alike. They believe that the people should be good citizens and obey the laws. They both encourage them to practice charity and to care for the poor and outcast. Christians believe that the appointed Jesus was there Messiah. They believed that all people had good in them. If they prayed to the Messiah, no matter what bad they did they would be forgiven and redeemed in the eyes of their Lord. All men could be saved from sins before and in the after life. Christianity is now one of the major religions that can be found all over the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christianity 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christianity "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."1 A simple directive spoken by God himself through Jesus Christ in the Sermon at the Mount, this Great Commission has impacted a countless number of lives throughout the years. The command given by Jesus at that time was actually to act as a continuance of His ministry after his death. Apparently this command continued to be fulfilled even far beyond His ascension into heaven. The commandment sparked the beginning of Christianity and throughout the years, its cultures, religions and beliefs poured out upon the continents, including the New World. The intent of this report is to show the transfer of Christianity from the Old World to the Americas; it is to outline its beginnings and show its impact on the Indian people. The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages played an all encompassing role over the lives of the people and the government. As the Dark Ages came to a close the ideas of the Renaissance started to take hold, and the church's power gradually began to dwindle. The monarchies of Europe also began to grow replacing the church's power. Monarchies, at the close of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, did not so much seek the guidance of the church as much as it sought their approval. However, the Church during the Age of Discovery was still a major influence. The discovery of the New World and its previously unknown inhabitants presented new problems in the Catholic Church in the late 14th and early 15th century. When Spain's rulers and emissaries decided to physically conquer and populate the New World, and not just trade with it, the transplantation of Christian institutions followed. The church established contact with the New World, and made it a goal to establish the Catholic doctrines among the native population there. The Catholic Church and the Spanish monarch, however, looked upon the native population in the New World as souls to be saved. They did not consider or treat the Indians as equals. To them, the population seemed to mean more than the individual's spiritual standpoint. The implanting of Christianity in the New World, and the treatment of the native population by the missionaries and Christian conquerors was harmful or even destructive to New World. Through men such as Cortez and Bartolome Las Casas, accounts of the conversions have been recorded. One of the reasons for this was the alliance of the Catholic Church with the Spanish monarchy. The status of the Indians was irrelevant and disregarded by the Christian conquerors and missionaries who wanted to convert them. The missionaries subjected them to violence and reduced them to a laboring population. The Indians, however did not always respond in a negative way to the work of the church. The Catholic Church arrived in the New World immediately after Christopher Columbus laid claim to it for Spain. After Columbus's discovery of the new lands he wrote a series of treaties as to what the European purpose there was. Columbus, in his writings, said that the purpose of the New World was two-fold. He said that: (1) The gospel message of the church should be spread globally beginning with his discoveries in the New World. and (2) Second, he stated that the riches discovered in the New World should be dedicated to the recapture of Jerusalem from the Moslems.2 Columbus saw the discovery of the New World as a prophesy coming true. He saw the Indians that lived there as a labor source that should be Christianized and used for the greater good of the church. The implementation of his two fold plan had its difficulties; However, this did not stop or discredit the use of this part of the plan as a prime directive of the New World. Two papal bulls or verdicts were issued in the year of 1493 that established the Spanish position in the New World.3 They also established the role that the church was going to play in the New World. The first bull was issued on May 3 given the name Inter Caetera. It said that the lands discovered by Spanish envoys not previously under a Christian owner could be claimed by Spain. The bull also gave the Spanish monarch the power to send men to convert the natives to the Catholic faith and instruct them in Catholic morals. The second papal bull issued in the same year expanded on the meaning of the primary bull. The bull fixed a boundary for Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence in the New World. This boundary heavily favored Spain further showing the alliance between Spain and the Church. The history of the Catholic Church in the New World began in the year after Columbus' first voyage. The Spanish monarchy sent the first missionaries to establish Christianity there. The number of missions sent to the New World accelerated in tempo and density until the final decade of the 16th century. The crown paid for the sending of missionaries, and its officials kept track of the many "shiploads" of religious personnel sent and of the expenses they incurred. The records show that the Spanish dispatched missionaries to more than 65 destinations, ranging from Florida and California to Chile and the Strait of Magellan.4 Between 1493, when the first mission left for Espanola, and Spanish American independence (roughly 1821) more than 15 thousand missionaries crossed the Atlantic under royal approval and support. 5 The Spanish, when choosing who to send as their principle emissaries of the Catholic Church, disregarded the opinions of the Spanish bishops and clergy, and called up friars belonging to several monastic orders. There were three monastic orders of friars that came to the New World. These were the Franciscans, the Dominicans, and the Augustianians.6 While other secular priests were not discouraged from going to the New World, the Crown did not send them as missionaries. "By sending friars instead of secular priests to convert the Indians, Spain took advantage of an old evangelical strain in European monasticism".7 If one looks back further, in the times before the Christianity of Europe, monks wandered and roamed the countryside converting the rural populations. The present monarchy reimplemented this obsolete idea as a primary missionary tactic in the New World. The Spanish monarch also picked the monastic orders to fulfill this task because they were among those who possessed an education. Spain at this time lacked seminaries and religious education facilities. The local priests were either undereducated or uneducated to the point were they were seen as largely ignorant. Once in the New World the missionaries played an indispensable role in conquering the Indian population for the Gospel, concentrating it in towns and villages and taking charge of administration. Some times these settlements were largely left in the hands of church officials because they were unreachable by colony administrators. "Rural churchmen, in the frontier settings of the 16th century acted in an atmosphere of independence which bordered on impunity".8 These missions were not always run in the best interest of the Indians. The natives were often subject to harsh conditions, and they were not protected by the missions. The missions instituted by the government were described this way, "The church, with few exceptions, accompanied and legitimized the genocide, slavery, ecocide, and exploitation of the wealth of the land. The mission left a bitter fruit inherited by the descendants of the survivors of the invasion". 9 No country at this time conceived of setting up anything but a Christian empire. "The monarch of Castile not only exercised supreme secular authority, but he was also the head of the colonial church. Indeed, his laws of the Indies began with the words, 'On the Holy Catholic Faith' ".10 The Church because it was under the Spanish monarchy participated in the wrongs incurred in the New World. The Church went along with the government in instituting the unfair practices against the native population. Las Casas writings about the treatment and conversion of the Indians are some of the best that survive today. Las Casas was a Spanish bishop who late in life became a renowned champion of the Indians. He was born in Seville in August 1474, and he first went to the New World in 1502. He became a priest and participated in the acquiring of Cuba. He received land and slaves as a reward for his contribution. In 1514 he experienced a radical change of heart and came to feel that the native population had been unjustly treated by his countrymen. He then became determined to dedicate the remainder of his life to their defense. Las Casas was one of the notable authorities on the Indians, and was remarkable because he realized the Indians should not be measured by the Spanish yardstick, but must rather be understood with in the framework of their own culture. He saw the Indians not as heathens and savages, but in a different stage of development from Europe. Las Casas contended that the Indians had many skills and accomplishments, and in fact possessed a culture worthy of respect.11 Las Casas writes about the treatment of the Indians upon being subjected to the Spanish Christians. He accompanied the Spanish entourage on the occupation of Cuba. In this venture he accompanied the expedition in the office of Clerico. He stated that one of the chief cares of this office was when they halted in any town or village, it was his job to assign separate quarters to the Spanish and the Indians. This was to prevent violence from erupting between the two peoples. His principle job; however was to assemble the children in order to baptize them. This was a sad task for Las Casas because scarcely any of the children remained alive a few months afterward. This was due to violence or the disease that the Spanish brought with them. Las Casas on his travels also saw the violence and horrors which the Indians were subject to. Las Casas describes this scene upon entering the Indian village of Caonao: "The Clerico was preparing for the division of the rations amongst the men, when suddenly a Spaniard, prompted, as was thought, by the Devil, drew his sword: the rest drew theirs; and immediately they all began to hack and hew the poor Indians, who were sitting quietly near them, and offering not more resistance than so many sheep".12 Las Casas then goes on to describe the scene as "heaps of bodies . . . strewn about, like sheaves of corn, waiting to be gathered up".13 The Spaniard's job was to convert the native population to Christianity, not use them to test the sharpness of their swords which they had done in this case. In Mexico, Hernan Cortez, the conqueror, recognized the need for religious instruction among Indians. His instructions he received from the Spanish monarchy and the Pope for his venture included the order to, "spread the knowledge of the true faith and the Church of God among those people who dwell in darkness,".14 Cortez followed these instructions very diligently. When he encountered the Indians on the mainland of Central America, he undertook their religious conversions. He explained the Christian religion to them, and wanted the natives to renounce their idols and embrace the Christian religion. He and the religious men with him preached against sodomy and human sacrifice to the tribes that they encountered. In Mexico, like other Spanish colonies, numerous Friars and priests came and worked to Christianize the native population. However, this was largely ineffectual because the various Holy men could only sow a few grains here or there. Cortez realized the need for order in the Catholic Church in the New World to convert the native population. Cortez wrote to the king of Spain, Charles V, about the need for missionaries to convert the Indians. He asked for friars of the St. Francis or St. Dominic order who would set up monasteries to instruct and convert the native population. There, presently arrived in Mexico at San Juan de Ulua on May 13 or 14, 1524 the famous mission of Twelve, who began the methodical conversion of the Indians. Cortez's envisions of monastic communities, where the native population could be converted to Christianity, came true especially in Mexico. Huge monasteries were built for the purpose of the conversion of the native population. These monasteries built were of enormous size and decorated ostentatiously. The monasteries included pomp and circumstance in their ceremonies. The reason claimed for doing this was to keep the Indians interested in Catholicism and away from their native religions. "On February 8, 1537, Zumarraga wrote the Council of the Indies that beautiful churches helped in the conversion of the Indians and strengthened their devotion. Twenty years later, on February 1, 1558, Viceroy Luis de Velasco make the same observation to Philip II".15 These churches, supposedly built for the benefit of the native population, were built or supported by the native population. For them this was a heavy burden, whether they built the churches themselves or had to pay workmen to the labor. They had to do this at the cost of neglecting their fields or trades. There were also accounts of the friars physically punishing the Indians for their work or lack of it, "But one must accept with reserve the testimony of the Indians who complained of abuses by the Dominicans during the construction of the convent at Puebla, claiming they were exhausted from work, and that one of the religious had loaded them with large stones and them beaten them over the head with a stick".16 The missions set up by the church were also guilty of abusing the native population. The Indians were supposed to benefit from these missions, but all they received from them was more misery. The Indians in having to support these new edifices and having to convert to Christianity suffered from a double edged sword. The native Americans had three responses to the thrusting of the Christian religion upon them. One response was the incorporation of elements of Christianity into their own religion, creating a new religious system. They took the beliefs out of the Christian religion that agreed or make sense with their religion and combined the two. "Ancient rituals attached to Christian ones included a sweeping ceremony that accompanied the bringing of the Eucharist to the sick, the lighting of fires on the eve of the nativity, the extreme use of self-flagellation, the burning of a traditional incense before images of saint, dedicating strings of ears or corn to the Virgin".17 Some Indians outright rejected Christianity. An example of this written by Thomas Giles was, "among the Incas of Peru, baptism was considered subjection to the invader; some Incan chiefs killed those who accepted the rite".18 The Indians largely could not accept Christian beliefs because of the actions of the Christians themselves. The brutality and the lack of concern or remorse that the Spanish showed to the Indians played a large role for the rejection of the Spanish religion. The Indians did not want any part of a religion that preached rape, slaughter, and cruel subjugation. The explanation of a Mayan who objected to the behaviors of the Spanish was the following, "The true God, the true Dios came, but this was the origin too of affliction for us: the origin of tax, of out giving them alms; of trial through the grabbing of cacao money, of trial by blowgun; stomping the people; violent removal; forced debt, debt created by false testimony; petty litigation, harassment, violent removal; the collaboration with the Spaniards on the part of the priests, . . . and all the while the mistreated were further maltreated...but it will happen that tears will come to the eyes of God the Father. The justica of God the Father will settle on the whole world." 19 Not all the Indians rejected the Christian religion. Many of them accepted it. They desired Christian friendships and to change their habits to the ones of the Spanish. The reasons for the acceptance of Christianity vary, but one of these is fear. Some Christian conquerors threatened lives if the Indians were not baptized and did not actively participate in the Church. Another reason for the conversion is that the Indians were in awe of the conquers. The Spanish represented power and the Indians were in reverence of their great amount of power they represented. Some accepted the religion because the missionaries demonstrated boundless zeal, high morals, and great courage. Not all of the missionaries sent by the Church were violent or corrupt. There were some who worked for the benefit of the native population. The Indians saw this and respected it. The Catholic Church helped the Spanish monarchy administer to the native population in the New World. The Church, by being subject to the Spanish monarchy, is also to be held accountable to the numerous evils inflicted upon the Indians in the Spainish colonies. In many cases they were forced to convert to Christianity, and their views about god and religion were not taken into account. The Catholic Church incurred a great injustice to the native population in the New World. They were reduced to second class citizens, and forced to work toward goals that they did not fully understand. Through the writings of Las Casas, it is seen how the Indians were slaughtered needlessly, and how they were baptized without regard to their feelings. Cortez paved the way for missions to be founded in the New World supposedly for the good of the Indian population. This, however, also turned against them. The Catholic Church role in the lives of the native population was a negative one due to its alliance with the Spanish monarchy and its forced conversion of the Indians. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christianity And Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christianity And Buddhism This paper is a comparison between two very different religions. Specifically Christianity and Buddhism. Coming from opposite sides of the globe these two religions could not be any farther apart in any aspect. I will discuss who Christ is for Christians and who Buddha is for Buddhists. I will also get into the aspects of charity, love, and compassion in both religions and I will be looking at the individual self and how christians see resurrection where the buddhists feel about the afterlife. One thing to keep in mind is that the two religions are very different but they seem to have a very similar underlying pattern. Both believe that there was a savior of their people, Buddha and Christ, and both believe that there is something good that happens to us when our time is done here on earth. This is a very generalized summarization but in order to go in to depth I need to explain the two religions more to fully convey this theory. The Christian religion, like all other religions has its strengths and weaknesses in our modern society. Perhaps the strengths out weight the weaknesses as this is one of the largest religions in the world. Hundreds of people follow the Catholic/Christian religion yet still a greater number follow yet other religions. Perhaps this is because they see the weaknesses or perhaps it is simply because their parents have taught them that it is a sin to follow this religion. The Christian religions do however present much more of an appealing atmosphere than such other religions which are as large as the Christian. The Christian religion is one of few religions where punishments for sins are not severe. In the Christian religion, even if you have lived a life of sin, so long as you repent in the end, you will be saved and given eternal life. This is not so in other religions. Such religions as Hinduism for instance do not believe this. For everything you do wrong you will be punished. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, if not in this life, then the next. Hindu's also believe that punishing the body is part of the path to salvation. Christianity is nothing like this. Many Christians live in high class society. Christianity is one of the most appealing in that any sins may easily be corrected and that Christians may live comfortable, if not wealthy lives without guilt. Christianity, like other religions though, has many weaknesses. Although as time goes on, Christianity is slowly evolving and trying to become even more appealing to society, there are still many downfalls. One thing with Christianity is that from day one we are given a guilt trip. We are born evil. We are born with "the original sin". We are at the mercy of God. If we beg forgiveness however, it shall be granted. My grandmother for instance has been a firm believer in the Roman Catholic faith. She, being taught in the old style, firmly believes in going to confession weekly and begging for forgiveness. It has been taught to her that man is born evil. All we can do is pray, beg and hope for forgiveness. With such a guilt upon his sub(c)conscience, man can never be truly happy. Yet another strength with the Christian faith is that it is one of the more flexible religions. Under the leadership of the pope(s), the Catholic faith has evolved with modern society and become a more "reasonable" faith. Such practices as not eating meat on Fridays, and so forth, have been abolished as the Christian faith has bent to conform with modern society. Some people may see this as a weakness. This is not so. The Christian religion has modified its rituals yet the central beliefs have not been altered since the very beginning of this religion. This is actually quite a good thing. A religion should change as the modern society does and conform to a more "acceptable" approach to continue its teachings/practices. This is one great thing about the Christian faith. A small, often overlooked draw back to the Christian faith is that there is not any solid proof that Jesus existed. To the Christian faith, Jesus is the central figure. A Christian will tell you that the Bible is proof that Jesus existed. The Bible however was written much later, after Jesus' death. Therefore the stories contained have been transferred by word of mouth, which has certainly been distorted and exaggerated. The Shroud of Turin used to be the Christian religion's artifact which was believed to be the original shroud that Jesus was wrapped in when he was buried and therefore solid proof he existed. Recently due to modern carbon dating, this "artifact" has been proven to have been created with paint approximately one thousand years after the day Christ died. To a non believer, this is a major drawback. One very strong point about the Catholic/Christian religion is that they strongly believe in correcting our corrupted world. Many missionaries are sent yearly to third world countries where they help educate, feed and provide moral support for a people who have nothing. With such a practice in place, the Christian religion has put a smile on faces which normally would never know anything more than tears. Probably one of the greatest features of the Christian church which helps it survive in modern society is the hierarchy system upon which this religion is based. Such strong organization structure help this religion in well organized money distribution, etc. In a modern society, such structure is necessary. As one of the largest religions, the Catholic/Christian religion is one of the great religions which stills lives strongly among us in our increasingly modern society. Despite its many weaknesses, the Christian faith has even more strengths upon which its survival is based. Times may change, technology may advance, but essential beliefs never alter. Now that I have explained what the basics of christianity are and how the religion views things I need to do the same with Buddhism. Buddhism is probably the most tolerant religion in the world, as its teaching can coexist with any other religion. Other religions, on the other hand, do not possess this characteristic and cannot accommodate Buddhism at the same time. The Buddhist teaching of God is neither agnostic nor vague, but clear and logical. Buddhism began this way: Siddhartha Gautama was born in the sixth century B.C. in what is now modern Nepal. His father, Suddhodana, was the ruler of the Sakya people and Siddhartha grew up living the extravagant life of a young prince. According to custom, he married at the age of sixteen to a young girl named Yasodhara. His father had ordered that he live a life of total seclusion, but one day Siddhartha ventured out into the world and was confronted with the harsh reality of life and universal suffering. The next day, at age twenty-nine, he left his kingdom and new-born son to lead and plain, reclusive life and determine a way to relieve this universal suffering. For six years, Siddhartha meditated under a bodhi tree, but he was never fully satisfied. One day, however, he was offered a bowl of rice from a young girl and he accepted it. In that moment, he realized that physical harshness was not a means of achieving liberation. From then on, he encouraged people to follow a path of balance rather than extremism. He called this the Middle Way. "Devotion to the pleasures of sense, a low practice of villagers, a practice unworthy, unprofitable, the way of the world [on one hand]; and [on the other] devotion to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy and unprofitable. By avoiding these two extremes the Tathagata [or Buddha] has gained knowledge of that middle path which giveth vision, which giveth knowledge, which causeth calm, special knowledge, enlightenment, Nibbana [or Nirvana]." (Smart 236) That night, Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree and meditated until dawn. He purified his mind of all evil thoughts and attained Enlightenment at the age of thirty-five, thus earning the title Buddha, or "Enlightened One." For the remainder of his eighty years, the Buddha preached the dharma in an effort to help other people reach Enlightenment. The Buddha examined the phenomenal life objectively. Studying effects and tracing their causes, he produced a science of living which ranks with any other science known to man. He describes life to be one and indivisible. Man, he declared, can become Buddha, Enlightened, by the principle of Enlightenment within. This process is simply to become what you are, to develop to the full innate Buddha-Mind by destroying the ignorance, sin and evils of human nature. All forms of life, according to the Buddha, can be shown to have three characteristics in common; impermanence, suffering, and an absence of permanent soul which separates us from other forms of life. The Buddha also pointed out that nothing is the same as is was only a moment ago. Everything is changing. Even the hills are being worn away, and every human particle is being replaced every seven years. There is no finality or rest within the universe, only a ceaseless becoming and never-ending change. Buddhism denies that man has an immortal soul. The Enlightenment which dwells in life does not belong to one form of life. Man is always changing and entirely mortal. In addition, Buddhism is a natural religion. It does not violate either mind or body. The Buddha became aware that men are born and die according to their good or evil actions, according to their self-created Karma -- the consequences of good or evil deeds. Even though there are several different forms of Buddhism that have come into existence since Buddha's death, there is still a basic essence that all Buddhists agree with. All Buddhists recognize these. In all, there are four basic noble truths. The first noble truth of the world according to Buddha is dhukka, or suffering. The second truth is tanha, or desire, which is the cause of suffering. The third truth is that in order to free oneself from suffering, one must overcome desire. The fourth truth tells us how this can be accomplished through the eight-fold path. According to Buddha, the eight-fold path is the means to achieve liberation from suffering. It helps one weed out cravings and ignorance, to overcome rebirth, old age, disease, death, sorrows, lamentation, grief and despair. It helps to end mass misery and aids people in attaining Nirvana, or salvation. Specifically, this path includes: 1. Right View 2. Right Thought 3. Right Speech 4. Right Action 5. Right Livelihood 6. Right Effort 7. Right Mindfulness 8. Right Concentration The most simple teaching of the Buddha was to do good, to avoid evil and to purify the heart. According to Buddha, the hearts of ordinary men are not pure. They are filled with greed, ill will and delusion. Greed and hatred are impurities caused by desires, and ignorance is the cause of delusion, especially delusion of self. Ignorance, in fact, is the cause of desire and thus the primary cause of all suffering and of rebirth. The Buddha said that one may purify his heart: 1. By practicing self-control and self-restraint 2. By meditating upon one's own self 3. By following the Eight-Fold Path that leads to the end of all suffering All of these points are the basic essence of Buddhism. They help people understand the worlds of suffering, personal or otherwise, and how to overcome that suffering. Buddhism is a simple religion that focuses on changing the evil of man and society into good. It bring a message of salvation and hope to whoever will follow its paths. As you can see the two religions are very different yet very similar. It is very interesting to see that even though the cultures of the two religions are quite possibly exact opposites, the underlying message of the religions is quite similar. It seems that human nature all over the world needs something or someone to believe in and entrust their faith in which helps them live a comfortable life. Who is to say that which one is correct, but the idea of a higher being and being saved when we pass, is definitely a prevalent aspect of everyone's lives. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christianity and Halloween.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Michael Williams Religion 10/28/96 Essay Halloween and Christianity It is often said that Halloween is not the "harmless" holiday it is thought to be, instead it is believed to be a pagan ritual which dates back to the ancient Celtic Druids. According to the article "Should Our Kids Celebrate Halloween?" in Catholic Digest Halloween's origin is very much Christian and American. Although the ancient Celts celebrated a minor festival on the 31st of October, it fell on that day because the Feast of All Saints or "All Hallows" falls on November 1st. During the 840s Pope Gregory IV gad All Saints Day to be celebrated everywhere. The day before the feast became known as "All Hallows Even" or "Hallowe'en". At the time, that day did not have any real significance. In the year of 998, the abbot of the monastery of Cluny in southern France, St. Odilo added a celebration on November 2nd called All Souls Day. The new celebration was a feast whose purpose was to recognize those in heaven and in purgatory. The tradition of dressing up in costumes on Halloween is derived from the Feast of All Souls Day in France. During the 14th and 15th centuries when Europe was hit by outbreaks of the bubonic plague, about half of its population was wiped out. Since life spans were greatly shortened because of the plague, Catholics began to focus on the after life. The number of Masses help largely increased and people of all social classes gathered to dress in different garments and lead lost spirits to the tomb in a daisy chain which became known as the "Dance of Death". Dressing up did not become part of Halloween until the creation of the British colonies in North America. During that period of time, Catholics had no legal rights in England. At times English Catholics attempted to resist. One such occasion was a plot to destroy King James I and his Parliament with gunpowder. The plan was ill-conceived and easily foiled when the guard of the powder, Guy Fawkes, was found and hung on November 5, 1605. The date became widely celebrated in England. Bands of revelers began to wear masks on that date and visited local Catholics during the night demanding beer and cakes for their celebration. This is the root of what has become known as "trick or treat!". As French and Irish Catholics immigrated into the colonies, they began to inter-marry. The combination of their traditions mixed with people of other nationalities is what led to the current way we celebrate Halloween. In conclusion, Halloween is not the occult which most people believe, it is the product of several cultures including Christianity. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christianity and the old testiment.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Religion" is a simple word that divides humanity in several groups. It is the claim of many influential Christian and Jewish theologians that the only genuine basis for morality is in religion(Nielsen 13). The morals and beliefs of children are greatly influenced by their home life. It is sad how children grow up, not able to research into their beliefs, but conform to the beliefs that have run in their families for generations. Not many children break away from the traditional religion in their family because it has been practiced and influenced for many years. If one should participate in breaking tradition, he could be challenged by the family to show reasoning behind the change(Kaplan 258). In doing this, society still will be diverse, but at least that is one more person trying to express an opinion. The Old Testament is an accurate and valid resource to use when trying to explain Christianity and faith. For example, it is amazing how one can justify his faith to a strong Catholic family when trying to prove that salvation is a free gift and not a time card for "good works." There is much difference between the religion of Catholicism and non-denominational Christianity. Though both groups believe in one God, the same God, growing up in the midst of the bickering of the two groups can confuse a child and bring bitterness toward this God that Christians believe is all-loving. School is an area where temptations are thrown in people's faces each day. Many people are challenged each day in these situations; children may be challenged in their home or in school because of the issue of salvation and trying to maintain a strong-willed mind as a young Christian. Catholic children are taught their religion in CCD classes, and the result is the children learning to be good in order to go to heaven. Many of the the things they are taught come from the Old Testament. The Christian Bible includes the Old Testament unlike Judaism where their bible is the Old Testament. Children learn Christian virtues such as faith, obedience, piety, chastity, love, mercy, and humility(Garner 272). Catholic children are also taught that if they do sin, than they simply can go confess their sins to a priest and then they are forgiven. According to the Old Testament, salvation is free gift and forgiveness is given straight from God, not through some high standing official in the Church. Catholics are given a bad name, and their religion is considered to be hostile towards others and unethical at times(Hudnut 22). I am Catholic myself and may not believe in some of the teachings, but I do not feel that Catholics are really this way. This ongoing hostility between Protestants and Catholics can hamper a child's grasp of Christianity. A child is taught the Christian ways of "love thy neighbor" and then see the example of two Christian groups that cannot even get along . The Old Testament teachings show3 that there were no different sects under God, just His "chosen people." These Old Testament teachings are valuable in helping our youth of today understand this. What has happened to the religious thought of exploring the philosophical and scientific discussions of traditional concepts like sin, salvation, and the Gospel as one religion; Christianity(Hudnut 67)? f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christianity Begins.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christianity Begins On a late afternoon, in about the year AD 33, two men were walking from Jerusalem to the nearby village of Emmaus. Their conversation centered on events that had occurred the previous week. As they journeyed, a stranger who seemed ignorant of these events joined them. Surprised, they asked him: "Are you the only person staying in Jerusalem not to know what has happened there in the last few days?" So they explained to him about a certain Jesus of Nazareth, "a prophet powerful in speech and action before God and the whole people. Our chief priests and rulers handed him over to the Roman authorities to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him. But we were hoping that he was the man to liberate Israel." Even more amazing, they went on to say, were reports from some women who visited his tomb that he was alive again, raised from the dead. Suddenly the stranger spoke: "How dull-witted you two are! And how slow to believe all that the prophets said. Was not the messiah bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory?" Then he went on to clarify from the Hebrew scriptures all the passages that referred to himself. For the stranger was Jesus of Nazareth, of whom the two had been speaking. Based on the life, death and coming to life again of Jesus Christ there has developed the world's largest religion, Christianity. Expectation and Reality The two men on the road to Emmaus were not simple common folk. They were a selected group of twelve followers, called disciples or learners, of Jesus who had known him for at least three years. During this period they had listened to all he said and had witnessed his amazing actions, such as healing the sick, giving sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf and even bringing people back to life. They had become convinced that he was the Messiah who was to redeem Israel. Israel wanted and expected redemption. This small Jewish nation, located in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, had for centuries looked forward to a time when their God would, through some decisive action, free them from outside oppression and establish Israel as the preeminent nation in the world. The word messiah means "the lord's anointed," someone God has set aside for a specific task. Christians believe that Jesus, from the small town of Nazareth in Galilee, was that Messiah. They also believe that what he accomplished far exceeded the expectations of Israel. The Jews looked for a messiah exclusively for themselves, though his power and love would be such as to draw Jews and gentiles to a belief in the same God. Christians believe that Jesus, as God's son, accomplished something that was intended to benefit the whole world. The Man and the Message What Jesus said and did can be learned from the first four books of the Bible's New Testament. These books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are called Gospels, a word that means "good news," because they are his followers' written testimonies of what his life was all about. The Gospels depict a man who was thoroughly inborn with the entire tradition of Israel's religion from the time of Abraham onward. From what Jesus said and did his followers came to believe that God was perhaps acting through him in a very special way. Very possibly he was the one long awaited who would inaugurate God's kingdom on Earth. It was reasonable that they should think this, for they too were Israelites; and they saw in his words and deeds what portended to be the dawning of a new age. What dashed their hopes was his death, crucifixion was a punishment reserved for criminals. Then came the great surprise: He was raised from the dead and appeared to them again over a period of 40 days. This stunning event required a complete reassessment of what Jesus was all about. It is this reassessment that forms the basis for the writings of the New Testament. The Gospels themselves are part of it, but it is more strikingly conveyed by the other 23 books, all written by his followers over the subsequent decades after he had left them. For he had left them. How and where to could only be explained as his returning to the God who had sent him. But he did not leave them forever: He promised that he would one day return, and he gave them a mission to perform to carry the message about his life and work to the whole world. The Believers: the Church The small group of Jesus' followers that gathered in Jerusalem after his departure did not call themselves anything special, they considered themselves to be Jews. The word Christian came into use years later and was originally a derogatory term used by outsiders. This group of Jews became known as Jews of the Way. During the first decades of the church's existence several significant events occurred: The assembly of believers separated themselves from the religion of Israel; they formulated an extensive assessment of what the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus meant; the first Christian martyrs died for their beliefs; and new congregations of believers were founded in all parts of the Roman Empire. Jews of the Way The early Christians were all Jews. They remained in Jerusalem partook of the religious observances in the Temple, and ate according to Jewish dietary laws. They differed from their fellow Jews only in that they believed that the Messiah, Jesus, had come. Had they remained quiet about their conviction, they might well have remained a sect within Judaism. However, they insisted on preaching to all who would listen that Jesus whom the Jewish authorities had persecuted was the one Israel had long awaited. This preaching aroused great hostility on the part of religious leaders and the early Christians were persecuted because of it. A young follower of Jesus, a deacon by the name of Stephen, was stoned to death for preaching that Jesus was the Messiah. The mob of Jews drug him from the city, as they stoned him and as a young Pharisee by the name of Saul watched, Stephen died as a Christian, he died praying for his murders. Yet these Christians had no thought of venturing beyond the confines of Israel with their message. It was only after the joining of a man named Saul of Tarsus that the assembly of believers enlarged its horizons to include the whole known world. From Saul to Paul Saul, a strict Jew and Pharisee, was a persecutor of the church. While riding through the desert he was blinded by a vision from God, and he was converted. Saul made it to Damascus where he met Ananias, who restored his sight and baptized him. After changing his name to Paul, he began what is called the mission to the gentiles. Paul and another follower of Jesus, Barnabas, more than any others, pulled the church out from temple and synagogue and set it apart as a separate institution. But, for Paul, the separation was more than a physical one. It was also a separation of law. Paul wished to extend Gods love to the gentiles. Mission to the gentiles Based in Antioch, Paul and his associates took this message to most of the urban centers of the Mediterranean world. He began baptizing Samaritans in the name of Christ. The Jews thought it bad enough that not pure breed Jews could join the Way, but Paul pushed the envelope by baptizing gentiles who were not circumcised. It was his belief that Christians did not have to become Jews, and that they were not subject to all the rites, rituals, and laws of the Jewish religion. This aroused an intense anger in the Jews of the Way and, finally, led to a separation of the two groups. The Christians become the Christians The Jews of the Way believed that if the gentiles ate unkosher food, then they could not share a table of fellowship with the gentile believers of Christ. Barnabas was sent from Jerusalem to the Christian center in Antioch to find out the condition of the mixing of Jews and gentiles. He became part of the mixer church, but there were still many debates on how to handle the group in Antioch. Until, the Council of Jerusalem where it was decided that the newly baptized followers of The Way did not have to eat kosher food or be circumcised. These followers of the Way were called Christians to distinguish them from the rest of the Jewish people. After that was settled, Paul and Barnabas set out to spread the Gospel, and this under taking was called Paul's 1st Missionary Journey. Bibliography 1. The Catholic Church: Journey, Wisdom, and Mission 2. Compton's Encyclopedia 3. www.encyclopedia.com, entries on the early church. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christianity.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christianity "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."1 A simple directive spoken by God himself through Jesus Christ in the Sermon at the Mount, this Great Commission has impacted a countless number of lives throughout the years. The command given by Jesus at that time was actually to act as a continuance of His ministry after his death. Apparently this command continued to be fulfilled even far beyond His ascension into heaven. The commandment sparked the beginning of Christianity and throughout the years, its cultures, religions and beliefs poured out upon the continents, including the New World. The intent of this report is to show the transfer of Christianity from the Old World to the Americas; it is to outline its beginnings and show its impact on the Indian people. The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages played an all encompassing role over the lives of the people and the government. As the Dark Ages came to a close the ideas of the Renaissance started to take hold, and the church's power gradually began to dwindle. The monarchies of Europe also began to grow replacing the church's power. Monarchies, at the close of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, did not so much seek the guidance of the church as much as it sought their approval. However, the Church during the Age of Discovery was still a major influence. The discovery of the New World and its previously unknown inhabitants presented new problems in the Catholic Church in the late 14th and early 15th century. When Spain's rulers and emissaries decided to physically conquer and populate the New World, and not just trade with it, the transplantation of Christian institutions followed. The church established contact with the New World, and made it a goal to establish the Catholic doctrines among the native population there. The Catholic Church and the Spanish monarch, however, looked upon the native population in the New World as souls to be saved. They did not consider or treat the Indians as equals. To them, the population seemed to mean more than the individual's spiritual standpoint. The implanting of Christianity in the New World, and the treatment of the native population by the missionaries and Christian conquerors was harmful or even destructive to New World. Through men such as Cortez and Bartolome Las Casas, accounts of the conversions have been recorded. One of the reasons for this was the alliance of the Catholic Church with the Spanish monarchy. The status of the Indians was irrelevant and disregarded by the Christian conquerors and missionaries who wanted to convert them. The missionaries subjected them to violence and reduced them to a laboring population. The Indians, however did not always respond in a negative way to the work of the church. The Catholic Church arrived in the New World immediately after Christopher Columbus laid claim to it for Spain. After Columbus's discovery of the new lands he wrote a series of treaties as to what the European purpose there was. Columbus, in his writings, said that the purpose of the New World was two-fold. He said that: (1) The gospel message of the church should be spread globally beginning with his discoveries in the New World. and (2) Second, he stated that the riches discovered in the New World should be dedicated to the recapture of Jerusalem from the Moslems.2 Columbus saw the discovery of the New World as a prophesy coming true. He saw the Indians that lived there as a labor source that should be Christianized and used for the greater good of the church. The implementation of his two fold plan had its difficulties; However, this did not stop or discredit the use of this part of the plan as a prime directive of the New World. Two papal bulls or verdicts were issued in the year of 1493 that established the Spanish position in the New World.3 They also established the role that the church was going to play in the New World. The first bull was issued on May 3 given the name Inter Caetera. It said that the lands discovered by Spanish envoys not previously under a Christian owner could be claimed by Spain. The bull also gave the Spanish monarch the power to send men to convert the natives to the Catholic faith and instruct them in Catholic morals. The second papal bull issued in the same year expanded on the meaning of the primary bull. The bull fixed a boundary for Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence in the New World. This boundary heavily favored Spain further showing the alliance between Spain and the Church. The history of the Catholic Church in the New World began in the year after Columbus' first voyage. The Spanish monarchy sent the first missionaries to establish Christianity there. The number of missions sent to the New World accelerated in tempo and density until the final decade of the 16th century. The crown paid for the sending of missionaries, and its officials kept track of the many "shiploads" of religious personnel sent and of the expenses they incurred. The records show that the Spanish dispatched missionaries to more than 65 destinations, ranging from Florida and California to Chile and the Strait of Magellan.4 Between 1493, when the first mission left for Espanola, and Spanish American independence (roughly 1821) more than 15 thousand missionaries crossed the Atlantic under royal approval and support. 5 The Spanish, when choosing who to send as their principle emissaries of the Catholic Church, disregarded the opinions of the Spanish bishops and clergy, and called up friars belonging to several monastic orders. There were three monastic orders of friars that came to the New World. These were the Franciscans, the Dominicans, and the Augustianians.6 While other secular priests were not discouraged from going to the New World, the Crown did not send them as missionaries. "By sending friars instead of secular priests to convert the Indians, Spain took advantage of an old evangelical strain in European monasticism".7 If one looks back further, in the times before the Christianity of Europe, monks wandered and roamed the countryside converting the rural populations. The present monarchy reimplemented this obsolete idea as a primary missionary tactic in the New World. The Spanish monarch also picked the monastic orders to fulfill this task because they were among those who possessed an education. Spain at this time lacked seminaries and religious education facilities. The local priests were either undereducated or uneducated to the point were they were seen as largely ignorant. Once in the New World the missionaries played an indispensable role in conquering the Indian population for the Gospel, concentrating it in towns and villages and taking charge of administration. Some times these settlements were largely left in the hands of church officials because they were unreachable by colony administrators. "Rural churchmen, in the frontier settings of the 16th century acted in an atmosphere of independence which bordered on impunity".8 These missions were not always run in the best interest of the Indians. The natives were often subject to harsh conditions, and they were not protected by the missions. The missions instituted by the government were described this way, "The church, with few exceptions, accompanied and legitimized the genocide, slavery, ecocide, and exploitation of the wealth of the land. The mission left a bitter fruit inherited by the descendants of the survivors of the invasion". 9 No country at this time conceived of setting up anything but a Christian empire. "The monarch of Castile not only exercised supreme secular authority, but he was also the head of the colonial church. Indeed, his laws of the Indies began with the words, 'On the Holy Catholic Faith' ".10 The Church because it was under the Spanish monarchy participated in the wrongs incurred in the New World. The Church went along with the government in instituting the unfair practices against the native population. Las Casas writings about the treatment and conversion of the Indians are some of the best that survive today. Las Casas was a Spanish bishop who late in life became a renowned champion of the Indians. He was born in Seville in August 1474, and he first went to the New World in 1502. He became a priest and participated in the acquiring of Cuba. He received land and slaves as a reward for his contribution. In 1514 he experienced a radical change of heart and came to feel that the native population had been unjustly treated by his countrymen. He then became determined to dedicate the remainder of his life to their defense. Las Casas was one of the notable authorities on the Indians, and was remarkable because he realized the Indians should not be measured by the Spanish yardstick, but must rather be understood with in the framework of their own culture. He saw the Indians not as heathens and savages, but in a different stage of development from Europe. Las Casas contended that the Indians had many skills and accomplishments, and in fact possessed a culture worthy of respect.11 Las Casas writes about the treatment of the Indians upon being subjected to the Spanish Christians. He accompanied the Spanish entourage on the occupation of Cuba. In this venture he accompanied the expedition in the office of Clerico. He stated that one of the chief cares of this office was when they halted in any town or village, it was his job to assign separate quarters to the Spanish and the Indians. This was to prevent violence from erupting between the two peoples. His principle job; however was to assemble the children in order to baptize them. This was a sad task for Las Casas because scarcely any of the children remained alive a few months afterward. This was due to violence or the disease that the Spanish brought with them. Las Casas on his travels also saw the violence and horrors which the Indians were subject to. Las Casas describes this scene upon entering the Indian village of Caonao: "The Clerico was preparing for the division of the rations amongst the men, when suddenly a Spaniard, prompted, as was thought, by the Devil, drew his sword: the rest drew theirs; and immediately they all began to hack and hew the poor Indians, who were sitting quietly near them, and offering not more resistance than so many sheep".12 Las Casas then goes on to describe the scene as "heaps of bodies . . . strewn about, like sheaves of corn, waiting to be gathered up".13 The Spaniard's job was to convert the native population to Christianity, not use them to test the sharpness of their swords which they had done in this case. In Mexico, Hernan Cortez, the conqueror, recognized the need for religious instruction among Indians. His instructions he received from the Spanish monarchy and the Pope for his venture included the order to, "spread the knowledge of the true faith and the Church of God among those people who dwell in darkness,".14 Cortez followed these instructions very diligently. When he encountered the Indians on the mainland of Central America, he undertook their religious conversions. He explained the Christian religion to them, and wanted the natives to renounce their idols and embrace the Christian religion. He and the religious men with him preached against sodomy and human sacrifice to the tribes that they encountered. In Mexico, like other Spanish colonies, numerous Friars and priests came and worked to Christianize the native population. However, this was largely ineffectual because the various Holy men could only sow a few grains here or there. Cortez realized the need for order in the Catholic Church in the New World to convert the native population. Cortez wrote to the king of Spain, Charles V, about the need for missionaries to convert the Indians. He asked for friars of the St. Francis or St. Dominic order who would set up monasteries to instruct and convert the native population. There, presently arrived in Mexico at San Juan de Ulua on May 13 or 14, 1524 the famous mission of Twelve, who began the methodical conversion of the Indians. Cortez's envisions of monastic communities, where the native population could be converted to Christianity, came true especially in Mexico. Huge monasteries were built for the purpose of the conversion of the native population. These monasteries built were of enormous size and decorated ostentatiously. The monasteries included pomp and circumstance in their ceremonies. The reason claimed for doing this was to keep the Indians interested in Catholicism and away from their native religions. "On February 8, 1537, Zumarraga wrote the Council of the Indies that beautiful churches helped in the conversion of the Indians and strengthened their devotion. Twenty years later, on February 1, 1558, Viceroy Luis de Velasco make the same observation to Philip II".15 These churches, supposedly built for the benefit of the native population, were built or supported by the native population. For them this was a heavy burden, whether they built the churches themselves or had to pay workmen to the labor. They had to do this at the cost of neglecting their fields or trades. There were also accounts of the friars physically punishing the Indians for their work or lack of it, "But one must accept with reserve the testimony of the Indians who complained of abuses by the Dominicans during the construction of the convent at Puebla, claiming they were exhausted from work, and that one of the religious had loaded them with large stones and them beaten them over the head with a stick".16 The missions set up by the church were also guilty of abusing the native population. The Indians were supposed to benefit from these missions, but all they received from them was more misery. The Indians in having to support these new edifices and having to convert to Christianity suffered from a double edged sword. The native Americans had three responses to the thrusting of the Christian religion upon them. One response was the incorporation of elements of Christianity into their own religion, creating a new religious system. They took the beliefs out of the Christian religion that agreed or make sense with their religion and combined the two. "Ancient rituals attached to Christian ones included a sweeping ceremony that accompanied the bringing of the Eucharist to the sick, the lighting of fires on the eve of the nativity, the extreme use of self- flagellation, the burning of a traditional incense before images of saint, dedicating strings of ears or corn to the Virgin".17 Some Indians outright rejected Christianity. An example of this written by Thomas Giles was, "among the Incas of Peru, baptism was considered subjection to the invader; some Incan chiefs killed those who accepted the rite".18 The Indians largely could not accept Christian beliefs because of the actions of the Christians themselves. The brutality and the lack of concern or remorse that the Spanish showed to the Indians played a large role for the rejection of the Spanish religion. The Indians did not want any part of a religion that preached rape, slaughter, and cruel subjugation. The explanation of a Mayan who objected to the behaviors of the Spanish was the following, "The true God, the true Dios came, but this was the origin too of affliction for us: the origin of tax, of out giving them alms; of trial through the grabbing of cacao money, of trial by blowgun; stomping the people; violent removal; forced debt, debt created by false testimony; petty litigation, harassment, violent removal; the collaboration with the Spaniards on the part of the priests, . . .and all the while the mistreated were further maltreated...but it will happen that tears will come to the eyes of God the Father. The justica of God the Father will settle on the whole world." 19 Not all the Indians rejected the Christian religion. Many of them accepted it. They desired Christian friendships and to change their habits to the ones of the Spanish. The reasons for the acceptance of Christianity vary, but one of these is fear. Some Christian conquerors threatened lives if the Indians were not baptized and did not actively participate in the Church. Another reason for the conversion is that the Indians were in awe of the conquers. The Spanish represented power and the Indians were in reverence of their great amount of power they represented. Some accepted the religion because the missionaries demonstrated boundless zeal, high morals, and great courage. Not all of the missionaries sent by the Church were violent or corrupt. There were some who worked for the benefit of the native population. The Indians saw this and respected it. The Catholic Church helped the Spanish monarchy administer to the native population in the New World. The Church, by being subject to the Spanish monarchy, is also to be held accountable to the numerous evils inflicted upon the Indians in the Spainish colonies. In many cases they were forced to convert to Christianity, and their views about god and religion were not taken into account. The Catholic Church incurred a great injustice to the native population in the New World. They were reduced to second class citizens, and forced to work toward goals that they did not fully understand. Through the writings of Las Casas, it is seen how the Indians were slaughtered needlessly, and how they were baptized without regard to their feelings. Cortez paved the way for missions to be founded in the New World supposedly for the good of the Indian population. This, however, also turned against them. The Catholic Church role in the lives of the native population was a negative one due to its alliance with the Spanish monarchy and its forced conversion of the Indians. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christmas History.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christmas History The word Christmas comes from the old English "Cristes maesse" meaning Christ's Mass. The Holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. The actual birthday of Jesus is not known; therefore, the early Church Fathers in the 4th century fixed the day around the old Roman Saturnalia festival (17 - 21 December), a traditional pagan festivity. The first mention of the birthday of Jesus is from the year 354 AD. Gradually all Christian churches, except Armenians who celebrate Christmas on January 6 (the date of the baptism of Jesus as well as the day of the three Magi), accepted the date of December 25th. In American/English tradition, Christmas Day itself is the day for opening gifts brought by jolly old St. Nick. Many of our current American ideals about the way Christmas ought to be, derive from the English Victorian Christmas, such as that described in Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." The caroling, the gifts, the feast, and the wishing of good cheer to all - these ingredients came together to create that special Christmas atmosphere. The custom of gift-giving on Christmas goes back to Roman festivals of Saturnalia and Kalends. The very first gifts were simple items such as twigs from a sacred grove as good luck emblems. Soon that escalated to food, small items of jewelry, candles, and statues of gods. To the early Church, gift- giving at this time was a pagan holdover and therefore severely frowned upon. However, people would not part with it, and some justification was found in the original gift giving of the Magi, and from figures such as St. Nicholas. By the middle ages gift giving was accepted. Before then it was more common to exchange gifts on New Year's Day or Twelfth Night. Santa Claus is known by British children as Father Christmas. Father Christmas, these days, is quite similar to the American Santa, but his direct ancestor is a certain pagan spirit who regularly appeared in medieval mummer's plays. The old-fashioned Father Christmas was depicted wearing long robes with sprigs of holly in his long white hair. Children write letters to Father Christmas detailing their requests, but instead of dropping them in the mailbox, the letters are tossed into the fireplace. The draft carries the letters up the chimney, and theoretically, Father Christmas reads the smoke. Gifts are opened Christmas afternoon. From the English we get a story to explain the custom of hanging stockings from the mantelpiece. Father Christmas once dropped some gold coins while coming down the chimney. The coins would have fallen through the ash grate and been lost if they hadn't landed in a stocking that had been hung out to dry. Since that time children have continued to hang out stockings in hopes of finding them filled with gifts. The custom of singing carols at Christmas is also of English origin. During the middle ages, groups of serenaders called waits would travel around from house to house singing ancient carols and spreading the holiday spirit. The word carol means "song of you." Most of the popular old carols we sing today were written in the nineteenth century. The hanging of greens, such as holly and ivy, is a British winter tradition with origins far before the Christian era. Greenery was probably used to lift sagging winter spirits and remind the people that spring was not far away. The custom of kissing under the mistletoe is descended from ancient Druid rites. The decorating of Christmas trees, though primarily a German custom, has been widely popular in England since 1841 when Prince Albert had a Christmas tree set up in Windsor Castle for his wife Queen Victoria, and their children. The word wassail is derived from the Anglo-Saxon phrase "waes hael," which means "good health." Originally, wassail was a beverage made of mulled ale, curdled cream, roasted apples, nuts, eggs, and spices. It was served for the purpose of enhancing the general merriment of the season. Like many of the ancient customs, wassailing has a legend to explain its origin. It seems that a beautiful Saxon maiden named Rowena presented Prince Vortigen with a bowl of wine while toasting him with the words Waes hael. Over the centuries a great deal of ceremony had developed around the custom of drinking wassail. The bowl is carried into a room with great fanfare, a traditional carol about the drink is sung, and finally, the steaming hot beverage is served. For many years in England, a roasted boar's head has been associated with Holiday feasting. The custom probably goes back to the Norse practice of sacrificing a boar at Yuletide in honor of the god Freyr. One story tells of a student at Oxford's Queen College who was attacked on Christmas Day by a wild boar. All he had in his hand to use as a weapon was his copy of Aristotle, so he shoved the book down the boar's throat. Wanting to retrieve his book, the student cut off the animal's head and brought it back to the college where it was served for Christmas dinner with much pomp and ceremony. It is from Scandinavia that most of our Yule log traditions derive. The dark cold winters inspired the development of traditions concerned with warmth and light. Yuletide, meaning the turning of the sun or the winter solstice, has traditionally been a time of extreme importance in Scandinavia - a time when fortunes for the coming year were determined and when the dead were thought to walk the earth. For a long time, it was considered dangerous to sleep alone on Christmas Eve. The extended family, master and servant, alike would sleep together on a freshly spread bed of straw. The Yule log was originally an entire tree, carefully chosen, and brought into the house with great ceremony. The butt end would be placed into the hearth while the rest of the tree stuck out into the room. The tree would be slowly fed into the fire and the entire process was carefully timed to last the entire Yule season. The Christmas tree has never been particularly popular in France, and though the use of the Yule log has faded, the French make a traditional Yule log-shaped cake called the "buche de Noel," which means "Christmas Log." The cake, among other food in great abundance, is served at the grand feast of the season, which is called Le reveillon. Le reveillon is a very late supper held after midnight mass on Christmas Eve. The menu for the meal varies according to regional culinary tradition. The traditional Christmas dinner is made of turkey with chestnuts puree, and the buche de Noel as desert. Oysters are eaten on New Year's Eve only because New Year's is more an adult celebration and usually children are not very fond of oysters. The tradition in Paris is to eat grilled chestnuts in the streets during the month of December and part of January. The popularity of the Nativity scene, one of the most beloved and enduring symbols of the holiday season, originated in Italy. St. Francis of Assisi asked a man named Giovanni Vellita of the village of Greccio to create a manger scene. St. Francis performed mass in front of this early Nativity scene, which inspired awe and devotion in all who saw it. The creation of the figures or pastori became an entire genre of folk art. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christmas Meaning.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christmas History The word Christmas comes from the old English "Cristes maesse" meaning Christ's Mass. The Holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. The actual birthday of Jesus is not known; therefore, the early Church Fathers in the 4th century fixed the day around the old Roman Saturnalia festival (17 - 21 December), a traditional pagan festivity. The first mention of the birthday of Jesus is from the year 354 AD. Gradually all Christian churches, except Armenians who celebrate Christmas on January 6 (the date of the baptism of Jesus as well as the day of the three Magi), accepted the date of December 25th. In American/English tradition, Christmas Day itself is the day for opening gifts brought by jolly old St. Nick. Many of our current American ideals about the way Christmas ought to be, derive from the English Victorian Christmas, such as that described in Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." The caroling, the gifts, the feast, and the wishing of good cheer to all - these ingredients came together to create that special Christmas atmosphere. The custom of gift-giving on Christmas goes back to Roman festivals of Saturnalia and Kalends. The very first gifts were simple items such as twigs from a sacred grove as good luck emblems. Soon that escalated to food, small items of jewelry, candles, and statues of gods. To the early Church, gift-giving at this time was a pagan holdover and therefore severely frowned upon. However, people would not part with it, and some justification was found in the original gift giving of the Magi, and from figures such as St. Nicholas. By the middle ages gift giving was accepted. Before then it was more common to exchange gifts on New Year's Day or Twelfth Night. Santa Claus is known by British children as Father Christmas. Father Christmas, these days, is quite similar to the American Santa, but his direct ancestor is a certain pagan spirit who regularly appeared in medieval mummer's plays. The old-fashioned Father Christmas was depicted wearing long robes with sprigs of holly in his long white hair. Children write letters to Father Christmas detailing their requests, but instead of dropping them in the mailbox, the letters are tossed into the fireplace. The draft carries the letters up the chimney, and theoretically, Father Christmas reads the smoke. Gifts are opened Christmas afternoon. From the English we get a story to explain the custom of hanging stockings from the mantelpiece. Father Christmas once dropped some gold coins while coming down the chimney. The coins would have fallen through the ash grate and been lost if they hadn't landed in a stocking that had been hung out to dry. Since that time children have continued to hang out stockings in hopes of finding them filled with gifts. The custom of singing carols at Christmas is also of English origin. During the middle ages, groups of serenaders called waits would travel around from house to house singing ancient carols and spreading the holiday spirit. The word carol means "song of you." Most of the popular old carols we sing today were written in the nineteenth century. The hanging of greens, such as holly and ivy, is a British winter tradition with origins far before the Christian era. Greenery was probably used to lift sagging winter spirits and remind the people that spring was not far away. The custom of kissing under the mistletoe is descended from ancient Druid rites. The decorating of Christmas trees, though primarily a German custom, has been widely popular in England since 1841 when Prince Albert had a Christmas tree set up in Windsor Castle for his wife Queen Victoria, and their children. The word wassail is derived from the Anglo-Saxon phrase "waes hael," which means "good health." Originally, wassail was a beverage made of mulled ale, curdled cream, roasted apples, nuts, eggs, and spices. It was served for the purpose of enhancing the general merriment of the season. Like many of the ancient customs, wassailing has a legend to explain its origin. It seems that a beautiful Saxon maiden named Rowena presented Prince Vortigen with a bowl of wine while toasting him with the words Waes hael. Over the centuries a great deal of ceremony had developed around the custom of drinking wassail. The bowl is carried into a room with great fanfare, a traditional carol about the drink is sung, and finally, the steaming hot beverage is served. For many years in England, a roasted boar's head has been associated with Holiday feasting. The custom probably goes back to the Norse practice of sacrificing a boar at Yuletide in honor of the god Freyr. One story tells of a student at Oxford's Queen College who was attacked on Christmas Day by a wild boar. All he had in his hand to use as a weapon was his copy of Aristotle, so he shoved the book down the boar's throat. Wanting to retrieve his book, the student cut off the animal's head and brought it back to the college where it was served for Christmas dinner with much pomp and ceremony. It is from Scandinavia that most of our Yule log traditions derive. The dark cold winters inspired the development of traditions concerned with warmth and light. Yuletide, meaning the turning of the sun or the winter solstice, has traditionally been a time of extreme importance in Scandinavia - a time when fortunes for the coming year were determined and when the dead were thought to walk the earth. For a long time, it was considered dangerous to sleep alone on Christmas Eve. The extended family, master and servant, alike would sleep together on a freshly spread bed of straw. The Yule log was originally an entire tree, carefully chosen, and brought into the house with great ceremony. The butt end would be placed into the hearth while the rest of the tree stuck out into the room. The tree would be slowly fed into the fire and the entire process was carefully timed to last the entire Yule season. The Christmas tree has never been particularly popular in France, and though the use of the Yule log has faded, the French make a traditional Yule log-shaped cake called the "buche de Noel," which means "Christmas Log." The cake, among other food in great abundance, is served at the grand feast of the season, which is called Le reveillon. Le reveillon is a very late supper held after midnight mass on Christmas Eve. The menu for the meal varies according to regional culinary tradition. The traditional Christmas dinner is made of turkey with chestnuts puree, and the buche de Noel as desert. Oysters are eaten on New Year's Eve only because New Year's is more an adult celebration and usually children are not very fond of oysters. The tradition in Paris is to eat grilled chestnuts in the streets during the month of December and part of January. The popularity of the Nativity scene, one of the most beloved and enduring symbols of the holiday season, originated in Italy. St. Francis of Assisi asked a man named Giovanni Vellita of the village of Greccio to create a manger scene. St. Francis performed mass in front of this early Nativity scene, which inspired awe and devotion in all who saw it. The creation of the figures or pastori became an entire genre of folk art. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Christmas.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christmas The year's most celebrated holiday is celebrated on December 25th, both in homes and churches worldwide. The meaning for Christmas is to recognize Christ's birth, of which the exact date is not known. During the fourth century the Bishop of Rome set December 25th as Christ's birth date. Some authorities claim that the choice of December 25th was made because it coincided with Chanukah, Mithraic's feast of the sun god, and the people of northern Europe's winter solstice feast. The winter solstice is the time of year in the Northern Hemisphere when the noon sun appears to be farthest south. (All About American Holidays, 1962 Encyclopedia Encarta, 1998) The Saturnalia was celebrated for seven days, during the period of time when the winter solstice occurred. During this, slaves were given freedom, gifts were exchanged, and banquets and happiness prevailed. (Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, 1998) Holiday Greenery Evergreens, the symbol of eternal life, have long been used for Christmas time decorations. The Christmas wreath represents everlasting life and God's endless love for us. Kissing under a mistletoe supposedly started out when early Roman enemies stopped fighting when they met under a mistletoe. Holly is the most known Christmas greenery, and there are several legends about it, one is that Jesus' crown was made of holly, and the holly berries represented his blood. (All About American Holidays, 1962) The Christmas tree: The Christmas tree is an evergreen trimmed with lights, decorations, and tinsel, is derived from a "paradise tree", or the tree in the Garden of Eden. (Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, 1998) The use of the Christmas tree began early in the 17th century, in Strasbourg, France, spreading from there through Germany and then into northern Europe. In 1841 Prince Albert introduced the Christmas tree to Great Britain, where from there immigrants brought it to the United States. (Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, 1998) Santa Claus The beginning of gift giving during Christmas started from the three wise men, with their three gifts for the Christ child. Since then people have made up different things to tell their children where their Christmas presents came from. The historical Saint Nicholas was known in early Christian legends for saving storm-tossed sailors, standing up for children, and giving gifts to the poor. Although many of his stories can't be proven true, his legend spread throughout Europe, and he was soon know for his extreme generosity and gift giving. Many stories include him riding through the sky on a horse and wearing his red bishop's cloak, sometimes accompanied by Black Peter, an elf whose job was to whip the bad children. His most known legend is when he would walk through the streets in his bishop clothes, carrying a sack full of presents, and leaving a gift on the windowsills of children's houses. (All About American Holiday's, 1962 Compton's Encyclopedia, 1994) >From the different parts of the world, there are different names, but the spirit of Christmas remains the same. Spanish children call their Santa Balthasar, children in Italy have a female Santa named La Belfana, Denmark has a gnome named Jule-Nissen, Holland has Sinter Klaas, Germany has Sanct Herr, and there are even some places that believe the Christ child brings their presents. (Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, 1998) The Christmas Feast On Christmas day, the year's greatest feast was served, people went, and still do, all out. Although now we have different foods, the idea is still the same. The feast was started off with drinks and music, followed by a procession of the food. Once everyone was seated, the food was served and eaten, after dessert, people drank and danced. The banquet lasted hours and was the highlight of the day. Some of the food served was: beef, meat pies, roasted duck, geese, pigs, plumb porridge, fancy cakes, bowls of wassail, and toast. Christmas was a huge celebration filled with lots of eating, drinking, singing, dancing, and gift giving. (All About American Holidays, 1962) Christmas Decorations Centuries ago, Romans decorated their homes, public buildings, and temples on festive occasions, and we have followed this ancient custom. During Christmas time, store windows, malls, streetlights, and parking lot poles are decorated to celebrate this joyous time filled with shopping, gift giving, and happiness. Some popular and well-known Christmas decorations are: New York's Rockefeller Plaza's Christmas tree, when set up, the first lighting of the tree signifies the official opening of the Christmas season. Another popular attraction is Christmas Tree Lane, in Fresno, California. People there string lights around the great cedars lining Van Ness Avenue. Homeowners there also set up holiday displays on their lawns and houses. (Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, 1998 All About American Holidays, 1962) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Church and State.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Church and State Jacob Naylor Period 4 Research paper 4 March 1996 The theory of evolution is at odds with the views of many religions, and many people want to allow a religious view of creationism to be taught in the public school system. The foundation of evolution is based upon the belief that the origin of all ordered complex systems, including living creatures, can be explained by natural laws without the initiation or intervention of God. A person who believes in the biblical model of creation is viewed by some non- believers as a naive, narrow-minded religious fanatic who is not willing to look at the observable evidence with an open mind. Because the evolutionary idea of origins has been so widely accepted by the scientific community, many people have reasoned that the creation model should be completely rejected without fairly examining its claims. Even many Christians who have deep trust and faith in the Bible have never really understood the claims of the creation account (McLean 11). Over the past several years, a great deal of controversy surrounding the creation-evolution issue has been generated by scientists who have based their claims on the creation model and have been willing to let their reputations stand. Creationists have openly requested that when the discussion of origins occurs in the public school system, both the model of creation and evolution be presented side by side. Initially, scientists and educators who have accepted the theory of evolution without question were reluctant to pay any serious attention to creationism; however, it has now become apparent that substantial numbers of people are taking creationism seriously. Many evolutionists view this trend as a serious threat to the advancement of science and have vowed to do everything in their power to stop the teaching of creation in the public school system. Most evolutionists now view creationism as nothing more than a particular version of fundamentalist Christianity with no valid scientific content. One hundred-fifty years ago such a theory for the origin and history of the earth and life would have been termed absurd. Today, however, those who reject the idea of random evolutionary processes being responsible for designing life and shaping the geological features of the earth are termed religious, unscientific fanatics. Today, throughout the industrialized world, the moment children are able to respond to their environment, they are constantly bombarded with the doctrine of evolution. Faith in the biblical concept of creation by the hand of God is ridiculed and rejected by the secular system of education. Humanistic thinking widely accepts evolution as fact, even though "The all-too frequent picture of evolution as a progression from ameba to man, is, and always has been, utterly without foundation" (Weisz 665). Oddly, it is commonly accepted that all living things are the product of evolution, that evolution is taking place today, and that evolution will continue to shape the destiny of life in the future. Darwin's theory of evolution, based upon the idea of natural selection, set off a bitter controversy among scientists, religious leaders, and the general public. Noted British scientists such as Thomas Huxley and Alfred Wallace supported Darwin's work, and many different groups eventually accepted the theory of evolution. After Darwin's idea of the origin and development of life became well known, others used the concept of evolution for developing theories about society. A number of new philosophies began to emerge based on the Darwinian theory. These ideas came onto the world scene and made serious implications which made a view of agnosticism and atheism respectable. "As far as Darwin was concerned, a man's religion was his own affair, and he tried to keep his loss of faith to himself" (Gregor 112). For example, the German philosopher and social scientist Karl Marx, who is often called the founding father of the communist movement, compared the struggle for power among social classes to the struggle for survival among organisms. Marx was so awe stricken by the way Darwin was able to explain away the need for God regarding the origin of life that he decided to dedicate Das Kapital, a book against capitalism , to Charles Darwin. Marx and other humanists of his day believed the individual, not God, is the highest being. The acceptance of the evolutionary doctrine soon spread throughout the academic world in spite of the opposition put forward by scientists and religious leaders. Most scholars who had swallowed the humanistic philosophy were proud of the fact that they could explain the physical world around them without relying upon God. In many parts of the industrialized world, much of the controversy over evolution centered on the issue whether the theory should be taught in schools. Many people would not accept the theory of evolution because it conflicted with their belief that God is the creator and sustainer of life. The Bible also states human beings were created in the image of God, and were elevated above all other forms of life. Because of this view by the majority of people, the teaching of evolution in the public schools in the United States occurred through a gradual process over many years. The first major confrontation regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools occurred at the famous Scopes trial which took place in Tennessee in 1925. The effect of the trial on education was felt for many years, as most schools avoided teaching evolution and publishers produced textbooks that hardly covered the topic. For years following the Scopes trial, the creation-evolution controversy was not a high-priority issue. The issue lay dormant until the 1950s, when there was a growing concern among educators that science teaching in the public schools needed to be upgraded with current evolutionary teaching. The fact is, "The author or teacher who states [that evolution is an established fact] is either ignorant of the facts in the case, or is seeking to hide them from his students" (Schnabel 97). Works Cited Gregor, Arthur S. Charles Darwin. E.P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, 1966. Kerkut, ____. Implications of Evolution. Pergamon Press, 1960. McLean, G.S., Roger Oakland, Larry McLean. The Evidence for Creation. Understand the Times, Santa Ana, CA., 1995. Schnabel, A.O. Has God Spoken?. Tampa, FL., A.O. Schnabel Publisher, 1974. Weisz, Paul. The Science of Biology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1995. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Church Of God 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Church Of God I. ORIGIN Most of the Pentecostal churches which bear the name "Church of God" can be traced to a holiness revival in the mountains of northwest Georgia and eastern Tennessee. In 1884, R.G. Spurling, a Baptist minister in Monroe County, Tennessee, began to search the Scriptures for answers to the problems of modernism, formality, and spiritual dryness. An initial meeting of concerned people was held on August 19, 1886, at the Barney Creek Meeting House to organize a new movement that would preach primitive church holiness and provide for reform and revival of the churches. Christian Union was the name accepted by the first eight members enrolled that day. Spurling died within a few months and was succeeded in leadership by his son, R.G. Spurling, Jr. After ten years of little growth, three laymen influenced by the Spurlings' work claimed a deep religious experience similar to that written about by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and as a result began to preach sanctification. The three laymen began to hold services at Camp Creek, in Cherokee County, North Carolina, among a group of unaffiliated Baptists, Spurling and the Christian Union moved their services to Camp Creek and united with the group in North Carolina. During this revival that followed this merger, spontaneous speaking in tongues occurred. After searching the Scriptures, the group recognized the phenomena as a Biblical occurrence and as a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit. II. BASIC THEOLOGY AND BELIEF The Church believes in an experiential understanding of justification by faith, sanctification as a second work of grace, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues. It also believes in the restoration of both ministerial and spiritual gifts to the Church. They are believing Christians, who use the Holy Bible as the basis of their teachings. They do practice "footwashing" at least annually, and they do encourage mid-week services, usually held Wednesday evening. III. GOVERNANCE The Government of the Church of God in centralized. Authority is vested in the general assembly, which meets every two years and is chaired by the general overseer. A supreme council operated between general assemblies, and a general executive committee oversees the boards and agencies. State overseers have charge over the churches in their areas and appoint the pastors. Tithing is a central feature of finances. The height of centralization came in 1914 when the annual elections of the general overseer were discontinued and Tomlinson became overseer for life. IV. ORDER OF WORSHIP The order of worship is much like the Pentecostal Church, but more orderly. They still practice speaking in tongues, singing praises, lots of prayer, and preaching the gospel message. REFERENCES Conn, Charles W. "Church of God Distinctives." Encyclopedia Americana. 1995 ed. Hughes, Ray H. "Church of God." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Vers. 7.0. Computer Software. Grolier Inc., 1995. CD-ROM. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Church of God.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CHURCH OF GOD I. ORIGIN Most of the Pentecostal churches which bear the name "Church of God" can be traced to a holiness revival in the mountains of northwest Georgia and eastern Tennessee. In 1884, R.G. Spurling, a Baptist minister in Monroe County, Tennessee, began to search the Scriptures for answers to the problems of modernism, formality, and spiritual dryness. An initial meeting of concerned people was held on August 19, 1886, at the Barney Creek Meeting House to organize a new movement that would preach primitive church holiness and provide for reform and revival of the churches. Christian Union was the name accepted by the first eight members enrolled that day. Spurling died within a few months and was succeeded in leadership by his son, R.G. Spurling, Jr. After ten years of little growth, three laymen influenced by the Spurlings' work claimed a deep religious experience similar to that written about by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and as a result began to preach sanctification. The three laymen began to hold services at Camp Creek, in Cherokee County, North Carolina, among a group of unaffiliated Baptists, Spurling and the Christian Union moved their services to Camp Creek and united with the group in North Carolina. During this revival that followed this merger, spontaneous speaking in tongues occurred. After searching the Scriptures, the group recognized the phenomena as a Biblical occurrence and as a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit. II. BASIC THEOLOGY AND BELIEF The Church believes in an experiential understanding of justification by faith, sanctification as a second work of grace, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues. It also believes in the restoration of both ministerial and spiritual gifts to the Church. They are believing Christians, who use the Holy Bible as the basis of their teachings. They do practice "footwashing" at least annually, and they do encourage mid-week services, usually held Wednesday evening. III. GOVERNANCE The Government of the Church of God in centralized. Authority is vested in the general assembly, which meets every two years and is chaired by the general overseer. A supreme council operated between general assemblies, and a general executive committee oversees the boards and agencies. State overseers have charge over the churches in their areas and appoint the pastors. Tithing is a central feature of finances. The height of centralization came in 1914 when the annual elections of the general overseer were discontinued and Tomlinson became overseer for life. IV. ORDER OF WORSHIP The order of worship is much like the Pentecostal Church, but more orderly. They still practice speaking in tongues, singing praises, lots of prayer, and preaching the gospel message. REFERENCES Conn, Charles W. "Church of God Distinctives." Encyclopedia Americana. 1995 ed. Hughes, Ray H. "Church of God." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Vers. 7.0. Computer Software. Grolier Inc., 1995. CD-ROM. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Common Pagan Rituals and Beliefs.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Paganism is an ancient type of religion which has quite an inauspicious reputation today. There are many types of paganism, most date back thousands of years, which include Wicca, Witchcraft, Paganism, and a few other lesser known and practiced variations. Yet all of these religions are similar and share common beliefs. Wicca is the most common of these, as it also demonstrates the shared belief of doing good that is common to most forms of paganism. Another common belief, is to gather in small groups, called covens, to practice pagan rites and ceremonies with others. There are many ancient beliefs, archaic rituals, and forgotten traditions that are practiced by pagans. Many of these are also the origins of widely practiced traditions in the Christian-dominated world of today. A defining characteristic of many pagan religions, especially Wicca, is the worship and closeness to nature. Pagans treat animals kindly and respect all things, living or nonliving, as though they were a person (Roy N. p.). They also share the worship of their nature gods, which increases their respect for all that is around them (Roy N. p.). Pagans are very sensitive people that also have a high regard for personal privacy (Roy N. p.). With this belief of privacy, many pagans have more time to keep in touch with their inner selves and with the nature around them. Wicca, a more popular pagan religion, focuses on the Earth and uses pure white magic to help others (Roy N. p.). In fact, the Wiccan creed is, "An it harm none, do as thou will," which agrees with the "good" philosophy (Beliefs N. p.). Altogether, pagans have a great deal of emphasis on the life and beauty of the nature that thrives around them and are radically different than the mythical rumors of witches that have been given to them over time. Another defining characteristic of many pagans is the dedication to knowledge and self exploration (Roy N. p.). In fact it has been said that, "Witchcraft is the oldest, most irrepressible religion in the world because it stimulates the intellect, promotes a simple, practical way of life, and most importantly, is emotionally satisfying" (Art N. p.). There is a set of beliefs, called the Laws of Magic that help illustrate the beliefs supported by Wicca and other pagan religions. Many of these laws are practical, yet they also relate to the more religious aspect of paganism. One of the most important laws, the Law of Knowledge, states that witches believe that all knowledge is power, no matter how big or small (Bonewits N. p.). A related law, the Law of Self-Knowledge, states that witches should truly know themselves, for this prevents doing harm to others, once the understanding of the harm is seen (Bonewits N. p.). There are many other laws, one such law explains that coincidence does not exist, but that everything is part of a larger plan (Bonewits N. p.). The Law of Similarity states that similar representations of things can be made to represent them, such as voodoo dolls (Bonewits N. p.). The Law of Personification states the important belief that anything, concrete or abstract, can be considered alive for whatever purpose (Bonewits N. p.). One commonly known law, The Law of Perversity, also called "Murphy's Law," states that if anything can go wrong, it will (Bonewits N. p.). As if a summary of all other beliefs, The Law of Unity says that everything is linked together to every other thing, in any space or time (Bonewits N. p.). So, as shown here, all pagans, whether Wiccan or not, follow the basic guidelines and beliefs that knowledge is power. To support this belief are many other more specific beliefs that help the individual learn and grow. Rituals and traditions also play a large role in Wiccan lives and activities. The most common of these includes the rituals associated with the new and full moons, as well as the 8 sabbats. The 8 sabbats are equally divided throughout the year, along with the seasons, and help attune the practicing Wiccans to the cycle of the year (Sabbats N. p.). The first of these sabbats is Yule, practiced around December 21; it represents the rebirth of the light and the awakening of new goals (Sabbats N. p.). Candlemas, celebrated on February 2, banishes winter and is the favored time for initiating new members into a coven of witches (Sabbats N. p.). It is also tradition at this time to light all the lamps in the house (Sabbats N. p.). Ostara, a familiar holiday, is usually around March 21 and symbolizes balance and equilibrium. At this time of peace, many pagans gather wildflowers in baskets and free themselves of their pasts (Sabbats N. p.). Beltane, similar to Mayday but held on April 30, honors the fertility of the earth and is the sacred time of marriage as well as the time for self-discovery, love, and union (Sabbats N. p.). Midsummer, held around June 21, is a time for triumph and light, when healing and love magic becomes suitable (Sabbats N. p.). Lammas, practiced on August 2, celebrates the harvest and the traditional time to teach others what has been learned (Sabbats N. p.). The Autumn Equinox, approximately September 21, is the time of balance and the time to gather dry plants and herbs (Sabbats N. p.). Samhain, commonly called Halloween, is held on October 31; it is when reincarnation is believed to take place (Sabbats N. p.). Samhain is also called "the Witches' New Year" (Sabbats N. p.). The 8 sabbats practiced by wiccans and other pagans are important for the transitions of the season, but are only a small sample of the many rituals and traditions of the pagan religions (Sabbats N. p.). Another interesting aspect of pagan rituals and traditions is the fact that many of the common holidays and traditions in today's culture possess ancient pagan roots. The Christian holiday of Christmas, for example, has its roots in the pagan festivals and customs of Yule (Sabbats N. p.). Bringing in a tree from the winter weather to house the winter spirits was a common practice (Sabbats N. p.). Pagans also would decorate the tree with a bell to indicate the spirits' presence, food to nourish the spirits, and a pentagram star on the top to symbolize the five elements of nature (Sabbats N. p.). In fact, the red and green colors of Christmas also come from a pagan tradition, that of the yule log being burned once annually (Sabbats N. p.). The Christian Easter is another common holiday that is derived from ancient pagan customs. Witches believed that the God and Goddess would spend the time of Ostara (Spring Equinox) playing with brightly colored eggs in the fields to represent childhood (Sabbats N. p.). The tradition of collecting flowers in baskets in springtime is also of pagan origin (Sabbats N. p.). For those who recognize Mayday, it was a pagan practice to weave a web of life around a Maypole with ribbons as well (Sabbats N. p.). Another, more commonly known, holiday with pagan beginnings is Halloween, or the Samhain sabbat. It was believed that spirits would leave the physical plane during this time (Sabbats N. p.). Another more recognizable trait of the holiday could be seen when one realizes that thousands of years ago, pagans used jack-o-lanterns and gourds to decorate for the season (Sabbats N. p.). So, by looking at the many practiced customs of the pagans that have been around for thousands of years, one can discern how some traditions have come into play in today's world. It is severely apparent that there are many erroneous rumors related to pagans and their rituals. Pagans have many rituals, but not one of these relates to Christianity or the belief of the devil deity (Art N. p.). Some of the more common rituals are initiation into a coven and handfasting, or marriage. The ritual of initiation is a sacred ceremony to bring in a new member of the coven (Hicks N. p.). The individual must be highly acquainted with all of the members of the coven for over one year before initiation is possible (Hicks N. p.). Another commonplace ritual is handfasting. Handfasting is a highly sacred rite that binds two very close people together, similar husband and wife; the ritual is symbolic of the union of the god and goddess (Hunter N. p.). All other pagan rituals are impartially as sacred and highly valued, as well as enjoyed. Despite all of the misleading rumors, there are no rituals depicting evil or anything to go against goodness belief that is practiced by wiccans or related pagan groups. Wicca and other similar pagan religions all reflect the mutual belief of doing good and harming none. This, however, has been overlooked by others for many centuries which has lead to inaccurate rumors. Aside from that however, pagans still enjoy a rich and culturally satisfying life that keeps in touch with their ancient beliefs. Along with this is their passionate practice of the many rituals, including the 8 seasonal sabbats, that help characterize the pagan doctrine. All of this and even more truth can be found about these lesser known and often misconceived religions classified as paganism. Works Cited Bonewits, P. E. I. The Laws of Magic. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/magic.laws.txt, 30 Nov. 1996. General Beliefs. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/wicca.gen_beliefs.txt, 15 Dec. 1996. Hicks, J. Brad. Ceremony of Initiation. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/initiation.ritual.txt, 15 Dec. 1996. Hunter, Ryan. Handfasting Ceremony. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/handfasting1.ritual.txt, 15 Dec. 1996. Roy, R. Thirteen Questions. Online. Necromnami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/13Questions.txt, 30 Nov. 1996. The Ancient Art. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/craft.intro.txt, 30 Nov. 1996. The Sabbats. Online, Teleplex Communications, Inc. Available HTTP: http://www.teleplex.net/SCNPA/sabbat.html, 8 Dec. 1996. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Community in Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion seems to find its way into almost every aspect of our lives. In the United States, the political mainstream describes a ?separation of church and state,Ó in order to separate this profound force of religion from the public lives of its citizens. Thus, the freedom to worship any religion remains a private and personal issue. However, in this imperfect world, it becomes virtually impossible to achieve this kind of separation. Some subtle examples of this can be seen right here on campus. The intriguing yet simple New England architecture that we see all around us, is the result of the Old World Puritan religion. Also on campus, Rollins Chapel, supposedly a ?universal place of worshipÓ, is structurally shaped like a cross, the symbol of the crucifixion of Jesus. Delving deep into these religious symbols, there exists a common thread uniting all religions. The aspect of community becomes the ?heart and soulÓ of almost all religious groups around the world. It is this upon which George Weckman focuses his article. The author defines the characteristics of a community in a number of ways. For one, he claims that some sort of initiation or ?entrance ritualÓ needs to occur in order to mark the acceptance of an individual into the community as a whole. In addition to these entrance rituals, the individual will, most likely, participate in other types of rituals throughout his life. This may include his eventual departure from the community, such as death. Secondly, the author emphasizes the fact that communities often possess clearly defined ritual activities that are unique to their own particular community. He goes on to say, ?Gathering as a group for such rites is perhaps the most persistent aspect of religious community, and is arguably its reason for being.Ó Thus, the author emphasizes the manner in which ritual activity and communal ?togethernessÓ form the basis of community. I?d like to agree with Weckman?s view, but I feel that it can go beyond its present position. Weckman gives the reader the impression that communities form only as a result of their union through religion. However, it is quite possible that religious communities are the ?causeÓ and not the ?effectÓ of religious experience. As is the case with many tribal religions, the community becomes the central force that ?designsÓ the religion. Throughout Africa, many animistic religions have developed as a result of their immediate environment. Weckman touches upon this subject, ?Where nature and its processes are the focal point of religious attention, the community is conceived and structured with reference to the natural world.Ó (Weckman, 567) I disagree with his point here. The author fails to relate the cause of the naturalistic religion to the community itself. Arguably, it is the community that formulates the religion of the society. This, in turn, further emphasizes the importance of community structure. In addition, I?d also like to argue that sometimes the community actually becomes more important than the actual religion itself. For example, Reformed Judaism has become the opposite extreme of orthodoxy, where its members actually feel more connected to the community than to the beliefs of Judaism itself. From personal experience, I can honestly state that this is the belief of some individuals. Judaism is a very defined religion. In many extremely orthodox communities, such as the Hasidim, religious beliefs strictly define the person. In somewhat of a contrast, a Reformed Jew becomes more inclined to accept the beliefs of those around him. Although this may be an extreme generalization, I believe that the aspect of community may be more important and influential in many people?s lives than the author suggests in the article. Finally, according to the author, a religious community often has defined status or social distinction, and these distinctions often manifest themselves in the way the people live their religious lives. Weckman makes the point very clear by stating: ?One?s role in the family or one?s lineage may also determine religious status, and one?s political office or status as a leader in the society at large tends to take on religious significance.Ó (Weckman, 567) I?d have to agree with Weckman?s view here. A prime example of this would be the caste system in India. The status of every individual is validated by its role in the religious society. This is also the case with many Muslim governments. The actions of many of the ?Muslim nationsÓ are dictated greatly by the Islamic community. The most important point conveyed by Weckman is his reference to the ?two groupsÓ of religious communities. He refers to these two groups as natural and specific religious communities. He writes: ?One of the clearest distinctions to be made among religious communities is that between groups specifically and self-consciously organized around religious beliefs and activities and those societies or Ônatural? groups wherein whatever is religious is part of the whole social structure. The distinction may also be made by noting that the specific religious groups are typically or theoretically voluntary, while one is born into the latter type of community, and there is no choice about joining it.Ó (Weckman, 567) At first look, this distinction seems rather obvious. According to the previous statement by Weckman, one can assume that someone making a conscious decision about their religion is involved in a specific community. Together with natural communities consisting of individuals going ?unconsciouslyÓ into their beliefs, we can observe the whole spectrum of religious community. However, Weckman goes beyond this simple defining statement to explain what it is that actually constitutes these two groups of communities. After further analysis, the distinction becomes less clear. The author states: ?Even though one is born into such social structures, initiation into ?realÓ participation in the community is one of the signs that the social unit is also a religious community.Ó(Weckman, 568) Thus, the assumption derived from the initial statement is incorrect. This weakens Weckman?s distinction between natural and specific communities. Now, all individuals must participate in some sort of acceptance behavior that brings them into the actual community. Specific communities therefore encompass all natural communities to a certain extent. This brings up an interesting point. According to Weckman?s definition of a natural community, we can assume that the Hindu caste system must be defined as such. All Hindus are born ?unconsciouslyÓ into an already defined caste that was willed to them from their previous life. However, the Hindu must also participate in a ritual that formally brings them into the community. As a consequence, I argue that we can look at the Hindu caste system as both a natural and specific community. The author also supports his idea of specific community by defining the six types of specific religious communities. These include: cult, sect, established sect, denomination, ecclesia, and universal church. (Weckman, 569) According to Weckman, these six types of communities were developed to indicate the manner in which the community is integrated and accepted into society as a whole. Weckman describes in detail the extent in which each type of community has integrated themselves into society. A cult is a type of community that is least involved and accepted into society. A cult is usually led by a charismatic individual who is usually very personal and emotional with his followers. (Weckman, 569) A classic example of a cult can be the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh. At the other end of the spectrum, the universal church displays characteristics of extreme integration and is often fully accepted within society. However, this notion of the ?six typesÓ of specific communities becomes less discernible with further examination. For example, the universal church, which can best be used to describe the Roman Catholic church, is not necessarily specific in the manner in which he defines it. Many people are ?bornÓ into the catholic faith, thus placing these people into a natural religious community. Many people describe themselves as being part of a community such as the catholic church, but just how specific is the universal church? Can a community this large actually function productively? Where then, do we draw the line? Weckman touches upon this point effectively. He states: ?One of the characteristics of the specific religious community as compared with the natural religious community is its voluntary character. Yet this characteristic is almost completely absent in the ecclesia and universal church and is of little importance in the denomination and the established sect.Ó (Weckman, 570) The author makes the distinction clear between what most people consider a ?faith by choiceÓ and a ?faith by birth.Ó People can be born into a religious community that does not fall into the six specific categories. Does this mean that this person is not associated with a specific community? Not necessarily. Therefore, I agree with Weckman?s belief that a specific community is not always voluntary. In many cases, it is just the opposite. Community can come to mean a variety of different things to a variety of different people. Despite a few weaknesses, Weckman presents a clear and concise description of the dynamics and functionality of communal structure. His arguments are vivid and compelling. I believe Weckman encompasses the central idea of the influence of community with great vivacity, ?Nevertheless, it is not too much to say that nearly all religious situations do have a communal dimension and that in many the community is the decisive factor.Ó (Weckman, 566) Without a doubt, it is the community that forms the basis of religious life. When dealing with religious community, one can?t help but realize how disparate many of them are. Nevertheless, community will persist as the basis and the foundation of all religious life throughout the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Comparing And Contrasting Christianity And Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Comparing And Contrasting Christianity And Buddhism Christianity and Buddhism are different religions, yet compare and contrast greatly. Though founded at different periods of time, Christianity and Buddhism have shaped cultures and have had a great influence on people all around the world with origins, customs and beliefs. Siddhartha Gautama was born about 563 B.C. He left his wealthy lifestyle when he was about 29 to seek wisdom. For years, he found not wisdom but only pain. After meditating for several days under a tree, enlightenment finally came to him. He would now be known as the Buddha or "enlightened one." Buddha and Jesus, the founder of Christianity, are alike and different in many ways. Jesus of Nazareth was born about A. D 6. He claimed to be the son of God, but was disliked by those who practiced other religions. When he was about 33 years old, Jesus was tried and prosecuted for heresy. He was then sentenced to be crucified. After his death, Paul continued to spread Christianity throughout the world. More than a thousand years later, it became one of the most widely known practices in the world, just as Buddhism has. Christians and Buddhists have their own customs and beliefs. Followers of Christianity are to love thy Lord first and love thy neighbor as thyself. Jesus gained large crowds and followers by performing miracles. Since Christians are only to worship the Lord, they are monotheist. Buddhism, however is quite different. Buddha taught his followers the Four Noble Truths, the main ideas of seeking enlightenment. In addition to seeking enlightenment, people could reach nirvana, or a "release from pain and suffering". Buddha taught all his followers to treat all other living things with love and respect. Throughout both their lives, Jesus and Buddha spread the teachings they taught, Christianity and Buddhism. After the resurrection of Jesus after his death in A. D 33, the disciples began to spread the word about Jesus. Paul, one of the disciples of Jesus, spent the rest of his life preaching and spreading Christianity to Jews and non-Jews alike. Just like Jesus, Buddha spread his teachings throughout his life. Buddhism was appealing to many people born into the lower classes of Hinduism. It was also especially appealing to women, because they served as a much lower class. Buddhism does not require complex rituals like Hinduism. Just like when these religions were first introduced into the world, they have had a major influence on our culture. Today, many people follow Christianity and Buddhism because of the beliefs and customs. These religions grow with population and are growing stronger all the time. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Confucianism vs.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Confucianism vs. daoism and legalism "Lead the people by laws and regulate them by punishments, and the people will simply try to keep out of jail, but will have no sense of shame. Lead the people by virtue...and they will have a sense of shame and moreover will become good." This was the teaching of Confucius. Confucius was the main influence of a way of life called Confucianism. Around this same time two other schools of though emerged. They were called Legalism and Daoism. All three were Chinese philosophies that were thought to be the best way to rule and achieve order in their society. Confucianism believed that a ruler's job was to set a good example, and not order. Since people were thought of as naturally good, they would follow in the right path based on their own conscience. Legalism was a more harsh way of ruling, led by Hanfeizi. They thought people were evil, and needed strict laws and punishment to keep them in line. Daoism was very different from either of the other two. It was led by Laozi, who taught that the best kind of government was one who governed the least. They allowed things to simply take their natural course and work themselves out. Which of the three schools of thought is indeed the most effective way to obtain order with their community? Legalism is thought by many people to be the only way to achieve order. However, all that their harsh laws and punishments do is make the government more feared. It is impossible for a society to be a success when the entire community despises the government it lives under. This in turn would only make the people rebel against it even more, instead of its original intention of scaring them into behaving. People are more likely to follow something they believe in, than something they are forced to believe in. Governing people by fear may work for awhile, but people would eventually begin to question its strength and go against it. Not only would Legalism not be the most effective way to rule, but it is also simply unjust. To live in a place where torture was common seems cruel. There is also such a thing as being too lenient when it comes to ruling. Daoism takes the other extreme as opposed to Legalism. Daoists believe that things need to take their natural course, and be unified with nature. Unlike Confucianism, Daoism does not even take the time to show concern followers. They would rather let them deal with their own problems. Although it is good to let people make their own decisions in their life, they also need some direction to follow. Everyone has reached a state of confusion at some point in their life. Making decisions is often a very difficult task, and simply letting your life be one with nature will not always produce the best outcome. Confucianism combines the good characteristics from both Daoism and Legalism. Instead of living their lives through extremities, they take a much milder approach. They live down the middle way, as Buddha once discovered was the key to life. Confucianism also allows people to make their own decisions, but still has a form of ruling to guide people and influence their decisions to be wise and thought out. Since the Confucius believed that goodness lies at the base of everyone, they trusted the people to use their own conscience to keep them out of trouble and following the laws. They did not need to rely on harsh punishment and torture as the Legalists did. Instead, they led by example. A model ruler would be assured of a model populace. Confucianism would work, because it not only provides guidance, but it provides the education to teach people the right way to do things. This enables them not only to be forced to act in the right way, but also to think in this way. Confucius says that, "By nature, men are pretty much alike. It is learning and practice that set them apart." This is just what they helped do. Confucius promoted education heavily, believing that it made good people. Since Confucius did believe that people were overall good, they trusted people to use their own conscience to keep them out of trouble and following the laws. They did not need to rely on harsh punishment as the Legalists did. Some would argue that not everyone has a good conscience, and this practice would not work. However, education and proper teaching could get anyone to see the right side of things. It is also made obvious that Confucianism leaders were led to have sympathy and feeling for their followers. He shows this when he states the golden rule and says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Confucius was concerned with man's actions on earth, not with what would happen to a man after death, or with the metaphysical question of whether he would be punished or rewarded for his actions on earth. His teachings do not deal with the concept of after life, only with how one should live. It was by following his golden rule that Confucius believed one could live a good life. Confucius also outlined five primary virtues: love, justice, reverence, wisdom, and sincerity. These virtues are the guideposts for one's actions. Confucianism is more effective than Daoism and Legalism, when trying to obtain order in a community. When deciding which school of though would achieve the most harmony, it is important to think of all the things that Confucianism brings to their society. Not only do the leaders provide a good direction for their followers with education, but they also care for the people in their community. You would not be able to find any of these things in either Daoism or Legalism. Confucianism would succeed on a higher level, because it takes the middle path. It is said "To go too far, is about the same as to fall too short." (Wilson, 58). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Confucianism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Confucianism Confucianism is a system of thought based on the teachings of a Chinese man named Kung Fuzi. Which is latinaized as Confucius, he lived from 551 to 479 b.c.e. Confucius claimed that he was not original and neither were his teachings, but believed himself to be a "creative transmitter of wisdom from the past". He created a moral code on based on ethics, humanity and love. Confucius philosophies emphasize the ideals of order and harmony. With the idea that people should live in harmony both with each other and with nature. To achieve this, Confucius created a system of human relationships and good government. Government to Confucius was the highest profession. He believed that if one had a good government everyone would be happy. In addition, Confucius esteemed education in high regards believing that through it, one could reach the high standard of a gentleman.. For a religion Confucianism is very different from any other. Due to the fact that the Chinese see religion as a form of education. The purpose of Confucianism was mainly to instill moral values in a person. There is no organized church or structure, no priests, no sects, and no creed for any follow. There is no worshipping or personal relationship with god but did recognize heaven as a force of human concern. Confucius did believe that men should direct their own destiny. Confucius taught that harmony begins in the family, which was a minuet of society. In which the man of the house was like the emperor or Priest. Confucius believed in a male dominated society were only males could lead the government service. Confucius believe in ancestor devotion. The Ancestor's names are usually kept in shrines. The duty of the father was to make sacrifices and to report any family concerns to these shrines. Confucius emphasized five virtues, which are the the ideals of Confucianism. The Confucian virtues are something that should reflect sincerity and inner spirit. The most important one was ren which means "humanity" he thought that should be the ideal for everyone to follow. Then came up with yi, "honesty" zhi, "knowledge" xin faithfulness and li; correct behavior. Confucinism also refers to basic texts which are called the five classics. The book of poetry which contains the oldest of Chinese poetry that describe common experiences such as love,work, and war. The book of rites, consists of three separate ritual texts. That contains descriptions of how one must behave when attending events, such as weddings, funerals, banquets and sacrifices. The book of history includes decrees, speeches, advice from counselors, and reports on similar government affairs. The Spring and Autumn annals is a brief chronicle of events in Confucius home state. The book of change is a book that consists of divination, or helps the follower to foretell future events and understand the existence of humans and natural happenings. The Chinese always believed that the universe has always been influenced by two opposing forces the Yin and the Yang. The two forces are always changing in power but each are necessary in order to maintain a balance. Related to this concept also comes the idea that all things are made up of of five elements. Wood, metal, fire, water and earth, like the yin and yang this elements are always influencing each other in the balance of nature. Using this foundation Confucius came to determine how things work together. Later believing that this was the key for living, and maintaining harmony. This way anyone would be able to correct imbalances or disharmony.This idea was used in medecine,nutrition,agriculture,art and literature, becoming part of Confucianism. Although Confucianism has evolved and changed, most of its social and governmental ideals have prevailed to remain. They have been useful, and have become the building blocks that have helped the Chinese civilization be such a stable force. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Confusion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Confusion In the view of the Chinese common man, life on earth is but a temporary stop on his journey to death and other reincarnations. Since death is viewed as inexorable and inherent in the human condition, the Chinese accepts it with composure. It was a common custom in China, especially in rural areas, for people to have a coffin ready in their houses as a preparation for death that may come ten or twenty years in the future. Well-to-do people used to build their own tombs long before they felt they were approaching death. This composure should not be construed as absence of sadness and regret. The Chinese believe that, in spite of its seamy side, life is still better than death which is shrouded in mystery. Death, for Chinese, does not mean total disappearance. Only the corporeal frame is disintegrated, and the spirit survives and perpetuates itself in a series of reincarnations. The belief of the survival of the soul forms the spiritual basis for ancestor worship while the feeling of gratitude ant affection for one's ancestors forms its moral foundation. Among the Chinese, the honest man is born amidst traditions and rites; as an adolescent, he seeks to improve himself through culture; and in maturity, he aims at wisdom through following the spiritual path. This pattern is not an abstract ideal but a way of life, which often leads to an attitude of tolerance and detachment. The bulk of the Chinese people lived for centuries in this environment of ancestral beliefs and religious doctrines. Confucianism is more of a religious and social philosophy than a religion in the accepted meaning of the word. It has no church, no clergy, and no Bible. It advocates a code of social behavior that man ought to observe so as to live in harmony with society and attain happiness in his individual life. There is little concern about death, the world beyond, and spiritual feelings in this religion. Confucius, or Kung Fu-tzo (551-479 B.C.), the founder of this religion, stressed the improvement of the moral self as the basic duty of the individual as well as the statesman. In order to rule the world, one must rule one's country; in order to rule the country, one must rule one's family; and in order to rule the family, one must have control of oneself. Consequently, the improvement of the moral self is the cornerstone of Confucianism. Confucius believed that man is born with an essentially good nature which becomes corrupted in his contact with society. In order to improve his moral self and regain that original good nature with which he was born, man must practice the five cardinal virtues of benevolence, propriety, loyalty, intellect, and trustworthiness. In order to keep harmony in the nation and happiness in the family, man must observe the three basic relationships between sovereign and subject, father and son, and husband and wife. On the national level the basic virtue is loyalty to the sovereign, and on the family level, the basic virtue is filial piety. The ritual expression of filial piety is ancestor worship. Confucius, who is at one and the same time the Socrates, the Solon, and the Lycurgus of the oriental city, speaks often of the spirits and the souls of the dead. It is true that in his philosophical conversations with his disciples, he declines sometimes to give his own views as to their compositions. One knows the response that he made to one of them who queried him on the subject: "You do not know how to serve the living, why should I teach you to serve the dead? You who understand nothings of life, why should I speak to you about death?" In another connection, that in this matter, the master remained faithful to the beliefs of ancient China, traces of which are notably kept for us in The Book of Rites. According to these beliefs, man is made up of the living soul and the spiritual soul. After death, the living soul turns to dust with the body. The spiritual soul rises, wanders in space, and leads an independent, ethereal, airy life. This is the life of the spirits, of the souls, of the departed ancestors. These then never die completely; they follow a transcendent, spiritual life. But this life which runs the risk of becoming ineffectual, of evaporating into nothing, is made more real, more effective, so to say, by the memory the living keep of the dead, by the cult that it is their duty to offer. It is thus that the dead may always participate in the lives of the family of their descendents. One calls on them for all solemn occasions, such as births, marriages, and so on. According to pure Confucianist doctrine, one must honor the dead on a par with the living; and the greatest misfortune conceivable is to die without leaving a male descendant to perpetuate the Cult of the Ancestors. Later, this rule was relaxed to permit daughters to carry on the cult, in case there were no male descendants. If a man dies without leaving any descendants at all. However, the souls of the dead, for lack of homage and honor on the occasions of traditional feasts and anniversaries, are doomed to eternal wandering one of the most appalling maledictions which could afflict any family. It is thus that the custom of polygamy among the Chinese was explained, and justified in the eyes of the law: it more or less assured that there would be a descendant to perpetuate the cult. Adoption was considered to be a last resort. The cult of the ancestors is accompanied by a certain number of beliefs and practices, some of them deriving from Confucian teachings, and others originating from popular superstitions and Taoist rites. Many people, whether scholars or common folk believe that the souls of their ancestors are the natural protectors of the family line. It is to them that prayers are addressed, imploring. For example, the curing of a sick child; their influence, and the sum of good actions they accomplished in the lifetimes are also used to explain success in business, in examinations and all other fortunate developments. In wealthy families, the ancestors' altar is a piece of furniture of great value, made of hand-carved wood, red and gold painted. On which are arranged copper candlesticks and perfume pans. The names of the ancestors for the past four generations are inscribed on mahogany tablets; beyond that generation, the dead are supposedly already reincarnated. The altar itself is placed in the main room of the house, where it is ordinary shielded from view by a red silk curtain. Carved and painted panels fixed on the walls or against the pillars, bear inscriptions whose texts are usually composed by scholars who are personal friends of the family. But whether the ancestors' altar is richly adorned, or consists merely of a white-painted. Ordinary wooden table, it is always the place where the entire family gathers on the occasions of the main feasts of the year. It is the rallying place a symbol of family solidarity. Around the altar, in the presence of the ancestors, all discord must disappear and it is before the altar that major decisions are made, and marriages consecrated. I said earlier that Confucius remained faithful to this ancient religion to these old beliefs of ancient China, all the more since they fit in admirably with his doctrine of social conservatism based on the cult of the past and of tradition. But did he himself believe in the existence of the souls? Did he believe in their real presence in the ceremonies and the invocations? From what emanates from his words, always prudently chosen when he concerns himself with such questions of a metaphysical order, doubt is allowable. One of many answers that he made to one of his disciples on death. He said to another who questioned him on discretion: "To fulfill the duties appertaining to man, to honor the spirits, but to hold one's distance, that could be called discretion." To honor the spirits, but to hold oneself at a distance, that is the attitude of the sage in regard to divinity. This cult is so surrounded with the practice of different rituals that it would be idle to enumerate here. One knows, besides, that each Chinese family, rich or poor, has an altar for the ancestors which could be a magnificent place of worship, or a simple dais stand on two sawhorses. It is there that funeral tablets of all the deceased ancestors dating back five generations repose. These are the object of particular ceremonies on the days in memory of the date of their death and of all the ritual fetes of the year. The others, the remote ancestors, are represented on a communal tablet and receive worship on definite ritual days which are also numerous during the year. Two days are officially dedicated to the dead: the ninth day of the third month, the day for visiting the tomb; this day of the dead has nothing gloomy about it and takes place at one of the prettiest times of the year when: The new grass stretching out to the vast horizon. The pear-tree branch grows white with its tender fleece... Thus it is said in the well-known poem of Kieu. To this day of the dead, called the weed-digging of the tombs, is added ordinarily a day of the living, for the idea of death, and it is something to note, has nothing gloomy about it in this country. The second day reserved for the dead is the fifteenth day of the seventh month. This is rather a Buddhist festival, dedicated to the wandering souls, to all those who died without descendents to keep their cult alive. For the greatest misfortune that could happen to a man is to see one day his cult broken, by posterity's default, and to become thus a wandering soul to whom Buddhist charity grants an impersonal and anonymous cult. It is possible that the souls and the spirits exist; it is probable that they do not exist. One thing for certain, that is, we should honor them. Let us do it in all sincerity, without superstition and fanaticism, as we perform a ritual of high moral and social importance. This ritual, in fact, is demanded by filial piety, which in the political-moral system of Confucius, is the basic of all virtues, the foundation of family morals, and consequently of society and of the empire. Under these conditions, how is it necessary to honor the dead, and of all the dead, those which concern us most directly, our ancestors? The Book of Rites credited Confucius with this saying: "To treat the dead as dead would be inhuman. One must not do it. But to treat them as living would be foolish. One must not do it." One is not then to treat the dead as dead, that is to say to concern oneself no more with them, but to forget them, one is not to treat them as living either, and that is to believe that they really live. In fact, they do live in our memory, by the intensity of the sentiment that is called filial piety and which leads to the worship of those to whom one owes one's life and one's conscience to carry on. And to perpetuate their memory, to pass on the cult indefinitely to our descendents, giving us the illusion, a salutary illusion, of the continuity, perenniality and immortality, of this phantom existence, in this passing world. The cult of the ancestors, which has no connection with religious faith, exerts a profound influence on the daily life of the Chinese people. The recollection of the ancestors, the fear of offending them or soiling their reputations, coupled with the desire to please them, are sources of inspiration, which guide the actions of the descendants. Even for a hardened sinner, to lack respect for the ancestors is the worst offense imaginable. Here is how the intimate thought of the master should be interpreted. Respectful of tradition and of rituals, he did not wish to explain himself fully on this subject. But such should be his thought. The cult of the dead is, in his eyes, the cult of memory, based upon filial piety and the thought of the continuity of the family and of the race. It is in this spirit that still being practiced by the majority of the Oriental world, for whom it is the main religion and takes the place of all preaching revealed or supernatural. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Conservative Judaism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Conservative Judaism: Inception, History and Way Of Life "The term "Conservative" had been attached to the moderates by the Reformers because the moderates had branded them as radicals. This name hardly describes the movement aptly. Conservative Judaism, is the American version of the principles of positive historical Judaism. The conservatives accept the findings of modern scholarship that Judaism is the product of a long period of growth and evolution. However, this process did not result in broken or inconsistent lines of development; quite the contrary, the major currents of Judaism run consistently through the extensive literature of the Jewish people, created in successive ages." (Rudavsky 338) Conservative Judaism is one of the largest of the various sects of Judaism. Conservative Jews make up about 40-45% of those Jews who affiliate. Conservative Judaism accepts the idea that Jewish law is binding upon Jews. Conservative Jews have an obligation to obey all the teachings and commandments of Judaism., For example, Conservative Jews emphasize the laws of keeping the Sabbath and keeping kosher. Conservative Jews believe that Jewish law is capable of evolution as humans learn more about interpreting the Torah. Therefore, Conservative Jews have changed some of the earlier interpretations. Men and women worship together in Conservative synagogues, people may ride in a car on the Sabbath to attend services, and women can be ordained as rabbis. "Issac Leeser is generally regarded as the principal forerunner of Conservative Judaism in the United States. A native of Westphalia, Lesser acquired his religious and secular education before coming to American in 1824. He settled in Richmond, Virginia, where he was employed for several years in his uncle's business. At the same time, he assisted the hazzan in the religious school of the local Sephardic congregation. During this period, he gained prominence by publishing numerous articles in defense of Jews and Judaism in American and foreign journals."(Dimont 231) Some Jews who affiliate with the Conservative sect claim that their main reason for belonging is the fact that they don't want to be Orthodox nor Reformed. "While some individuals describe themselves as Conservative because of their alienation from Orthodox practices, others define themselves from the opposite direction - they point out that they are not reform." (Sklare 206) For the most part, Conservative Jews feel that if one were to be reformed they would not really be Jewish. The Reformed sect, unlike the conservative do not obey most of the Jewish laws and traditions. Conservative Jew describes Reform as "cold," "churchlike," or "going too far," rather than as being subversive or heretical." (Sklare 206) Although Conservative Jews do not associate themselves with the Reform movement, they are still influenced by some of their ideas. "Conservatism has borrowed a number of the innovations instituted by the Reform wing. Orthodoxy, particularly in America has done likewise, though to a lesser degree. Among these changes are the improved decorum, the use of the vernacular and the regular sermon at services, as well as confirmation exercises in various forms. Mixed pews, the organ, and the elimination of the benediction by the priestly caste are among the modifications adopted by the Conservative congregations."(Gordis 122) Conservative Judaism says that the laws of the Torah and Talmud are of divine origin, and mandates the following of Jewish Law. At the same time, the Conservative movement recognizes the human element in the Torah and Talmud, and accepts modern scholarship that shows that Jewish writings also show the influence of other cultures, and in general can be treated as historical documents. "The founders of the Conservative movement, the youngest group in modern Judaism, had no wish to create a new alignment in Judaism. They sought, rather, to unite all Jews who had a positive attitude toward Jewish tradition, in spite of variations in detail. Nonetheless, life itself led to the crystallization of Conservative Judaism, which is dedicated to the conservatism and development of traditional Judaism in the modern spirit."(Gordis 216) Since the inception of Conservative Judaism in the late 19th century, it is committed to Judaism not only as a faith but also as a system of law, and to the norms of ritual behavior. Conservative Judaism formally involves strict Jewish religious practice of the laws of diet and Sabbath-observance. " For many Jews in the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century, Reform was traveling too fast and too far to the left. The Conservative movement long ago ruled that mixed seating was permitted in religious services and so was driving to the synagogue on the Sabbath. Unlike Orthodox, the Conservative allows women rabbis instead of the traditional service lead by men. "Of the three main Jewish sects in America, Reform Judaism has thus far been the prime force in getting things done, supplying thus far been the prime force in getting things done, supplying most of the ideas, money and leadership. Reform has remained in the vanguard of everything new in secular American Judaism. But it is no longer foremost Jewish religious sect. Nor is it any longer foremost in Jewish scholarship. Here the unaffiliated and Conservative have overtaken it."(Rudavsky 338) In order to get a better understanding of how Conservative Jews felt about the sect that they identify themselves with, I asked them the question: "What do you mean when you say that you are Conservative" My friend Josh Schwartz from Brooklyn said "Well, I obey some laws and I'm not Orthodox, so I guess I'm somewhere in between the two My parents brought me up believing in the Conservative way of life. I go to a Conservative Temple, so I'm Conservative. When I asked the same question to my Jewish friend from Long Island he responded with: " My parents buy kosher meat and we eat kosher in the house but I often eat non-kosher when I'm out with friends. I think I'm conserving time when I go to a Conservative temple instead of those drawn out services that are conducted in Orthodox temples." Both of the responses I received revolved around their parents. I think for the most part, Conservative Judaism is placed upon the person instead of deciding which sect you want to belong to on your own. Growing up in Brooklyn I attended an Orthodox Hebrew school, a Conservative Jewish day camp and belonged to numerous Jewish youth groups. Most of my friends when I was growing up were Jewish. We belonged to the same temple and participated in the same traditions. Brooklyn is made up of a wide range of Jewish sects and groups. In my neighborhood, the most common of all are the conservative Jews. My grandparents came to this country from Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. They escaped only with their lives and their belief in the Jewish Faith. They came to this country to escape the persecution of Nazi Germany. What they found were people who were just like them seeking the teachings of the Conservative sect. Growing up in a conservative Jewish household has had a great impact on my life. I was Bar-Mitzvahed in a conservative temple in Brooklyn, which is also the same temple that my parents got married. I attend religious services for the high holidays and obey the laws of Passover, Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah and Hanukah. I do not keep the Sabbath and I do not adhere to the kashert laws. Most people that I know who are of the conservative sect obey and disobey the same laws as I. Youth groups like United Synagogue Youth and the Binai Brith Association are major contributors in keeping the conservative sect alive. USY is a youth group established by the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in the hopes but with the intent to foster further continuation in the conservative community. Binai Brith is non denominational and is constantly shifting between reformed and conservative depending on the community in which that chapter is located. Jewish Youth groups throughout the country has had a great impact on the young Jews of America by teaching the religion and providing a entertaining atmosphere at the same time. In my opinion Orthodox means obeying every Jewish law to the fullest effect. Some of my friends who are Orthodox are curious to what it's like to go out on Friday nights? Or, What does "real" pizza taste like? But when it comes down to it, they have devoted their lives to G-d and religion and would never disobey the laws. Sometimes when Im driving around the area on a Saturday morning, I see Orthodox Jews walking to their temple which is sometimes miles away from their house. The reformed on the other hand are the complete opposite of the Orthodox. I've been to Jewish Reformed services at my friend's temple where I would see a woman rabbi playing guitar and singing along at the same time. Sometimes the congregation members aren't even wearing yamaurlkahs. Conservative Judaism to me for most Jews in this country is the American way of life. We believe in G-d, belong to temples, engage in religious events and take part in the traditions. We do not dedicate our lives to the religion nor do we say that we are perfect Jews. What we do say is that we are Jewish and affiliate ourselves with other Jews of various sects. Unlike the Hassidim who constantly fight within their own community, Conservative Jews have a common understanding for the religion and one another. Conservatism continues to be the most popular sect of Judaism and continues to be a driving force in America. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Contradictions In The Puritan Religion 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Contradictions In The Puritan Religion Life is full of many contradictions, and the basis of the Puritan religion is no exception. The Puritans believed that they were God's chosen people, as mentioned in the Bible. They saw themselves on a level above the average man, but in reality, their religion was full of inconsistencies. The Puritans believed in something known as the 'Doctrine of Elect,' hinted at in Romans 8:28-30, 9:6-24, and later at the Synod of Dort.. The doctrine contradicted the more widely held belief of Pelagianism, the belief that man could redeem himself through acts of charity, piety, and by living an unselfish life. It came to be one of the greatest theological discrepancies of all time. Evidently, the Puritan beliefs were almost entirely contradictory. Some of the Puritan beliefs were both simple and believable. Others would seem outrageous today. Puritanism was founded on the principles and beliefs of John Calvin, and one of the major ideals they focused on was the doctrine of predestination. Calvin believed that the grace of God was the ticket into Heaven and that his grace could not be earned. God's grace was bestowed upon a select few regardless of what they did to earn it. This ' doctrine' stated that God determines a mans' destiny, whether it be redemption or condemnation, regardless of any worth or merit on the person's part. It could be compared to the failures of Communism in that no matter how hard a person worked, how devout a person was, how often a person went to church, there was no way to get into Heaven unless they were chosen. Aside from the doctrine of elect, the Puritans had other outrageous beliefs including the degradation of one's self, the utter and total dependence on divine grace for salvation, and the wrath of an angry God. The God worshipped by the Puritans was not a forgiving God, and definitely not a happy God. The Puritans fear him and tried zealously to make themselves worthy in his eyes. They insisted that they, as God's special elect, had the duty to conduct affairs carrying out his will according to the Bible. Though many of their beliefs seemed outrageous, the most heinous of all was the aforementioned 'Doctrine of Elect.' If this 'Doctrine of Elect' guaranteed the chosen a spot in heaven, then there was no reason for them to behave as pious, God-fearing Puritans. There was no reward after death for those who had been good and were not 'chosen.' The standard was the same for the special few who made their way onto God's list. They had no reason to be good people, for there was nothing they could do to lose their spot on the great list. For this reason, it did not matter what a person did in life, for his destiny was already chosen. Despite the fact that the chosen few had already been elected, the Puritans still strived to be good people. The Puritan life was one of plainness, strict prayer, and physical and social submission to the duty of the Lord. The Puritans valued themselves above others, because they felt that they were representatives of God. They saw themselves as compassionate, forgiving people, who believed that no matter what the crime, a man could do right in the eyes of God as long as he/she admitted their wrong. This completely nullified the ' doctrine of elect,' because why would someone attempt to right their wrong if it had no bearing on their entrance to Heaven? Confession did nothing to save a man condemned to Hell. Throughout the Salem witch trials, confession was almost forced by the court, and used by many who were not strong enough to insist upon their innocence. The Puritanism took much from the Five Teachings of Calvinism: The doctrine was exemplified in the five teachings of Calvinism: (1) humankind is spiritually incapacitated by sin; (2) God elects unconditionally those who will be saved; (3) the saving work of Christ is limited to those elected ones; (4) God's grace cannot be turned aside; (5) those whom God elects in Christ are saved forever. These teachings made the trials and also the confessions meaningless, because if one of the elect was on trial, then according to teaching #5, a man was saved forever. So why confess? These confessions were worthless in the eyes of the Puritan God, because no matter what a man confessed to, no matter what he did in life, his final resting spot was already determined. So then why did the Puritans insist upon confession as a means of salvation? Why did they force innocent people to admit to lies in the face of death? This is a hard question to answer. If a confession was made in hopes that it would save a soul, then wouldn't that render the doctrine of elect meaningless? What man should worry if he dies guilty or innocent? Certainly not a man whose future is already determined. If the Puritans believed so fervently in the Doctrine of Elect, then why should anyone confess their sins? f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Contradictions in the Puritan Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Contradictions In The Puritan Religion Life is full of many contradictions, and the basis of the Puritan religion is no exception. The Puritans believed that they were God's chosen people, as mentioned in the Bible. They saw themselves on a level above the average man, but in reality, their religion was full of inconsistencies. The Puritans believed in something known as the 'Doctrine of Elect,' hinted at in Romans 8:28-30, 9:6-24, and later at the Synod of Dort.. The doctrine contradicted the more widely held belief of Pelagianism, the belief that man could redeem himself through acts of charity, piety, and by living an unselfish life. It came to be one of the greatest theological discrepancies of all time. Evidently, the Puritan beliefs were almost entirely contradictory. Some of the Puritan beliefs were both simple and believable. Others would seem outrageous today. Puritanism was founded on the principles and beliefs of John Calvin, and one of the major ideals they focused on was the doctrine of predestination. Calvin believed that the grace of God was the ticket into Heaven and that his grace could not be earned. God's grace was bestowed upon a select few regardless of what they did to earn it. This 'doctrine' stated that God determines a mans' destiny, whether it be redemption or condemnation, regardless of any worth or merit on the person's part. It could be compared to the failures of Communism in that no matter how hard a person worked, how devout a person was, how often a person went to church, there was no way to get into Heaven unless they were chosen. Aside from the doctrine of elect, the Puritans had other outrageous beliefs including the degradation of one's self, the utter and total dependence on divine grace for salvation, and the wrath of an angry God. The God worshipped by the Puritans was not a forgiving God, and definitely not a happy God. The Puritans fear him and tried zealously to make themselves worthy in his eyes. They insisted that they, as God's special elect, had the duty to conduct affairs carrying out his will according to the Bible. Though many of their beliefs seemed outrageous, the most heinous of all was the aforementioned 'Doctrine of Elect.' If this 'Doctrine of Elect' guaranteed the chosen a spot in heaven, then there was no reason for them to behave as pious, God-fearing Puritans. There was no reward after death for those who had been good and were not 'chosen.' The standard was the same for the special few who made their way onto God's list. They had no reason to be good people, for there was nothing they could do to lose their spot on the great list. For this reason, it did not matter what a person did in life, for his destiny was already chosen. Despite the fact that the chosen few had already been elected, the Puritans still strived to be good people. The Puritan life was one of plainness, strict prayer, and physical and social submission to the duty of the Lord. The Puritans valued themselves above others, because they felt that they were representatives of God. They saw themselves as compassionate, forgiving people, who believed that no matter what the crime, a man could do right in the eyes of God as long as he/she admitted their wrong. This completely nullified the 'doctrine of elect,' because why would someone attempt to right their wrong if it had no bearing on their entrance to Heaven? Confession did nothing to save a man condemned to Hell. Throughout the Salem witch trials, confession was almost forced by the court, and used by many who were not strong enough to insist upon their innocence. The Puritanism took much from the Five Teachings of Calvinism: The doctrine was exemplified in the five teachings of Calvinism: (1) humankind is spiritually incapacitated by sin; (2) God elects unconditionally those who will be saved; (3) the saving work of Christ is limited to those elected ones; (4) God's grace cannot be turned aside; (5) those whom God elects in Christ are saved forever. These teachings made the trials and also the confessions meaningless, because if one of the elect was on trial, then according to teaching #5, a man was saved forever. So why confess? These confessions were worthless in the eyes of the Puritan God, because no matter what a man confessed to, no matter what he did in life, his final resting spot was already determined. So then why did the Puritans insist upon confession as a means of salvation? Why did they force innocent people to admit to lies in the face of death? This is a hard question to answer. If a confession was made in hopes that it would save a soul, then wouldn't that render the doctrine of elect meaningless? What man should worry if he dies guilty or innocent? Certainly not a man whose future is already determined. If the Puritans believed so fervently in the Doctrine of Elect, then why should anyone confess their sins? f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Corinthians.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Corinthians Corinthians, the seventh book of the New Testament, was written by Paul to get across that Jesus is alive (15:3-18) and that we will be resurrected (15:35-38), among other things. Today there is no dispute that Paul is the author of I Corinthians. "Both external and the internal evidence for the Pauline authorship are so strong that those who attempt to show the apostle was not the writer succeed chiefly in proving their own incompetence as critics."1 As internal evidence, Paul identifies himself as the author in 1 Corinthians 1:1 and 16:21. External evidence of Paul writing this letter is supported by people such as Clement of Rome (c. 95-97) and Augustine (c. 400). The letter was written to the people of Corinth. Corinth was a strategically located Roman city on the main land route between East and West and was the crossroads for several sea routes. Corinth was famous for its intellectual and material prosperity and was honored with being the capitol of Ancaia. It also became famous for its corruption. Paul began his ministry there on his second missionary journey. He converted many influential people in Corinth, thus he stayed for a year and a half. Most likely, Paul left Corinth in the fall of AD 51. Paul returned to Corinth on his third trip to Asia, c. fall, AD 52. Paul then wrote this letter from Ephesus while on his third trip to Asia. Paul wrote the letter several years after his initial departure from Corinth in the fall of AD 51-52. The letter was written before the beginning of the summer since Paul intended to leave Ephesus after Pentecost. It was also written before winter since Paul wanted to come to them and spend the winter. Paul wrote the letter four or five years after his initial departure from Corinth. Paul had many points that he wanted to get across in I Corinthians. For instance, the purpose of the letter was to address problems in the local churches of Corinth. Also, to counter worldly wisdom with Spiritual wisdom, and to answer questions that Corinthians had brought to Paul. (7:1,25 8:1) Furthermore, he wanted to deal with the several moral problems and the divisions that had formed as people had divided into fan-clubs and were proclaiming themselves followers of Paul, Apollo, Peter or Christ. During this time the Corinthian church had many problems. Most of these problems were the result of pride and placing so much emphasis on social status. In Corinth there was a lack of church discipline and an abuse of the Christian liberty. Paul dealt with these problems one by one, but the pinnacle of Paul's argument is in chapter 13 where he emphasizes the importance of love. Love of others is incompatible with pride and is to be the fundamental principle that guides all actions. I Corinthians points out to me what I should do, and not do to become a good Christian. For instance, Paul lists many things that you should not be in 6:9- 11. Paul also pointed out that Jesus in fact did rise again, as he said he would, in 15:3-8. He states that Jesus came to him, and this gives us evidence that Jesus stayed true to the Scriptures. Furthermore, Paul tells us in 15:35- 38 that we will be resurrected. 1Robertson and Plummer, I Corinthians (ICC), xvi. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Cults 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cults There are many types of cults in the world, cults are everywhere but you just do not see them. Every person in the world has been in contact with them in one way or another in many cases you cannot see them. The closest cult we know of is on Rice Lake called the Moonies led by Reverend Myung, where I have currently visited. Cults can be involved in churches and even are earliest religions are called cults. Cults are not the strongest groups' sects are the strongest group. When you join a sect you cannot get out of them but a cult you can leave without having any problem or commitment. Sects will not let you out because many times it's illegal and they are afraid that you will say something to the public. Cults sometimes are illegal to. Religious cults are in every town and village there is no definition of a cult that is accepted by sociologists and psychologist or religion many types of activities will take cult like structures, an example would be any popular trend like physical exercise this is called the physical fitness cult. Famous athletes are a big figure when it comes to cults, many times Movie stars, professional athletes will endorse a product and a trend will start, making it turn into a cult. Also people who generate beliefs of something like flying saucer, aliens or any unknown figures can be cult. In religion when people call a church they are referring to a sacred organization having a highly structured or formalized dogma and hierarchy, but also allowing a bit of flexibility about membership requirements allowing you to go to a church and leave church when you want to. Although sects are against church attempts to accommodate to secular society. Sects believe that they are protecting a true faith or belief. Sects tend to stay away from world events , and also they believe in a strong strict behavioral code and demand a commitment out of their people. The differences between cults and sects are sometimes the same. Many scholars do not make distinctions between the two. Cults are different because they do not expect as much commitment. Many times' cults do not expect couples to become apart. Cults do not last as long as sects. Many times' cults survive through a decade, and also cults allow you to come and go as you want. Leaders of cults build around a charismatic leader who has a lifestyle dedicated to a specific spirituality group that they know other people will follow. The word Mormonism began as a small cult then grew bigger until it became a sect and eventually into a church. All the new religions followed the same thing by beginning small and getting bigger than becoming a church. Contemporary Cults Cults go back as far as we know of life, cults began to get bigger and be known throughout the world in the late 1960's and early 70's as people were better educated and better understood how they were formed and how they were run and people began to join. During this time Youths and middle class people began to join cults because of the in thing to do and they felt more secure about themselves. Cults really started to fascinate people when Jimmy Jones cult began in November of 1978 when all attention was focused on the mass suicide in Jonestown, a similar event happened in 1993 when federal agents engaged in a shoot out with cult leader David Koresh. Modern cults have many different practices and many different ways of leadership. Some cults have a flexible functional leadership, like the groups in the charismatic movement coming from the mainland Christian religion, other cults have people who run and orchestrate cult events, like Reverend Myung Moon leader of the unification church. The reason people are attracted to modern cults because it puts emphasis on community and on direct experience with the divine. In cults' participants often find a level of social support and acceptance that they do not find in a nuclear family. This makes and generates a sense of belonging to something profound and a feel of being somebody. People who often join cults such as this, join because they think they are getting something the world did not give them. Several factors have been looked at to figure why people like are modern youths join cults. Factors that were looked at were drug's war assignation of many unpopular presidents. Cults have been questioned about brainwashing people, and found it to be true. Cargo Cults Cargo cults are usually neutralist and are in it for money. The word cargo refers to foreign goods possessed by Europeans. Cult members believe that goods belong to themselves and that , with the help of ancestral spirits, the goods can be returned to them through magic religious means. Brainwashing Brainwashing is the process of deliberately subjecting people to physical and psychological hardship in order to alter their thoughts and attitudes, and actions. It also is a process of totally cleaning a mind of one set idea and replacing them by another thought or belief. This is called to indoctrinate cleaning a thought and putting a completely new thought in mind. Indoctrinating can take place without brainwashing. There are 2 aspects of brainwashing they are confessions of past crimes or errors of the past and re-education to new beliefs. Prisoners sometimes are made to confess by lack of sleep and food and other forms of intense physical discomfort, also isolation from victims' families and from familiar surroundings. Cult leaders show obedience, and humility and make other members give social pressure to the new member to make them join. And the last thing they do is make mutual criticism and self criticism sessions, which make them have a generalized guilt feeling that all people have acceptance of new ideas is again fostered by group pressure and the anticipated reward of freedom. People who have a better understanding of psychology and neuophysiology have made larger groups create extremely effective brainwashing programs. Their techniques however have been used for centuries as inquisition making people give excited confessions from alleged heretics. Religions sometimes use these methods like scourging, rhythmic dancing and drumming and sometimes inducing a trance like state in which the individual is open to conversion. In the 20th centuries, most noticeably by the people's temple of Guyana, whose membership committed mass suicide. Mystery Cults Mystery Cults are usually in the ancient times whose members believed that by means of the performance of particular secret rituals they would gain knowledge that people in the normal world would not have and that would make a mystical union with the divine. Mystery cults make their members feel they are god and give them a feel of immortality that they cannot be destroyed. Many times in mystery cults, cult leaders feel they died and were brought back to be god or Jesus. Conclusion In today's society, cults are one of the many unfortunate aspects endure in life. Leaders of Cults should be dealt with in a more serious matter. Cult leaders are con-artists and are people that like to control others. Cults should be controlled to protect innocent citizens from being taken advantage of Bibliography CDROM: Religious Cults. Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc.. 1993 CDROM: Contemporary Cults. Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc.. 1993. CDROM: Cargo Cults. Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc.. 1993. CDROM: Contemporary Cults. Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc.. 1993. CDROM: Religious Cults. Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc.. 1993. CDROM :Contemporary Cults. Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc..1993 CDROM :Contemporary Cults . Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc..1993 CDROM Cargo Cults . Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc ..1993 VI f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Cults.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cults Each year, hundreds of North Americans join one of the increasing, estimated 3000 unorthodox religions that exist across North America. The increasing number of cults, to date in North America, is due to the fact that cults are a social movement that attempts to help people cope with their perceived problems with social interaction. Cult recruiters target those who perceive themselves as different from the rest of society, and give these individuals the sense of belonging that they crave. Cult literature lures potential cult members by appealing to their desperate need to socially fit in. Cults provide a controlled family environment that appeals to potential cult members because it is a removal from the exterior society. Cult recruiters prey on those who see themselves as alienated from the rest of society, and give these people the sense of conformity that they desire. A common method of recruiters, to obtain new members, is through chat lines on the internet. A recorded conversation between a member of the Divine Light Mission, Fire-Shade, and an 18-year old boy, Jay 18, was obtained off of the site, IRC Teen Chat. Jay18: I am a really great poet, but all of the kids in my class are pretty warped about it. I basically hide it from them because I don't need that hassle. Fire-Shade: My family has a great respect for the artist inside us all. I know you live in Michigan, and our family could always use new operatives all over the world. You have to understand what our family is about, it is about always fitting in and never hiding the truth to be liked or cool. Are you interested? Jay18: Well maybe Fire-Shade: Give me your phone number we really shouldn't talk about this here. Jay18: I would rather not give my phone number out. You give me yours, I won't be able to talk for long though. Fire-Shade: Trust is very important in our group. Do you trust me? You can't call us, unfortunately because we are not in a position to be accepting phone calls. Jay18: Well then you can just e-mail me. OK. Fire-Shade: [disconnects]1 The cult member makes the young boy feel as though he does care about his problems, and wants to make this boy's life better. Fire-Shade conveys his family as an entity not as many different individuals. After feeling alone for many years the only persuasion some individuals need is the assurance that they will be part of a society and accepted unconditionally. Cult members know what type of individuals feel most alienated and alone, says Dr. Lorna Goldberg, a New Jersey psychoanalyst. No one plans to join a cult unless they see that cult as a possibility for a family, or a better society. Cults target people in transition-- college students away from home for the first time, people who have moved to new cities for jobs, those who have just been divorced or widowed. Usually individuals 16 to 25 or 35 to 40. The vast majority of members are merely looking for a sense of community and belonging, during a difficult time in their lives.2 Cults provide an ersatz social unit, which takes them in, nurtures them and reinforces the cult's worldview. By the time that most cult members realize that this cult isn't what they had expected, it is too late, because they are already too afraid to leave. Recruiters are not the only way that potential members are enticed into cults, often their literature is powerful enough. Cult novels, pamphlets and websites draw in potential cult members by appealing to their desperate need to socially fit in. Often if a piece of cult literature is written correctly it convinces the most logical mind of the most absurd reasoning, like this pamphlet by the Heavens Gate cult. The generally accepted "norms" of today's societies - world over - are designed, established, and maintained by the individuals who were at one time "students" of the Kingdom of Heaven- "angels" in the making- who flunked out" of the classroom. Legends and scriptures refer to them as fallen angels. The current civilization's records use the name Satan or Lucifer to describe a single fallen angel and also to "nickname" any "evil presence". If you have experienced some of what our "classroom" requires of us, you would know that these "presences" are real and that the Kingdom of God even permits them to "attack" us in order for us to learn their tricks and how to stay above them or conquer them.3 This particular piece of heavens gate literature can be found printed in not only their pamphlets and novels, but also on their website. In this single passage this cult has enabled the alienated individual to feel accepted and feel that they are not the only person who feels helpless, alone and disliked by society. It not only reassures the potential cult member that they are welcome somewhere, but it makes them feel superior to the society that they feel has betrayed them their entire life. Often, to fully convince a potential recruit of their ideals, cult literature will diverge on continuously about how society's ideas and morals are deranged and that the cults are reasonable. In other words, they (these space aliens) don't want themselves "found out," so they condemn any exploration. They want you to be a perfect servant to society (THEIR society -- of THEIR world) -- to the "acceptable establishment," to humanity, and to false religious concepts. Part of that "stay blinded" formula goes like this: "Above all, be married, a good parent, a reasonable church goer, buy a house, pay your mortgage, pay your insurance, have a good line of credit, be socially committed, and graciously accept death with the hope that 'through His shed blood,' or some other equally worthless religious precept, you will go to Heaven after your death.4 It is at this point that, through their literature, unbeknown to the reader the cult begins to strip away at everything the individual believes in. The cult starts to present the individual with the words that they want to hear, which are; that they are normal, and that there is a place where they are wanted. Although there are few distinct similarities shared between cults, the use of communes is a remarkably common trait. Cults provide a separate society that appeals to potential cult members because it is a removal from the exterior world. Usually when guests visit for the first time to a commune they witness displays of unconditional affection and kindness. In major cities across throughout the world, The Unified Family, sometimes called the Unification Church, has houses which are typically both communal living places for young, single members, and meeting places for a Sunday afternoon or weekday evening meeting. A pleasant, lively circle of perhaps twenty or twenty-five people, mostly young, will make the guest feel at home. He will be given a hymn book containing religious songs in folk and popular style. Someone will play a guitar, and the circle will sing for some thirty minutes.5 This tranquil, peaceful setting, purposely contrasts with that of the world outside of the compound. In order for a cult member to be adequately convinced of a cults merits they must see how much more pleasant life will be inside the compound. Cults, like the Hare Krishna, remind members how chaotic the outside world is, and maintain impeccable order inside their compounds to maintain purity. The details of life are closely regulated by the Spiritual Master. He insists that each devotee take two showers daily, and take a cup of warm milk before retiring; these customs are scrupulously followed. Devotees live an idyllic rural, communal, devotional, and vegetarian life.6 In cults an individuals daily routine is decided for them, their entire life-style is chosen for them, this appeals to individuals because they can't make mistakes if they just do as the leader instructs. In the society outside of the cult decisions must be constantly made, and society's expectations are that those who can not succeed in their decision making are failures. The complexity and ambiguity of life is something that cult members do not want to endure. Different doctors have varying opinions on why people join cults. Dr. J.Gordon Melton is attempting to prove that cult members have not chosen to join cults, they have an actual medical disorder. Melton has found that cult members are emotionally vulnerable and suffering from significant emotional distress. ...the average cult member has been in three or four other groups, a sign of what he calls the "seeker syndrome," a spiritual quest among young people free to experiment. These "seekers" generally move on as soon as they become bored or disenchanted. Melton suggests cults serve as "holding tanks" for young people rebelling against overprotective parents.7 Other experts believe that certain classes, races, and ages are particularly susceptible to the allure of cults. A survey performed at the Bethany Hills School found that when asked 'Would you join a cult if it would offer you what you believed to be a better life?', 7 out of 24 respondents said that they would. Of these 7 respondents, 5 were between the ages of 16 and 19"8 This age group has been established as susceptible to cults because of the pressure placed upon adolescents by their peers. "3 of the 7 respondents were members of a single, employed, parent houshold."9 Stress on a single income family can potentially be greater than that of a dual income family because of the potential for a higher net family income, and possibly less financial difficulties. This family stress could inherently cause an individual to search for a more stable home environment, and find refuge in a cult. These are the lesser known, and not as accepted theories on why people join cults. The idea that any specific social-class is more susceptible to cult membership is false. As history has shown cult members' social class can not be generalized. Social Status is no indicator of susceptibility and no defense against it. For instance, while many of the dead a Jonestown were poor, the Solar Temple favors the carriage trade. Its disciples have included the wife and son of the founder of Vuarnet sunglass company. The Branch Davidians at Waco came from many walks of life. And at Rancho Santa Fe they were paragons of the entrepreneurial class, so well organized they died in shifts.10 The reason for cult membership is obviously not entirely due to social class. Different people are drawn to different cults, just as different cults prey on different individuals. The research done at the Bethany Hills School is also not entirely accurate because the population is so small that 24 surveys cannot accurately represent most cult members. Although Dr. Melton's research provides an interesting viewpoint, his claims are still being experimented and have never been fully substantiated. His claim that cult members are young people rebelling against their parents is statistically inaccurate since 35 to 40-year-olds are one of the most common groups of cult members, and make up a large portion of the hundreds of men and women who join cults each year. Cult enlisteers target those who view themselves as a deviant from the rest of society, and give these individuals a false sense of family. Cult literature lures potential cult members by convincing them that society is an anomalous entity and that they are healthy and sound. The controlled family environment of cults appeals to potential cult members because they have all of their decisions made for them, and do not risk failure. No one is beyond the possibility of joining a cult, applicants require only a hopeless feeling of social inadequacy, a condition apt to strike anyone at some point in life. Undoutably, many cults are malicious and violent, but they do send a clear message that something is very wrong when sane, healthy people would rather burn, poison, and shoot themselves to death rather than live another moment in society. Endnotes 1. Lacay, Richard. Macleans: The Lure of the Cult (March 22 1997) 2. Graebrener, William. The American Record. Alfred A. Knoph, Inc. New York. 1982. 3. Applewhite, Marshall Herff. Heaven's Gate, The Novel. Received off of their internet site(www.heavensgatetoo.com) 4. Applewhite, Marshall Herff. Heaven's Gate The Novel. Received off of their internet site(www.heavensgatetoo.com) 5. Bright-Paul, Anthony. Stairway to Subud. Dharma Book Company, Inc. NewYork. 1965. 6. Swami, Bhaktivedanta A.C. Krsna Consciousness: The Topmost Yoga System. Iskcon Press. Boston. 1970. 7. Fennell, Tom. Time: Doom Sects [False Prophets Attract the Vulnerable]. (April 7, 1997) 8. Lamaadar, Alia. Cults:Questionair. January 12, 1998. 9. Lamaadar, Alia. Cults:Questionair. January 12, 1998. 10. Muller, Bill. The Edmonton Journal: The Lure of Cults [Why Ordinary People Join Cults]. (April 1, 1997) Bibliography 1. Applewhite, Marshall Herff Heaven's Gate, The Novel. Received off of their internet site(www.heavensgatetoo.com) 2. Bright-Paul, Anthony. Stairway to Subud. Dharma Book Company, Inc. NewYork. 1965. 3. Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter. Bantam Books. New York. 1975. 4. Fennell, Tom. Time: Doom Sects [False Prophets Attract the Vulnerable]. (April 7, 1997) 5. Graebner, William. The American Record. Alfred A. Knoph, Inc. New York. 1982. 6. Lacay, Richard. Macleans: The Lure of the Cult (March 22 1997) 7. Lamaadar, Alia. Cults:Questionair. January 12, 1998. 8. Muller, Bill. The Edmonton Journal:The Lure of Cults [Why Ordinary People Join Cults]. (April 1, 1997) 9. Porter, Anne. Farewell to the Seventies. Thomas Nelson and Sons. Don Mills. 1979. 10. Smith, Michelle. Michelle Remembers. Pocket Books. New York. 1980. 11. Swami, Bhaktivedanta A.C. Krsna Consciousness: The Topmost Yoga System. Iskcon Press. Boston. 1970. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Cults1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cults Cults Each year, hundreds of North Americans join one of the increasing, estimated 3000 unorthodox religions that exist across North America. The increasing number of cults, to date in North America, is due to the fact that cults are a social movement that attempts to help people cope with their perceived problems with social interaction. Cult recruiters target those who perceive themselves as different from the rest of society, and give these individuals the sense of belonging that they crave. Cult literature lures potential cult members by appealing to their desperate need to socially fit in. Cults provide a controlled family environment that appeals to potential cult members because it is a removal from the exterior society. Cult recruiters prey on those who see themselves as alienated from the rest of society, and give these people the sense of conformity that they desire. A common method of recruiters, to obtain new members, is through chat lines on the internet. A recorded conversation between a member of the Divine Light Mission, Fire-Shade, and an 18-year old boy, Jay 18, was obtained off of the site, IRC Teen Chat. Jay18: I am a really great poet, but all of the kids in my class are pretty warped about it. I basically hide it from them because I don't need that hassle. Fire-Shade: My family has a great respect for the artist inside us all. I know you live in Michigan, and our family could always use new operatives all over the world. You have to understand what our family is about, it is about always fitting in and never hiding the truth to be liked or cool. Are you interested? Jay18: Well maybe Fire-Shade: Give me your phone number we really shouldn't talk about this here. Jay18: I would rather not give my phone number out. You give me yours, I won't be able to talk for long though. Fire-Shade: Trust is very important in our group. Do you trust me? You can't call us, unfortunately because we are not in a position to be accepting phone calls. Jay18: Well then you can just e-mail me. OK. Fire-Shade: [disconnects]1 The cult member makes the young boy feel as though he does care about his problems, and wants to make this boy's life better. Fire-Shade conveys his family as an entity not as many different individuals. After feeling alone for many years the only persuasion some individuals need is the assurance that they will be part of a society and accepted unconditionally. Cult members know what type of individuals feel most alienated and alone, says Dr. Lorna Goldberg, a New Jersey psychoanalyst. No one plans to join a cult unless they see that cult as a possibility for a family, or a better society. Cults target people in transition-- college students away from home for the first time, people who have moved to new cities for jobs, those who have just been divorced or widowed. Usually individuals 16 to 25 or 35 to 40. The vast majority of members are merely looking for a sense of community and belonging, during a difficult time in their lives.2 Cults provide an ersatz social unit, which takes them in, nurtures them and reinforces the cult's worldview. By the time that most cult members realize that this cult isn't what they had expected, it is too late, because they are already too afraid to leave. Recruiters are not the only way that potential members are enticed into cults, often their literature is powerful enough. Cult novels, pamphlets and websites draw in potential cult members by appealing to their desperate need to socially fit in. Often if a piece of cult literature is written correctly it convinces the most logical mind of the most absurd reasoning, like this pamphlet by the Heavens Gate cult. The generally accepted "norms" of today's societies - world over - are designed, established, and maintained by the individuals who were at one time "students" of the Kingdom of Heaven- "angels" in the making- who flunked out" of the classroom. Legends and scriptures refer to them as fallen angels. The current civilization's records use the name Satan or Lucifer to describe a single fallen angel and also to "nickname" any "evil presence". If you have experienced some of what our "classroom" requires of us, you would know that these "presences" are real and that the Kingdom of God even permits them to "attack" us in order for us to learn their tricks and how to stay above them or conquer them.3 This particular piece of heavens gate literature can be found printed in not only their pamphlets and novels, but also on their website. In this single passage this cult has enabled the alienated individual to feel accepted and feel that they are not the only person who feels helpless, alone and disliked by society. It not only reassures the potential cult member that they are welcome somewhere, but it makes them feel superior to the society that they feel has betrayed them their entire life. Often, to fully convince a potential recruit of their ideals, cult literature will diverge on continuously about how society's ideas and morals are deranged and that the cults are reasonable. In other words, they (these space aliens) don't want themselves "found out," so they condemn any exploration. They want you to be a perfect servant to society (THEIR society -- of THEIR world) -- to the "acceptable establishment," to humanity, and to false religious concepts. Part of that "stay blinded" formula goes like this: "Above all, be married, a good parent, a reasonable church goer, buy a house, pay your mortgage, pay your insurance, have a good line of credit, be socially committed, and graciously accept death with the hope that 'through His shed blood,' or some other equally worthless religious precept, you will go to Heaven after your death.4 It is at this point that, through their literature, unbeknown to the reader the cult begins to strip away at everything the individual believes in. The cult starts to present the individual with the words that they want to hear, which are; that they are normal, and that there is a place where they are wanted. Although there are few distinct similarities shared between cults, the use of communes is a remarkably common trait. Cults provide a separate society that appeals to potential cult members because it is a removal from the exterior world. Usually when guests visit for the first time to a commune they witness displays of unconditional affection and kindness. In major cities across throughout the world, The Unified Family, sometimes called the Unification Church, has houses which are typically both communal living places for young, single members, and meeting places for a Sunday afternoon or weekday evening meeting. A pleasant, lively circle of perhaps twenty or twenty-five people, mostly young, will make the guest feel at home. He will be given a hymn book containing religious songs in folk and popular style. Someone will play a guitar, and the circle will sing for some thirty minutes.5 This tranquil, peaceful setting, purposely contrasts with that of the world outside of the compound. In order for a cult member to be adequately convinced of a cults merits they must see how much more pleasant life will be inside the compound. Cults, like the Hare Krishna, remind members how chaotic the outside world is, and maintain impeccable order inside their compounds to maintain purity. The details of life are closely regulated by the Spiritual Master. He insists that each devotee take two showers daily, and take a cup of warm milk before retiring; these customs are scrupulously followed. Devotees live an idyllic rural, communal, devotional, and vegetarian life.6 In cults an individuals daily routine is decided for them, their entire life-style is chosen for them, this appeals to individuals because they can't make mistakes if they just do as the leader instructs. In the society outside of the cult decisions must be constantly made, and society's expectations are that those who can not succeed in their decision making are failures. The complexity and ambiguity of life is something that cult members do not want to endure. Different doctors have varying opinions on why people join cults. Dr. J.Gordon Melton is attempting to prove that cult members have not chosen to join cults, they have an actual medical disorder. Melton has found that cult members are emotionally vulnerable and suffering from significant emotional distress. ...the average cult member has been in three or four other groups, a sign of what he calls the "seeker syndrome," a spiritual quest among young people free to experiment. These "seekers" generally move on as soon as they become bored or disenchanted. Melton suggests cults serve as "holding tanks" for young people rebelling against overprotective parents.7 Other experts believe that certain classes, races, and ages are particularly susceptible to the allure of cults. A survey performed at the Bethany Hills School found that when asked 'Would you join a cult if it would offer you what you believed to be a better life?', 7 out of 24 respondents said that they would. Of these 7 respondents, 5 were between the ages of 16 and 19"8 This age group has been established as susceptible to cults because of the pressure placed upon adolescents by their peers. "3 of the 7 respondents were members of a single, employed, parent houshold."9 Stress on a single income family can potentially be greater than that of a dual income family because of the potential for a higher net family income, and possibly less financial difficulties. This family stress could inherently cause an individual to search for a more stable home environment, and find refuge in a cult. These are the lesser known, and not as accepted theories on why people join cults. The idea that any specific social-class is more susceptible to cult membership is false. As history has shown cult members' social class can not be generalized. Social Status is no indicator of susceptibility and no defense against it. For instance, while many of the dead a Jonestown were poor, the Solar Temple favors the carriage trade. Its disciples have included the wife and son of the founder of Vuarnet sunglass company. The Branch Davidians at Waco came from many walks of life. And at Rancho Santa Fe they were paragons of the entrepreneurial class, so well organized they died in shifts.10 The reason for cult membership is obviously not entirely due to social class. Different people are drawn to different cults, just as different cults prey on different individuals. The research done at the Bethany Hills School is also not entirely accurate because the population is so small that 24 surveys cannot accurately represent most cult members. Although Dr. Melton's research provides an interesting viewpoint, his claims are still being experimented and have never been fully substantiated. His claim that cult members are young people rebelling against their parents is statistically inaccurate since 35 to 40-year-olds are one of the most common groups of cult members, and make up a large portion of the hundreds of men and women who join cults each year. Cult enlisteers target those who view themselves as a deviant from the rest of society, and give these individuals a false sense of family. Cult literature lures potential cult members by convincing them that society is an anomalous entity and that they are healthy and sound. The controlled family environment of cults appeals to potential cult members because they have all of their decisions made for them, and do not risk failure. No one is beyond the possibility of joining a cult, applicants require only a hopeless feeling of social inadequacy, a condition apt to strike anyone at some point in life. Undoutably, many cults are malicious and violent, but they do send a clear message that something is very wrong when sane, healthy people would rather burn, poison, and shoot themselves to death rather than live another moment in society. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Dalai Lama.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dalai Lama The Dalai Lama: Leader in Exile Among world leaders, there is no one like His Holiness the Dalai Lama, religious and political leader of Tibet and winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. Brought up from an unusual childhood, he became head of the state of Tibet at age 16, and was later forced into exile by the Chinese government. Despite all the hardship he had to endure he does not give up his fight for freedom and treats all sentiment beings with love and compassion. Through his fight for freedom, he has proven himself to be the spiritual and political leader whom the people of Tibet love. Thought by many a living Buddha, a God king, The XIV Dalai Lama was born in Taskter in 1937. Dalai Lama means ocean of wisdom, though Tibetans normally refer to His Holiness as Kundun, the presence. In 1950, at the age of 16, His Holiness assumed full political power when China invaded Tibet. At this young age he was faced with many hardships such as the Chinese invading Tibet, shutting down monasteries and openly beating Monks and Nuns on the street. He wrote many letters to other countries such as America and Britain asking for support and recognition of Tibet as an individual country, but was many times responded with diplomatic letters and often direct rejection. He stood up to the authorities who were oppressing his people and at the young age that he was, held his ground and asserted his people against a country that is much stronger than his own. Many feared for his life but His Holiness said that he would stand by his people no matter what. In 1959, The Dalai Lama was forced into exile, but he did not end his fight for the liberation of his people. About 100,000 people followed him into exile and he established a democratically based alternative government at Dharamsala in Punjab, India, aptly known as little Lhasa. It has cultural and educational institutions and serves as a "capital-in-exile" for 140,000 Tibetan refugees. In the past decade, the Dalai Lama has tried to negotiate with the Chinese while in the main time pleads for help where ignored by United Nations and NATO who have gone to war to defend the Kawaties, the Bosnians and others. Despite the fact that they have forsaken the Tibetan people in favor of selling products to the Chinese masses the Dalai Lama is still fighting for the freedom of his people until this day. He is 63 years old and hopes to return to his country in his lifetime. The works of The XIV Dalai Lama did not go unnoticed. In 1989 he received the Nobel Peace Prize for consistently championing policies of nonviolence and human rights in his own beleaguered country as well as in other strife-torn areas of the world. He is the first Nobel Laureate to be recognized for his concerns for global environmental problems. The Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people. His holiness, accepting the Nobel peace Prize, remarked: "The prize reaffirms our conviction that with truth, courage, and determination as our weapons, Tibet will be liberated. Our struggle must remain non violent and free of hatred." Dalai Lamas are the manifestations of compassion, the Bodhisattva Chenrezig. They are enlightened beings who choose to take rebirth rather than pass into Nirvana, in order to help all sentiment beings and to serve humanity. They serve as spiritual and religious leaders to the people of Tibet who have practiced non-violence for over 1000 years. His Holiness describes himself as "A simple Buddhist monk, no more, no less." People are touched by his simplicity and warmth. His constant message is the importance of love, compassion, and forgiveness. He held teachings and spoke of spiritual enlightenment, the purpose of life, Happiness and peace. No one has ever attended one of his teachings with out feeling changed by the experience. He speaks with confidence and preaches with compassion. He believes that qualities such as love, kindness, compassion and a sense of universal responsibility can be developed by everyone with or without religion. Despite the fact that His Holiness is worshiped by many as the reincarnation of a Buddha he holds a modest and humble attitude. "I myself am just a human being, and incidentally a Tibetan, who chooses to be a Buddhist monk" To the Dalai Lama he is here for a purpose and he has found that purpose- to serve his people and humanity. The words and wisdom of His Holiness the Dalai Lama should be seriously considered. Whether or not he is the reincarnation of Buddha, he has proven himself to be a great leader to the Tibetan people, risking his own life for the sake of his people and their liberation. He deserve the recognition he got because he was an incredible leader both politically and spiritually during one of the hardest times in Tibetan history. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\David and Goliath 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ David and Goliath The story of David and Goliath can be thought of as a timeless tale of 1) good versus evil and 2) the fact that the win does not always go to the strongest or biggest, it goes to the most determined or strong willed. David, the good spirited fighter who wanted to save the Israelites from Goliath, for example, was eager, confident, and prepared to win, as described in 1 Samuel 17:48 - "David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine". David was a hero to the Israelites because he was able to kill Goliath, who had "come up to defy Israel" (1 Samuel 17:25). Although Goliath was a large, experienced fighter with a sword, David, determined to save the Israelites from Goliath's evils. David mentions that Goliath had defied the armies of the living God, and for that he would be punished. David's strength, it seems, dwelled in "the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel" (1 Samuel 17:45). However, Goliath was dependent on the power of weapons, and was sure that a sword and spear would win the battle. It's difficult to say what this meant to the Hebrews, but I interpreted it as symbolizing that the superiority and strength of their Lord was stronger than was any weapon. I gathered this, since one of the statements mentioned in 1 Samuel was: "the Lord does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord's and he will give you into our hand" (17:47). Since the Lord's followers were the Israelites, the Lord savedhis people from harm through sending David to conquer Goliath. The story of David and Goliath is a tale still told in modern day. I assume it signifies the fact that the winner of a battle isn't always the strongest, the fastest, or the one with the most weapons. The winner, instead, is the one who intelligently finds a way to make use of the resources that are available to him, and use these resources (the rocks, in this particular story), to gain triumph. I also found an ironic twist in this story when David uses the enemy's weapon to stab and decapitate Goliath. It just seems amusing that after Goliath has passed out from being pelted by rocks, he is unconscious and cannot use his own sword to defend himself. It seems to be a typical cliché, but this story is a reminder of the fact that sometimes, what you consider your greatest strengths can end up hurting you more than helping you. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\David and Goliath.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The story of David and Goliath can be thought of as a timeless tale of 1) good versus evil and 2) the fact that the win does not always go to the strongest or biggest, it goes to the most determined or strong willed. David, the good spirited fighter who wanted to save the Israelites from Goliath, for example, was eager, confident, and prepared to win, as described in 1 Samuel 17:48 - "David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine". David was a hero to the Israelites because he was able to kill Goliath, who had "come up to defy Israel" (1 Samuel 17:25). Although Goliath was a large, experienced fighter with a sword, David, determined to save the Israelites from Goliath's evils. David mentions that Goliath had defied the armies of the living God, and for that he would be punished. David's strength, it seems, dwelled in "the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel" (1 Samuel 17:45). However, Goliath was dependent on the power of weapons, and was sure that a sword and spear would win the battle. It's difficult to say what this meant to the Hebrews, but I interpreted it as symbolizing that the superiority and strength of their Lord was stronger than was any weapon. I gathered this, since one of the statements mentioned in 1 Samuel was: "the Lord does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord's and he will give you into our hand" (17:47). Since the Lord's followers were the Israelites, the Lord saved his people from harm through sending David to conquer Goliath. The story of David and Goliath is a tale still told in modern day. I assume it signifies the fact that the winner of a battle isn't always the strongest, the fastest, or the one with the most weapons. The winner, instead, is the one who intelligently finds a way to make use of the resources that are available to him, and use these resources (the rocks, in this particular story), to gain triumph. I also found an ironic twist in this story when David uses the enemy's weapon to stab and decapitate Goliath. It just seems amusing that after Goliath has passed out from being pelted by rocks, he is unconscious and cannot use his own sword to defend himself. It seems to be a typical cliché, but this story is a reminder of the fact that sometimes, what you consider your greatest strengths can end up hurting you more than helping you. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Day of the Dead 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Day of the Dead The Day of the Dead is a very special day for the Spanish speaking world. This day is more popular for Mexican people, it is more traditional in their heritage. It occurs on the first of November. People put offerings out for the dead in the form of fruit and certain other things that the specific person liked. The day of the dead is not a day grief nor does it have to do with anything tragic for the Spanish speaking world, actually it is a day of joy and happiness. It is celebrated all over. People wear bright colors and masks as well as elaborate clothing. People can even make a business by selling things associated with death, some of these things can include candy skulls and paper- mache masks which later were made out of plastic. There is actually two days that are celebrated with death. There is one for children and one for all the rest of the people. The day for children is celebrated for all the kids that died young. The offerings change for this day. Instead of more adult-like things, this day is associated with candy and more "fun" foods. Whereas the day for adults. Some people even put out Beer and cigarettes, it depends on what the person used to like in his or her lifetime. Our heritage does not even like the word death, but the Spanish people look at it as a whole different perspective. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Day of the dead.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Day of the dead is a very special day for the Spanish speaking world. This day is more popular for Mexican people, it is more traditional in their heritage. It occurs on the first of November. People put offerings out for the dead in the form of fruit and certain other things that the specific person liked. The day of the dead is not a day grief nor does it have to do with anything tragic for the Spanish speaking world, actually it is a day of joy and happiness. It is celebrated all over. People wear bright colors and masks as well as elaborate clothing. People can even make a business by selling things associated with death, some of these things can include candy skulls and paper-mache masks which later were made out of plastic. There is actually two days that are celebrated with death. There is one for children and one for all the rest of the people. The day for children is celebrated for all the kids that died young. The offerings change for this day. Instead of more adult-like things, this day is associated with candy and more "fun" foods. Whereas the day for adults. Some people even put out Beer and cigarettes, it depends on what the person used to like in his or her lifetime. Our heritage does not even like the word death, but the Spanish people look at it as a whole different perspective. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Deep Ecology And Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Deep Ecology And Religion Through this portion of class readings and discussions, we have sought deeper meaning and understanding of philosophies of individuals and organizations that revolve around the fundamental aspects and notions of deep ecology and eco-activism. These associations offer more views and attitudes on how an individual and society can create and maintain a kinship and positive influence with the natural environment. Like deep ecologist's view on the metaphysical relationship of man and nature. Eco-activist's contend to a belief of "ecology as religion"(Kinsley 193). They take their duty with the environment as a deeply spiritual, physical, and emotional connection. Specifically, an environmental-action group called Green Peace, brings forth a new term called "planetary consciousness"(Kinsley 199). This consciousness parallels the views of deep ecologists by means that they believe and affirm the inter-dependence and significance of all living things. This planetary consciousness outlines and proclaims that individuals and society must learn to respect the entire earth as an integral and animated system, this respect must equal the respect each individual shows themselves. This view is reasonable and valid and allows mankind a more intimate, religious, and personal vantage of the living world. However, the application of this lifestyle and relationship to the majority of society seems inconceivable. Since humanity cannot even maintain an intimate relationship with another individual, for instance the ever-increasing rate of divorce and separations in marriages. This matrimony has been viewed as sacred throughout the history of humanity yet infidelity and divorce remain severely high. While society's view of nature, as a revered and animated character is still frequently unfamiliar and unpracticed. Therefore, it seems implausible for immediate action to occur because based on the history of mankind's slow and inflexible ability to change their behavior and conduct. Max Oelschlaeger claimed in The Sacred Earth that "the modern person has lost sight of the sacredness of creation"(539). This accurate statement can be furthered that mankind has lost touch with the sacredness in all relationships, most importantly with themselves. Therefore, in order to change an individual's perceptions on the natural world they must first reanalyze and reconstruct their image and behavior of and towards themselves. Through our readings and in class speaker a notion arose that I believe will aid and promote this idea of "planetary consciousness". This objective is to start with a small or local community to implement the redefinition of nature's role with mankind instead of losing the context. This will allow the opinions and assumptions towards the planetary consciousness to slowly penetrate the 'roots' of society. An example of the type of movement to start changing ideology locally is "bio-regionalism" movement which aims to rebuild our cosmology locally and putting a greater emphasis on an individual's place in the natural world particularly the resources that immediately surround them. This idea of finding your place is an exceptional solution for an individual to get back in touch with nature further it will allow an individual to have a deeper connection and knowledge with the people that encircle them. Chad Myer, who spoke to our class about Bioregionalism claims that economic globalization, has led us to displacement with people, environment, and ourselves. This globalization stemmed from the colonization of America. As the Europeans migrated the sense of individuality rose while the sense of belonging decreased. In order to reverse this individualism "Bio-regionalism" and Green Peace and other deep ecology organizations believe that society should reconstruct their lifestyle's and belief's to image that of the Indigenous Americans. Utilizing their conception of nature as kin and taking on a lifestyle that is both nurturing and respectful to the environment. Specifically, the Native American Indian's way of life that utilizes and upholds their immediate surroundings. Through the habitude of acquiring their food, shelter, and clothing the Indian's appreciated and respected the environment that provided their life necessities. The Indian's therefore protected and maintained their neighboring natural environment. The leaders of Green Peace apply the principles from a specific indigenous culture known as the Cree. In our prior studies in class, we learned that the Cree's fundamental principles revolve around mankind's righteous inhabitation of the land. This intrinsic relationship allowed the Cree's to have a greater understanding and respect with the land and natural resources that surrounded them. To create increased awareness of a community's natural surroundings is a fundamental principle in redefining and reconstructing an individual's perception and actions to the environment. Once an individual forms even a small relationship or understanding of their natural surroundings they will be able to experience a sense of belonging and devotion to the environment which will allow them to seek to preserve it. Chad Myer's presented a few suggestions and thoughts on how to apply these bio-regionalist thoughts. Such as learning and experiencing our immediate natural surroundings: ocean, bay, hills, trees. Also, to utilize our native food supply from our community, such as acorns and artichokes from the bay area. Myer's also promoted the idea of buying produce from local farmers to encourage a stonger connection with the community. It is difficult to convince society to retreat from a market economy where you can purchase a wide variety of food and products at a competitive cost to buying locally where the cost is usually higher and the selection is much lower. However, it is possible for society to begin and adapt slowly to purchasing locally grown produce. By taking small steps, such as an individual purchasing a few of their products a week through a local farmer will allow and individual to gradually contribute financially and emotionally to their community. Further, they will become more aware of the land and local farmers, which will create a greater desire in an individual to maintain their commerce locally. Therefore, in order to implement a planetary consciousness or respect for our animate environment we must start within our own communities. By first learning and understanding, the immediate natural environment an individual can then be able to grasp a better awareness on larger or worldlier environmental preservation. To attack or fight environmental destruction on a larger scope can often frighten or obscure society's view or conduct towards preservation. The eco-activist group, Earth First, is an organization that tries to grasp the world's attention through radical actions to save the environment. Their beliefs are extended from deep ecologist thought believing that every non-human entity deserves the same rights and respect as humans. This organization will give society a jaded notion on how to preserve the environment through their violent actions and protests. Their code claims that they will abide by "any and all means" to resist the destruction of the natural world (Kinsley 200). Their acts will definitely be noticed by society through media but I feel many will close their eyes to the fundamental idea Earth First is trying to represent because of their radical and malicious acts. Though this organization is acting for the higher good of the environment, they are putting other humans in danger, which is not a justifiable or principled achievement. Therefore, in order to reconstruct an individual's view to a more positive and respectful relationship with environment we must teach and act non-violently, unlike the organization Earth First, and apply the principles of bio-regionalism, Green Peace, and deep ecology. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Definition of religion and defense.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Definition of religion and defense Definition of Religion: Religion is norms,values, or a way of life to an individual or community. A spiritual guide that governs the way a person lives from day to day by giving that person hope, belief, and reason to exist in this world. Religion can be whatever that person makes of it. Religion can be a persons assets, family, or other individuals or possessions, it can be many things besides worship to a "God" or "Deity". It can be whatever a person deems holy or sacred. Defense: "Religion is norms, values, or a way of life to an individual or community". This can be defended by taking a look at they way most religious people live. Many people live accordingly to there religions rules and regulations. This includes Buddhists, Muslims, Mennonites, and Amish just to point out a few. Not only in dress and in possessions but people who respect their religions live by their religion's rules. "A spiritual guide that governs the way a person lives from day to day by giving that person hope, belief, and a reason to exist in this world." Religion can give an individual codes to live. It can give a person hope, belief, and a reason to exist by making the individual feel loved or cared about by their religion or their religious deities. It can also give them hope and belief by feeling included within a group of individuals that share their same views. By giving them a reason to exist religions give an individual something to look forward to after death and purpose for being on earth. "Religion can be whatever a person makes of it. Religion can be a persons assets, family, or other individuals and possessions, it can be many things besides worship to a "God" or "Deity"." Religion can mean different things for different people. It can be a rich mans money, poor mans shelter, a mad mans weapons. Many people or cultures worships numerous "gods" for different occasions. Some people worship the earth or animals while many other individuals worship other "people" or "mortals". A persons religion can be what they make it. "It can be whatever a person deems holy or sacred." By determining what is holy or sacred to the individual they can choose to make that their religion. Whether it be a feeling of enlightenment or a persons bank account, the individual has the right to make what they consider holy their religion. Not saying it is wrong or right because it is all based on a matter of opinion and belief. Much like my definition of religion. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Deicide.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You are walking down a crowded street on a gloomy evening when you come upon a mass of people listening intently to the preaching of a man. The man has an up-side-down cross branded on his forehead. He is screeching his recitation at the people in a demented angry voice. His lessons consist of the following: Pathetic lives, every second someone dies. Delightful is the sight of repention. No destiny, just a certain death. In pain inducing lies salvation. Never repent... In the name of Satan I condemn this image of god... All christians are destroyed. Unguided by the light. The Satanist rejoice. Revocate me!... Revocate the agitator.1 Perhaps most disturbing about the situation is the look of utter devotion many of the young people in the crowd have in their eyes. They believe this mans thoughts and ideas and look to him for guidance. As the intensity of the situation elevates the mass of people begin to violently slam into each other in a chaotic ceremonial dance. The purpose of the dance is to cause and endure as much physical pain as possible. The dance eventually gets so extreme that a young man in the crowd snaps his neck and dies. The man does not stop his ravings and the crowd doesn't stop their dance. Instead the man becomes entirely deranged, screaming at the body of the young man that he is now going to hell where he rot in flames of agony for eternity. The crowd roars and the man laughs. What do you suppose would now transpire? At the very least the man and the crowd would be arrested. More than likely there would be several charges of third degree murder laid, certainly with several convictions. The preacher would most likely be taken to a hospital for a psychological examination, be diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic, and be placed into an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. The event described above did occur2, the man recounted does exist and the ritual dance and corresponding death did transpire. However, no charges were pressed, no psychological evaluations were made, the victim was simply given a funeral and the matter was dropped. The account above was able to occur because it took place in a universe completely apart from that of the civil universe - the entertainment universe. In the entertainment universe their is practically no law and no limitation. Anything and everything goes. Rape, murder, graphic torture scenes, child molestation, all this and more are a common theme. The discourse of the artists is exhibited to the mass populace in movie theaters, prime time television and auditoriums filled with thousands of people. The lunacy is able to occur because we control it. It's the mass populace that buys the records, watches the movies and pays the salaries of the artists. It's what we want to see, hear and feel because the entertainment universe consists of our very own nightmares and dreams. It is that which we desire most but can't have. It is the freedom and anarchy we all long for. The mass populace at large are the ecclesia of the entertainment universe. The entertainment universe is spread and taught to the populace through it's own unique priesthood - the media. Without the media the universe would not have the ability to expand and influence at such an enormous level and hence, without the media the entertainment universe would not enjoy the freedom it relishes in. The media also serve as the law enforcers of what little code exists within the universe. The media tell the public the actions of the entertainers, watching their every move, mistake and good will and it is the media alone who have the power to destroy an entertainer. Moreover, it is the media which influences the public and it is the public which sustains the universe and its ability to exist. In conclusion a very powerful and bizarre universe has been revealed and labeled as the entertainment universe. The universe has within it the symbols of freedom, anarchy and the ability to portray the lives which we the populace dream of. Many rituals are present including the dance known as moshing and the divine presence with which the public regard the entertainers. The universe creates the myth of paradise and perfection and hence creates a definite cosmos where those within it are able to live an existence entirely different from that of any other universe. Moreover, the artists have a unique self-identity and self-perception from which they identify themselves and the public identify them. A very powerful aspect of this universe is the media, which is not only a distinctive symbol, but also the enforcers and priesthood of the cosmos. The universe is sustained and able to exist through the support of the mass populace or it's ecclesia, which is utterly reliant upon the media to decree what is good and evil within the entertainment universe. The entertainment universe is a thorough and complete example of how we as a species legitimate marginal situations and relish in the freedom unavailable to the common man. However, the freedom of the artist would not exist were it not for the dreams and wishes of the common man. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Devils.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Devils Angel and Devil on your shoulders The Screwtape Letters, by C.S. Lewis, is a book that deals with human nature and Christian faith. It takes a view on human nature from the devils perspective. The book is in form of a collection of letters written by Screwtape addressed to his nephew, Wormwood. The letters are advises to Wormwood on how to lure his "patient" to Hell. Through the letters, Lewis showed that as devils are working hard to make human sin, God's Angels are working harder to save our soul. He did not loss his faith in God. The main characters of the book are Screwtape, a senior demon, and his nephew Wormwood. Wormwood is a junior tempter, who is facing his first assignment: Damn a young Englishman. We learned about the "patient" through Screwtape's letters; he seems like a very ordinary person. My favorite character is Screwtape. Although he is a demon, he knows his work, ha has the knowledge of human nature and how to manipulate it. For instance, he describes the relationship between the man and his mother, while they are both annoyed by each other. He was able to put his hands on how each feels he or she is right when neither one of them is. He advised Wormwood on steps to take to influence the man in encouraging the feelings of rightfulness in him, which results a larger cap between the man and his mother. Through out the letters, they are filled with such insights. Another case is when the man started to attend church, which in Screwtape's words is a "minor defeat". He instructs Wormwood to keep the man's mind from realizing there is someone greater than him by having him focus on himself. As the book goes on, we could see it clearer that he could be any one of us. I saw a reflection of myself in him (which may not be a good sign). I realized I draw a cap between the people I love and myself, and where I have been focusing too much on myself. This is a great book for those who are not Christians like me, because the theme is a little out of ordinary. It is not a love story, nor a story with a hero in it. It simply makes me think twice about what I am doing with my life, and makes me wanting to be a better person. I may not have to be like the man to live my life in prayers, but I can start with loving and helping others. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Different Religions.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Different Religions Since the dawn of man, people have had their own forms of religion. Be it simple ceremonial burial or complex blessing rituals, each person had their own way to explain the wonders of nature like, how did we come here and what our purpose here was. Another thing that each individual person had was their own morals. Morals are what define a civilization. Labels like peaceful or barbaric are put on different civilizations because of their morals. The morality of each civilization defined their religious beliefs. The lives of people who lived in the early ancient history time period were tough. They had to roam the land always looking for new game to hunt and plants and berries to gather. The people weren't united because of all this traveling, and therefore contact with other people was minimal. Morals are hard to develop without much contact with other people and so the religion of these early people was minimal. Then came the development of farming into this time period. Farming brought the people together. Small cities began to develop because the people didn't have to move around as much. With all this closeness, the people developed moral views on what to think about thieves or murderers. If certain civilizations didn't mind violence and killing, then they developed into a Brutal civilization. Consequently, the religions of these civilizations were evolved around sacrificial rituals and allegiance to brutal gods. The Assyrian civilization worked around this principle. They used scare tactics to overcome their enemies and treated their captives badly. They also believed in powerful gods who they feared. If certain civilizations became peaceful, then their religion reflected their peaceful nature and didn't have things like sacrifices. The people in peaceful civilizations believed in their religion because they wanted to not because they were afraid to. A good example of this is the Hebrews. The Hebrews were a peaceful people who disliked violence. Because of this peaceful nature, their religion taught values like brotherhood, charity, human dignity, and universal peace. Violent cultures cause violent religions and peaceful cultures create peaceful religion The Greeks were a peaceful civilization. They believed in the idea of democracy and they strongly believed in philosophy. This gave them plenty of time to contemplate about things like morality and religion. Their morals were always related to individual freedom, because they stressed a person's right to criticize, be curious, and be different. Thus, their religion of many gods supported their way of life. Each god would represent a different aspect of life. Kind of like each person is different and represents good and bad in different degrees. The Greeks believed in people being different and their religion involves many different gods. The Romans were very much like the Greeks. They were ruled by a senate for most of their reign, but towards the end were ruled by dictatorship. They were composed of many different cultures and were very tolerant of the different customs and beliefs. This acceptance of many different cultures explains their religious beliefs. First the Romans had a religion with a few main gods like Janus and Jupiter and thousands of little gods like the god of fever and the god of gold coins. Then, as the Roman power expanded, Greek influence grew. So the Romans stole many of the Greek myths and legends and applied them to the Roman gods. This pleased the people for a little while, but they began to become dissatisfied by the old religion. Finally, Christianity began to get converts. Because of the accepted diversity of the Roman empire, the religious beliefs changed with the changing morality of its people. The Middle Ages provide the best support for the thesis. It shows how the church adapted to changing morals. During the Middle Ages, there was a decline in intelligence as a chief moral. This era is even sometimes referred to as the 'Dark Ages'. People became more superstitious. The control of land and money became a big part of everybody's life. This was reflected in the changes that occurred in the Catholic church. The church evolved to become the learning center for the people. The church also started collecting taxes and serving as a hospital for the sick. These changes in the church were brought about by a change in morals. The word Renaissance means rebirth. The Renaissance period in Europe was a rebirth of ideas. Europe mainly had customs and institutions before the Renaissance, but after the Renaissance period got started, it sparked a revolution. This revolution also created a change in religious beliefs. The morals of many people had started to change. Many people started to feel that the church wasn't for them. These people broke off from the church and formed their own religions. One such person is Martin Luther. Luther openly stated ninety-five reasons why he didn't like the church. He went off and formed Luthernism. During the Renaissance, because of the changing morals, religion had to change. The morality of each civilization created their religious beliefs. It is obvious with all of these civilizations, that this holds true. The people from the Ancient Historical time period formed many little colonies. The religion of these colonies changed with the views of the people in them. If the people liked violence, then their gods became powerful to scare them into believing. If the people like peace, then their gods became peaceful and used good ideas to get them to follow. The morals of the Greeks were believing in independence and being different. It isn't a coincidence that their religion contains many different gods each with its own personality and skills, like humans. The Roman culture dealt with so many different cultures, that its morals were frequently changing. The Romans changed their religion three times. During the Middle Ages, there was a decline of intelligence, cleanliness, and overall morals. The church became the tax collection agency, the hospital, and the school, which is a direct correlation between the decline in morals. So the increase in power of the church in the Middle Ages was because of a change in morals. The Renaissance was a rebirth of ideas and morality. These changes had the greatest effect on the church, which had grown strong in the Middle Ages. The peoples changing morals forced them to adopt new religions like Luthernism and Protestantism. Morals are what define a human being. They become present in every part of life, especially religion. Because civilization is moving so fast forward, peoples morals are changing rapidly too. When peoples morals change, it changes their whole life. That is why there have been so many different religions in the past. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Dinition For Satanism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dinition For Satanism Most religions like Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam have well defined meanings on exception is Satanism. Most people have their own definition for Satanism. Some people feel that non-Christian religions and all Christian denominations other than their own are forms of Satanism. This would imply that all Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and Jews. In fact at least 75% of the world's population would be Satanists. Others feel that all religions other than Judaism or Christianity are inspired by Satan and thus are forms of Satanism. This would still leave the vast majority of people in the world being Satanists. Large numbers of people feel that a wide variety of unrelated, benign religions (such as Santeria and other Caribbean religions, Druidism, New Age, Wicca, ect.) are forms of Satanism. Such definitions create great confusion. The following are recommended terms and descriptions for four essentially unrelated religions that have been called Satanism. The first is Religious Satanism, This faith includes the recognition of Satan either as a deity or as a principle. Three main denominations exist: the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, and the Church of Satanic Liberation. Other short lived Satanic groups currently exist and have existed in the recent past. According to Statistic Canada, the 1991 census found 335 Canadians who identified themselves as Satanists. The actual Number is probably significantly larger. A United States Department of the Army pamphlet #165-13 "RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES OF CERTAIN SELECTED GROUPS - A HANDBOOK FOR CHAPLAINS" (1978 - April) estimated that there were 10 to 20 thousand members of the Church of Satan in the United States. Accurate data is impossible to estimate, since the largest group (The Church of Satan) does not release its membership totals. It is important to realize that the Satan they recognize has few if any point s of similarity with the Christian concept of Satan. The Satanists' concept of Satan is pre-Christian, and derived from the Pagan image of power, virility, sexuality and sensuality. To most Satanists, Satan is a force of nature, not a living quasi-deity. Their Satan has nothing to do with Hell, demons, pitchforks or profound evil. The image of Satanism spawned by Christianity is called Gothic Satanism. It is an imaginary and profoundly evil religion that was invented during the late Middle Ages. Concepts included ritual killing of children, selling their soul to the devil, breaking crucifixes, conducting black masses, ect. It has never existed in the past, and does not exist today, except in the imagination of the public. Another form of Satanism is Teen Satanism: A syncretistic religion which is a blend of Religious Satanism, Gothic Satanism, ceremonial magick, and any other useful sources of ritual that they can find. It is practiced by rebellious teenagers or young adults - typically for a short interval. They probably number in the tens or hundreds of thousands at any one time in North America. An exact estimate is impossible to obtain, since they are totally devoid of any central organization. They occasionally engage in minor criminal activities such as vandalizing cemeteries and graffiti involving Satanic symbols. In rare instances, a few have been known to sacrifice animals. Other types of Satanism: Occasionally, serial murderers will claim to be Satanists in order to justify their horrendous activities. Police investigation reveals that they know little about the religion. A small percentage of child molesters will abuse children in a Satanic setting as a means of controlling the victims. The molesters are not actual Satanists; they are simply using the facade of Satanism to further their criminal acts. Some heavy metal rock bands pretend to be associated with Satanism. Their main reason is to gain notoriety in order to sell more records. These tree forms of quasi-Satanic groups will not be dealt with any further in this report Modern Satanism is generally (though mistakenly) regarded as a creation of Aleister Crowley (1875 - 1947). Aleister was in fact a very prominent ceremonial magician who based his rituals largely upon Judeo-Christian principles. He was raised in a Plymouth Brethren family, but developed an early dislike of organized Christianity. After university, he joined the Order of the Golden Dawn, which practiced magick (ceremonial magic) based on: The Kaballah (or Cabbalahl), a Jewish mystical tradition, Rosicrucianism (a mystical blend of alchemy, Hinduism, and Judaism), Free masonry ( a men's fraternal organization), and Theosophy (a Gnostic tradition believing in a common thread that links all religions). He was later kicked out of the Golden Dawn and later joined the Ordo Templi Orients (OTO) , which blended ceremonial magick, sex magick, and Freemasonry. Crowley reveled in notoriety, billing himself as the Wickedest Man in the World and the Great Beast 666 of Revelation. He is alleged in to have committed at least one animal sacrifice, experimented with many illegal drugs and engaged in countless sexual orgies. It is not known how much of this actually happened, and how much is imaginary and created to satisfy his insatiable desire for publicity. His prime aim was to contact his Holy Guardian Angel Aiwaz. He did not consider himself a Satanist. He was a prolific writer on magick. Many Satanists have incorporated portions of his books into their own rituals. Many authors and TV personalities have stated that Crowley was the first Satanist, even though evidence points to the contrary. Modern Satanism really begins with Anton Szandor La Vey (1930 - ??). On Walpurgisnacht, April 30 1966 (I Anno Satanas) he created of the Church of Satan. Anton drew on his previous experience as a lion tamer and side show barker, and on his readings into psychology, magick, ect., and wrote the Satanic Bible in 1969. This was followed by The Compleat Witch (1970) (later republished as The Satanic Witch) and The Satanic Rituals (1972). These are essentially the only available books which accurately describe Satanism. There have been enormous numbers of books about Satanism written by Fundamentalist or other Evangelical Christians. However, they are usually filled with misinformation derived from the Witch burning times in Europe (circa 1450 - 1792) rather than from any present or past reality. In 1975, one of La Vey's followers, Michael Aquino left the Church after a disagreement, and organized the Temple of Set. This form of religious Satanism recognize a pre-Satanic deity, the Egyptian god Set as an entity which stands separate apart from the forces of the natural universe. He was typically portrayed as a man witch the head of an animal (perhaps a hyena). Set was copied by the Chaldeans who called him Had or Hadit; this later became Shaitan, and still later the Satan of Christianity. At the core of the Church of Satan are the nine Satanic Statements, written by Anton La Vey. In abridged form they state that Satan represents: 1. indulgence, not abstinence 2. vital existence, not spiritual pipe dreams, 3. undefiled wisdom, not hypocritical self-deceit 4. kindness to those deserving of it, not love wasted on ingrates 5. vengeance, not turning the other cheek 6 responsibility to the responsible, instead for concern for psychic vampires 8. gratification of all of ones desires 9. the best friend tat the Christian Church has had has he has kept it in business for centuries The Temple of Set is based on its own 21 Satanic points, which have much in common with the Satanic Church, but many differences too. I) Respect not pity or weakness, for they are a disease which makes the strong sick. II) Test always your strength, for therein lies success. III) Seek happiness in victory - but never in peace. IV) Enjoy a short rest, better than a long. V) Come as a reaper, for thus will sow. VI)Never love anything so much you cannot see it die. VII) Build not upon sand but upon rock, and build not for today or yesterday but for all time. VIII) Strive ever for more, for conquest is never done. IX) Die rather Submit. X) Forge not works of are but swords of death, for therein lies great art. XI) Learn to raise yourself above yourself so you can triumph over all. XII) The blood of the living makes good fertilizer for the seeds of the new. XIII) He who stands atop the highest pyramid of skulls can see the furthest. XIV) Discard not love but treat it as an impostor, but ever be just. XV) All that is great is built upon sorrow. XVI) Strive not only forwards, but upwards for greatness lies in the highest. XVII) Come as a fresh strong wind that breaks yet also creates. XVIII) Let love of life be a goal but let your highest goal be greatness. XIX) Nothing is beautiful except man: but most beautiful of all is woman. XX) Reject all illusion and lies, for they hinder the strong. XXI) What does not kill makes stronger. More of El Vey's theology contains the following concepts: Heaven and Hell do not exist, Satan is unrelated to the modern concept of the Christian devil. They look upon him as a god who represents the carnal, earthy, and mundane aspects of life, Satan is not a being, it is a force of nature, Ritual killing is not allowed, blood drawn from a victim is useless, victims are killed symbolically not actually; human life is held in sacred regard. The highest of all Satanic holidays is the birthday of the Satanist, Walpurgustnacht (April 30). Holidays of less importance are Halloween (October 31), Solstices of June and December, and Equinoxes in March and September. Local groups of Satanists are usually called grottos or temples, They correspond to Christian congregations and Wiccan covens. Their rituals do not include Black Mass (a parody of Roman Catholic sirvices) actually there are few, if any elements which ridicule or invert the beliefs or practices of Christianity or of any other religion. As you may see, society and the Christian Church have made many believe in the misconception that all Satanists are evil and the Satanic Church is a vile organization bent on destroying Christianity and perverting the world, when actually it is just a religion that, to a point practices religious toleration, and doesn't present a threat to you or anyone else. By doing this report, I would like to state that in no way do I condone Satanism, nor am I a member of the Church of Satan. I just wanted to point out some misconceptions that many have about Satanism, and I hope I didn't offend anyone by doing this report. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Discipleship.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Discipleship At the mention of the word "disciple", the image most people conjure up is that of a faithful pupil, a person more than willing to follow the teachings of their leader without question. However, the early disciples didn't always conform to this stereotype. In fact, they sometimes showed a complete lack of faith, finding it extremely hard to accept Jesus' word in their hearts. Jesus appointed twelve disciples to symbolize each of the twelve tribes of Israel. In doing so, it were as if he were replacing the Old Judaism with his new covenant. This symbolized a new, more personal relationship with God through his Son Jesus Christ. In choosing his apostles, Jesus showed us that the call is open to all of us, as his chosen twelve all had a different trade, and led varying ways of life. With such a mixed group, it is no wonder there were a few differences of opinion. A good example is the relationship between Simon the Zealot, and Matthew the tax collector. While Zealots were political freedom fighters, tax collectors were the hated collaborates of the Romans. Therefore you can imagine that tax collectors and zealots, if left to their own devices, were normally sworn enemies. However, Matthew and Simon still managed to live relatively peaceful lives together, putting into practice the commandment "love thy neighbor as thyself". They were called, and rose to the challenge of that call by their commitment to respond. It was not necessary to posses any special quality to be a disciple of Jesus, and they were all of them far from perfect. Take Peter for example. He wasn't particularly quick-witted. In fact, he often had trouble grasping the message Jesus was trying to get across, as shown in the Parables, where in the Parable of the Sower, (Mk 4:1-9), he found it no easier then the rest of the disciples to understand God's message. Neither did he have unquestionable faith. He demonstrates this (as did the other disciples) when they were all in a boat together with Jesus in the middle of Lake Galilee on a particularly stormy night. He and the other disciples became so frantic with worry that they decided to wake Jesus (who was sleeping peacefully with his head on a pillow) (Mk 4:35-41) . Surely, if you cannot feel safe when you have the Son of God asleep in the same boat as you, you never will! Another example of Peter displaying a serious lapse of faith is when he denied Jesus three times, even after as we learn in Mark, chapter 8, taking part in the wholly religious experience of the Transfiguration. Despite all these faults however, and many more, he was still appointed as the first Pope of the Roman Catholic church, and eventually ended up dying for his beliefs (Acts of the Apostles). At that time, this was not unusual, as many Christians were being persecuted for their beliefs. A man named Mark soon realized that in order to keep the Christian faith alive and strong, he would have to write the Gospel down. However, Mark's Gospel is not a biography. He did not include every minor detail, but only the points about Jesus that he thought were helpful for his community to cope with persecution. For this reason, I will be using Mark's Gospel as reference material throughout this essay, and also because there is a sense in which Mark's gospel, with the intention of giving testimony to the Good News, also provides a really effective teaching manual for his early church readership. I have already shown that from Mark's Gospel we learn that the call to discipleship is open to all, in Christ's broad selection of people and personalities -- ranging from fiery, hard working fishermen, to a tax collector and a political agitator. Mark also shows his readers that a 'crisis of faith' is okay. After all, if Peter provides the model we all need to remember (as did those poor persecuted early Christians) is that it was Peter's persevearance that pulled him through. His heart was in the right place, and he did'nt give up! Mark's Gospel therefore provides a great deal of information that teaches us about the nature of discipleship, so from reading it we can also choose to respond (or not) to what we learn about the meaning of being a disciple of Christ. The disciples found it incredibly hard to understand that their job was to build the Kingdom of God here on Earth. Most of them had a vision of Jesus as a type of warrior king, a knight in shining armour who would lead them to battle to finally free them from Roman rule. They failed to understand that Jesus' kingdom was based on love, and not on power or greatness. By far the worst offenders were James and John, sons of Zebedee. We learn, in Mark Chapter 10, that they came to Jesus and told him "there is something we want you to do for us." When Jesus asked "What is it?" they replied "When you sit on your throne in your glorious Kingdom, we want you to let us sit with you, one at your right and one at your left." So Jesus called his disciples together and told them "If one of you wants to be great, he must be the servant to the rest, and if one of you wants to be first, he must be the slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served; he came to serve and give his life to redeem many people." Jesus demonstrated all this by taking a child and stating to his disciples "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Jesus uses a child as an example, as they are trusting and open minded, the qualities needed for a good disciple. Small children also understand the concept of love better than that of war, meaning we should all become as innocent and open minded as little children to enter the Kingdom of God. However, as people grow older, they lose these crucial qualities, and the disciples were no exceptions. Gradually, the disciples had to start learning to rely on God alone. They were told by Jesus on their journey to spread the word of God to not "take anything with you on your journey except a stick, no bread, no beggar's bag, no money in your pocket. Wear sandals, but don't carry an extra shirt." (Mk ch 6:6b-13). Forbidding them to take a begging bag reduced the temptation of collecting money dishonestly. (This is a further indication that the disciples were as suceptible to temptation as the rest of us.) They needed to be aware of the great importance and urgency of the journey, and therefore if they are made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in any house, they are instructed to "shake the dust of your feet when you leave it." This mission required much faith, but then again their faith must have been very strong if they had already "left their nets and followed him," or "left father Zebedee in the boat with hired men." Needless to say, they didn't literally get up and follow Jesus as soon as he asked them to. It is more likely they would have admired Jesus and his way of life beforehand, and not just begin to show an interest when he said "Come follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." The reason Mark makes it seem that way in his Gospel is because he is trying to underline just how much charisma Jesus had, and how much faith the disciples had. James and John even left their obviously wealthy father with "hired hands", as they realized that material wealth was no substitute for real happiness, which they believed they could achieve if they became followers of Jesus. So in this, Mark is giving us a lesson in the nature of faith and commitment. However, Jesus and his disciples didn't always see eye to eye, especially when Jesus' teachings strongly contradicted Jewish ones. On one occasion, they were told by Jesus that it was imperative that they detach themselves from any obstacle which may bridge a gap between their relationship with God and each other, including, in some cases, riches and material possessions. The disciples found this difficult to accept, as the Jewish idea was that if you were well off in life, you were "blessed" by God. Therefore, it is no wonder they found it hard to adjust to the idea "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." An example is the story of the Rich Young Man, who sought Jesus out, and asked to know what he must do to inherit eternal life. To that, Jesus answered that he must obey all the commandments. When the rich young man tells him that he has obeyed the commandments "ever since I was young", Jesus "looks at the young man, and loves him." He then tells the young man that he must give away all his money and possessions, and "come follow me" in order to inherit eternal life. With that the young man "walks away saddened", as he was a man of many riches, and could not bear the thought of parting with them. The disciples are astonished by this, and ask Jesus "Who then can be saved?" But once again, they have misunderstood, and fail to realize that it is not the amount of money you have, but whether or not you allow it take over your life, and your quality of relationships with God and others. The exact opposite of the story of the rich young man is the Widow's Offering (Mk ch 12:41-44). This tells the story of a poor widow, whose faith and love for God were so strong, that she was willing to sacrifice all the money she had. Perhaps the concept the disciples found the most difficult to understand was why Jesus loved others to the point of giving up his life for them. They failed to see Jesus in his true light, as the suffering Messiah. However, there was a point when Jesus thought that Peter had finally gotten the message, when he asked, "Who do you say I am?", and Peter replies "You are the Messiah." However, the moment is short lived, as when Jesus speaks of his impending suffering and death, Peter takes him aside, and tells him not to go. With that, Jesus realizes that Peter doesn't get it after all, and tells Peter to "Get away from me Satan. Your thoughts don't come from God but from man." While at this point in his life he is not prepared to suffer, or for that matter, allow Jesus to suffer for others, unknown to him, he is to become one of the first martyrs of the Christian Church. Understandably, society has changed a lot in the last 2000 years. Not only have countless new inventions and technologies been introduced, but attitudes have also changed. We not only live in a multi faith society, but their are many more people now who do not feel the need to be bound by a religion. Christians nowadays have many more distractions, such as the media, and television, which could interfere with their relationship with God and others. There is also a growing importance of riches and status in our society. However, this does not mean that it has become any harder to be a disciple. Most people would be surprised to discover that the Bible is the world's best selling book. So while there have been countless changes in our society, one of the only things which has remained constant is the Word of God. What was written 2000 years ago still applies to Christians today. Therefore I think it is safe to say that if the Word of God has not changed, then neither has the meaning of discipleship, as the Bible is still at the centre of a Christian's way of life. While Christians nowadays are fighting for equality among nations, and the Christians of the past fought against Roman Rule and Persecution, we are nevertheless still fighting. Being a disciple of God still means living as much of a Christ like life as possible. Some might argue that the world as it is now is a lot more evil and corrupt than it was in Jesus' time, but in my opinion there has always been evil and corruption in the world. Of course, this corruption would have been present in far different ways then it is now, but as I aforementioned, the world has changed in the last 2000 years. Just as it was in the past, Christianity today still remains a very much unprejudiced religion. People from every walk of life are still open to the call. However, there are many different ways to interprets this call. Some Christians feel the need to follow Christ in a very radical way. These people are priests, nuns, and all other members of the clergy. They are making the biggest commitment possible, by making a total choice of God, expressed in the vows of Chastity, Obedience, and Poverty they take. However this does not necessarily make them better Christians than those who don't take these vows. They are just doing what is right for God by them. Religion is a very personal thing, and can be open to many different interpretations. However, the one thing all Christians should have in common is the ability to treat fellow human beings with love, respect and compassion, and have a deep faith in God. For this reason, there are a great many ways a lay person can be a disciple of God. In fact, they have often been known to bring their Christian values to environments where priests and consecrated religions are never present. They display their Christian values in the way they treat colleagues, and the effort they make in their jobs. Even someone who donates money to charity is a lay person. While they are not, perhaps, choosing to follow God in a radical way, they are nevertheless making an effort to incorporate God's teachings into their lives. Others who may be called lay people are teachers, doctors, and anyone else that does research into diseases and illness. Teachers and Youth Workers do a great deal of work teaching adults and children skills which are vital for living prosperous and fulfilling lives, thus showing their love for fellow human beings. Doctors and medical Researchers also show this love for humanity by trying their best to alleviate human pain and suffering, and helping people to lead longer and healthier lives. Another example of the remarkable work lay people do is the work many of them do for voluntary organizations such as CAFOD, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. This organization specializes in helping developing countries to help themselves, by providing food, clothes, and technical equipment. Knowing they are playing a part in making a person's life more bearable, should be the only reward a Christian needs. Another much debated point in the history of Christianity, which is still very much under debate today, is the question of material wealth. While some Christians choose to follow the parable of the Rich Young Man quite literally, giving up all material wealth and possessions to follow in Christ's footsteps, not doing so doesn't make you a bad Christian. It means, yet again, that you have chosen to interpret Christ's message in a different way. In telling the rich young man to give up all his possessions to follow him, Jesus did not mean that it is necessary for Christians to own no material wealth. He simply meant that nothing should be allowed to come between your relationship with God, and in the Rich Young Man's case, his wealth certainly did. The Rich Young Man provides the classic case of what Timothy was talking about in his New Testament letter, whrn he said that "the love of money is the root of all evil". Unfortunately, lay people live in a society in which anti-Christian attitudes are prevalent. The use of nuclear weapons goes against all teachings of Christianity, as it involves causing intentional injury to others. There are also a great many people who lie their way through life for personal gain, and others who commit many grave offenses against society, by causing significant pain to their victims, or their family. When it comes down to it, I do believe it is as possible to be a disciple of Christ today as it was in the past. Not only can the late Sean Devereux and Mother Theresa be used as models, but there are countless numbers of ordinary people who are never acknowledged for their good work. The definition of a disciple is a person that follows their leader's example as much as possible. These people need not necessarily be perfect, nor need they dedicate their whole lives to the church. The only thing that a person must do in order to be a modern day disciple of Christ is to treat others with love, respect, and compassion, and have a deep (but not necessarily unshakable) faith in God. There are, yet again, countless numbers of Christians throughout the world who observe these codes of conduct. They show this by their attitudes towards others, and their willingness to do good works. Despite the many injustices in our society, these people persevere to oppose them, and strive to spread God's Word in everything they do. Spreading the Word of God does not necessarily mean having to learn the Bible word perfect, nor quote it at every given opportunity; it simply means to try to stop injustice from taking place within your power, and to treat others in the way you would like to be treated. While circumstances today may differ from those in the past, neither has the Word of God, nor the Christian attitude towards others changed. We have witnessed many beneficial changes in our society, such as women gaining suffrage, and prejudice and discrimination being opposed in most parts of the world. This shows that good works are still being accomplished in our society, and gives us an incentive that not all hope is lost. Unfortunately, there are still many people in developing countries, and so called developed countries, who are forced to accept unfairness, discrimination, and prejudice as a part of their everyday lives. However, we are shown through the many people who choose to donate money to the numerous causes, and people who are prepared to sacrifice even a little to help those less fortunate than themselves, that disciples are more than present in society. Some might argue that today's society is materialistic and secularized, and that few people now see the purpose of living by a set of ideals. However, the numerous people who still choose to participate in religious activity and worship show us that the world has by far lost faith in God. There are many people out there that are only kept going by their faith in God, even though their misery appears to be never ending. It is also true that there will always be some misguided individuals who will insist that using violence is the only means of achieving what they want. This applies particularly to world leaders, who possess the might to end the lives many innocent civilians at will. However, we may be encouraged by the world powers who are prepared to negotiate to ensure that as little blood-shed as possible is enabled. It may also be said by some that far fewer people are as devoted to Christianity as they were in the past, as we no longer have prophets, or the Son of God Jesus to guide us. However, there are still many people who are choosing to enter the Holy Orders, and all these people can serve as an inspiration to us all. People such as these are still choosing to leave their loved ones in order to devote their lives to God. Also, when Jesus preached his Good News almost 2000 years ago, there were no fewer people then there are now who opposed to his teachings. However, the one thing that the Christians of the past had that none of us will probably have the opportunity to see in our life times are miracles performed first hand. While it is true that humans have a tendency to believe only what they see, the Bible has, and will continue to be a great source of inspiration for many. It is true that the Bible is the closest thing we will ever get to an understanding of Jesus' way of life and Christianity, so the Christian faith will remain to be, for us, an unraveled mystery. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Earth mother goddess.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Earth-mother-goddess Describe an original response to the meaning of existence with reference to the Earth-Mother-Goddess: What we find as an original response to existences meaning is the belief in a greater being or higher power, eg. God, that we serve and obey in the trade for a fruitful, everlasting life. This can be connected to the theory of the Earth-Mother-Goddess. The female in nature was intended to represent re-occuring life. Ancient people held the belief that they would return to the body of the womb of mother earth and then be given a new life. This ancient belief is similar to our own when compared. How does a religious world view give meaning and purpose to the lives of the people ? The view of the religious world can give meaning and purpose to the lives of the people as it gives them hope. Hope that if they live their lives as God had intended for them, they will be granted entrance into heaven, an everlasting, peaceful place. It gives people meaning as to what they should do with their lives. The religious view also brings order in people's lives. Purpose in someone's life is also introduced in the world view as there they can go to church and have the holy rituals which every religion will go through. This may offer people a sense of purpose in their life. "Religion cannot be contained by any definition. However, the religious response is distinctive in its understanding of reality and its characteristics." i) Why can't religion be contained by a definition ? ii) How is religion a "distinctive" response and what are some common characteristics of religious responses ? Religion cannot be contained by a certain definition because religion is, simplistically enough, what you want it to be. No one can write a definition of religion as it is really just personal opinion. Religion can be the way you live your life, but for someone else it may just be another word in their dictionary and they could argue with the last definition and f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\EASTERN RELIGIONS.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ EASTERN RELIGIONS People in America today seem to be only concerned with them. They are always looking out for number one. That is a saying that has been taught to us for years. Along with another popular precept: you can't please everyone all of the time. These are just a couple of examples of how Americans are taught to be selfish. Sure, mom and dad always teach generosity to their young children, but in this society, those lessons diminish with age. We learn that life isn't always fair and people don't always have to share if they don't want to. In this so-called free country, the rich get everything and the poor get nothing. This type of environment has caused a rat race among the people. He who has the most wins. In America it is for the most money, but there are many other people in the world who might disagree. What would they want the most of? you ask. Well, that depends on whom you ask. When you take a trip half way around the world, the values are totally different. The Eastern religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, to name a few, practice very different beliefs. They are more centered on love thy neighbor than the Christian Religion. This is not to say that Christians are wrong or act wrongfully, it just says that the difference in beliefs generates a significant difference in society. Here in America, our society claims we should love thy neighbor, but it tends to depend on who the neighbor is. We want our neighbors to be just like us. If they are not, then it becomes more difficult to show compassion. The Eastern religions practice compassion for all people, no matter who or what they are. In America, compassion is scarce. It's predominant in families and in small towns, but in the larger cities, it is hard to see if it exists at all. A movie has been made illustrating this point. It is called "Falling Down". It is about a man who has come to the end of his rope. He is tired of the way society has treated him, and he begins to fight back. He thinks he is doing the right thing, but he finally comes to realize that to do the right thing you can't think only of yourself. The movie opens with a traffic jam; the man's license plate reads: "D-Fens": This becomes his name since his real name is never told. It takes place in Los Angeles on a very hot day. This traffic jam is significant because you can tell he does a lot of thinking while in his car. The man's tension keeps rising the more he sits in this traffic, so he just walks away from his car. You learn he is trying to go see his daughter on her birthday, but everything seems to want to stop him. He goes into a store, to get change for the pay phone, and the Korean owner refuses and tells him to buy something first. It is obvious the owner is being selfish because just moments before, he broke open a roll of quarters. I think this can best be linked to Buddhism. In Buddhism, selfish desire, also called Tanha, is the cause of unnecessary suffering, which is called dukkha. This means people who are selfish cause their own suffering and suffering to others. The owner of the store then tries to charge $ .85 for a can of soda. This infuriates D-fens because it goes against the point of buying soda in the first place - to get change for the phone. He gets upset with the owner for overcharging on numerous items and destroys a lot of his merchandise. Then he pays $ .50 for his soda, takes the change, and leaves. You get the feeling that D-fens is not a bad person, he just wants people to quit thinking of only themselves, which is the main focus of the Buddhists. Another point in Buddhism that can be connected to the movie is following the eight-fold path. This is how suffering is ended, by extinguishing the self. There are eight rules to follow. Right views, right intends, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. All must be followed at the same time to overcome suffering. The next thing that D-fens has to deal with is a couple of gang-bangers. They claim that he is on private property, but he is obviously on public property. These scoundrels are using untruthful and uncharitable speech, which goes against the rule of right speech. They also go against right conduct, and livelihood. They lie, steal, kill, and day by day live their life going against all the other steps. D-fens fights back against these terrible people and is able to walk away unharmed. They later try to kill him in a drive-by shooting, but fail, and kill many other innocent bystanders instead. These gangsters are the epitome of dukkha. Everything they do is for themselves, and causes nothing but suffering. Many of the incidents in the movie can also be linked to Hinduism. The Hindus believe that we are all looking for the same thing-an infinite existence. Once we all realize that who we are today is not infinite, then we can achieve Moksha, liberation from the empirical self. They believe the true self, the Atman, is distinct from that which feels and acts in this world. Nothing we go through in this lifetime is really important. Once we truly realize this, then we are no longer subject to Karma. The law of Karma says all actions produce future experiences, good or bad. For example, in the movie, D-fens takes a walk through a park and is bothered by a beggar. He lies and tells D-fens that he has run out of gas and when D-fens calls his bluff, the beggar gets very upset. He acts like he owns the park since he sleeps there, and that D-fens should feel sorry for him. This homeless person needs to realize that this existence is not significant, but that his actions are. He is only making things worse for himself by acting this way because Karma will ensure that he has to suffer from his actions over and over again until he, according to Hinduism, renounces the self. Hindus would believe that all of the problems in the movie are created because the characters have not renounced the self. I think the movie as a whole can best be connected to Taoism. This religion believes that reality has a natural order and the less you do to change that order then the better off you will be. Taoists practice Wu-Wei. It is the rule that states to act without action, and being non-aggressive is the right way to live. D-fens thought he was doing the right thing by making all of these people pay for what they've done, but in actuality, it wasn't his right to judge. He tried so hard to get what he wanted that it backfired in his face. He damaged property and he even killed a man. True, all of the people he encountered were bad in a way, but who is to say what they deserved. Many people would agree with De-fens' actions, many Americans at least, but there are also many people who agree that we should not mess with the natural order of things. At the end of "Falling Down", D-fens is being held at gun-point by a police officer. He is very confused. He says, "I'm the bad guy?" He feels he has always done what he was told and somehow he ended up wrong. The police officer then makes a good point. He says the only thing that makes you special is that little girl. D-fens felt that he was in some way enlightened on how the world should be, and therefore special, but none of us are special in that way. No matter how right we think we are, we can't judge others. It is not our place. D-fens then purposely pulls out a toy gun forcing the policeman to shoot him. He did it for his little girl. He would rather know his child would receive his insurance money than watch her grow up while he was behind bars. This is the most selfless act he performs in the entire movie. Some people disagree that selfishness is harmful to society. Ayn Rand , for instance, wrote a book entitled Anthem that defends the view of individualism. It basically stated that the most important freedom is freedom from each other. Therefore, individual existence is the most sacred. She says that all wisdom and science is lost when you eliminate thought of yourself. According to her, when Hindus and Buddhists claim that clinging to our empirical self is wrong, they somehow diminish all creativity. The American society tends to follow this line of thought more than the others mentioned. People are very afraid of losing. It is very hard for the westerners to just be still and let life happen. We have to be in control. Rand would probably disagree with Taoism as well since the Taoists feel we should not fight for what we want. We should be non-aggressive. Rand's point of view would be quite different. She would most likely say "fight, fight, fight"! Never give up and always try you're hardest. At least, that is how most of the people in America look at the world. I find myself agreeing with some of the concepts from all four points of view. I truly believe in the law of Karma from the Hinduism Religion. The fact that life isn't always fair is reason enough for me. People have to get what they deserve. I just has to work out that way; I'll be very disappointed if it doesn't. That's all part of the unknown, I suppose. As for Buddhism, I contend that selfishness causes problems. Selfish desire is very harmful to yourself and to others. Now the part about renouncing and extinguishing the self, I'm not sure if I agree. I suppose it is that western frame of mind talking, but I can't just tell myself to forget everything I know. Perhaps I will in another lifetime. I suppose that's where I agree with Rand. I enjoy being different and unique. It is what I hold most dear. However, when Rand feels all the creativity is lost when you give up the self, I feel she was wrong. I don't think the Eastern Religions intended for that at all. They still feel you should be educated and express yourself just not with trivial knowledge that encourages you to think of yourself as better than others. I know that is the case with Taoism. I agree with this religion in certain areas. For instance, in the movie "Falling Down", D-fens definitely tried too hard for what he wanted and therefore he failed. But I feel there are things you do have to try your hardest for. If you want to succeed at school, for example, you have to work; you can't just sit back and hope nature's course gives you an A. I suppose that's where the eastern religions would come in and say that I must be wanting the wrong things. But I know that in this society, in this time, and in this life, I want to be happy. How that will be achieved, I'm still unsure. Some people require many possessions and money to be happy. Others believe happiness can only be achieved when possessions are given up. The world is very different in its beliefs. As I said before, it all depends on whom you ask. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Edmund Campion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Elizabethan Age underwent a continuing crisis of religion that was marked by a deepening polarization of thought between the supporters of the recently established Protestant Church and the larger number of adherents to the Roman Catholic faith. Of these latter, Edmund Campion may be taken as the archetype. Well known as an Englishman who fled to the Continent for conscience's sake, he returned to England as a Jesuit priest, was executed by the English government in 1581 and was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1970. It has been observed that the author of the Shakespeare plays displays a considerable sympathy and familiarity with the practices and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.i The intent here is to show a link between this English Catholic leader and the writer of the drama, Twelfth Night, as revealed by allusions to Edmund Campion in Act IV, scene ii of that play. A Brief Outline of Campion's Life Though Edmund Campion (1540-1581) was a scholar at Oxford University under the patronage of Queen Elizabeth I's court favorite, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, Campion's studies of theology, church history, and the church fathers led him away from the positions taken by the Church of England. From Campion's point of view, to satisfy the new orthodoxy of the Church of England, a reconstructionist interpretation of church history was being set forth, one chat he found difficult to reconcile with what he actually found in the writings of those fathers [2]. Had the veil been swept away? Were St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom really Anglicans rather than Roman Catholics? Or were the church authorities trimming their sails to the exigencies of temporal policy? Questions such as these dogged Campion, and eventually his position at Oxford became untenable since he could not make the appropriate gestures of adherence to the established church [3]. Instead, Campion retreated from Oxford to Dublin in 1569, where he drew less attention and enjoyed the protection of Sir Henry Sidney, Lord Deputy for Ireland, and the patronage of Sir James Stanihurst, Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, who planned to have Campion participate in the founding of what was to become Trinity College in Dublin [4]. During this period a number of significant events took place. In 1568, the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, was driven from her realm into England, where she came under the protection and custody of the English Crown. Immediately after came the rebellion of the northern Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland in the winter of 1569, who sought to place Mary on the English throne. Then, in the spring of 1570, Pope Pius V issued a hull excommunicating Queen Elizabeth and releasing her subjects from their obligation of obedience to her. After the death of Pius V, an inquiry to Rome regarding this bull elicited the response that "as long as the Queen [Elizabeth] remained de facto ruler, it was lawful for Catholics to obey her in civil matters and cooperate in all just things... that it was unlawful for any private person, not wearing uniform and authorized to do so as an act of war, to slay any tyrant whatsoever, unless the tyrant, for example, had invaded his country in arms" (Waugh, p. 94-95) In short, English Catholics were rejoined to follow the path of Sir Thomas More, being the Crown's loyal servant in all matters save religion. However, as Waugh concedes, "It was possible to deduce from this decision that the [English] Catholics were a body of potential rebels,who only waited for foreign invasion to declare themselves. This was the sense in which [William] Cecil [Lord Treasurer and the Queen's most trusted councillor] read it, for he was reluctant to admit the possibility of anyone being both a patriotic Englishman and an opponent of his regime (Waugh p. 95). The English government then enacted laws more restrictive to English Catholics. In 1570, the year of the Papal Bull, it was made an act of high treason, punishable by death, to bring into the country "any bull, writing, or instrument obtained from the Bishop of Rome" or "to absolve or reconcile" any of the Queen's subjects to the Bishop of Rome (Waugh p. 117). In this atmosphere even Dublin became dangerous for Campion. He fled Ireland for Belgium in June of 1572, arriving at the English College founded by exiled English Catholics in Douai. The next year he went on to Rome to join the Society of Jesus. After training in Vienna, he became Professor of Rhetoric at the new Jesuit University in Prague, where he was ordained a priest in the Society of Jesus in 1578 (Waugh p. 81-84). It was in Prague in 1580 that he received the call to return to England to minister to English Catholics (More p.72-73). During his ministry, which lasted from the summer of 1580 to the summer of 1581, Campion traveled from town to town in disguise, passing via an underground network of English Catholics, offering the Mass and other Church sacraments to Catholics. He was arrested in the town of Lyford by English authorities, with the assistance of a paid informant, in July 1581, and conveyed to the Tower of London [5]. Since his ministry had attracted a great deal of public attention, the government initially made an effort to persuade Campion to abandon his faith. Failing that, it made a second effort to discredit him. Four times in September, Campion was brought from his dungeon in the Tower for public "conferences," at which scholars and clergymen representing the Crown and the Church of England disputed with him in an effort to best him intellectually. William Cecil (Lord Burghley) and First Secretary Sir Francis Walsingham, Burghley's spymaster, also sought to taint Campion with the brush of treason by maintaining that the primary goal of his mission was to incite the English to rebel against Queen Elizabeth and replace her with Mary, Queen of Scots. While Campion's ministry was in itself, by English law, sufficient for the death penalty (in that he offered Mass and heard confessions), the government preferred to show that his ministry also involved stirring English Catholics to rebellion. Finally, on November 20th, a trial was held in which Campion and seven other Catholics taken with him were charged with treason. Suitable witnesses endeavored to make the label of traitor stick; the trial ended in a guilty verdict, and Campion was executed by hanging at Tyburn on December 1, 1581 [6] [7] . Twelfth Night and Edmund Campion The allusions to Campion are found in a single scene --Act four, Scene two in which Feste the Clown disguises himself as "Sir Topas the Curate" to harangue the unfortunate Malvolio, who has been shut up in a cellar as a lunatic as the result of pranks engineered by Feste, Sir Toby Belch and Maria. In the following speech by Feste to Maria and Sir Toby, the Campion allusions are highlighted in boldface. Clown: Bonos dies, Sir Toby: for, as the old hermit of Prague, that never saw pen and ink, very wittily said to a niece of King Gorboduc, "That that is is" ; so I, being master Parson, am master Parson; for,what is "that" but "that"; and "is" but "is"? (IV.ii.15-19) [8] In this speech of less than 50 words, which appears to resemble nothing but clownish nonsense, there are no less than five phrases which refer directly to Edmund Campion and his 158O-81 mission to England. The old hermit of Prague: Prague was Campion's last assignment before his mission to England; indeed, nearly six of his less than nine years on the Continent were spent in Prague. He may be thought of as a hermit in either of two ways in that hermits were holy men who sought solitude in their quest for holiness, or that Campion's stay in Prague was considered to be an exile not only from England but from Englishmen. Waugh notes that, while at Prague, "the only Englishmen with whom he appears to have had any contact (besides Father Ware, who was at the college with him), is Philip Sidney [son of the former Lord Deputy for Ireland], who arrived in 1576 as English Ambassador to congratulate the Emperor Rudolph on his succession" (Waugh p. 81-82). Never saw pen and ink: This refers to an episode which occurred in the "conference" of September 24, 1581, the third of four such conferences, in which Campion was opposed by one Master Fulke: "If you dare, let me show you Augustine and Chrysostom," he [Campion] cried at one moment, "if you dare." Fulke: "Whatever you can bring, I have answered already in writing against others of your side. And yet if you think you can add anything, put it in writing and I will answer it." Campion: "Provide me with ink and paper and I will write." Fulke: "I am not to provide you ink and paper." Campion: "I mean, procure me that I may have liberty to write." Fulke: "I know not for what cause you are restrained of that liberty, and therefore I will not take upon me to procure it.'7 Campion: "Sue to the Queen that I may have liberty to oppose. I have been now thrice opposed. It is reason that I should oppose once." Fulke: "I will not become a suitor for you." (Allen 15) In this exchange, we see that Campion, having been deprived of the means of preparing a defense, such as access to books containing the teachings of St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, seizes upon Fulke's apparent offer of writing materials. Fulke immediately realizes that the has made a tactical error, for the government's plan in no way involves providing Campion with the means to write, since much of Campion's success lay in his writings. First there had been an exposition and explanation of his mission, written by Campion in the summer of 1580 immediately after arriving in England, which circulated throughout the country in handwritten copies, yet comes down in history under the ironic title of "Campion's Brag.77 In it, Campion disavows any political aspect to his ministry. Then a book bearing the name Ten Reasons was published by an underground Catholic press (Edwards p. 19). It first appeared at the Oxford University Commencement of June 27, 1581, having been surreptitiously placed on the benches of the church at which the exercises took place. In the exchange quoted above, Campion plainly had bested Fulke in their battle of wits, for Fulke denies Campion the wherewithal to write even though he himself had challenged Campion to do so. Nonetheless, it may be said of Campion with good reason that he "Never saw pen and ink." Niece of King Gorboduc: Gorboduc was a mythical King of England and the subject of an early Elizabethan play by Norton and Sackville [9]. Since the play contains no role for a "niece," the allusion is not to be found in the text. Let us look at the issue from another point of view: did Queen Elizabeth I have an uncle who can be identified as a "mythical King of England?" Arthur, Prince of Wales, was the first son of King Henry VII and older brother to Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII. This prince would have become "King Arthur" except that he died before his father, who was succeeded instead by the younger brother, Henry. If you are seeking the niece of a mythical King of England, the niece of a potential King Arthur might do. A second possible link between Elizabeth and the "niece to King Gorboduc" may be found through one of the dramatists, Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst, and later 1st Earl of Dorset. The father of Lord Buckhurst, Sir Richard Sackville, had been a first cousin to Anne Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth's mother [10]. Given the predilection of people of the time for imprecision in designating family relationships (cousin, uncle or niece was taken to mean almost any blood relationship), it is not farfetched to consider Queen Elizabeth I to be a "niece" of one of the authors of King Gorboduc. "That that is is": Spoken by the Hermit of Prague, this is taken as a religious affirmation, just as Campion's mission to England was a religious affirmation. The reconstructed church history that Campion was expected to embrace at Oxford was, from the Catholic viewpoint, a denial of reality, and his mission was to affirm the truth in the face of official displeasure. On a deeper level, this could be an allusion to one of the most profound passages in the Old Testament, in which the Lord, speaking to Moses (who had asked what name he should give for the Lord) declares, "I am that I am." [11]. This may be interpreted as, "Because I exist, I exist," which very neatly identifies the subject "I" in scholastic logic. In other words, all that exists owes its existence to a separate Creator, save one, the Creator of all, who is the source of all existence, even his own. The Hermit of Prague is not the Creator; thus, he renders the phrase in the third person, declaring that God Is, because He Is; he owes his existence to no earthly agency, certainly to no King or Queen. To such a Person, Campion owes a higher allegiance than his allegiance to the Crown. Thus, "That that is is" is the essence of Campion's position vis-a-vis his God and his Queen. Master Parson: Robert Persons was a fellow Jesuit who traveled with Campion from Rome to France; the two separated to enter England and, for reasons of security, pursued their ministries in England individually, meeting each other occasionally. Persons, sometimes referred to as Parsons and a former Oxford classmate of Campion's,was in charge of the Jesuit mission to England, including the clandestine press that was used to set forth the Catholic position until its capture [12]. Persons continued his ministry within and without England for several decades after Campion's death. The allusions referred to here should not be thought of as topical in being timely references from which the theatrical audience would be expected to recognize and draw delight. Certainly, events during 1580-1581 would no longer be timely in 1602, the first production of Twelfth Night, as noted in Manningham's diary. Moreover, considering the official attitude toward Campion and his fellow Jesuits, inserting sympathetic allusions to Campion into a play would have been quite risky during the 1580s, and would remain so well into the next century. Nonetheless, one would have needed specific background knowledge about the Campion situation to recognize the allusions, and by 1602, most of the principals in the capture, interrogation and trial of Campion --including Lord Burghley, Sir Francis Walsingham, and the Earl of Leceister-- were deceased. Others, such as Anthony Munday, would not have been admitted to a private performance at the Middle Temple intended for members and their guests. Further, we should not expect that the Queen would be in attendance at an Inns of Court performance. (This is deduced from the historical record of the Gorboduc performances, in which the Inner Temple performance was followed by a second performance at court.) I think instead that the allusions were intended for posterity, and were written into the text in the hope that the play would some day appear in print. It should also be recognized that the allusions to Edmund Campion have little bearing on characterizations and allusions outside their immediate context. Thus, Malvolio is identified as a Protestant, specifically as a Puritan, earlier in the play (II.iii.151-56), but in the Campion allusions, he figures as a Catholic priest. This is not a contradiction since the audience for the play was not expected to hear the Campion allusions. Indeed, it could have boded ill for the playwright had they done so. On one level, the dramatist may have been using the Malvolio character as a caricature of the courtier Christopher Hatton, as some have proposed. For one scene, however, the author has Malvolio imprisoned and sees the opportunity for inserting something he has been suppressing for decades: his bitterness over the trial and execution of one he saw as an innocent man. The average audience member was expected to take the allusions as theatrical nonsense and then to forget about them as the next speech was delivered. Further Allusions to Campion in Act Four, Scene Two Having established the allusions to St. Edmund Campion in the Clown's opening speech (IV.ii.5-12), the tenor of the remainder of the scene, in the context of Campion's imprisonment, becomes apparent. The Clown is seen assuming the role of the learned man to dispute with the prisoner, just as men of learning brought Campion to dispute at the aforementioned conferences. The dramatist's attitude is revealed early on by Sir Toby, as the Clown, posing as Sir Topas the Curate, begins his encounter with the prisoner: Sir Toby: The Knave counterfeits well, a good knave. (IV.ii.21-22) Thus is established at the outset that the playwright regards the conference to be held, like the conferences Campion was brought to, as a sham, a counterfeit, with a knave posing as a learned man acting as the examiner. "Sir Topas" proceeds to deal with Malvolio as a man possessed and in need of exorcism, even though, as the Clown, he knows full well that Malvolio, whatever his faults might be, is neither insane nor possessed. Clown: Out, hyperbolical fiend! How vesext thou this man! Talkest thou nothing but of ladies? (IV.ii.29-30) The irony in the play now develops to match that of the Campion conferences, where Campion was called upon to assent to facts which, from his point of view as a scholar and a Catholic, were not facts at all. Malvolio: Good Sir Topas, do not think I am mad. They have laid me here in hideous darkness. Clown: Fie, thou dishonest Satan!... Say'st thou that house is dark? Malvolio: As hell, Sir Topas. Clown: Why, it hath bay windows transparent as barricadoes... Malvolio: I am not mad, Sir Topas. I say to you, this house is dark. Clown: Madman, thou errest. I say, there is no darkness but ignorance, in which thou art more puzzl'd than the Egyptians in their fog. (IV.ii.33-48) Next the dramatist shows us the dishonesty of the situation from his own perspective. Malvolio asks for a test of his lucidity, and the Clown asks a question, to which Malvolio gives what would be, to any Christian scholar, the correct answer in terms of the teachings of their faith. Malvolio: ...Make the trial of it in any constant question. Clown: What is the opinion of Pythagoras concerning wild fowl? Malvolio: That the soul of our grandam might haply inhabit a bird. Clown: What think'st thou of his opinion? Malvolio: I think nobly of the soul, and no way approve his opinion. Clown: Fare thee well. Remain thou still in darkness. Thou shalt hold th' opinion of Pythagoras ere I will allow of thy wits... (IV.ii.52-63) Thus, rather than maintaining the Christian teaching of the resurrection on the last day, the Clown chides Malvolio for not upholding the pagan teaching of Pythagoras concerning the transmigration of souls. Likewise, Campion, first during his days at Oxford and then at his conferences, was expected to provide answers which, by his view, were illogical and indefensible, but which accorded with the needs of the political powers of the day. The playwright thus demonstrates for us a world turned upside down, with clowns passing themselves off as men of learning, while men of learning such as Campion are pressed to deny what they believe to be true to serve political ends. I think the dramatist's opinion about such proceedings is revealed early on in the scene, when the Clown dons an academic gown for his impersonation of Sir Topas: Clown: Well, I'll put it on, and I will dissemble my self in't, and I would I were the first that ever dissembled in such a gown (IV.ii.5-7) Campion's Innocence or Guilt As noted earlier, the English government wanted to convict Campion not for his religion but for treason against the Crown; specifically, for plotting the assassination or overthrow of Queen Elizabeth I. Despite questioning scores of witnesses under duress, they were unable to show any treasonable aspect in Campion's speech, writing or activities during his English ministry. The first indictment drawn up against Campion stated that he "did traitorously pretend to have power to absolve the subjects of the said Queen from their natural obedience to her majesty," with a blank space left farther down the indictment for the name of a prosecution witness who had been absolved as stated (Waugh p. 206-207). No suitable witness could be found to testify against Campion to this effect, however, and so this count of the indictment was dropped. Eventually, witnesses were obtained, the chief being Anthony Munday, a journeyman writer and traveler who had presented himself to exiled English Catholics as a co-religionist. He accused Campion of having formed a conspiracy in Rome and Rheims in 1580 to assassinate Queen Elizabeth, to encourage a foreign Catholic invasion and also foment a rebellion of English Catholics. The evidence brought forth to support these charges has been found wanting by the Dictionary of National Biography and The Encyclopedia Britannica. [13] Campion's own writings deny such a charge. In the previously mentioned Campion's Brag he is "strictly forbidden... to deal in any respect with matter of State or Policy" (Waugh p. 236). Simpson reports that Campion "determined, therefore, as far as he might, to confine himself to the merely religious aspects of the controversy... and to refuse to make himself an umpire between two high contending parties so far above him as Pope and Queen" (Simpson p. 274). Religious Attitudes in Twelfth Night If the passage cited alludes to Edmund Campion, one must also ask in what spirit is the allusion to be taken: as tribute or jeer. To properly answer the question, we should examine the religious leanings of the author indicated elsewhere in the play as well as in the other Shakespeare plays. Mutschmann and Wentersdorf see that "Sir Topas," the pose of the clown Feste in the scene, "is of the same stamp as other Protestant ministers in Shakespeare's plays and was conceived with the deliberate intention of creating an undignified and ludicrous impression" (329). The steward Malvolio, protagonist of the play, is portrayed as a Puritan with "overweening" pride, and given to vanity and foppery --all in the most unflattering spirit. In contrast, the priest who secretly marries Sebastian and Olivia, while appearing only in scenes IV.iii and V.i with a single speech, is depicted as someone we can confide in with complete trust. Indeed, the entire drama is steeped in sympathy toward the Catholic faith. The comic knight Sir John Falstaff is also cited ( Mutschmann and Wentersdorf p. 345-349) as being a caricature of the Puritan type, leading a licentious life but counting himself among the saved. Significantly, the original name given to the character was Sir John Oldcastle, a 15th century Lollard who was executed during the reign of Henry V. The author was evidently compelled by authority, in response to objections by Oldcastle's descendants, to change the character's name to that of Falstaff. Interestingly, a rival play, Sir John Oldcastle, written by the same Anthony Munday who testified against Campion, was staged in 1599 and portrayed the historical figure of Oldcastle in a much more favorable light. Yet this same Munday is regarded as the author of the play, Sir Thomas More, which offers a highly favorable portrait of this Catholic martyr [14]. (In the play, More is condemned for refusing to lend his signature to certain unspecified articles; historically, these constituted King Henry's Act of Supremacy, allowing them to assume supreme power over the Church in England.) Whether Munday wrote the play as author or copyist has been the subject of much debate [15]. One must conclude that Munday's contribution to Sir Thomas More as author or copyist was made when Munday was an apparent Catholic, before his testimony against Edmund Campion Indeed, Munday's later publications, including a pamphlet which detailed the execution of Edmund Campion and his companions, were aggressively anti-Catholic. Campion and Gorboduc The historical record offers other links between Gorboduc and the Campion allusions in Twelfth Night. There is the coincidence with the title of the latter play, for Gorboduc originally was intended for a single performance on Twelfth Night; that is, January 6, 1562 [16]. A second performance was given at Whitehall at the command of the Queen, on January 12, 1562. (The original performance of Gorboduc took place in the Inner Temple, one of the four Inns of Court in London. ) Remarkably, the only known performance of TN during its author's lifetime was at another Inn, the Middle Temple, as reported by Manningham in his diary: "At our feast we had a play called Twelve Night, or What You Will " (Neilson and Hill p. 279). Such a performance would have been a private one, limited to those connected with the Middle Temple or invited by its members. Yet another coincidence relates to one of the dramatists of Gorboduc -- Thomas Norton, listed in the original edition of 1565 as the author of Acts l-III (Cauthen p. xxix). Norton played a prominent role on the English government's behalf in the suppression of Catholics, traveling in 1579 as far as Rome, where he sought out damaging information about English Catholics living in the city. In 1581, he was one of the commissioners at the trial of Edmund Campion. The following year he complained to Sir Francis Walsingham about the nickname, "Rackmaster General," that was being applied to him for his part in torturing Catholics (Simpson p. 266; Cauthen p. 80). Concluding Thoughts During the Feast of the Epiphany in Elizabethan times, which took place on January 6 and was commonly known as Twelfth Day, gifts were exchanged in commemoration of the gifts of the Magi. It was a holiday of feasting, celebration and revelry. This is the tradition usually associated with the origin of the name of the play Twelfth Night. On the other hand, if the playwright had allusions to Edmund Campion in mind, then a covert meaning for the title could have been intended. In this regard, one should recall the spirit associated with these revelries: that nothing is what it seems; that meanings are turned inside out. To quote Feste: "Nothing that is so is so" (IV.ii.9). Perhaps this spirit explains the paradox of a play which, on the face of it, is a boisterous, rollicking comedy, yet also contains allusions to that fateful time of Campion's mission, and so serving as the playwright's Ave Atque Vale for this tragic figure of the period. Notes 1. H. Mutschmann and K. Wentersdorf, Shakespeare and Catholicism. 1969. 16-21, 329-351. Roland M. Frye, Shakespeare and Cristian Doctrine. 1963. Hugh R Williamson, The Day Shakespeare Died. London, 1962. 11-25. 2. Henry More, The Elizabethan Jesuits: Historia Missionis Anglicanae Societatis Jesu (1660). Trans. Francis Edwards, SJ. London, 1981. 43. 3. Evelyn Waugh, Edmund Campion. London, 1946. 4. Dictionary of National Biography. Eds. Sir L. Stephen and Sir S. Lee. Oxford, 1921. III, 851. 5. William Cardinal Allen, A Brief History of the Glorious Martyrdom of the 12 Revenend Priests: Fr. Edmund Campion and his Companions. 1584. Ed. H. Pollen, SJ. London, 1908. 10. 6. Francis Edwards, SJ, The Jesuits in England: from 1580 to the Present Day. Kent, 1985. 20. 7. Richard Simpson, Edmund Campion. London, 1848. 279-313. 8. All quotations of Shakespeare are taken from The Complete Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare. Eds. W A. Neilson and C.J. Hill. 1942. 279. 9. Thomas Sackville and Thomas Norton, Gorboduc, or Ferrex and Porrex. 1565. Ed. Irby B. Cauthen Jr. Regents Renaissance Drama Series.1970. iii. 10. DNB, XVII, 585-589. 11. Exodus, III, 14 (King James). The phrase "I am that I am" also appears in Shakespeare's sonnet 121, a particularly poignant verse about a good man unjustly perceived as an evil person. "Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed...'' 12. The name "Persons," sometimes rendered as "Parsons" in writings of the day, was pronounced with something of a Irish lilt, the first syllable rhyming with "fair." According to Simpson (387), "Pearsons" might well stand as a modern rendering of the name. Also see DNB, III, 851. 13. DNB, III, 850-854; The Encylopaedia Britannica. 1973. 4, 721. 14. The play Sir Thomas More survived as a manuscript written largely in a hand identifiable as that of Anthony Munday, surfacing in 1727 in the possession of one Alexander Murray and his patron, the 2nd Earl of Oxford (of the Harley creation). 15. Sir Thomas More. Attributed to Anthony Munday. Eds. V. Gabrieli and G. Melchiori. 1990. 12-16. 16. The Diary of Henry Machyn. 1565. Ed. J.G. Nichols. London, 1848. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Egypt.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Egypt Throughout the ages religion has been an important part of man's life. Even today many peoples lives are influenced by the teachings of their religious backgrounds. In ancient Egypt however, religion was the single most important influence on the civilization. It touched virtually every aspect of Egyptian life. One of the most obvious examples of this is in Egyptian burial. Burial and the preservation of the body was a very important aspect of the culture. It was due to the fact that they believed that the better your body was preserved the happier you were in the afterlife. Even the embalmers had to shave all their body hairs so they would not contaminate the dead person. The person had their major organs removed and preserved in canopic jars, which were watched by the designated gods. Also, the casket the person was buried in always had a likeness of the person on the front. This was for the Ka to recognize when it came back to the body at night. Also, the person was buried with perfume jars and food to take with them to the afterlife. Obviously death, burial and the afterlife, was a major part of Egyptian life that was touched a great deal by religion. Another major aspect of Egyptian life that was heavily influenced by religion was art. Almost all paintings and other forms of art were either done for the gods or representing the gods or pharaohs. Artists were even considered some of the highest members of society because they did work for the deities. An interesting fact about Egyptian art was the awkward position the bodies were in. All people depicted in the artwork were standing sideways with every body part visible. No one knows for certain why the people were depicted that way, but it is common belief that it was necessary to show all body parts so the gods wouldn't get angry for being misrepresented. Another interesting observation about Egyptian art is that it stayed, virtually, the same from the Old Kingdom into the New Kingdom. This was because they thought what they did was perfect and to change it would change their perfect life and afterlife. This proves that Egyptian art is another aspect of the culture that was greatly influenced by religion. Finally the last and most important aspect of the culture that was affected by religion, was everyday life. Everything the Egyptians did was for a god or a pharaoh for one reason or another. Even the worker and slaves knew that the work they did was for a higher power. They believed that when the Nile flooded it was due to a god's power. From the previous reasons and many others it becomes apparent the religion touched every aspect of Egyptian culture. And with the decline of religion in or modern society Ancient Egypt will most likely hold the title of the most religious society ever. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Enochian Scripture 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Enochian Scripture Should Enochian Scripture and the Necronomicon be considered as a true religion, or just another offshoot of Satanism, cult? The Necronomicon is closest documented translation of the original Enochian scripture, the Necronomicon Manuscript. The Necronomicon was first translated in Damascus in 730 A.D. by Abdul Alhazred. The Necronomicon, is not, as popularly believed, a grimoire, or sorceror's spell-book; it was conceived as a history, and so "a book of things now dead and gone". An alternative derivation of the word Necronomicon gives as its meaning "the book of the customs of the dead", but again this is consistent with the book's original conception as a history, not as a work of necromancy. But the author shared with Madame Blavatsky, who has a magpie-like tendency to gather and stitch together fact, rumor, speculation, and complete balderdash, and the result is a vast and almost unreadable array of near-nonsense which bears more than a superficial resemblance to Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine". In times past the book has been referred to as "Al Azif", or "The Book of the Arab". Azif is a word the Arabs use to refer to nocturnal insects, but it is also a reference to the howling of demons. It was written in seven volumes, and is over 900 pages long in the Latin edition. Abdul Alhazred Little is known about Abdul Alhazred. What we do know about him is largely from the small amount of biographical information in the Necronomicon itself. He traveled widely, from Alexandria to the Punjab, and was well educated. He had a flair for languages, and boasts on many occasions of his ability to read and translate manuscripts which many lesser scholars could not translate. Just as Nostradamus used ritual magic to see into the future, so Alhazred used similar techniques (and an incense composed of olibanum, storax, dictamnus, opium and hashish) to clarify the past, and it is this, combined with a lack of references, which resulted in the Necronomicon being dismissed as largely worthless by historians. He is often referred to as "the mad Arab", and while he was certainly eccentric by modern standards, there is no evidence to support a claim of madness. He is better compared with figures such as the Greek philosopher Proclus (410-485 A.D.), who was completely at home in astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, and metaphysics, but was well educated in the magical techniques of theurgy to evoke Hekate to visible appearance; he was also a founder of Egyptian and Chaldean mystery religions. It is no accident that Alhazred was very familiar with the works of Proclus. What is The Necronomicon? Alhazred appears to have had access to many sources now lost, and events which are only hinted at in the "Book of Genesis" or the alleged "Book of Enoch", or disguised as mythology in other sources, are explored in great detail. Alhazred may have used magical techniques to clarify the past, but he also shared with 5th. century B.C. Greek writers such as Thucydides a critical mind and a willingness to explore the meanings of mythological and sacred stories. His speculations are remarkably modern, and this may account for his current popularity: he believed that many species besides the human race had inhabited the Earth, and that much knowledge was passed to mankind in encounters with being from other "spheres". He shared the belief that stars are like our sun, and have their own unseen planets with their own life forms, but elaborated this belief with a good deal of metaphysical speculation in which these beings were part of a cosmic hierarchy of spiritual evolution. He was also convinced that he had contacted these "Old Ones" using magical invocations, and warned of terrible powers waiting to return to re-claim the Earth - he interpreted this belief in the light of the Apocalypse of St. John, but reversed the ending so that the Beast triumphs after a great war in which the earth is laid waste. What are the "Old Ones"? It is clear that Alhazred elaborated upon existing traditions of the "Old Ones", and he did not invent these traditions. According to Alhazred, the Old Ones were beings from "beyond the spheres", presumably the spheres of the planets, and in the astrology of that period this would imply the region of the fixed stars or beyond. They were superhuman and extrahuman. They mated with humans and created monstrous offspring. They passed forbidden knowledge to humankind. They were forever seeking a channel into our plane of existence. This is virtually identical to the Jewish tradition of the Nephilim. The word literally means "the Fallen Ones" and is derived from the Hebrew verb root naphal, to fall. The story in Genesis is only a fragment of a larger tradition, another piece of which can be found in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. According to this source, a group of angels sent to watch over the Earth saw the daughters of men and lusted after them. Unwilling to act individually, they swore an oath and bound themselves together, and two hundred of these "Watchers" descended to earth and took themselves wives. Their wives bore giant offspring. The giants turned against nature and began to "sin against birds and beasts and reptiles and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood". The fallen angels taught how to make weapons of war, and jewellery, and cosmetics, and enchantments, and astrology, and other secrets. These separate legends are elaborated in later Jewish sources such as the Talmud, which make it clear that Enoch and Genesis refer to the same tradition. The great flood of Genesis was a direct response to the evil caused by humankind's commerce with fallen angels. Arab traditions hold that the Jinn or Djinn were a race of superhuman beings which existed before the creation of humankind. The Djinn were created from fire. Some traditions make them a lesser race than human beings, but folk- tales invariably endowed them with unlimited magical powers, and the Djinn survive to this day as the genies of the Arabian Nights and Disney's Aladdin. Even with this very basic introduction to the Necronomicon and the Enochian Scripture and religion, it can be easily stated that this is a "true" religion and not just another cult. It has factual basis on other major religions of the world, Judaism, Islam are just two examples. The Necronomicon was at one time a bible of sorts for the Enoch and should be once again. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Enochian Scripture.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Enochian Scripture Should Enochian Scripture and the Necronomicon be considered as a true religion, or just another offshoot of Satanism, cult? The Necronomicon is closest documented translation of the original Enochian scripture, the Necronomicon Manuscript. The Necronomicon was first translated in Damascus in 730 A.D. by Abdul Alhazred. The Necronomicon, is not, as popularly believed, a grimoire, or sorceror's spell-book; it was conceived as a history, and so "a book of things now dead and gone". An alternative derivation of the word Necronomicon gives as its meaning "the book of the customs of the dead", but again this is consistent with the book's original conception as a history, not as a work of necromancy. But the author shared with Madame Blavatsky, who has a magpie-like tendency to gather and stitch together fact, rumor, speculation, and complete balderdash, and the result is a vast and almost unreadable array of near-nonsense which bears more than a superficial resemblance to Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine". In times past the book has been referred to as "Al Azif", or "The Book of the Arab". Azif is a word the Arabs use to refer to nocturnal insects, but it is also a reference to the howling of demons. It was written in seven volumes, and is over 900 pages long in the Latin edition. Abdul Alhazred Little is known about Abdul Alhazred. What we do know about him is largely from the small amount of biographical information in the Necronomicon itself. He traveled widely, from Alexandria to the Punjab, and was well educated. He had a flair for languages, and boasts on many occasions of his ability to read and translate manuscripts which many lesser scholars could not translate. Just as Nostradamus used ritual magic to see into the future, so Alhazred used similar techniques (and an incense composed of olibanum, storax, dictamnus, opium and hashish) to clarify the past, and it is this, combined with a lack of references, which resulted in the Necronomicon being dismissed as largely worthless by historians. He is often referred to as "the mad Arab", and while he was certainly eccentric by modern standards, there is no evidence to support a claim of madness. He is better compared with figures such as the Greek philosopher Proclus (410-485 A.D.), who was completely at home in astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, and metaphysics, but was well educated in the magical techniques of theurgy to evoke Hekate to visible appearance; he was also a founder of Egyptian and Chaldean mystery religions. It is no accident that Alhazred was very familiar with the works of Proclus. What is The Necronomicon? Alhazred appears to have had access to many sources now lost, and events which are only hinted at in the "Book of Genesis" or the alleged "Book of Enoch", or disguised as mythology in other sources, are explored in great detail. Alhazred may have used magical techniques to clarify the past, but he also shared with 5th. century B.C. Greek writers such as Thucydides a critical mind and a willingness to explore the meanings of mythological and sacred stories. His speculations are remarkably modern, and this may account for his current popularity: he believed that many species besides the human race had inhabited the Earth, and that much knowledge was passed to mankind in encounters with being from other "spheres". He shared the belief that stars are like our sun, and have their own unseen planets with their own life forms, but elaborated this belief with a good deal of metaphysical speculation in which these beings were part of a cosmic hierarchy of spiritual evolution. He was also convinced that he had contacted these "Old Ones" using magical invocations, and warned of terrible powers waiting to return to re-claim the Earth - he interpreted this belief in the light of the Apocalypse of St. John, but reversed the ending so that the Beast triumphs after a great war in which the earth is laid waste. What are the "Old Ones"? It is clear that Alhazred elaborated upon existing traditions of the "Old Ones", and he did not invent these traditions. According to Alhazred, the Old Ones were beings from "beyond the spheres", presumably the spheres of the planets, and in the astrology of that period this would imply the region of the fixed stars or beyond. They were superhuman and extrahuman. They mated with humans and created monstrous offspring. They passed forbidden knowledge to humankind. They were forever seeking a channel into our plane of existence. This is virtually identical to the Jewish tradition of the Nephilim. The word literally means "the Fallen Ones" and is derived from the Hebrew verb root naphal, to fall. The story in Genesis is only a fragment of a larger tradition, another piece of which can be found in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. According to this source, a group of angels sent to watch over the Earth saw the daughters of men and lusted after them. Unwilling to act individually, they swore an oath and bound themselves together, and two hundred of these "Watchers" descended to earth and took themselves wives. Their wives bore giant offspring. The giants turned against nature and began to "sin against birds and beasts and reptiles and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood". The fallen angels taught how to make weapons of war, and jewellery, and cosmetics, and enchantments, and astrology, and other secrets. These separate legends are elaborated in later Jewish sources such as the Talmud, which make it clear that Enoch and Genesis refer to the same tradition. The great flood of Genesis was a direct response to the evil caused by humankind's commerce with fallen angels. Arab traditions hold that the Jinn or Djinn were a race of superhuman beings which existed before the creation of humankind. The Djinn were created from fire. Some traditions make them a lesser race than human beings, but folk-tales invariably endowed them with unlimited magical powers, and the Djinn survive to this day as the genies of the Arabian Nights and Disney's Aladdin. Even with this very basic introduction to the Necronomicon and the Enochian Scripture and religion, it can be easily stated that this is a "true" religion and not just another cult. It has factual basis on other major religions of the world, Judaism, Islam are just two examples. The Necronomicon was at one time a bible of sorts for the Enoch and should be once again. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Ethical Values In The Old Testament 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ethical Values In The Old Testament BY JOHN G. TAYLOR III RELIGION 205 DR. FRANK JOHNSON 18 NOVEMBER 1996 ETHICAL VALUES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT How we live our lives is governed by ethics. Ethics is "human moral conduct according to principles of what is good or right to do." Our ethical values today descend primarily from a Christian ethic in which "a truly ethical decision, we are told, must be spontaneous, undirected, free - the individual's unfettered and uncoerced response to each new decision-demanding situation." The ethical values of today, especially Christian ethics, borrow and carry forward the Hebrew ethics of the past. Yet it is hardly fair to explain Old Testament ethics with only what was borrowed from it. What sets Judaism apart from other religions of the time was its monotheistic basis. The ethics of Judaism is historical and traditional as opposed to philosophical and theoretical. "In Israel, for the first time, an ethical conception of God is attained, and this not philosophically but historically; while its view of the moral life is certain of justification not only by reason but by history." Thus God is looked at as an ethical personality and is looked to as an example of good and right. In the Old Testament, God's voluntary (voluntary for God) covenant with man must be looked at as the prime example of ethical value. The covenant's requirements is the source of all ethics, morals, laws, and justice in the Old Testament. The Mosaic Covenant is the best example of ethical values and norms in the Old Testament. The Mosaic Covenant has three parts; the Decaloque, the Covenant Code; and the Holiness Code. The Decaloque is made up of apodictic (or absolute) law, it is unconditional and has no "ifs or buts" about it. This is commonly refereed to as the "Ten Commandments." Although legally vague these commandments are the basics for all ethical norms in the Old Testament. The Covenant Code is made up of casuistic (or conditional) law, it has a characteristic formula: "if this happens, then that will be the legal consequence." Much of the Covenant Code deals with property and parallels other ancient Near East law codes. The Holiness Code found in Leviticus 17-26 states what is holy, for example, "the phrase: "I, Yahweh, your God, am holy" (19:2; 20:26) is the self-predication almost "tautological," for holiness here has a theistic, rather than an exclusively moral, connotation." How the covenant is presented in the Old Testament is as a whole and as " the words of Yahweh." Many of the laws within the covenant, especially in the Covenant Code are anachronistic, meaning many are laws of a later time that were added to the original covenant. This "shows how successive generations continued to respond to Yahweh's covenant demand in the changing circumstances of their history." Instead of using a philosophical or theoretical challenge to ethics, the Old Testament incorporates the needs of societal ethics into the actual history and traditions. This however does not undermine the tradition of tracing the law back to Moses. Many of these laws can be found throughout the ancient Near East. The best representation of this is the Code of Hammurabi. The similarities between law codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi and other treaties of the ancient Near East, and the covenant are not just similar in the actual law but in the actual contract itself. These treaties were contracts between a king and his subjects. "By establishing the covenant Yahweh limited his own freedom, and he did so in complete liberty without any preceding obligation or rational motive." This covenant is for the Jewish and Christian faith a historical fact which is tied to Moses and the exodus from Egypt, "and its stipulations contained from the beginning religious and ethical norms." This can explain why Old Testament ethics takes on a strong " historical" quality. For example, the Lord says to Moses, "On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." (Leviticus 12:3) This ancient ritual possibly was used to ward off evil. It is more probable that some hygienic experience in the past long forgotten was responsible. The Lord did not have to have a reason for the conditions of his covenant. "For this the cultic and the ethical commandments were, for the law, on the same level of importance." After reading the Decaloque, the Covenant Code, and the Holiness Code, one can see why Old Testament ethics is historical and traditional. Ethical values and norms come straight from God. There is no need to be philosophical and theoretical, for to do so would be to question Yahweh. In the Old Testament, to be truly ethical and moral one must accept as the basic ethical value and the essential rule of conduct, the imitation of God. "The rule does not require asceticism, but it does ask that man live every waking moment in the awareness that he is not alone, for God is present." ENDNOTES Works Cited Achtemeier, Paul J., Harper's Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1985. Anderson, Bernhard W., Understanding the Old Testament. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1957. Buttrick, George A., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962, Hertzberg, Arthur, Judaism. New York: George Braziller, 1962. White, R. E. O., Biblical Ethics. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Ethical Values In The Old Testament.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Works Cited Achtemeier, Paul J., Harper's Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1985. Anderson, Bernhard W., Understanding the Old Testament. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1957. Buttrick, George A., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962, Hertzberg, Arthur, Judaism. New York: George Braziller, 1962. White, R. E. O., Biblical Ethics. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979. ETHICAL VALUES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT BY JOHN G. TAYLOR III RELIGION 205 DR. FRANK JOHNSON 18 NOVEMBER 1996 ETHICAL VALUES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT How we live our lives is governed by ethics. Ethics is "human moral conduct according to principles of what is good or right to do." Our ethical values today descend primarily from a Christian ethic in which "a truly ethical decision, we are told, must be spontaneous, undirected, free - the individual's unfettered and uncoerced response to each new decision-demanding situation." The ethical values of today, especially Christian ethics, borrow and carry forward the Hebrew ethics of the past. Yet it is hardly fair to explain Old Testament ethics with only what was borrowed from it. What sets Judaism apart from other religions of the time was its monotheistic basis. The ethics of Judaism is historical and traditional as opposed to philosophical and theoretical. "In Israel, for the first time, an ethical conception of God is attained, and this not philosophically but historically; while its view of the moral life is certain of justification not only by reason but by history." Thus God is looked at as an ethical personality and is looked to as an example of good and right. In the Old Testament, God's voluntary (voluntary for God) covenant with man must be looked at as the prime example of ethical value. The covenant's requirements is the source of all ethics, morals, laws, and justice in the Old Testament. The Mosaic Covenant is the best example of ethical values and norms in the Old Testament. The Mosaic Covenant has three parts; the Decaloque, the Covenant Code; and the Holiness Code. The Decaloque is made up of apodictic (or absolute) law, it is unconditional and has no "ifs or buts" about it. This is commonly refereed to as the "Ten Taylor 2 Commandments." Although legally vague these commandments are the basics for all ethical norms in the Old Testament. The Covenant Code is made up of casuistic (or conditional) law, it has a characteristic formula: "if this happens, then that will be the legal consequence." Much of the Covenant Code deals with property and parallels other ancient Near East law codes. The Holiness Code found in Leviticus 17-26 states what is holy, for example, "the phrase: "I, Yahweh, your God, am holy"(19:2; 20:26) is the self-predication almost "tautological," for holiness here has a theistic, rather than an exclusively moral, connotation." How the covenant is presented in the Old Testament is as a whole and as "the words of Yahweh." Many of the laws within the covenant, especially in the Covenant Code are anachronistic, meaning many are laws of a later time that were added to the original covenant. This "shows how successive generations continued to respond to Yahweh's covenant demand in the changing circumstances of their history." Instead of using a philosophical or theoretical challenge to ethics, the Old Testament incorporates the needs of societal ethics into the actual history and traditions. This however does not undermine the tradition of tracing the law back to Moses. Many of these laws can be found throughout the ancient Near East. The best representation of this is the Code of Hammurabi. The similarities between law codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi and other treaties of the ancient Near East, and the covenant are not just similar in the actual law but Taylor 3 in the actual contract itself. These treaties were contracts between a king and his subjects. "By establishing the covenant Yahweh limited his own freedom, and he did so in complete liberty without any preceding obligation or rational motive." This covenant is for the Jewish and Christian faith a historical fact which is tied to Moses and the exodus from Egypt, "and its stipulations contained from the beginning religious and ethical norms." This can explain why Old Testament ethics takes on a strong "historical" quality. For example, the Lord says to Moses, "On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." (Leviticus 12:3) This ancient ritual possibly was used to ward off evil. It is more probable that some hygienic experience in the past long forgotten was responsible. The Lord did not have to have a reason for the conditions of his covenant. "For this the cultic and the ethical commandments were, for the law, on the same level of importance." After reading the Decaloque, the Covenant Code, and the Holiness Code, one can see why Old Testament ethics is historical and traditional. Ethical values and norms come straight from God. There is no need to be philosophical and theoretical, for to do so would be to question Yahweh. In the Old Testament, to be truly ethical and moral one must accept as the basic ethical value and the essential rule of conduct, the imitation of God. "The rule does not require asceticism, but it does ask that man live every waking moment in the awareness that he is not alone, for God is present." ENDNOTES f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Euthanasia In Today.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Euthanasia In Today's Society Your wife of 50 years is suddenly diagnosed with a terminal disease. She lies in a bed, motionless and unaware of her surroundings. The medication to ease her pain has been wearing off. She just lies there in pain and unable to communicate with the outside world. The doctors give her a month to live at the most. What would you do? Would you let her sit in a hospital bed in agonizing pain for the last few months of her life, or do you help to prematurely meet her God? That is the topic of discussion in this paper: Euthanasia. Let's start by defining the term. Euthanasia is also referred to as "mercy killing." That is the killing of someone for their own good due to the pain and suffering they are enduring. Euthanasia also includes situations where the individual who is suffering makes the decision to die, a type of suicide actually. In today's world there are two types of euthanasia that are most common. The first are people who, perhaps because of serious illness or perhaps for reasons unrelated to their illness, are extremely depressed and say that they want to die (Johanson 1). Research has shown that the vast majority of these people are just asking for sympathy and don't really want to die but rather hear the calls of there loved ones begging them not to go on with the procedure. They want the attempt to fail. The second type of euthanasia involve people who are suffering from an illness that makes them unable to communicate (Johanson 2). These type of people are those who are in comas, paralyzed, or simply so sick that they cannot make meaningful sounds or other communication (Johanson 2). This is a much more accepted type of euthanasia. Especially in the Netherlands where Euthanasia is more common then the United States. There are two sides to attack this issue from. One being from the view of the Catholic Church and the other from a legal standpoint. Lets start with the legal standpoint. Who has the right to tell us when or when cannot die? Many feel that we have the right to do whatever we want to our bodies because they are our personal property. It is our inalienable right to do whatever we like to ourselves. They have a point since it all goes back to how we formed our nation. We formed it on individual rights that we modeled after the ideas of Rousseau before the French Revolution. Pro-euthanasia people also believe that anyone should have the right to turn away medical treatment if he believes that the side-effects, whether pain or the burden of being tied to some machine or whatever, are worse then the disease (Johanson 1). Even if this means he will live a shorter life. Pro-euthanasia activists also believe that if someone is in there right mind and honestly wants to end his life to the pain he is suffering he should have the right to do so. Some people stretch that belief even farther in saying that we all have the inalienable right to kill ourselves at anytime for any reason at all. That is when things can get out of control. The Ohio Law Review went as far as publishing a "Model Aid-in-Dying Act" that they believe all states should accept. It states that a child over the age of six could request "aid-in-dying" and if his parents refused to agree with him, an "Aid-in-Dying Board" could overrule them and grant him his wish (Johanson 1). Sometimes the idea of euthanasia can be twisted into extremely evil ways. Some euthanasia activists believe that the patient should be put to death because they have become a burden on society. They decide that it would be more beneficial to spend the money on something more useful. This is what it has come to in the Netherlands where according to Rita Marker of the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, euthanasia now accounts for 15% of the deaths in the Netherlands (Johanson 3). It gets pretty scary in the Netherlands with case stories like the following. A Dutch doctor diagnosed a woman with cancer. He checked her to the hospital for treatment and the results were astonishing. The treatments were already showing improvement. Well two days later the doctor goes to pay the recovering patient a visit and found another patient in her bed. When he asked about her, a nurse said that they needed the room so they decided that she was one of the weakest and gave her "the injection" (Valente 328). That is the form they do it in the Netherlands, with a deadly injection, without consent sometimes. Some people are afraid to even check into the hospitals for fear of their lives. Pro- euthanasia people say that euthanasia should be limited to only the terminally ill. And it should be a very hard decision that we may have to make but may be the best decision at times. A completely different way to view this is through the eyes of the Catholic Church. The Church is very much against the idea of euthanasia. Although the church recognizes the fact that there is now law of any state or religion that says we must stay alive at any cost (Pavone 1), they still say we do not have the right to die at our own will. Many believe that we own our bodies to the fullest extent. This is not true when relating it to Church. According to our belief, we have been given our bodies and life as a sacred gift from God and that we have absolutely no right tampering with when we are to die (Pavone 1). We are created in God's image and our lives have intrinsic and immeasurable value (Welsh 2). We are called to believe that only God can give us the gift of life and only He can take it away. The church goes on to say that death is inevitable and when it is clear that God is calling us we can accept his summons with faith but in no way speed up the process (Welsh 2). The Catholic Church has devised a means for approaching situations dealing with the terminally ill. They say there are two ways we treat them: "ordinary" or "extraordinary". Ordinary means must always be used to help the patient. This is any treatment that benefits the patient without severe side-effects or burdens. Extraordinary means are optional. Theses are treatments that put excessive burdens on the patient and have no real benefits (Pavone 2). The church also believes in the "sanctity of life ethic". This is the opposite belief of secular life stating that every life has a quality attached to it. The secular belief means that a life may be lessened in value due to the circumstances surrounding it. If I were deathly ill and unable to add to the community in any way, my life would be worth much less then that of a healthy 30 year old man working in the community. Well the "sanctity of life" states that every life has a God given value that is not reduced by circumstances (Welsh 2). And for those people who are suffering, we believe that God knows what he is doing, even if we do not understand. The Church is generally against the utilitarian ideas that the secular world has come to adopt today. We are called to see the sovereign hand of God and have faith in the fact that God knows what he is doing. After researching this topic and collaborating my ideas, I have really seen why we need separation between church and state. Euthanasia is clearly against all principles of the Catholic religion. They have a very good argument that our body is not truly ours, but a gift from God in the image of God, and destroying this gift is an insult. But you cannot forget the freedom we that we built this nation on. Legally, I believe that we should have the right to "euthanize" ourselves in a terminally ill situation. If we don't want to suffer like that, legally we don't have to. It may be a sin, but we all have free will to choose to sin. It might not be the best Catholic decision, but we certainly deserve the opportunity to be able to make that decision for ourselves. When someone is deathly ill and cannot communicate with others whatsoever, family members sometimes make the decision of euthanasia for the patient. This is a mistake in my mind. Although they may be doing what the patient wants, you never know what he/she really wants. It would be a tragedy if the patient wanted to keep fighting and his loved ones murder him. That is why I believe that if euthanasia is to be completely legal, the only person who can make that decision is the patient. In the near future, there would have to be a well devised legal system that the patient would have to go through before being legally approved for the euthanization. But as far as other people making the decision for the patient, I think that should never be legal. There is just no way to tell what the patient wants. The Catholic Church stated some very good points in my research. I was very influenced by what they had to say as a whole. I do think that euthanasia is morally wrong, but deserves to be legal since we have free will. But I think that Catholic doctrine may want to revise their standpoint. In the extreme cases of terminal illness, I believe that the church could exonerate those who need it and would want to follow through in the act of euthanasia. After all, we learned in class that under Natural Law, there are three drives that keep us alive: self-preservation, preservation of the species, and the desire to live in a society. When we lose these drives what else keeps us alive? What else is there to live for? I'm sure that some people on their death bed have lost all three of these drives. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that under the most extreme of conditions, if the patient could, in their right mind, make the decision for themselves, then I believe that the decision should be morally approved and legally approved. I think God would understand. I'm glad that I decided to do this topic. I went into this paper completely behind the idea of euthanasia. I believed that we all should have the right to put ourselves out of misery and put others out of their misery. I also believed that might be legally alright and maybe even morally correct to kill yourself for trivial reasons just because of our own free will. After researching the Catholic standpoints on the subject, I was heavily influenced in the their direction. I saw many excellent points that the author made. I still didn't completely give up my conviction to euthanasia, but lessened it to only the most extreme of conditions. I can definitely say that I have learned a lot from my research and I ended up reshaping my philosophy on the principles of euthanasia in today's society. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Euthanasia in Todays Society.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Your wife of 50 years is suddenly diagnosed with a terminal disease. She lies in a bed, motionless and unaware of her surroundings. The medication to ease her pain has been wearing off. She just lies there in pain and unable to communicate with the outside world. The doctors give her a month to live at the most. What would you do? Would you let her sit in a hospital bed in agonizing pain for the last few months of her life, or do you help to prematurely meet her God? That is the topic of discussion in this paper: Euthanasia. ` Let's start by defining the term. Euthanasia is also referred to as "mercy killing." That is the killing of someone for their own good due to the pain and suffering they are enduring. Euthanasia also includes situations where the individual who is suffering makes the decision to die, a type of suicide actually. In today's world there are two types of euthanasia that are most common. The first are people who, perhaps because of serious illness or perhaps for reasons unrelated to their illness, are extremely depressed and say that they want to die (Johanson 1). Research has shown that the vast majority of these people are just asking for sympathy and don't really want to die but rather hear the calls of there loved ones begging them not to go on with the procedure. They want the attempt to fail. The second type of euthanasia involve people who are suffering from an illness that makes them unable to communicate (Johanson 2). These type of people are those who are in comas, paralyzed, or simply so sick that they cannot make meaningful sounds or other communication (Johanson 2). This is a much more accepted type of euthanasia. Especially in the Netherlands where Euthanasia is more common then the United States. There are two sides to attack this issue from. One being from the view of the Catholic Church and the other from a legal standpoint. Lets start with the legal standpoint. Who has the right to tell us when or when cannot die? Many feel that we have the right to do whatever we want to our bodies because they are our personal property. It is our inalienable right to do whatever we like to ourselves. They have a point since it all goes back to how we formed our nation. We formed it on individual rights that we modeled after the ideas of Rousseau before the French Revolution. Pro-euthanasia people also believe that anyone should have the right to turn away medical treatment if he believes that the side-effects, whether pain or the burden of being tied to some machine or whatever, are worse then the disease (Johanson 1). Even if this means he will live a shorter life. Pro-euthanasia activists also believe that if someone is in there right mind and honestly wants to end his life to the pain he is suffering he should have the right to do so. Some people stretch that belief even farther in saying that we all have the inalienable right to kill ourselves at anytime for any reason at all. That is when things can get out of control. The Ohio Law Review went as far as publishing a "Model Aid-in-Dying Act" that they believe all states should accept. It states that a child over the age of six could request "aid-in-dying" and if his parents refused to agree with him, an "Aid-in-Dying Board" could overrule them and grant him his wish (Johanson 1). Sometimes the idea of euthanasia can be twisted into extremely evil ways. Some euthanasia activists believe that the patient should be put to death because they have become a burden on society. They decide that it would be more beneficial to spend the money on something more useful. This is what it has come to in the Netherlands where according to Rita Marker of the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, euthanasia now accounts for 15% of the deaths in the Netherlands (Johanson 3). It gets pretty scary in the Netherlands with case stories like the following. A Dutch doctor diagnosed a woman with cancer. He checked her to the hospital for treatment and the results were astonishing. The treatments were already showing improvement. Well two days later the doctor goes to pay the recovering patient a visit and found another patient in her bed. When he asked about her, a nurse said that they needed the room so they decided that she was one of the weakest and gave her "the injection" (Valente 328). That is the form they do it in the Netherlands, with a deadly injection, without consent sometimes. Some people are afraid to even check into the hospitals for fear of their lives. Pro- euthanasia people say that euthanasia should be limited to only the terminally ill. And it should be a very hard decision that we may have to make but may be the best decision at times. A completely different way to view this is through the eyes of the Catholic Church. The Church is very much against the idea of euthanasia. Although the church recognizes the fact that there is now law of any state or religion that says we must stay alive at any cost (Pavone 1), they still say we do not have the right to die at our own will. Many believe that we own our bodies to the fullest extent. This is not true when relating it to Church. According to our belief, we have been given our bodies and life as a sacred gift from God and that we have absolutely no right tampering with when we are to die (Pavone 1). We are created in God's image and our lives have intrinsic and immeasurable value (Welsh 2). We are called to believe that only God can give us the gift of life and only He can take it away. The church goes on to say that death is inevitable and when it is clear that God is calling us we can accept his summons with faith but in no way speed up the process (Welsh 2). The Catholic Church has devised a means for approaching situations dealing with the terminally ill. They say there are two ways we treat them: "ordinary" or "extraordinary". Ordinary means must always be used to help the patient. This is any treatment that benefits the patient without severe side-effects or burdens. Extraordinary means are optional. Theses are treatments that put excessive burdens on the patient and have no real benefits (Pavone 2). The church also believes in the "sanctity of life ethic". This is the opposite belief of secular life stating that every life has a quality attached to it. The secular belief means that a life may be lessened in value due to the circumstances surrounding it. If I were deathly ill and unable to add to the community in any way, my life would be worth much less then that of a healthy 30 year old man working in the community. Well the "sanctity of life" states that every life has a God given value that is not reduced by circumstances (Welsh 2). And for those people who are suffering, we believe that God knows what he is doing, even if we do not understand. The Church is generally against the utilitarian ideas that the secular world has come to adopt today. We are called to see the sovereign hand of God and have faith in the fact that God knows what he is doing. After researching this topic and collaborating my ideas, I have really seen why we need separation between church and state. Euthanasia is clearly against all principles of the Catholic religion. They have a very good argument that our body is not truly ours, but a gift from God in the image of God, and destroying this gift is an insult. But you cannot forget the freedom we that we built this nation on. Legally, I believe that we should have the right to "euthanize" ourselves in a terminally ill situation. If we don't want to suffer like that, legally we don't have to. It may be a sin, but we all have free will to choose to sin. It might not be the best Catholic decision, but we certainly deserve the opportunity to be able to make that decision for ourselves. When someone is deathly ill and cannot communicate with others whatsoever, family members sometimes make the decision of euthanasia for the patient. This is a mistake in my mind. Although they may be doing what the patient wants, you never know what he/she really wants. It would be a tragedy if the patient wanted to keep fighting and his loved ones murder him. That is why I believe that if euthanasia is to be completely legal, the only person who can make that decision is the patient. In the near future, there would have to be a well devised legal system that the patient would have to go through before being legally approved for the euthanization. But as far as other people making the decision for the patient, I think that should never be legal. There is just no way to tell what the patient wants. The Catholic Church stated some very good points in my research. I was very influenced by what they had to say as a whole. I do think that euthanasia is morally wrong, but deserves to be legal since we have free will. But I think that Catholic doctrine may want to revise their standpoint. In the extreme cases of terminal illness, I believe that the church could exonerate those who need it and would want to follow through in the act of euthanasia. After all, we learned in class that under Natural Law, there are three drives that keep us alive: self-preservation, preservation of the species, and the desire to live in a society. When we lose these drives what else keeps us alive? What else is there to live for? I'm sure that some people on their death bed have lost all three of these drives. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that under the most extreme of conditions, if the patient could, in their right mind, make the decision for themselves, then I believe that the decision should be morally approved and legally approved. I think God would understand. I'm glad that I decided to do this topic. I went into this paper completely behind the idea of euthanasia. I believed that we all should have the right to put ourselves out of misery and put others out of their misery. I also believed that might be legally alright and maybe even morally correct to kill yourself for trivial reasons just because of our own free will. After researching the Catholic standpoints on the subject, I was heavily influenced in the their direction. I saw many excellent points that the author made. I still didn't completely give up my conviction to euthanasia, but lessened it to only the most extreme of conditions. I can definitely say that I have learned a lot from my research and I ended up reshaping my philosophy on the principles of euthanasia in today's society. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Evening With A Pagan.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Evening With A Pagan An Evening with the Pagans~ A brief history of paganism~ Over 25,000 years ago, our ancestors across the continent practiced an ancient form of religion known as paganism. During the Neolithic and Paleolithic time era, our ancestors were in awe of the great manifestations of nature. Due to lack of scientific thought, they were riddled with ignorance and superstition. Everything had a supernatural explanation. They associated each naturalistic phenomena with a type of god, inscribing inanimate objects with life -like characteristics .This practice is referred to as animism. Every element ,be it thunder ,rain or the sun ,was thought to be a god (or goddess) within it. Eventually their gods became an object of worship known as polytheism. Eventually many forms of polytheism evolved to what is known as paganism. Modern Paganism Now defined as :The worship of a god or goddess whose roots are in pre-Christian Western Europe. Modern paganism is alive and well today. It consists of many sub-divisions .These include ~Wicca ,druidism Santeria and many others. Wicca focuses on the worship of a god and goddess .In Wicca ,there is a plethora of pantheon of deities that one can choose from including: Greek, Norse ,roman etc...... Focusing on a Greek Wiccan tradition ,this will be describing the pagan festival of Hectare. The Festival of Hecate The festival of Hecate is celebrated between the 3rd and 4th Saturday of August. (which ever is closest to the new moon) It is in honor of the Greek goddess Hecate. She was first worshipped in ancient Greece -called the triple goddess of magic. She is often represented in triple form ; maiden (youth) ,mother (fertility) and crone (the wise woman). In ancient Rome ,she was known as trevia ,the cross road with three paths. Hecate is symbolized by the phases of the moon. Each attribute correlates with a particular phase of the moon. The waxing moon (maiden),the full moon (mother) and the new moon( crone). The Ceremony~ Upon arrival at the festival in Georgetown Delaware, everyone gathers for the lecture. This is to educate the newcomers as to what the ceremony entails. The ceremony is always rehearsed before it is performed. After the lecture ,there is a large potluck feast to keep everyone energized for the evenings festivities. The processional~ When the sun sets, the processional begins. With everyone in their appropriate magical attire,(consisting of a robe and jewelry) everyone lines up proceeds with the first phase. This is called consecration- each person is consecrated . This is done by covering the body in incense smoke and sprinkling of water. This is a purification process that cleanses the body of negative energy prior to the ritual. Next each person is permitted to enter the circle one by one. Once everyone is inside the circle, the next phase begins. Calling of the quarters~ At this point ,the high priest/priestess begins the calling of the quarters or summoning the elements. Each direction is marked by an altar and each is represented by an element. West =air, east=water , north=earth and south=fire. The high priest approaches each point ,says a chant and ends the chant with the phrase ""hail and welcome"". After the elements are called , the highpoint of the ritual begins ~ the invocation The Invocation The invocation is where the goddess is invited to attend the ceremony. The invitation is done through a series of chants . Ex: ""He Kau ,He Kau , He Kau"" Hecate trevia trimorphos Hecate queen of the moon and all her phases"" 3 X''s (Hek a ta) Next 3 women are chosen to represent Hecate ,each representing one of her aspects.(they are chosen prior to the ritual) The maiden is in white (purity) the mother in red (fertility) and crone in black(wisdom) These women remain in the circle. At this point the goddess speaks to the participants .Each one gives a brief message ,usually a blessing or advice. Once the crone has finished, each participant is invited to approach any of the three forms and speak to them. They may ask for advice ,offering or a boon. Once everyone has had their turn to speak with Hecate,the group becomes silent. The goddess is thanked and dismissed. Sometimes during a ritual a participant may feel a bit overwhelmed with the energy that has been raised. It is for this reason ,that the next phase ,called grounding takes place. This is done by simply placing the hands on the ground and releasing the energy. Once the grounding has been performed,it is time to close the quarters or dismiss the elements. Like the opening , the high priest approaches each element ,says a chant but this time ends with ""hail and farewell"" Once the elements are dismissed, it is time to close the circle. This is done by the whole group. Closing the Circle A special chant is recited to close the circle : ""The circle is closed but yet unbroken, Merry meet, merry part ,and merry meet again. Blessed Be !"" At this time ,each participant leaves the circle exiting from the point at which they entered. Again feasting of food commences ,along with spirited conversation. Religious ceremonies play an integral role in our society. Paganism fills the social ,physical and cognitive role that mainstream religions provide. References Sited 1) Adler, Margot 1993 ""Drawing Down the Moon"" Full Moon Pub. Phoenix ,AZ 356 pgs. 2)Murray ,Margaret ""The Witch Cult of western Europe"" Westin House Press Ny,NY 212pgs. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Existence of God.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Existence of God The truth behind the existence of god. As a flesh and blood we seem to aspire to be ultitmley immortal, we have created stories guidelines ways in which we our able to become immortal. Christins call it jesus others call it alla or buddua. Does this make one better then the other or is just a set of rules that we all follow just so mankind can prosper. Is faith a trait that is leared or is it a proptey that we our all born with the ability to belive. The questions we have this is a trait the abilitty to reason is a trait, but what scares us so terribly bad is whaen we cant answer a question. We study we learn but the idea that many of us have not leared is that faith is not imortality or heaven or hell but our faith in ourselves and faith in our fellow man. What scares me so bad is the fact that many people hide in this world of god. God is what created us what made us it is what we must ultitmley answer to. We answer as not flesh and blood but as a spirit we choose long before our mortal body goes where we go. We leave behind our bodys and enter into a realm to which we cannot comphrend. Our minds well never allow us to comprhend immortality but our souls can that is faith. This faith belongs to no clan of self righteous humn being that think that becuse there rules that they follow our better then another. Se the truth is god does not have a check list of whos good and whos bad but rather he make the decision we have morals or as some calit a concous. This world is about the first stepping stone that we take this is a test can you live in an imperfect world and handle without cheating your fellow man. This is faith in yourself this life. God gave us life it is our choice wether we use it to its follow view or we cash in early and take the easy way out. Is a gamble much like a stock in a company we own our own stock we have a value this is a value that we place. The question that you must ask yourself what value is yours. Our you a sellout our you willing to give up everything you have for an easy buck or our you willing to ride the rollercoaster of life following it rules so you can exsisit. Lifes a bitch if it was easy it wouldnt be called life. The sad thing many people die long before life arrives, this makes them droids they have no proupose spending there whole lives searching for this life with a died green piece of paper, some call it greed some call it evil but the truth is sellout. We can tell a thousand stories to try to belive in god, we can search to the four corners of the earth find the grale find the ark but we well not find god, we may see the devil in a million forms we may see evil in every corner but we must stop looking from the outside and look inside for that is the peace we all need. Becuse you belive in a certain way god exsisits in this form or that that is sick for our feeble attempt at comphrend our true exsisitance is nothing but our fear of death. Life is death but faith is our soul, for once look to the inside not inside your flesh but inside your and there is were every answer ever asked can be answred all but a simple truth , faith. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Exogetical Essay on Matthew 11.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Exogetical Essay on Matthew 11:25-30 This passage opens up with the phrase, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. This speaks of two kinds of people in his prayer: the "wise" - arrogant in their own knowledge - and the "little children" - humbly open to receive the truth of God's Word. Are we wise in our own eyes, or do we seek the truth in childlike faith, realizing that only God hold all the answers? God wants us to be open at all times. When we become too "informed" and "wise" we can sometimes become to sure of our own knowledge, and possibly miss what God is really telling us. The next passage says, "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." According to my Life Application Study Guide, in the Old Testament, "know" means more than knowledge. It implies an intimate relationship. The communion between God the Father and God the Son is the core of their relationship. For anyone else to know God, God must reveal himself to that person, by the Son's choice. How fortunate we are that Jesus has clearly revealed to us God, his truth, and how we can know him. The last major section of this passage reads, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." A yoke is a heavy wooden harness that fits over the shoulders of an ox or oxen. It is attached to a piece of equipment the oxen are to pull. A person may be carrying heavy burdens of (1) sin, (2) excessive demands of religious leaders, (3) oppression and persecution, (4) weariness in the search for God, or any number of other problems we may face day to day. The beautiful thing is that Jesus frees people from all these burdens. The rest that Jesus promises is love, healing, and peace with God, not the end of all labor. A relationship with God changes meaningless, wearisome toil into spiritual productivity and purpose. How wonderful God is, that he will do all these things for us. So many religions and faiths portray God as a spiteful, vengeful God who is constantly needing to be appeased. How thankful I am that I serve a God who cares about me and wants to nurture me and wants to watch me grow into my relationship with him. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Exogetical Essay on Matthew 112530.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Exogetical Essay on Matthew 11:25-30 This passage opens up with the phrase, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. This speaks of two kinds of people in his prayer: the "wise" - arrogant in their own knowledge - and the "little children" - humbly open to receive the truth of God's Word. Are we wise in our own eyes, or do we seek the truth in childlike faith, realizing that only God hold all the answers? God wants us to be open at all times. When we become too "informed" and "wise" we can sometimes become to sure of our own knowledge, and possibly miss what God is really telling us. The next passage says, "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." According to my Life Application Study Guide, in the Old Testament, "know" means more than knowledge. It implies an intimate relationship. The communion between God the Father and God the Son is the core of their relationship. For anyone else to know God, God must reveal himself to that person, by the Son's choice. How fortunate we are that Jesus has clearly revealed to us God, his truth, and how we can know him. The last major section of this passage reads, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." A yoke is a heavy wooden harness that fits over the shoulders of an ox or oxen. It is attached to a piece of equipment the oxen are to pull. A person may be carrying heavy burdens of (1) sin, (2) excessive demands of religious leaders, (3) oppression and persecution, (4) weariness in the search for God, or any number of other problems we may face day to day. The beautiful thing is that Jesus frees people from all these burdens. The rest that Jesus promises is love, healing, and peace with God, not the end of all labor. A relationship with God changes meaningless, wearisome toil into spiritual productivity and purpose. How wonderful God is, that he will do all these things for us. So many religions and faiths portray God as a spiteful, vengeful God who is constantly needing to be appeased. How thankful I am that I serve a God who cares about me and wants to nurture me and wants to watch me grow into my relationship with him. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Forgiveness 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Forgiveness Christ Jesus some two thousand years ago came into this world to bring redemption for our sins. He did this through his death and resurrection, or what we refer to as the pascal mystery. We still encounter the saving presence of the Lord in the sacraments and in the Word. In each and every sacrament we come face to face with "the grace of God our Savior" (Titus 2:11). It is this redemption of sins aspect of the sacraments that I will be examine. In the past couple of century we have focused are attention primarily on the Sacrament of Penance as the means to obtain forgiveness of sins after Baptism. We have come to focus on it so much that it has come to be, for most Catholics, understood as the only sacrament though which forgiveness of sins is obtained. This belief as we will see is an incorrect understanding because we encounter the saving presence of the Lord in other sacraments and ways not only in the Sacrament of Penance. However the Sacrament of Penance is always to be understood as the primary sacrament for forgiveness of mortal sins after Baptism. To better understand how this can be let us first look at the general background of the development of the Sacrament of Penance. The Sacrament of Penance has it's roots even as far back as the day of resurrection when Christ breathed out the spirit on the disciples and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained.' (John 20:22-23). In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians we see Paul developing this teaching of Christ, when he says 'All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you...be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God( 2 Cor. 5:18-21). These two passages would seem to be part of the sacrament's biblical foundation. The sacrament itself would seem to have come about as a result of the early Church's struggle to recognize that Baptism may forgive sin but it didn't end the struggle against sin. People fell into sin even after Baptism, so in order to bring these fallen members back into the Christian community the Sacrament of Penance was established. In the second and up to the sixth century A.D. a Christian could only receive the Sacrament of Penance once after Baptism. The penitent would have to first confess before his or her bishop. The penitent would then be required to participate in the "order of penitents" of the early Church. This required the penitent to wear special clothes, and the penitent would have to go to a special place with other penitents when worshipping with the community. The community would pray for those in the "order of penitents" during the worship serves, and the bishop would lay his hands on the penitents. But this laying on of hands did not take on the character of absolution until it was done during the worship serves on Thursday of Holy Week. The penitents were not allowed to receive Eucharist because the penitents were excommunicated, excluded from Communion. After a period of probation, prescribed by the bishop, the penitent would be absolved of the sins the individual committed. The bishop would do this by laying his hands on the penitent. The typical time for this reconciliation to take place was on Thursday of Holy Week before the Baptisms took place. The reason it was done at this time was because the early Church believed that both Baptism and Penance were both sacraments that brought about forgiveness of sins and that they should be prepared for at the same time. It was just this type of thinking that also led the early Church to the belief that the sacrament could only be received once. This time of preparation, for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, has come to be what we refer to now as the liturgical season of Lent. This belief that the sacrament could only be received once and due to the strict penance received for sins it became customary among Christians of these earlier centuries to wait to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation until just before death. The early Church only saw public confession necessary if you had committed the sins of murder, apostasy, or adultery. Sense confession was only necessary in the case of these three serious sins, which were serious acts against the Christian community, and do to its connections with Baptism on Thursday of Holy Week it was viewed as a part of public worship. It was considered part of public worship up to the end of the sixth century A.D. and the beginning of the seventh century A.D. at which time a transition took place in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Due to the severity of the penance imposed on people for sins committed, and the belief in being only allowed to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation once. People avoided the public canonical penance till the end of their lives. This caused a decline in the public penance to the point of almost total extinction towards the end of the sixth century A.D. Another transition was taking place in the Sacrament of Baptism about this same time that also raised question of concern in regards to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. During the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. there was a larger number of adult converts accepted into the Christian community that lacked proper instruction and catechizes. This occurred do to the fact that it was customary to join the religion that the leader of a society was part of, so if the leader of the society was Christian all those who followed that individual would become Christian. This resulted in a large numbers of adult Baptisms. But at the end of the sixth centuryA.D. and beginning of the seventh century A.D. the Church's baptismal policy changed. The Church started to emphasize infant Baptism rather them adult Baptism. This change in emphasis to infant baptism and the decline in the number of people participating in the public canonical penance presented some new pastoral problems that needed to be addressed. First, how could the Church maintain its high moral standards, and at the same time, present to those members of the Church that fell into sin the ability to be reconciled based on a more realistic program? Second, it was one thing to require those Baptized as adult to do public penance. But it would be a whole deferent thing to ask those Baptized as infants and young children, who had to still live and struggle through all the stages of growth prior to adulthood, to do the same public penance and only be allowed to do it once. To address these issues a new form of penance emerged in the seventh century A.D., which is often referred to as "private" or "tariff" penance by scholars. It was referred to as "tariff" penance because a priest would assign penance to individuals who confessed their sins in private from a collection of handbooks called a Penitential Books. Penitential Books were handbooks that listed sins and customary penances, which was usually some period of fasting, that were given by other priests for the particular sin listed. This new form of private or tariff penance was deferent from the earlier, and still practiced, form of public canonical penance. It was different in that the whole rite was done in privately and by a priest rather then the bishop. Private penance could also be received as many times as one felt the need for it. These three new characteristic of privacy, priest as presider, and the ability to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation more then once addressed the pastoral issues that had emerged at the end of the sixth century A.D. This made the new rite popular among the Christian community. It seems to be a consensus among scholars that tariff penance has its origins in the British Isles, most scholars would say primarily in Ireland. They also belief that monk-missionaries are responsible for tariff penance making its way on to the European continent between the years 543 A.D. and 615 A.D. After it had arrived on the European continent, the tariff penance the monks had brought was modified because some of the penances given in the Penitential Books appeared to be to harsh. This need to reduce the harshness of the penance gave birth to a system called "commutation." Commutation is a system by which the harshness of the penance given for a sin was reduced or commuted. Several types of this commutation system emerged, but it was easy for the unjust priest to manipulate this system to benefit themselves. In some cases the penitent would be forced to give an offering to the priest for the purpose of celebrating Mass for the penitent's forgiveness, but some priests found this to be more of a profitable enterprise rather then that of an acceptable penance. There were other abuses of the commutation system, but all such abuses were condemned by the Church. It eventually became the norm of the Church that the fasting that was imposed by the Penitential Books was to be replaced by prayers. Another form of penance that was replaced by prayers was that of public penance. The public canonical penance emphasized the public nature of sin, and the penance given for sins was of a public nature. The penitent would be required to do such things as visit and take care of the poor, sick, and imprisoned. Private penance on the other hand accepted the penitent's confession as satisfactory for forgiveness of sins with the stipulation that the penitent do the prayers given as penance. This emphasis on prayer rather then fasting and public penance made private penance even more popular among Christians. Private penance eventually won out over all the other forms of reconciliation in the Western Church. The Church began to recognize this and in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council made it a requirement that all Catholics at "the age of discretion" must confess their serious sins to a priest once a year and attained the Eucharistic liturgy and receive the Eucharist during the Easter season. We can see that private penance, due to its popularity and from this mandate made by the Fourth Lateran Council, by the thirteenth century had all but replaced the other forms of reconciliation found in the earlier centuries of Christianity. The Catholic Church also during the Reformation of the sixteenth century defended private penance against reformers who believed that private penance was not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. The Council of Trent, in 1551, stated that 'private confession was absolutely necessary for mortal sins, which had to be confessed to a qualified priest according to number, type, and special circumstance. Trent also made it clear that the Sacrament of Penance was necessary for the salvation of persons who sinned seriously after Baptism.' The standards set by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent have been restated time and again by official Church documents up to the present day. Reconciliation was never meant to be solely attached only to the Sacrament of Penance. We find forgiveness anytime we encounter the saving presence of the Lord in other sacraments and ways not only in the Sacrament of Penance. One way of showing the truth of this statement is to look at the role that Lord's Prayer plays in different liturgical rites. St. Augustine shows that he holds this point of view himself when he says "The remission of sin takes place not solely in the sacred ablution of Baptism, but in the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer. In it you have, as it were, your daily baptism." Most scholars believe that during the first six centuries of Christianity daily faults and sins were believed to be forgiven by the devotional practices and prayer, most importantly the Our Father. Because the only sins that called for public canonical penance were those of murder, apostasy, or adultery. The Lord's Prayer was an important part of worship in the early Church, and still is today. It was so important that the candidates for Baptism had to recite the prayer before they received Baptism. The Our Father was also recited by the priest or bishop in public penance for the sake of all, and the one to be annoited also had to recite it before the annoiting took place. The early Church, I dare say, believed that all the sacraments were sacraments of reconciliation, of which the Lord's Prayer was the "perfect verbal expression." The Liturgy of the Hours is also a source of reconciliation because it ends with the Our Father. St. Benedict himself emphasizes, in his Rule, that at morning and evening prayer the Lord's Prayer is to be said aloud so all the monks may here the phrase "forgive us as we forgive." He emphasized this so that there might be perfect reconciliation between the monks each evening and morning. The Our Father is also found in the Liturgy of the Eucharist which is the ultimate expression of reconciliation in itself because it is the ultimate expression of the pascal mystery. The Lord's Prayer has always held a climatic role in the Eucharist. It has always been the introduction to communion in the Eucharistic Liturgy. One reason given for it being the introduction to communion was the petition "forgive us as we forgive." St.Augustine says the reason we pray the Lord's Prayer at this point is so that "after these words 'forgive us as we forgive' we may approach the alter confidently and literally 'with washed faces." What St. Augustine meant by this is that the Our Father makes it possible for Christians to receive the Eucharist because they had in a spiritual sense "washed their faces" of sin. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is itself another expression of reconciliation The place in the Eucharistic Liturgy that forgiveness is most apparent is in the preparation to receive communion. The preparation consists of the Our Father, the prayer that follows, "Deliver us, O Lord from every evil...," then the prayer for peace, "Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles, I leave you peace...," and finally the private prayers said by the priest. This small group of prayers combined with the acclamation "Lamb of God" is in itself a penitential rite. This penitential rite emphasizes the forgiveness offered to all in the Eucharist. If we take a closer look at these prayers, we can see how they emphasize the power of forgiveness found in the Body and Blood of Christ. Lets take for an example one of the private prayers recited by the priest just before communion is distributed to the faithful, " Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, by the will of the father and the work of the Holy Spirit, your death brought life to the world. By your holy Body and Blood free me from all my sins and from every evil....." This private prayer of the priest is putting emphasize on the fact that it is the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus that frees us from our sins. It would seem then that by receiving the body and blood of Christ we are also receiving forgiveness. We can see by looking at Church history that the Sacrament of Penance was primarily for the forgiveness of mortal sins. We can also easily see how forgiveness is offered to us in other sacraments and ways, such as in prayers like the Our Father. Based on these two facts, and many not mentioned, I would have to say that it is incorrect to say that after Baptism we can only obtain forgiveness of sins through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Because we can see how this other sacraments and ways enable us to encounter the saving presence of the Lord. We should always understand the Sacrament of Penance as the primary sacrament for forgiveness of mortal sins after Baptism. Because history shows us that these sins are sins that damage more then just the one sinning and demand a form of reconciliation that reconciles the sinner with the whole Body of Christ, the Church. It would seem to me sense the early Church did not see all sins as needing the Sacrament of Penance there is no reason not to belief that venial sins are forgiven in other sacraments and rituals. We even have proof that saints such as St. Benedict and St. Augustine held that we could find forgiveness in other ways then just that of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Bibliography Dudley, Martin: Confession and Absolution: 1990, The Liturgical Press (243.4, D848). Hamelin, Leonce: Reconciliation in the Church: 1980, The Liturgical Press (243.4, H213). Jeep, Elizabeth: The Rite of Penance: Commentaries Volume Two, Implementing the Rite: 1976, The Liturgical Conference (243.4, L782r v.2). Keifer, Ralph: The Rite of Penance: Commentaries Volume One, Understanding the Document: 1975, The Liturgical Conference (243.4, L782r v.1). Longley, Alfred: Healing and Forgiveness, A New Penitential: 1976, World Library Publications Inc. (243.4, L856) Mitchell, Nathan, OSB: The Rite of Penance: Commentaries Volume Three, Background and Directions: 1978, The Liturgical Conference (243.4, L782r v.3). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Forgiveness.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christ Jesus some two thousand years ago came into this world to bring redemption for our sins. He did this through his death and resurrection, or what we refer to as the pascal mystery. We still encounter the saving presence of the Lord in the sacraments and in the Word. In each and every sacrament we come face to face with "the grace of God our Savior" (Titus 2:11). It is this redemption of sins aspect of the sacraments that I will be examine. In the past couple of century we have focused are attention primarily on the Sacrament of Penance as the means to obtain forgiveness of sins after Baptism. We have come to focus on it so much that it has come to be, for most Catholics, understood as the only sacrament though which forgiveness of sins is obtained. This belief as we will see is an incorrect understanding because we encounter the saving presence of the Lord in other sacraments and ways not only in the Sacrament of Penance. However the Sacrament of Penance is always to be understood as the primary sacrament for forgiveness of mortal sins after Baptism. To better understand how this can be let us first look at the general background of the development of the Sacrament of Penance. The Sacrament of Penance has it's roots even as far back as the day of resurrection when Christ breathed out the spirit on the disciples and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained.' (John 20:22-23). In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians we see Paul developing this teaching of Christ, when he says 'All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you...be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' ( 2 Cor. 5:18-21). These two passages would seem to be part of the sacrament's biblical foundation. The sacrament itself would seem to have come about as a result of the early Church's struggle to recognize that Baptism may forgive sin but it didn't end the struggle against sin. People fell into sin even after Baptism, so in order to bring these fallen members back into the Christian community the Sacrament of Penance was established. In the second and up to the sixth century A.D. a Christian could only receive the Sacrament of Penance once after Baptism. The penitent would have to first confess before his or her bishop. The penitent would then be required to participate in the "order of penitents" of the early Church. This required the penitent to wear special clothes, and the penitent would have to go to a special place with other penitents when worshipping with the community. The community would pray for those in the "order of penitents" during the worship serves, and the bishop would lay his hands on the penitents. But this laying on of hands did not take on the character of absolution until it was done during the worship serves on Thursday of Holy Week. The penitents were not allowed to receive Eucharist because the penitents were excommunicated, excluded from Communion. After a period of probation, prescribed by the bishop, the penitent would be absolved of the sins the individual committed. The bishop would do this by laying his hands on the penitent. The typical time for this reconciliation to take place was on Thursday of Holy Week before the Baptisms took place. The reason it was done at this time was because the early Church believed that both Baptism and Penance were both sacraments that brought about forgiveness of sins and that they should be prepared for at the same time. It was just this type of thinking that also led the early Church to the belief that the sacrament could only be received once. This time of preparation, for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, has come to be what we refer to now as the liturgical season of Lent. This belief that the sacrament could only be received once and due to the strict penance received for sins it became customary among Christians of these earlier centuries to wait to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation until just before death. The early Church only saw public confession necessary if you had committed the sins of murder, apostasy, or adultery. Sense confession was only necessary in the case of these three serious sins, which were serious acts against the Christian community, and do to its connections with Baptism on Thursday of Holy Week it was viewed as a part of public worship. It was considered part of public worship up to the end of the sixth century A.D. and the beginning of the seventh century A.D. at which time a transition took place in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Due to the severity of the penance imposed on people for sins committed, and the belief in being only allowed to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation once. People avoided the public canonical penance till the end of their lives. This caused a decline in the public penance to the point of almost total extinction towards the end of the sixth century A.D. Another transition was taking place in the Sacrament of Baptism about this same time that also raised question of concern in regards to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. During the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. there was a larger number of adult converts accepted into the Christian community that lacked proper instruction and catechizes. This occurred do to the fact that it was customary to join the religion that the leader of a society was part of, so if the leader of the society was Christian all those who followed that individual would become Christian. This resulted in a large numbers of adult Baptisms. But at the end of the sixth century A.D. and beginning of the seventh century A.D. the Church's baptismal policy changed. The Church started to emphasize infant Baptism rather them adult Baptism. This change in emphasis to infant baptism and the decline in the number of people participating in the public canonical penance presented some new pastoral problems that needed to be addressed. First, how could the Church maintain its high moral standards, and at the same time, present to those members of the Church that fell into sin the ability to be reconciled based on a more realistic program? Second, it was one thing to require those Baptized as adult to do public penance. But it would be a whole deferent thing to ask those Baptized as infants and young children, who had to still live and struggle through all the stages of growth prior to adulthood, to do the same public penance and only be allowed to do it once. To address these issues a new form of penance emerged in the seventh century A.D., which is often referred to as "private" or "tariff" penance by scholars. It was referred to as "tariff" penance because a priest would assign penance to individuals who confessed their sins in private from a collection of handbooks called a Penitential Books. Penitential Books were handbooks that listed sins and customary penances, which was usually some period of fasting, that were given by other priests for the particular sin listed. This new form of private or tariff penance was deferent from the earlier, and still practiced, form of public canonical penance. It was different in that the whole rite was done in privately and by a priest rather then the bishop. Private penance could also be received as many times as one felt the need for it. These three new characteristic of privacy, priest as presider, and the ability to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation more then once addressed the pastoral issues that had emerged at the end of the sixth century A.D. This made the new rite popular among the Christian community. It seems to be a consensus among scholars that tariff penance has its origins in the British Isles, most scholars would say primarily in Ireland. They also belief that monk-missionaries are responsible for tariff penance making its way on to the European continent between the years 543 A.D. and 615 A.D. After it had arrived on the European continent, the tariff penance the monks had brought was modified because some of the penances given in the Penitential Books appeared to be to harsh. This need to reduce the harshness of the penance gave birth to a system called "commutation." Commutation is a system by which the harshness of the penance given for a sin was reduced or commuted. Several types of this commutation system emerged, but it was easy for the unjust priest to manipulate this system to benefit themselves. In some cases the penitent would be forced to give an offering to the priest for the purpose of celebrating Mass for the penitent's forgiveness, but some priests found this to be more of a profitable enterprise rather then that of an acceptable penance. There were other abuses of the commutation system, but all such abuses were condemned by the Church. It eventually became the norm of the Church that the fasting that was imposed by the Penitential Books was to be replaced by prayers. Another form of penance that was replaced by prayers was that of public penance. The public canonical penance emphasized the public nature of sin, and the penance given for sins was of a public nature. The penitent would be required to do such things as visit and take care of the poor, sick, and imprisoned. Private penance on the other hand accepted the penitent's confession as satisfactory for forgiveness of sins with the stipulation that the penitent do the prayers given as penance. This emphasis on prayer rather then fasting and public penance made private penance even more popular among Christians. Private penance eventually won out over all the other forms of reconciliation in the Western Church. The Church began to recognize this and in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council made it a requirement that all Catholics at "the age of discretion" must confess their serious sins to a priest once a year and attained the Eucharistic liturgy and receive the Eucharist during the Easter season. We can see that private penance, due to its popularity and from this mandate made by the Fourth Lateran Council, by the thirteenth century had all but replaced the other forms of reconciliation found in the earlier centuries of Christianity. The Catholic Church also during the Reformation of the sixteenth century defended private penance against reformers who believed that private penance was not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. The Council of Trent, in 1551, stated that 'private confession was absolutely necessary for mortal sins, which had to be confessed to a qualified priest according to number, type, and special circumstance. Trent also made it clear that the Sacrament of Penance was necessary for the salvation of persons who sinned seriously after Baptism.' The standards set by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent have been restated time and again by official Church documents up to the present day. Reconciliation was never meant to be solely attached only to the Sacrament of Penance. We find forgiveness anytime we encounter the saving presence of the Lord in other sacraments and ways not only in the Sacrament of Penance. One way of showing the truth of this statement is to look at the role that Lord's Prayer plays in different liturgical rites. St. Augustine shows that he holds this point of view himself when he says "The remission of sin takes place not solely in the sacred ablution of Baptism, but in the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer. In it you have, as it were, your daily baptism." Most scholars believe that during the first six centuries of Christianity daily faults and sins were believed to be forgiven by the devotional practices and prayer, most importantly the Our Father. Because the only sins that called for public canonical penance were those of murder, apostasy, or adultery. The Lord's Prayer was an important part of worship in the early Church, and still is today. It was so important that the candidates for Baptism had to recite the prayer before they received Baptism. The Our Father was also recited by the priest or bishop in public penance for the sake of all, and the one to be annoited also had to recite it before the annoiting took place. The early Church, I dare say, believed that all the sacraments were sacraments of reconciliation, of which the Lord's Prayer was the "perfect verbal expression." The Liturgy of the Hours is also a source of reconciliation because it ends with the Our Father. St. Benedict himself emphasizes, in his Rule, that at morning and evening prayer the Lord's Prayer is to be said aloud so all the monks may here the phrase "forgive us as we forgive." He emphasized this so that there might be perfect reconciliation between the monks each evening and morning. The Our Father is also found in the Liturgy of the Eucharist which is the ultimate expression of reconciliation in itself because it is the ultimate expression of the pascal mystery. The Lord's Prayer has always held a climatic role in the Eucharist. It has always been the introduction to communion in the Eucharistic Liturgy. One reason given for it being the introduction to communion was the petition "forgive us as we forgive." St.Augustine says the reason we pray the Lord's Prayer at this point is so that "after these words 'forgive us as we forgive' we may approach the alter confidently and literally 'with washed faces." What St. Augustine meant by this is that the Our Father makes it possible for Christians to receive the Eucharist because they had in a spiritual sense "washed their faces" of sin. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is itself another expression of reconciliation The place in the Eucharistic Liturgy that forgiveness is most apparent is in the preparation to receive communion. The preparation consists of the Our Father, the prayer that follows, "Deliver us, O Lord from every evil...," then the prayer for peace, "Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles, I leave you peace...," and finally the private prayers said by the priest. This small group of prayers combined with the acclamation "Lamb of God" is in itself a penitential rite. This penitential rite emphasizes the forgiveness offered to all in the Eucharist. If we take a closer look at these prayers, we can see how they emphasize the power of forgiveness found in the Body and Blood of Christ. Lets take for an example one of the private prayers recited by the priest just before communion is distributed to the faithful, " Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, by the will of the father and the work of the Holy Spirit, your death brought life to the world. By your holy Body and Blood free me from all my sins and from every evil....." This private prayer of the priest is putting emphasize on the fact that it is the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus that frees us from our sins. It would seem then that by receiving the body and blood of Christ we are also receiving forgiveness. We can see by looking at Church history that the Sacrament of Penance was primarily for the forgiveness of mortal sins. We can also easily see how forgiveness is offered to us in other sacraments and ways, such as in prayers like the Our Father. Based on these two facts, and many not mentioned, I would have to say that it is incorrect to say that after Baptism we can only obtain forgiveness of sins through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Because we can see how this other sacraments and ways enable us to encounter the saving presence of the Lord. We should always understand the Sacrament of Penance as the primary sacrament for forgiveness of mortal sins after Baptism. Because history shows us that these sins are sins that damage more then just the one sinning and demand a form of reconciliation that reconciles the sinner with the whole Body of Christ, the Church. It would seem to me sense the early Church did not see all sins as needing the Sacrament of Penance there is no reason not to belief that venial sins are forgiven in other sacraments and rituals. We even have proof that saints such as St. Benedict and St. Augustine held that we could find forgiveness in other ways then just that of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Bibliography Dudley, Martin: Confession and Absolution: 1990, The Liturgical Press (243.4, D848). Hamelin, Leonce: Reconciliation in the Church: 1980, The Liturgical Press (243.4, H213). Jeep, Elizabeth: The Rite of Penance: Commentaries Volume Two, Implementing the Rite: 1976, The Liturgical Conference (243.4, L782r v.2). Keifer, Ralph: The Rite of Penance: Commentaries Volume One, Understanding the Document: 1975, The Liturgical Conference (243.4, L782r v.1). Longley, Alfred: Healing and Forgiveness, A New Penitential: 1976, World Library Publications Inc. (243.4, L856) Mitchell, Nathan, OSB: The Rite of Penance: Commentaries Volume Three, Background and Directions: 1978, The Liturgical Conference (243.4, L782r v.3). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Francis of Assisi 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Francis of Assisi - " Brother Son Sister Moon" Ben Ngkaion per: a 2/26/97 Crisis and conversion: While Francis is sick and dreaming, he has images of nature which represent the happiness and peacefulness. He also has images of war which help him understand that it isn't the greatest thing... neither is it the most honorable. Francis has many great conflicts with his father. Francis' father is very materialistic and possessive. Francis' father did not honorably earn the money, he bought the "loot" from the crusades for a small price and sold them to their rightful owners for a much higher price. Father expects a lot of Francis. He expects Francis to be just like him... a so called businessman, who is profitable, but not in an honorable way. Francis' father sends him to war so Francis can get bring his father back a triptych. Francis and his father have different views of life. Francis believes in freedom, believes that a person does not have to be rich to be prosperous, and he would rather be poor like Jesus then be rich, which Jesus was not. He thinks that the rich are misrepresenting Jesus because the rich are placing the poor behind themselves. Francis thinks that Jesus represents the poor as well as the rich... "all men are created equal". Francis can't help but to feel scared of lepers in the beginning. After all, being scared is a normal human trait. Being in a big, bulky, helmet must feel awkward. It feels like your being closed in. Francis also feels comfort. He sees birds as a sign of freedom. This idea helps him become independent. Francis going on the roof represents the feeling of freedom compared to his bed where he was miserably enclosed. The way mass was held was inappropriate because equality was not assessed. The poor were dressed in rags and they were seated as far back as possible. On the other hand, the rich were elegantly dressed and were seated right up front. Christ's face was constructed in a rich expensive way. Christ's eyes "opened" and Francis understood that the mass should be celebrated equally, not held discretely. Francis screamed "no" to the idea itself that the mass should be held like the way it was held. He also is saying no to the misunderstood fact that Jesus favors the rich over the poor. Francis' father cares very much for his possessions. When Francis goes down in the "dungeon" where slaves are making money, he feels sorry for them and realizes that his father is not a honorable man... he has slaves work in grave conditions and probably doesn't pay them enough or doesn't pay them at all. He realizes the importance of human life... over money. Francis' father becomes violent because he didn't raise his son in a way of not caring for money. He wanted Francis to take over the family business. The bishop is a corrupt man. His duties include a judge and the interpreter of the mass. Francis believes that possessions are only material; but, a soul is something that cannot be taken away. The bishop lies in order to continue eating... he says that he was praying; but, in fact he was eating. Francis' father lies by saying that he worked hard to get all the money for his son. This is obviously not true because his father wants the money for himself, and it's not like the father worked hard to get the money. Francis, in no way, wants his father's money or his birthright. Spiritual and Ecclesial Development: Francis goes to San Damiano. He becomes the "community builder", he helps out to build the place. Francis' work song implies that it is not a job or task that he has to do... it's a pleasure for him. Francis has many thoughts which come back to one main one... the idea that a man should be free and that they should all be treated equally. Francis' dreams become a reality. His friends don't understand in the beginning why Francis would want to become poor; but, they understand after awhile that wealth isn't everything and they also help him out. Bernardo feels guilty for killing so many people in war that it doesn't take him long to realize Francis' idea. Francis' wants to get the message that the Emperor should "throw his scepter in the mud" to show that u don't need all those riches to be "rich" in life. Everybody hates what Francis is doing, especially the nobility, because he in actuality is right. The mass at San Damiano is the way the mass should be celebrated. There is no assigned seating place, the music is sung by anyone or anything( as the ducks are shown to be singing). Bread and animals are given at the alter to show the quality of sharing. The cross at Assisi is made with expensive items and is fully and overly expensively dressed. The cross at San Damiano; however, is simple and is not made with expensive materials. It truthfully represents the image of Jesus... a beggar. The mass back in Assisi became less crowded. The poor went to the mass at San Damiano and left the mass at Assisi high and dry. Paulos says that Francis is too simple because he could have so much more but yet picks too live like a beggar. He also believes that Francis will fall because the pope back in Assisi can do whatever he wants to Francis and San Damiano. He helps Francis out by getting the pope to talk to him. He places the view of the church members in order from least to greatest. The clerics of the church become enraged at Francis because he criticizes the pope. The pope claims that power and riches go along with the job. I don't agree with this statement. When the pope understands what Francis is talking about, then he calls Francis back in and kneels to his feet and kisses them to show that he is not higher in rank than Francis. The cardinals are just stunned and don't understand why the pope is kneeling and kissing the feet of a beggar. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Francis of Assisi.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ben Ngkaion per: a 2/26/97 Francis of Assisi - " Brother Son Sister Moon" Crisis and conversion: While Francis is sick and dreaming, he has images of nature which represent the happiness and peacefulness. He also has images of war which help him understand that it isn't the greatest thing... neither is it the most honorable. Francis has many great conflicts with his father. Francis' father is very materialistic and possessive. Francis' father did not honorably earn the money, he bought the "loot" from the crusades for a small price and sold them to their rightful owners for a much higher price. Father expects a lot of Francis. He expects Francis to be just like him... a so called businessman, who is profitable, but not in an honorable way. Francis' father sends him to war so Francis can get bring his father back a triptych. Francis and his father have different views of life. Francis believes in freedom, believes that a person does not have to be rich to be prosperous, and he would rather be poor like Jesus then be rich, which Jesus was not. He thinks that the rich are misrepresenting Jesus because the rich are placing the poor behind themselves. Francis thinks that Jesus represents the poor as well as the rich... "all men are created equal". Francis can't help but to feel scared of lepers in the beginning. After all, being scared is a normal human trait. Being in a big, bulky, helmet must feel awkward. It feels like your being closed in. Francis also feels comfort. He sees birds as a sign of freedom. This idea helps him become independent. Francis going on the roof represents the feeling of freedom compared to his bed where he was miserably enclosed. The way mass was held was inappropriate because equality was not assessed. The poor were dressed in rags and they were seated as far back as possible. On the other hand, the rich were elegantly dressed and were seated right up front. Christ's face was constructed in a rich expensive way. Christ's eyes "opened" and Francis understood that the mass should be celebrated equally, not held discretely. Francis screamed "no" to the idea itself that the mass should be held like the way it was held. He also is saying no to the misunderstood fact that Jesus favors the rich over the poor. Francis' father cares very much for his possessions. When Francis goes down in the "dungeon" where slaves are making money, he feels sorry for them and realizes that his father is not a honorable man... he has slaves work in grave conditions and probably doesn't pay them enough or doesn't pay them at all. He realizes the importance of human life... over money. Francis' father becomes violent because he didn't raise his son in a way of not caring for money. He wanted Francis to take over the family business. The bishop is a corrupt man. His duties include a judge and the interpreter of the mass. Francis believes that possessions are only material; but, a soul is something that cannot be taken away. The bishop lies in order to continue eating... he says that he was praying; but, in fact he was eating. Francis' father lies by saying that he worked hard to get all the money for his son. This is obviously not true because his father wants the money for himself, and it's not like the father worked hard to get the money. Francis, in no way, wants his father's money or his birthright. Spiritual and Ecclesial Development: Francis goes to San Damiano. He becomes the "community builder", he helps out to build the place. Francis' work song implies that it is not a job or task that he has to do... it's a pleasure for him. Francis has many thoughts which come back to one main one... the idea that a man should be free and that they should all be treated equally. Francis' dreams become a reality. His friends don't understand in the beginning why Francis would want to become poor; but, they understand after awhile that wealth isn't everything and they also help him out. Bernardo feels guilty for killing so many people in war that it doesn't take him long to realize Francis' idea. Francis' wants to get the message that the Emperor should "throw his scepter in the mud" to show that u don't need all those riches to be "rich" in life. Everybody hates what Francis is doing, especially the nobility, because he in actuality is right. The mass at San Damiano is the way the mass should be celebrated. There is no assigned seating place, the music is sung by anyone or anything( as the ducks are shown to be singing). Bread and animals are given at the alter to show the quality of sharing. The cross at Assisi is made with expensive items and is fully and overly expensively dressed. The cross at San Damiano; however, is simple and is not made with expensive materials. It truthfully represents the image of Jesus... a beggar. The mass back in Assisi became less crowded. The poor went to the mass at San Damiano and left the mass at Assisi high and dry. Paulos says that Francis is too simple because he could have so much more but yet picks too live like a beggar. He also believes that Francis will fall because the pope back in Assisi can do whatever he wants to Francis and San Damiano. He helps Francis out by getting the pope to talk to him. He places the view of the church members in order from least to greatest. The clerics of the church become enraged at Francis because he criticizes the pope. The pope claims that power and riches go along with the job. I don't agree with this statement. When the pope understands what Francis is talking about, then he calls Francis back in and kneels to his feet and kisses them to show that he is not higher in rank than Francis. The cardinals are just stunned and don't understand why the pope is kneeling and kissing the feet of a beggar. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Friends the Book Of Job.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Friends-the Book Of Job Friends The book of Job has many messages that are so relevant to society and to man. For instance Job's friends that came to him in his time of need to sympathize but stayed to accuse. Were they simply influenced by the Devil to create doubt in Job's lowest time or are they a representation typical of man. To accuse and judge without due cause or need for proof. Upon seeing Job Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar see his suffering so great and pain so deep. They sat in silence for seven days and nights. Once the silence is broken the comfort they had to offer took the form of doubt and blame. Eliphaz subtly suggests to Job, that a man of wealth and prosperity must have sin. Elephaz accuses based on his personal beliefs not based on God's word. Bildad reprimands Job for his crying for understanding. He is certain there must be sin. Bildad even points to the deaths of Job's children and says that they sinned and they paid for those sins with their lives. He goes on to say that Job should ask for forgiveness and it will come. Bildad has love for God but not God's love as well as no faith in man. Zophar is by far the loudest and most adamant accuser. Zophar once again shows no faith in Job and tells Job to stop whining and just ask for forgiveness. Zophar's accusations seem to come from a deeper source within Zophar. Once again Job's friend uses his knowledge of the world to judge Job rather than having faith in Job through his strength in God. The friends each accuse Job of sin and show no faith in there fellow man and they make their judgments in the name of God. Job spoke out after each of his friends but not to defend or justify himself. It seemed he was praying aloud to God. Questioning the reason for his suffering but never wavering. His faith in him self was shaken and yet Job just assured God of his faith in him, but wondered what Gods plan was. Job understood that life was brief and no matter if you were a servant or a king your faith in God should be the same. The friends not seeing the remarkably strong faith Job possessed. They could only accuse and cast their lines of judgment upon Job much like our society today. Our laws state innocent till proven guilty, but in our mind it usually stands to reason guilty until proven innocent. We often make a judgment based on where there is smoke there is fire. A mans faith can not be measured by man. We can only see the actions that he commits before our eyes. We can not see what lies in a man's heart. That is only for God. The fact that these three men were tools of the Devil or spoke on their own free will may not be a clear fact. Unwillingly or not they sought to undermined Job's faith at the cost of their own. God did command that they respect Job for they had spoken wrongly and in vain, but how often in our world dose God come to rally for the wrongly accused in such a blatant manner. So when our friends or neighbors cast judgment upon us or we judge them. Are we not simply showing a lack of faith in our fellow man, wouldn't it stand to reason that we are showing a lack of faith in God. After all we are made in his likeness and we are all God's children f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Frogism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Psychologists often refer to the period of life known as adolescence as one of the most difficult stages of development that an individual will endure. It has been stated that adolescence is the time when an individual forms his/her own sense of identity. A sense of identity is defined as "an organized sense of how our own personality traits, values, and beliefs fit together in defining who we are." Therefor, the development of a sense of identity is, in fact, the basis for a stable adult personality. Certain responsibilities accompany this development of an identity, such as the commitments "to oneself, to one's family, to significant others, and to the various subgroups in society of which one is a member." One's sense of identity is chronically jeopardized by the difficulty in holding to these commitments; one important attribute in the retention of these commitments involves a belief and faith in a given religion. This religion yields a basis for all decisions that must be made in adolescent life; it forms the moral and ethical skeleton of an individual, and affects all choices that are made and all actions that are taken. The students here at Texas Christian University are faced with difficult choices each and every day, and are in dire need of a source of higher direction. It is my opinion that a belief in the religion known as "Kadelphianism" serves as a firm basis for self commitment, peer commitment, and social commitment, and provides an excellent example of the correct way to lead one's life. The religion known as Kadelphianism differs from many conventional religions due to the fact that it does not actually affect a student until he/she makes the decision to attend Texas Christian University. Upon making this decision, each student will immediately begin his transition into the Kadelphian way. The mythology behind Kadelphianism is quite simple; it is this simplicity and basic severity of its ideals that makes the religion so successful. From it's earliest origination in the nineteenth century, Kadelphianism has exemplified human kindness, friendship, and peer unity. The earliest Kadelphians formed the religion as a means of uniting the students at T.C.U. The founding fathers, Robert Tucker Fitzgerald and Edward Pierce Turner, began the organization based on the belief that Kadelphianism is more than a ritual or a symbol; they believed it was a way of life. The basic principle formed by the founders was that of friendship and unity of the students; through this friendship and unity, an individual is able to develop his/her own sense of identity and responsibility. The founders believed in unselfish service to mankind, and they felt that personal leadership requires confidence tempered with humility and tolerance. The rituals of Kadelphianism are also quite simple and pure in nature. With Frog Fountain serving as a center for all activity, the Kadelphian students meet on a bi-weekly basis; during these meetings there is an opening prayer session, a candle lighting ceremony, and an open discussion or forum involving all of the students present. The members discuss private and public issues which they attempt to resolve through peer support and interaction. After the forum is complete, the candles are blown out simultaneously, and a closing prayer is recited. During the ritual ceremony, all Kadelphians wear a small pin bearing the symbol of Kadelphianism: a diamond shaped badge with the inscribed letters TCU and a pair of hands clasped in friendship. The hierarchy of the Kadelphians is based on the leadership and dedication set forth by its members. The Grand Kadelphian, or leader of the students, is chosen by majority opinion; the other leading Kadelphians are chosen by the Grand Kadelphian based on merit, scholarship, and service to fellow students. It is considered an honor to be chosen by one's peers for any of the above-mentioned leadership roles, however, every Kadelphian is believed to be equal and comparable in the religion. The main text, or manual of the Kadelphians is a small book bearing the diamond shaped symbol of Kadlephianism, and is known as the Sorgan. It contains the basic beliefs and teachings of Kadelphianism, and provides the students with the true way to lead their daily life; the Sorgan also highlights the way all students can support each other and forms a basis for the development of friendship and unity so important to the Kadelphian way. The most representational figures known to the Kadelphians do not come in the form of gods and goddesses so common to other religions. They are, instead, mere human beings who, upon the founding of Kadelphianism, exemplified the beliefs and values set forth by the founding fathers. The first, known only as Andrew, proved to be the finest example of courage and honesty; today he is viewed as a superior example of the way a Kadelphian should behave. Secondly, the woman known only as Sophronia, serves as an example of the patient and accepting manner that is synonymous with Kadelphianism. Finally, the woman known as Octavia, provides a model of the qualities of loyalty and friendship that radiate from every Kadelphian. The figures do not serve as gods or goddesses to be worshipped; they instead serve as role models by which the Kadelphians look to for an example on how to fashion their own lives. It is painfully obvious that the basic principles set forth in Kadelphianism are rare, or in some cases, completely non-existent throughout the universities of this nation. Crime rates are at an all time high, drop out rates are extraordinary, and there is an overall absence of direction and identity in the students across the world. Perhaps, with the examples set forth here at Texas Christian University by the Kadelphians, we truly can make a difference in the moral and ethical beliefs of the young people of the world. Adolescence is an extremely troubling period of life; without the development of a true sense of identity, adulthood will prove to be no easier. It is absolutely necessary to have a firm religious belief that will aid an adolescent in the choices he/she makes, and the actions he/she takes; I believe that Kadelphianism is the first step in this pursuit of friendship, unity, and responsibility that inevitably leads to success here at TCU and in the world beyond. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Genocide 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Genocide After Rodney King was beaten, and the white police officers were aquitted, he said "Why can't we all just get along?" A question asked by many people. Rascist and Genocidal acts such as this have been going on for many years, and should not be tolerated. In international law, the crime of destroying, or committing conspiracy to destroy, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group is known as Genocide. It was defined in the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948. The crime of Genocide has been committed or attempted many times in recorded history. The best known example in this century was the attempt by Nazi Germany during the 1930's and 1940's to destroy the Jewish population of Europe, known as the Holocaust. By the end of World War II, 6 million Jews had been killed in Nazi concentration camps. The known objective of the Nazi rule was Jewish extinction. In November 1938, shortly after the assassination of a German diplomat in Paris by a young Jew, all synagogues in Germany were set on fire, windows of Jewish shops were smashed, and thousands of Jews were arrested. This "Night of Broken Glass" (Kristallnacht) was a signal to Jews in Germany and Austria to leave as soon as possible. Several hundred thousand people were able to find refuge in other countries, but a nearly equal number, including many who were old or poor, stayed to face an uncertain destiny. When war began in September 1939, the German army occupied the western half of Poland and added almost 2 million Jews to the German power sphere. Limitations placed on Polish Jewry were much worse than those in Germany. The Polish Jews were forced to move into ghettos surrounded by walls and barbed wire. The ghettos were like jailed cities. Each ghetto had a Jewish council that was responsible for housing, sanitation, and production. Food and coal were to be shipped in and manufactured products were to be sent out for German use. The food supply allowed by the Germans was mainly made up of grains and vegetables, such as turnips, carrots, and beets. In the Warsaw ghetto, the amount of food given provided barely 1200 calories to each inmate. Some black market food, smuggled into the ghettos, was sold at a very high price, and unemployment and poverty were common. The population was large, and the amount of people reached six or seven persons in a room. Typhus became common, and the death rate rose to roughly 1 percent a month. At the time of ghettoization in Poland, a project was launched farther in the east. In June 1941, German armies invaded the Soviet Union, and at the same time an agency of the Soviet Socialists, the Reich Security Main Office, dispatched 3000 men in special units to newly occupied Soviet territories to kill all Jews on the spot. These mobile detachments, known as "Einsatzgruppen", or "Action Squads", were soon engaged in nonstop shootings. The massacres usually took place in ditches or ravines near cities and towns. Occasionally, they were witnessed by soldiers or local residents. Before long, rumors of the killings were heard in several capitals of the world. Camps equipped with facilities for gassing people were being created on the soil of occupied Poland. Most prospective victims were being created on the soil of occupied Poland. Most prospective victims were to be deported to these killing centres from ghettos nearby. From the Warsaw ghetto alone, more than 300,000 were removed. The first transports were usually filled with women, children, or older men, who could not work for the Germans. Jews capable of labor were being held for work in shops or plants, but they too were to be killed in the end. The heaviest deportations occurred in the summer and fall of 1942. The destinations of the transports were not known to the Jewish communities, but reports of mass deaths eventually reached the surviving Jews, as well as the governments of the United States and Great Britain. In April 1943, the 65,000 remaining Jews of Warsaw put up a fight against German police who entered the ghetto in a final roundup. The battle was fought for three weeks. The death camps in Poland were Kulmhof, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Lubin, and Auschwitz, Kulmhof was supplied with gas vans, and it's death toll was 150,000. Belzec had carbon monoxide gas chambers in which 600,000 Jews were killed. Sobibor's gas chambers accounted for 250,000 dead, and Treblinka's for 700,000 to 800,000. At Lubin some 50,000 were gassed or shot. In Auschwitz, the Jewish death count was more than 1 million. Auschwitz, near Kraków, was the largest death camp. Unlike the others, it utilized quick-working hydrogen cyanide for the gassings. The victims of the Auschwitz came from all Europe: Norway, France, Italy, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Greece. A large inmate population, Jewish and non-Jewish, was employed by industry. Some prisoners were subjected to medical experiments, particularly sterilizations. Although only Jews and Gypsies were gassed routinely, several hundred thousand other Aushwitz inmates died from starvation, disease, or shooting. To erase the traces of destruction, large crematories were constructed so that the bodies of the gassed could be burned. In 1944 the camp was photographed by Allied reconnaissance aircraft in search of industrial targets. It's factories, but not it's gas chambers, were bombed. When the war ended, the Jewish dead in the Holocaust were more than 5 million: about 3 million in killing centers and other camps, 1.4 million in shooting operations, and more than 600,000 in ghettos. The most common form of discrimination in the U.S. has been racial discrimination. The U.S. Constitution recognized the legality of slavery, the ultimate for of discrimination. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and the constitutional amendments that followed the American Civil War changed the legal status of black people, but a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions struck down federal statutes designed to enforce the amendments. The most important of these decisions declared unconstitutional a law that outlawed racial discrimination by private citizens. For decades after the era of Reconstruction, the absence of adequate federal laws permitted discrimination against blacks in employment and housing, in public accommodations, in the judicial system, and in voting opportunities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial discrimination in most hotels, restaurants, and other public facilities; prohibited private employers and unions from practicing discrimination; and banned registrars from applying different standards to white and black voting applicants, a provision that was strengthened by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its later amendments. The 1964 law also authorized the U.S. attorney general to file an action when a "pattern or practice" of widespread discrimination was found. Federal financial aid could then be withdrawn from programs in which racial discrimination persisted. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Genocide.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Genocide After Rodney King was beaten, and the white police officers were aquitted, he said "Why can't we all just get along?" A question asked by many people. Rascist and Genocidal acts such as this have been going on for many years, and should not be tolerated. In international law, the crime of destroying, or committing conspiracy to destroy, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group is known as Genocide. It was defined in the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948. The crime of Genocide has been committed or attempted many times in recorded history. The best known example in this century was the attempt by Nazi Germany during the 1930's and 1940's to destroy the Jewish population of Europe, known as the Holocaust. By the end of World War II, 6 million Jews had been killed in Nazi concentration camps. The known objective of the Nazi rule was Jewish extinction. In November 1938, shortly after the assassination of a German diplomat in Paris by a young Jew, all synagogues in Germany were set on fire, windows of Jewish shops were smashed, and thousands of Jews were arrested. This "Night of Broken Glass" (Kristallnacht) was a signal to Jews in Germany and Austria to leave as soon as possible. Several hundred thousand people were able to find refuge in other countries, but a nearly equal number, including many who were old or poor, stayed to face an uncertain destiny. When war began in September 1939, the German army occupied the western half of Poland and added almost 2 million Jews to the German power sphere. Limitations placed on Polish Jewry were much worse than those in Germany. The Polish Jews were forced to move into ghettos surrounded by walls and barbed wire. The ghettos were like jailed cities. Each ghetto had a Jewish council that was responsible for housing, sanitation, and production. Food and coal were to be shipped in and manufactured products were to be sent out for German use. The food supply allowed by the Germans was mainly made up of grains and vegetables, such as turnips, carrots, and beets. In the Warsaw ghetto, the amount of food given provided barely 1200 calories to each inmate. Some black market food, smuggled into the ghettos, was sold at a very high price, and unemployment and poverty were common. The population was large, and the amount of people reached six or seven persons in a room. Typhus became common, and the death rate rose to roughly 1 percent a month. At the time of ghettoization in Poland, a project was launched farther in the east. In June 1941, German armies invaded the Soviet Union, and at the same time an agency of the Soviet Socialists, the Reich Security Main Office, dispatched 3000 men in special units to newly occupied Soviet territories to kill all Jews on the spot. These mobile detachments, known as "Einsatzgruppen", or "Action Squads", were soon engaged in nonstop shootings. The massacres usually took place in ditches or ravines near cities and towns. Occasionally, they were witnessed by soldiers or local residents. Before long, rumors of the killings were heard in several capitals of the world. Camps equipped with facilities for gassing people were being created on the soil of occupied Poland. Most prospective victims were being created on the soil of occupied Poland. Most prospective victims were to be deported to these killing centres from ghettos nearby. From the Warsaw ghetto alone, more than 300,000 were removed. The first transports were usually filled with women, children, or older men, who could not work for the Germans. Jews capable of labor were being held for work in shops or plants, but they too were to be killed in the end. The heaviest deportations occurred in the summer and fall of 1942. The destinations of the transports were not known to the Jewish communities, but reports of mass deaths eventually reached the surviving Jews, as well as the governments of the United States and Great Britain. In April 1943, the 65,000 remaining Jews of Warsaw put up a fight against German police who entered the ghetto in a final roundup. The battle was fought for three weeks. The death camps in Poland were Kulmhof, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Lubin, and Auschwitz, Kulmhof was supplied with gas vans, and it's death toll was 150,000. Belzec had carbon monoxide gas chambers in which 600,000 Jews were killed. Sobibor's gas chambers accounted for 250,000 dead, and Treblinka's for 700,000 to 800,000. At Lubin some 50,000 were gassed or shot. In Auschwitz, the Jewish death count was more than 1 million. Auschwitz, near Kraków, was the largest death camp. Unlike the others, it utilized quick- working hydrogen cyanide for the gassings. The victims of the Auschwitz came from all Europe: Norway, France, Italy, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Greece. A large inmate population, Jewish and non-Jewish, was employed by industry. Some prisoners were subjected to medical experiments, particularly sterilizations. Although only Jews and Gypsies were gassed routinely, several hundred thousand other Aushwitz inmates died from starvation, disease, or shooting. To erase the traces of destruction, large crematories were constructed so that the bodies of the gassed could be burned. In 1944 the camp was photographed by Allied reconnaissance aircraft in search of industrial targets. It's factories, but not it's gas chambers, were bombed. When the war ended, the Jewish dead in the Holocaust were more than 5 million: about 3 million in killing centers and other camps, 1.4 million in shooting operations, and more than 600,000 in ghettos. The most common form of discrimination in the U.S. has been racial discrimination. The U.S. Constitution recognized the legality of slavery, the ultimate for of discrimination. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and the constitutional amendments that followed the American Civil War changed the legal status of black people, but a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions struck down federal statutes designed to enforce the amendments. The most important of these decisions declared unconstitutional a law that outlawed racial discrimination by private citizens. For decades after the era of Reconstruction, the absence of adequate federal laws permitted discrimination against blacks in employment and housing, in public accommodations, in the judicial system, and in voting opportunities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial discrimination in most hotels, restaurants, and other public facilities; prohibited private employers and unions from practicing discrimination; and banned registrars from applying different standards to white and black voting applicants, a provision that was strengthened by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its later amendments. The 1964 law also authorized the U.S. attorney general to file an action when a "pattern or practice" of widespread discrimination was found. Federal financial aid could then be withdrawn from programs in which racial discrimination persisted. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Gilgamesh Flood Story Vs Biblical Flood Story.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gilgamesh Flood Story Vs. Biblical Flood Story The amazing stories of the great flood that are described in, The Epic of Gilgamesh which is translated by N.K. Sandars and "The Story of the Flood" which is the King James version, both stories similarly. Many of the events of each story are very similar in ways and very different in some of them. From reading both stories I concluded that there was a huge flood that took place in that area of the world. Even though the way both stories describe the flood; The Epic of Gilgamesh is more imaginable. I say that because it is more realistic to have rain for six days, six nights than for forty days, forty nights. Both flood stories have a major similarity and difference though. Both stories described the same flood but they did it in different ways. One difference that backs it up is in The Epic of Gilgamesh the rains that cause the floods only last six days, six nights and in "The Flood Story in Genesis" the rains last forty days, forty nights. A quote that tells about the flood is when Utnapishtim said, "For six days and six nights the wind blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts (pg. 25)." This quote by Utnapishtim describes how bad the weather, rains, and wind were during the six days and six nights of the storm. On the other hand in "The Story of the Flood" it rained for forty days, forty nights. While God was talking to Noah he said, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth (pg. 48 line 4)." This quote describes how long God will have the rain go for. It also says that he is doing it to destroy all of mankind. After reading the two stories I concluded that forty days and forty nights was too long for it to rain without stopping; that is why the flood in Gilgamesh is more realistic. The length of the rains in the flood story in The Epic of Gilgamesh is easier for someone to believe than the length of the rains in Genesis. Even though the stories were different there was many similarities in the stories. In The Epic of Gilgamesh after the rains had stopped Utnapishtim's arc landed on top of, Mt. Nisir, a mountain. It was the only place above the floodwaters that you could see. Utnapishtim said, " I looked for land in vain, but fourteen leagues distant there appeared a mountain, and the boat grounded; on the mountain of Nisir the boat held fast, she held fast and did not budge (pg. 25)." This quote describes how Utnapishtim was looking for land while stranded out in the floodwater and the only place he could see was Mount Nisir. Correspondingly, in "The Story of the Flood" basically the similar thing happened. After the forty days and forty nights of rain Noah landed on Mount Ararat which is geographically three hundred miles away from Mount Nasir. This is another way to prove that the flood was probably real and not just a story to tell children so they would be scared to cause chaos. The two stories are both similar for the way described in the above paragraph. The major similarity between the two stories is that the god or gods sent the flood because the people of the world because they were causing chaos and were corrupt. In The Epic of Gilgamesh Enlil and the other gods were mad about how the people were taking too much control and that is why the gods sent the flood. Ea told Utnapishtim in a dream to build an arc because the gods were going to send a flood that was going to wipe out all of mankind. " O man of Shurrupak, son of Ubara-Tutu; tear down your house and build a boat, abandon possessions and look for life, despise worldly goods and save your soul alive. Tear down your house, I say, and build a boat. These are the measurements of the baroque as you shall build her: let her beam equal her length, let her deck be roofed like the vault that covers the abyss; then take up into the boat the seed of all living creatures (pg. 23-24)." In addition "The Story of the Flood" for about the same reasons God did the same thing. God said, "The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth(pg. 47 line 13)." Finally, he told Noah to build an arc while walking and talking to him. He told him to build an arc because he was going to have a flood fueled by forty days and forty nights of rain. Therefore the two stories are both similar in the reason why the god or gods sent it. In conclusion the flood stories in The Epic of Gilgamesh and the flood story of Genesis are the same in ways and different in some. You can conclude this from the reasons given above. These stories relate to the world and people today because people look to the flood stories for religious reasons. When people look at these stories they feel that if they start to become corrupt and chaotic that a god might make a natural disaster to wipe out mankind. That is the importance that the flood stories have on all of mankind. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\God and Man.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The truth behind the exsisitince of god. As a flesh and blood we seem to aspire to be ultitmley immortal, we have created stories guidelines ways in which we our able to become immortal. Christins call it jesus others call it alla or buddua. Does this make one better then the other or is just a set of rules that we all follow just so mankind can prosper. Is faith a trait that is leared or is it a proptey that we our all born with the ability to belive. The questions we have this is a trait the abilitty to reason is a trait, but what scares us so terribly bad is whaen we cant answer a question. We study we learn but the idea that many of us have not leared is that faith is not imortality or heaven or hell but our faith in ourselves and faith in our fellow man. What scares me so bad is the fact that many people hide in this world of god. God is what created us what made us it is what we must ultitmley answer to. We answer as not flesh and blood but as a spirit we choose long before our mortal body goes where we go. We leave behind our bodys and enter into a realm to which we cannot comphrend. Our minds well never allow us to comprhend immortality but our souls can that is faith. This faith belongs to no clan of self righteous humn being that think that becuse there rules that they follow our better then another. Se the truth is god does not have a check list of whos good and whos bad but rather he make the decision we have morals or as some calit a concous. This world is about the first stepping stone that we take this is a test can you live in an imperfect world and handle without cheating your fellow man. This is faith in yourself this life. God gave us life it is our choice wether we use it to its follow view or we cash in early and take the easy way out. Is a gamble much like a stock in a company we own our own stock we have a value this is a value that we place. The question that you must ask yourself what value is yours. Our you a sellout our you willing to give up everything you have for an easy buck or our you willing to ride the rollercoaster of life following it rules so you can exsisit. Lifes a bitch if it was easy it wouldnt be called life. The sad thing many people die long before life arrives, this makes them droids they have no proupose spending there whole lives searching for this life with a died green piece of paper, some call it greed some call it evil but the truth is sellout. We can tell a thousand stories to try to belive in god, we can search to the four corners of the earth find the grale find the ark but we well not find god, we may see the devil in a million forms we may see evil in every corner but we must stop looking from the outside and look inside for that is the peace we all need. Becuse you belive in a certain way god exsisits in this form or that that is sick for our feeble attempt at comphrend our true exsisitance is nothing but our fear of death. Life is death but faith is our soul, for once look to the inside not inside your flesh but inside your and there is were every answer ever asked can be answred all but a simple truth , faith. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\God Speaks Through The Mouths Of Poets.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ God Speaks Through The Mouths Of Poets Every poem has an element of God in it's words. Just as God spoke through the writings of Peter or Matthew, elements of His word are in the beautiful themes in poetry. In this essay, I will compare the poems of William Blake and William Wordsworth with the written Word of God, in five poems: The Lamb, The Chimney Sweeper, The Tyger, My Heart Leaps Up, and London 1802. My aim is to show that the writings of great poets are truly the words of God. Little Lamb, who made thee? Dost thou know who made thee? These begin the words of William Blake's The Lamb. Just as God asks us, Blake questions our understanding of our creator. If we are seen as the lambs of God, meek and tender, can we really understand the generosity and glory of a God who gave us life? He did give us life, and Blake tells us that we take this great gift for granted. So, he asks "Dost thou know who made thee?" So God created man in His own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female, He created them. Genesis 1:27 Anyone who has seen a lamb knows that it is a weak creature; unable to protect it's self from the strength of an evil predator. If we are the Lamb, then we must rely on the protection of our Shepherd, God. Why would Blake call us a Lamb then? Aren't we stronger than any other animal upon this earth? I think that God would tell us "No," for it is He who gives us life strength, as Blake says in the next few linesà Gave thee life & bid thee feed, By the stream & o're the mead; Gave thee clothing of delight, Softest clothing wooly bright, What strength could man have without the gifts of God: life, food, clothing. We would have none! And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." John 6:33 William Blake saw that the individual man was so removed from Nature and his Creator. As science progressed, and society seemed so wrapped up in it's money making, it's industry and it's politics, haven't we lost touch with what is truly important? While we see ourselves as giants, Blake reminds us that we are just lambs. A lamb is just a baby, and needs the love of it's mother to survive. Who are we to ignore the one who gives us life and gives us food? Because we think we have grown, we believe we do not need to ask ourselves, "Who made thee?" In Blake's next poem, The Chimney Sweeper, he shows us just how much we still need God. Throughout history, man has been so inhumane to his fellow man. Every culture has experienced some sort of slavery or oppression. When one thinks of how man has even enslaved his own young, I wonder how muc lower we can degrade ourselves. The Chimney Sweeper is a poem speaking of such inhumanity. As I read the words, "à I was very young, And my Father sold me while yet my tongue could scarcely cry weep! weep! weep! weepà" I wonder if there is any God left in the hearts of men. Blake points out our faults, our inhumanity. He is telling us to look at ourselves, and stop this pain we cause. Just as God told us to love one another, Blake tells us the same. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. John 15:12 This is Blake's message to the oppressors of this world! Yet, in the same short poem, Blake has a message for the oppressed: the young chimney sweeper child will still have hope in the words of Jesus. That is the hope that God will send an angel to free them, with only one small condition: that the child loves his God and follows his commandments. Then naked & white, all their bags left behind, They rise upon clouds, and sport in the wind. And the Angel told Tom, if he'd be a good boy, He'd have God for his father & never want joy. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. John 15:10- 11 The two above quotes give us the same message! No matter how painful your life may be, God will give us joy if we follow his commandments. It is as if God has spoken his word through the writings of John and of Blake, that God has given both men the gift of beautiful writing, so that they may sing the words of God! As often as our Lord has given us scripture in the Bible of his love and tenderness, there is also a reminder of His ultimate power! Just as Blake's poetry is a combination of asking us to embrace God's love, it is also a reminder that His strength must be feared! The Tyger warns us that the hands of God not only give love, but also possess a strength far beyond any other. Tyger! Tyer! burning bright In the Forests of The night, What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry? The "immortal hand" that created the tiger is the same hand that offers us eternal joy, if we follow Him. What fool would tell Him "No?" Just as a child sometimes tests the limits of his or her parent's patience, we test the limits of God's patience with us. Children often run wild if they know that their parent will never punish them for their misbehavior. If God only gave us the message of love & joy, we may never fear his rule over us. Thus says the Lord God of the Hebrewsà I will send all my plagues to your very heart, and on your servants and on your people, that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth. Now if I had stretched out My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, then you would have been cut off from the earth. But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth. Exodus 9:14-16 What strength in these words! Surely it makes the sinner fear God. Blake creates the same message, in a slightly different way. He tells us of the tiger, his symmetry and strength in his shoulder, his strong heart, his fiery eyes, the grasp of his hands and feet, his quick brain. Surely, the tiger is one to be feared, for he may take your life in an instant! But, what of his creator? Isn't it true that the creator of the tiger is surpassing in strength? So, Blake asks us one last question, is the one who made the tender lamb, the same that made the fearful tiger? Such words and questions bring the same message, that is that God is one to be feared, for like the tiger, He may take your life away from you in an instant! The poetry of William Wordsworth is very different in style, but still contains elements of God's influence. Rejoicing in God's symbol, the poem My Heart Leaps Up. At first, the poem is a celebration of the beauty in nature, and the wonders of the elegant rainbow. Then, he reminds us of the rainbow as God's symbol of protection. I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. Genesis 9:13 Wordsworth makes an interesting segue when he says "the Child is father of the man," he is speaking of Jesus Christ as the Child, and also the idea that the child will become the man. In all of Wordsworth's poems of nature, he views his surroundings in a child-like wonder. Many of the natural beauties around us are ignored by adults, who have lost touch with their roots in nature; however, the child is very different. The child sees everything through the eyes of innocence and wonder: the rainbow is truly a miracle of God, to the child. This is why he says "And I wish my days to be bound by each by natural piety." What a subtle and beautiful statement of faith and appreciation of God's nature and beauty! London 1802, although a poem titled by it's date of birth, is so timeless. Easily, it could be re-titled, "The World Today," for it addresses the problems of men that still exist after almost two-hundred years. It represents a world in decline; a world that has become so ungodly. In the brevity of the poem, we are shown our faults: stagnation, loss of inner happiness, selfish greed, lost manners and virtue. All of these aspects are of a society that has forgotten God. London 1802 holds a mirror to our faces, and asks us, "Do you walk this ungodly path?" And, this path is described by egocentricism, greed and selfishness. For what is a man profited if he gains For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone the whole world, and loses his own who is among you, not to think of himself more soul? Or, what will a man give in highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as exchange for his soul? Matt 16:26 God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. Rom 12:3 He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require you But to do justly, to love mercy And to walk humbly with your God? Mic 6:8 In five poems, I have shown only a small sample of the similarities in poetry and the words of God. Five seemingly very different poems all have this one aspect alike. Is it just a coincidence? God often talks to men on earth in many subtle ways. Every Sunday school student learns that God has granted each and every one of us a special gift or talent, that God may work his miracles through. The sight of a beautiful painting or the sound of a beautiful song is godly, as if He, Himself, is painting through the hands of the artist, or speaking through the mouth of the singer. The effect is breathtaking! The poet is the most gifted, for the poet can deliver us the message of God in a beautiful way, that we may want to read it again and again. Followers of the Christian Faith agree that the men who wrote the scripture in the Bible were writing the words of God, because God was speaking to us through them. I believe that the great poets of our recent history were also writing the words of God, for He was speaking to us through them. How else could the scripture of the Bible, written 1800 years earlier, contain such similar meaning? Blake said, "The Jewish & Christian Testaments are An original derivation from the Poetic Genius," in his essay All Religions Are One. Even a great poet, such as Blake, admits that his words are not his own, they are the Lords of God, who gifted him the talent. All poetry should be read, not just for it's beauty and entertainment, but for it's special meaning delivered from God. Reference: Holy Bible, New King James Version. (c) 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume 2 -- Fifth Edition (c) 1986 by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Witness Against The Beast, by: E.P. Thompson (c) 1983 by E.P. Thompson The Theocritean Element in Wordsworth, by: Leslie Nathan Broughton Written 1920, for the Graduate School of Cornell University Word Count: 1,953 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Good Country People.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Good Country People Like Julian in "Everything that Rises Must Converge," Hulga is a proud intellectual and has little doubt of her belief in "nothingness." However, by the end, she has fallen prey to the same naive stereotypes as her mother. Do you think her beliefs are based on reason or on the desire to distinguish herself from the ignorance which is all around her? Hulga accentuates her wooden leg by making unnecessary noises when she walks and plays up the deformity by wearing ugly clothing. When she surrenders her leg, it could be said that she surrenders her entire self. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? In the story both Hulga and the Bible salesman wear masks over their true natures. However, their final confrontation reveals the salesman to be a cunning atheist while Hulga is exposed as a girl who's naivete sharply contradicts the nihilistic cliches she vents. Describe the contradictions between what appears to be on the surface and what actually is. consistent pattern runs through the experiences of O'Connor's intellectuals; circumstances, often so unlikely as to risk comparison to the deus ex machina, rob these men and women of the idols that each has constructed in an attempt to escape the recognition of what O'Connor would consider the true Reality behind apparent reality. [3] Joy-Hulga fashions her escape through a carefully-cultivated nihilism ultimately as false as the wooden leg which suggests it so powerfully. Sheppard and Calhoun both create a god from the sort of therapeutic ideal of the perfectible, ever-developing self now identified with two of America's great growth industries: talk shows and self-help books. Each of these characters must demolish the self-made idol and face transcendent Reality, a necessary trauma in O'Connor's soteriological drama. Oddly enough, it might seem, O'Connor described Joy-Hulga as a "heroine," the character most like herself. Joy, who at twenty-one changes her name to Hulga, "with all the pejorative connotations (hull = hulk = huge = ugly)" has come to a firm belief in Nothing through her study of Heidegger and Malebranche (Grimshaw 51). The choice of name reveals much; it is her defense against the sterility of her life. When Mrs. Freeman unexpectedly began to call Joy by her chosen name, the latter would scowl and redden as if her privacy had been intruded upon. She considered the name her personal affair. She had arrived at it first purely on the basis of its ugly sound and then the full genius of its fitness had struck her. She had a vision of the name working like the ugly sweating Vulcan who stayed in the furnace and to whom, presumably, the goddess had to come when called. She saw it as her highest creative act. (CS 275). Why did Hulga react so strongly to Mrs. Freeman's use of her name? To her, "it was as if Mrs. Freeman's beady steel-pointed eyes had penetrated far enough behind her face to reach some secret fact" (CS 275). Mrs. Freeman, we know, is intrigued by all accounts of disease and deformity, and this secret fact which she has discovered is deeper than a mere wooden leg: "Mrs. Freeman is fascinated by the leg, but it is a 'secret infection,' spiritual and psychological in nature, of which the leg provides intimations" (Browning 46). O'Connor herself scorned talk of symbolism, [4] but the significance of Hulga's leg is clear. It is her deformity that has shaped Hulga's identity; she "has achieved blindness by an act of will and means to keep it" (CS 273). Her blindness, of course, is her nihilism, which, quite significantly, is sanctioned by her Ph.D. ("I have a number of degrees" (CS 288).) The removal of this false god is Manley Pointer's symbolic defloration, the theft of her leg accompanied by his remark that she "ain't so smart. I been believing in nothing ever since I was born" (CS 291). In its place, Pointer leaves her with the knowledge that, despite her carefully constructed defense against the truth, there is, in O'Connor's words, "a wooden part of her soul that corresponds to her wooden leg" ("Writing Short Stories" MM 99). In Good Country People, the center stage is taken by a wooden-legged philosopher named Hulga who claims to be an atheist and the resident expert on nothingness.Like Julian in Everything That Rises Must Converge, she is the personification of irritability. But she is also an expert in meanness towards her mother, Mrs Hopewell, and the tenant's wife Mrs Freeman. The cause of her meanness seems to be the loss of a leg in a hunting accident when she was a young girl.The reader wonders, however, if perhaps this spiteful temperament is nothing more than a persona she has created as a defense mechanism for her own wounded pride.It seems that she has attempted to invent a new self by changing her name to Hulga, a name that suggests a cumbersome piece of armor or battleship--the opposite of Joy, her given name. The attentive reader, however, soon sees that O'Connor's method is to use irony in a comic(and later in a grotesque) way to suggest the falsity of Hulga's belief that her nihilistic, joyless self is her true self. At the same time, most readers will be hard pressed to leave psychology out of the equation.The anger behind Hulga's fierce statement to others that she must be accepted "Like I am" suggests that she hasn't done so herself. Hulga's claim to be a nihilist turns out to be little more than a postulate after she meets the sleazy Bible salesman Manly Pointer. After he unmasks her plot to seduce him in the hayloft and runs off with her wooden leg (the support of her belief system), she quickly loses her faith in her creed of nothingness and relativism. Mr Pointer's more genuine brand of nihilism "points" her in the direction of the very traditional moral values she has always disavowed during family conversations. With the painful realization that she can no longer classify Manly Pointer as good country people(a stereotype she previously mocked),she assumes the existence of objective moral standards.This is no way to treat a defenceless woman--philosopher or not. The final irony in the story is the result of her naive participation in this grotesque unhinging of her leg. O'Connor suggests that now that the double identity of Hulga/Joy has been resolved into a single self,she can see things in a clearer light. Now that she has been been violated by a philosopher who lives his ideas, it is impossible for her to continue to theorize about human behavior in the light of a belief in relativism. The support holding up this faith in nothingness has been knocked out from beneath her.Now she may be forced to support herself with something more than a hallow creed. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Good God!.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Good God When one walks through the streets of humanity, one must choose their destiny. Is it to believe in God, or to become conservative and choose not to believe? Well, the people of the world should all just creep within their minds, and choose not to follow the Messiah onto the deceptive fields of love. These people become sicken with doubt, and unleashing them are quite easy. But the world may never know, for the fools that are blinded with salvation still wander in oblivion. Objection number one is that, can one actually prove the "existence" of God? How can one experience divinity, without experiencing death first? No men on this earth can! Not the Pope, Saint Anselm, nor William Paley, who actually tired to prove the existence of God. William Paley once said , "If a man wandered upon a hill, and discovered a watch; who would question the fact, that the watch was created by a designer?" It's possible that the statement is true, but a watch can't be compared to a universe's creation. Paley would later say that the world must have a designer, meaning a God. The watch of coarse must of been created by a designer, but the world is totally different. It's more like a carpenter building a house or building. People can relate more to a building than a universe, cause it's possible that one can experience living within a house. It's not possible for anyone to live among the outside world, and think that God created everything. This only proves Paley's downfall, and ideas that have no back bone! The world to be created by God is impossible, only cause man seeks more than his environment. God cannot be proven! Belief! The question of believing, is a question of faith. This is a story of faith. Jeremiah once entered a church full of greed, and listened to the words of God. When the sermons of Christ ended, the preacher and his followers handed down baskets, filled with money. Jeremiah just sat in confusion, wondering why and where is all that money going to. As Jeremiah left the church, he over heard the preacher's wife, "Now can you buy me diamond ring?" Jeremiah began to weep, as the rage within him rushed throughout his mind. At home, Jeremiah told his mother about the fury within , and he spoke this: "Mother! Why is the entire church of Christ corrupt? Why is the world so cold? Doesn't God even exist? Well I know one thing that's certain; there is no longer true faith among this planet! Humanity, along with false ministers have killed God! God is truly dead-----" His mother just stood in shock, watching him draw a picture of a mad bishop, revealing and exploiting the meanings of Jesus Christ. This is the sadness that one who believes in God, can actually discover, and feel a sense of betrayal. There is many people who believe God is all Powerful, God is all good, and evil exist. These are the propositions that gives a religious man true faith. But if God was all powerful, then there wouldn't be no evil. God would simply destroy, or cast out evil within the world. And if God was all good, then why would some innocent child be raped , and be left for dead? God is all powerful, and chose not to save an innocent child. Who now is evil, and who now is good? And last is the evil that burdens the lands all walk on. It's sad that evil exist among the world, but evil still exist. Some people perceive evil as symbol of "wrong doing", thus, creating and using "good" as a tool to confront, and destroying all of evil that's around everyone. But if man is here to defeat evil all by himself, then why would God be needed? Evil exist only to explore the other sides of what's good. This is the confusion that one may encounter, if accepting the beliefs of these propositions. The will to believe, and the life after death. The only thing man has going for him, is will power. He can either use it to oppose, or accept God, it really doesn't matter. The will to believe in an afterlife is beautiful, and heart warming. It's beauty is expressed in a sense of hoping for something beyond this world, and that is so capturing to souls that hunger for more. The entire meaning of creating salvation within the soul is creative, and creativity is probably the greatest assets a religious person can have. This is the credit that all can present to the prodigies of God. Today in society the world still lives off the false faith of God, and now must society change in order to become true. Man is true at heart, when the doubts of God are no more, and so must all turn away from he. Science today is God, and there is no longer a need to pray. The evidence that opposes the existence of God is great, and still the people of God wonder "why"? Why must one choose to disbelieve in the existence of God? And why call for such an action? The solution to this query is, cause "this world is a will to power---- and nothing besides"(Nietzsche550)!!!!!!!!!! THE END f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Good God.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Good God When one walks through the streets of humanity, one must choose their destiny. Is it to believe in God, or to become conservative and choose not to believe? Well, the people of the world should all just creep within their minds, and choose not to follow the Messiah onto the deceptive fields of love. These people become sicken with doubt, and unleashing them are quite easy. But the world may never know, for the fools that are blinded with salvation still wander in oblivion. Objection number one is that, can one actually prove the "existence" of God? How can one experience divinity, without experiencing death first? No men on this earth can! Not the Pope, Saint Anselm, nor William Paley, who actually tired to prove the existence of God. William Paley once said , "If a man wandered upon a hill, and discovered a watch; who would question the fact, that the watch was created by a designer?" It's possible that the statement is true, but a watch can't be compared to a universe's creation. Paley would later say that the world must have a designer, meaning a God. The watch of coarse must of been created by a designer, but the world is totally different. It's more like a carpenter building a house or building. People can relate more to a building than a universe, cause it's possible that one can experience living within a house. It's not possible for anyone to live among the outside world, and think that God created everything. This only proves Paley's downfall, and ideas that have no back bone! The world to be created by God is impossible, only cause man seeks more than his environment. God cannot be proven! Belief! The question of believing, is a question of faith. This is a story of faith. Jeremiah once entered a church full of greed, and listened to the words of God. When the sermons of Christ ended, the preacher and his followers handed down baskets, filled with money. Jeremiah just sat in confusion, wondering why and where is all that money going to. As Jeremiah left the church, he over heard the preacher's wife, "Now can you buy me diamond ring?" Jeremiah began to weep, as the rage within him rushed throughout his mind. At home, Jeremiah told his mother about the fury within , and he spoke this: "Mother! Why is the entire church of Christ corrupt? Why is the world so cold? Doesn't God even exist? Well I know one thing that's certain; there is no longer true faith among this planet! Humanity, along with false ministers have killed God! God is truly dead- ----" His mother just stood in shock, watching him draw a picture of a mad bishop, revealing and exploiting the meanings of Jesus Christ. This is the sadness that one who believes in God, can actually discover, and feel a sense of betrayal. There is many people who believe God is all Powerful, God is all good, and evil exist. These are the propositions that gives a religious man true faith. But if God was all powerful, then there wouldn't be no evil. God would simply destroy, or cast out evil within the world. And if God was all good, then why would some innocent child be raped , and be left for dead? God is all powerful, and chose not to save an innocent child. Who now is evil, and who now is good? And last is the evil that burdens the lands all walk on. It's sad that evil exist among the world, but evil still exist. Some people perceive evil as symbol of "wrong doing" , thus, creating and using "good" as a tool to confront, and destroying all of evil that's around everyone. But if man is here to defeat evil all by himself, then why would God be needed? Evil exist only to explore the other sides of what's good. This is the confusion that one may encounter, if accepting the beliefs of these propositions. The will to believe, and the life after death. The only thing man has going for him, is will power. He can either use it to oppose, or accept God, it really doesn't matter. The will to believe in an afterlife is beautiful, and heart warming. It's beauty is expressed in a sense of hoping for something beyond this world, and that is so capturing to souls that hunger for more. The entire meaning of creating salvation within the soul is creative, and creativity is probably the greatest assets a religious person can have. This is the credit that all can present to the prodigies of God. Today in society the world still lives off the false faith of God, and now must society change in order to become true. Man is true at heart, when the doubts of God are no more, and so must all turn away from he. Science today is God, and there is no longer a need to pray. The evidence that opposes the existence of God is great, and still the people of God wonder "why"? Why must one choose to disbelieve in the existence of God? And why call for such an action? The solution to this query is, cause "this world is a will to power---- and nothing besides"(Nietzsche550)!!!!!!!!!! THE END f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Gothic.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gothic For nearly four hundred years Gothic style dominated the architecture of Western Europe. It originated in northern France in the twelfth century, and spread rapidly across England and the Continent, invading the old Viking empire of Scandinavia. It confronted the Byzantine provinces of Central Europe and even made appearances in the near East and the Americas. Gothic architects designed town halls, royal palaces, courthouses, and hospitals. They fortified cities and castles to defend lands against invasion. But it was in the service of the church, the most prolific builder of the Middle Ages, that the Gothic style got its most meaningful expression, providing the widest scope for the development of architectural ideas.1 Although by 1400 Gothic had become the universal style of building in the Western world, its creative heartland was in northern France in an area stretching from the royal domain around Paris, including Saint-Denis and Chartres, to the region of the Champagne in the east and southward to Bourges. Within this restricted area, in the series of cathedrals built in the course of the 12th and 13th centuries, the major innovations of Gothic architecture took place.2 The supernatural character of medieval religious architecture was given a special form in the Gothic church. "Medieval man considered himself but an imperfect refraction of Divine Light of God, Whose Temple stood on earth, according to the text of the dedication ritual, stood for the Heavenly City of Jerusalem."3 The Gothic interpretation of this point of view was a cathedral so grand that seems to belittle the man who enters it, for space, light, structure and the plastic effects of the stonework are made to produce a visionary scale. The result of the Gothic style is distortion as there is no fixed set of proportions in the parts. Such architecture did not only express the physical and spiritual needs of the Church, but also the general attitude of the people of that time. Gothic was not dark, massive, and contained like the older Romanesque style, but light, open, and aerial, and its appearance in all parts of Europe had an enduring effect on the outlook of succeeding generations.4 Gothic architecture evolved at a time of profound social and economic change in Western Europe. In the late eleventh and twelfth centuries trade and industry were revived, particularly in northern Italy and Flanders, and a lively commerce brought about better communications, not only between neighboring towns but also between far-distant regions. Politically, the twelfth century was also the time of the expansion and consolidation of the State. Along with political and economic developments, a powerful new intellectual movement arose that was stimulated by the translation of ancient authors from Greek and Arabic into Latin, and a new literature came into being. Gothic architecture both contributed to these changes and was affected by them.5 The Gothic style was essentially urban. The cathedrals of course were all situated in towns, and most monasteries, had by the twelfth century become centers of communities which possessed many of the functions of civic life. The cathedral or abbey church was the building in which the people congregated on major feast days. It saw the start and the end of splendid and colorful ceremonies, and it held the earliest dramatic performances. The abbey traditionally comprised at least a cloister, a dormitory and a refectory for the monks. But the cathedral also was around a complex of buildings, the bishop's palace, a cloister and the house of canons, a school, a prison, and a hospital. However the cathedral dominated them all, rising high above the town like a marker to be seen from afar.6 The architectural needs of the Church were expressed in both physical and iconographical terms. Like its Romanesque predecessor, the Gothic cathedral was eminently adaptable. It could be planned larger or smaller, longer or shorter, with or without transepts and ambulatory, according to the traditions and desires of each community. It had no predetermined proportions or number of parts, like the Roman temple or the centrally planned church of the Renaissance. Its social and liturgical obligations demanded a main altar at the end of a choir where the chapter and the various dignitaries would be seated, a number of minor altars, and an area for processions within the building.7 There were rarely more than about two hundred persons participating in the service, even though the smallest Gothic cathedral could easily contain that number. The rest of the building simply supplemented this core and provided space for the laity, who were not permitted to enter the choir or sanctuary. Still, after the middle of the twelfth century, the choir was usually isolated by a monumental screen that effectively prevented laymen from even seeing the service, and special devotional books came into use to supply the congregation with suitable subjects of meditation during mass.8 The program of the Gothic church fulfilled iconographical as well as social requirements. The intellectual centers of the Middle Ages had long been associated with the Church, and the tradition of learning that had been preserved in monastic and cathedral schools gave rise to universities such as Paris and Oxford in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Such an association obviously had an effect on the arts, which were still primarily religious in nature. Scholarly clerics, for instance, were appointed to arrange the intricate, theological programs for the sculpture and the stained glass that decorated the church. The relationship is thought by some historians to have been even closer, for scholastic thinking first took shape in Paris early in the twelfth century, at the very time that Gothic architecture came into being there. It is possible that architects, who were "abstract" thinkers in their own right, may occasionally have absorbed some of the habits of thought of the philosophers. In the absence of written documents, however, it cannot be proved whether these habits were consistently embodied in the design of the buildings.9 The Gothic age, as has often been observed, was an age of vision. The supernatural manifested itself to the senses. In the religious life of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the desire to behold sacred reality with bodily eyes appeared as the dominant theme. Architecture was designed and experienced as a representation of an ultimate reality.10 The Gothic cathedral was originated in the religious experience and in the political and even physical realities, of twelfth-century France. It was described as an illusionistic image of the Celestial City as evoked in the Book of Revelation. The essence of Gothic style was most fully developed in its conquest of space and its creation of a prodigious, visionary scale in the cathedrals of the twelfth century.11 Bibliography Branner, Robert. The Great Ages of World Architecture: Gothic Architecture. New York: George Braziller, 1967. Gimpel, Jean. The Cathedral Builders. New York: Grove Press, 1983. Mitchell, Ann. Great Buildings of the World: Cathedrals of Europe. Feltham: The Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1968. Panofsky, E. Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism. Latrobe: Faber and Faber Limited, 1951. Simson, Otto von. The Gothic Cathedral. New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1956. Worringer, Wilhelm. Form In Gothic. New York: Alec Tiranti Limited, 1957. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Great Religions and Philosophies Greek Philosophy .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Great Religions and Philosophies. : Greek Philosophy. In the 6th century B.C, there began a dualism in Greek Philosophy. The development of Greek Philosophy became a compromise between Greek monistic and oriental influences, in other words, a combination of intellectualism and mysticism. Thus began the pre-Socratic philosophy. The interests of pre-Socratic philosophers were centered on the world that surrounds man, the Cosmos. This was during the time of great internal and external disturbances in the Greek society, as it was right after the Peloponnesian war. The pre-Socratic era of Greek Philosophy came to an end when the Sophists turned their attention to man himself, delving into the moral and mental nature of man and dealing with the practical problems of life. The ancient Greeks mirrored their nature, beliefs, morals and customs in Greek Philosophy. Through understanding Greek Philosophy, we can see how the ancient Greeks regard the world around them. Greek Philosophy filled the void in the spiritual and moral life of the ancient Greeks, where in the same place other cultures had their belief in a religion. Wisdom, in the Greek sense, included not only a theoretical explanation of the world around them, but also provided a practical guide to life. From Homer to Hesiod, we see the reflections of the ancient Greeks and their use of Gods to fulfill their spiritual, social and psychological needs. A lot of temples were erected for Greek deities, and the ancient Greeks worshipped Gods to avert calamities, to secure the success of a certain harvest, or as thanksgiving for success in battle or deliverance in wants and wishes. Homeric songs tells stories of how man realizes that all events are governed by natural laws. In the Homeric world, fantastic beliefs and superstitions governed one important aspect of the ancient Greeks-- immutable fate. Homeric poems reflect the occasional doubts of the ancient Greeks in prophecy, and the observation about the shortness of life, and the suffering of earthly existence. The great epic writer Hesiod's philosophy of life rests on the idea of the deterioration of mankind. Hesiod's perspective runs along the idea that according to the will of Zeus, the human world is governed by justice and the animal world is governed by might. Hesiod reflects a society then that were seeking the truth and searching for the morality guidelines. And the human conduct of the ancients Greeks of the time were very much intertwined with the behavior of Nature, for example, if they were morally good, they would be blessed and rewarded with bountiful harvests. However, on the other end of the continuum, when a sin has been committed, such as the unconscious incest of Oedipus, all Nature is affected by the offense of man. During the period of the Dorian migration, the ancient Greeks were extending their territorial possessions to a greater extent. This brought about a lot of different morals and customs changes due to social and political changes. All this is reflected in the poetry, philosophies and writings of that era. Passion and feeling was more eminent now, and the attitude of the ancient Greeks towards nature was no longer observational and descriptive but emotional. The ancient Greeks are becoming more conscious of individualism and one's own strength and significance. The increase in property and material goods in the Greek society intensified the deep feeling in the ancient Greeks that earthly things are transient and a lot of them started to look at a more superterrestial support that would assure them security and permanence amidst all the changes in mortal things. The ancient Greeks were also more possessed by an innate immense religious fear, the fear of sinning or omission against any gods. A lot of them felt the necessity for atonement and purification. During this time came the advent of cleansing rituals, an example being the purification of Athens by Epimenides after the defilement of the city by Cylon. Epimenides and many similar holy people of his time would go into trances that would provide him with divine revelations. Epimenides was considered very close to the gods, due to a mode of life made holy by asceticism. Prophets and priests like Bacides and Sibyls reflect the need of the ancient Greeks for atonement. These prophets and priests were called upon to perform purification rites and prophetic trances. Spirit conjuring became a common practice, too. With Socrates and Socratic philosophy, the sophists and many philosophers moved away from the 'physics' of Nature and concentrated on man's correct conduct of life. Great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were the important influences that would shape Western thought and culture. They sought to unravel the intellectual limitations of man and the need to find answers to ethical questions. Side by side with this, spawned the Hellenistic Philosophy, which served to explain the change in world conditions at that time when the Greek Polis was destroyed. Inspite of all the Greek philosophers that sought for intellectual wisdom, the fantastic myths and gods of the ancient Greeks still survive and prevail. However, the Greek philosophers made a great effort to obtain a dichotomy between myth and logic. The efforts of these philosophers would prove to be of great influence in modern Western tradition and rationalism.   Bibliography.   Cornford, F. M., From Religion to Philosophy. New York: Harper, 1957. Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy. 5 vols. New York: Cambridge, 1990. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Great Religions and Philosophies.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Great Religions and Philosophies. : Greek Philosophy. In the 6th century B.C, there began a dualism in Greek Philosophy. The development of Greek Philosophy became a compromise between Greek monistic and oriental influences, in other words, a combination of intellectualism and mysticism. Thus began the pre-Socratic philosophy. The interests of pre- Socratic philosophers were centered on the world that surrounds man, the Cosmos. This was during the time of great internal and external disturbances in the Greek society, as it was right after the Peloponnesian war. The pre-Socratic era of Greek Philosophy came to an end when the Sophists turned their attention to man himself, delving into the moral and mental nature of man and dealing with the practical problems of life. The ancient Greeks mirrored their nature, beliefs, morals and customs in Greek Philosophy. Through understanding Greek Philosophy, we can see how the ancient Greeks regard the world around them. Greek Philosophy filled the void in the spiritual and moral life of the ancient Greeks, where in the same place other cultures had their belief in a religion. Wisdom, in the Greek sense, included not only a theoretical explanation of the world around them, but also provided a practical guide to life. From Homer to Hesiod, we see the reflections of the ancient Greeks and their use of Gods to fulfill their spiritual, social and psychological needs. A lot of temples were erected for Greek deities, and the ancient Greeks worshipped Gods to avert calamities, to secure the success of a certain harvest, or as thanksgiving for success in battle or deliverance in wants and wishes. Homeric songs tells stories of how man realizes that all events are governed by natural laws. In the Homeric world, fantastic beliefs and superstitions governed one important aspect of the ancient Greeks-- immutable fate. Homeric poems reflect the occasional doubts of the ancient Greeks in prophecy, and the observation about the shortness of life, and the suffering of earthly existence. The great epic writer Hesiod's philosophy of life rests on the idea of the deterioration of mankind. Hesiod's perspective runs along the idea that according to the will of Zeus, the human world is governed by justice and the animal world is governed by might. Hesiod reflects a society then that were seeking the truth and searching for the morality guidelines. And the human conduct of the ancients Greeks of the time were very much intertwined with the behavior of Nature, for example, if they were morally good, they would be blessed and rewarded with bountiful harvests. However, on the other end of the continuum, when a sin has been committed, such as the unconscious incest of Oedipus, all Nature is affected by the offense of man. During the period of the Dorian migration, the ancient Greeks were extending their territorial possessions to a greater extent. This brought about a lot of different morals and customs changes due to social and political changes. All this is reflected in the poetry, philosophies and writings of that era. Passion and feeling was more eminent now, and the attitude of the ancient Greeks towards nature was no longer observational and descriptive but emotional. The ancient Greeks are becoming more conscious of individualism and one's own strength and significance. The increase in property and material goods in the Greek society intensified the deep feeling in the ancient Greeks that earthly things are transient and a lot of them started to look at a more superterrestial support that would assure them security and permanence amidst all the changes in mortal things. The ancient Greeks were also more possessed by an innate immense religious fear, the fear of sinning or omission against any gods. A lot of them felt the necessity for atonement and purification. During this time came the advent of cleansing rituals, an example being the purification of Athens by Epimenides after the defilement of the city by Cylon. Epimenides and many similar holy people of his time would go into trances that would provide him with divine revelations. Epimenides was considered very close to the gods, due to a mode of life made holy by asceticism. Prophets and priests like Bacides and Sibyls reflect the need of the ancient Greeks for atonement. These prophets and priests were called upon to perform purification rites and prophetic trances. Spirit conjuring became a common practice, too. With Socrates and Socratic philosophy, the sophists and many philosophers moved away from the 'physics' of Nature and concentrated on man's correct conduct of life. Great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were the important influences that would shape Western thought and culture. They sought to unravel the intellectual limitations of man and the need to find answers to ethical questions. Side by side with this, spawned the Hellenistic Philosophy, which served to explain the change in world conditions at that time when the Greek Polis was destroyed. Inspite of all the Greek philosophers that sought for intellectual wisdom, the fantastic myths and gods of the ancient Greeks still survive and prevail. However, the Greek philosophers made a great effort to obtain a dichotomy between myth and logic. The efforts of these philosophers would prove to be of great influence in modern Western tradition and rationalism. Bibliography. Cornford, F. M., From Religion to Philosophy. New York: Harper, 1957. Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy. 5 vols. New York: Cambridge, 1990. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Greek Gods Vs Christ.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Greek Gods Vs. Christ The Revolutionary War was an enormous part of American history. The revolution in Russia, that sparked the overthrow of communism, was a huge part of Russian history. The revolution of Christianity from the concepts of Greek gods was also a large part of religious history. Christianity and Greek gods have many comparisons, contrasts, and these contrasts resulted in Christianity being revolutionary. The concepts of Christianity and the religious concepts of the Greek gods are comparatively alike. To begin, in both religions, humans believe that there are speakers for their God/gods. Gods do not speak to mere mortals. These people are the priests who teach of the gods¹ ways and wants. Some are fortune tellers or prophets, as they were called in Greek times, that foretell the future. For example, Tiriesias, in the plays Oedipus the King and Antigone, was a blind prophet who could see the future and foretell it to people. In Greek times the prophets were of high social status. Also, the people believe that their God or gods are above all human ranks. They believe a god is above all and listens to people when they need help. This is why humans pray to the God/gods for forgiveness. The two religious views also believe that the God/gods are watching over their followers. The God/gods decide either before or after a person¹s life on earth where the person will live in the afterlife, depending on the person¹s values. Both believe one would either go to a bad place, called Hell or Hades, or a good place, called heaven or the Elysian Fields. Likewise both believe in an afterlife that is eternally chosen. The ideas of the followers of Christianity and Greek religions are also very different. To begin, Christians believe in one almighty God. This is also known as monotheism. Christians believe this God gave the world his only son. When that son was put to death by a human, He told the people He would die to forgive their sins. This shows that God and His son were both caring and forgiving beings. They are respected by the followers of Christianity. God helps humans. Humans pray to this God for help and forgiveness. People also go to church to learn about their religion and to pay their respects to God. The church is thought to be God¹s house. This is why people get dressed up and try to look nice when they are guests in God¹s house. God and Jesus are thought to live in heaven. Greeks, however, are very different from Christians. They believe in many gods. This is also known as polytheism. These gods are mean and torture the humans for doing wrong. In the play Antigone, the leader speaks, ³Must, King and quickly too. The gods, provoked, never wait to mow men down.²1 This quote proves how quick tempered the gods are. These same gods destine a human¹s fate. Fate is also determined usually by a family curse. As in Antigone, the Greek tragedy, Antigone states, ³What more do you think could Zeus require of us to load the curse that¹s on the House of Oedipus?²2 This quote shows how Zeus, a Greek god, has determined Antigone's fate by the curse that has been placed on her family. A human¹s fate is foretold and is kept by the oracles. Oedipus¹ oracle states that he would kill his father and marry his mother. This oracle comes true even though many people of the city of Thebes do not know that Oedipus is Jocasta and Liaus¹ son because they ordered their son to be put to death. People of Greek times do not attend church; they are told of their futures by prophets or by other family members. They do, however, also try to please the gods so that they are not punished. The Greek gods are thought to live above the Greek citizens on a mountain named Olympus. Christianity was considered revolutionary by many. Revolutionary is defined as: ³having the nature of, characterized by, tending toward, and causing a revolution, or drastic change.²3 Christianity was a major change in beliefs causing many to think it was wrong. The evolution of Christianity was hampered by the beliefs of the people and their familiarity with the ways of the Greeks. This was such a giant change, many did not like it. Thus, although Christianity may seem similar to the concepts of the Greek gods it has many distinct differences. These differences explain why Christianity can be considered revolutionary. Word Count: 751 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Halloween and Christianity.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Halloween and Christianity Michael Williams Religion 10/28/96 It is often said that Halloween is not the "harmless" holiday it is thought to be, instead it is believed to be a pagan ritual which dates back to the ancient Celtic Druids. According to the article "Should Our Kids Celebrate Halloween?" in Catholic Digest Halloween's origin is very much Christian and American. Although the ancient Celts celebrated a minor festival on the 31st of October, it fell on that day because the Feast of All Saints or "All Hallows" falls on November 1st. During the 840s Pope Gregory IV gad All Saints Day to be celebrated everywhere. The day before the feast became known as "All Hallows Even" or "Hallowe'en". At the time, that day did not have any real significance. In the year of 998, the abbot of the monastery of Cluny in southern France, St. Odilo added a celebration on November 2nd called All Souls Day. The new celebration was a feast whose purpose was to recognize those in heaven and in purgatory. The tradition of dressing up in costumes on Halloween is derived from the Feast of All Souls Day in France. During the 14th and 15th centuries when Europe was hit by outbreaks of the bubonic plague, about half of its population was wiped out. Since life spans were greatly shortened because of the plague, Catholics began to focus on the after life. The number of Masses help largely increased and people of all social classes gathered to dress in different garments and lead lost spirits to the tomb in a daisy chain which became known as the "Dance of Death". Dressing up did not become part of Halloween until the creation of the British colonies in North America. During that period of time, Catholics had no legal rights in England. At times English Catholics attempted to resist. One such occasion was a plot to destroy King James I and his Parliament with gunpowder. The plan was ill-conceived and easily foiled when the guard of the powder, Guy Fawkes, was found and hung on November 5, 1605. The date became widely celebrated in England. Bands of revelers began to wear masks on that date and visited local Catholics during the night demanding beer and cakes for their celebration. This is the root of what has become known as "trick or treat!". As French and Irish Catholics immigrated into the colonies, they began to inter- marry. The combination of their traditions mixed with people of other nationalities is what led to the current way we celebrate Halloween. In conclusion, Halloween is not the occult which most people believe, it is the product of several cultures including Christianity. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Hebrews.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yom Kippur Yom Kippur is the most important holidays for the Jewish. It is a time for people to seek forgiveness from others. Yom Kippur is important because it comes just before the Jewish new year so that people can have a fresh start for the new year. Yom Kippur also gives people a chance to look back on the past year and plan for the upcoming year. Yom Kippur dates back to biblical times when animals were used to transfer sins to. The first animal that was used was a goat, but soon roosters for males and hens for females were used. The sins were transferred from people to the animals by tying a rope to the fowl's legs and then spinning around the head of the person who was transferring their sins. While the fowl was being spun the person who was transferring their sins would begin chanting. When the ceremony was finished the animal would be sent away into the dessert. Yom Kippur is practiced very differently today. Instead of transferring their sins to animals people donate money to charities and throw stones into ponds. On the night before Yom Kippur, people prepare for the following day's fast by eating an enourmous meal. Following the meal candles are lit and the Shehecheyanu is recited to bless the candles. The following day is spent at the synogauge where services are conducted all day long. The most important part of the services is when the rabbi asks everyone to take time to seek forgiveness of anyone whom they may have hurt in some way in the past year. People must seek forgiveness because the Jewish feel that forgiveness is not something that may be given, it is something that must be sought after. Not wanting to start the new year with any grudges, the entire congregation gets up and begins seeking forgiveness. At sundown the fast is over. The congregation leaves the synagouge and goes home. When they get home the break the fast by eating a huge meal. This meal marks the end of Yom Kippur. Timeline of The Hebrews 922 B.C. Isreal breaks up after the death of Solomon. Splits into a northern and southern kingdom with Shechm the capital of the northern half and Jerusalem as the capital of the southern half. 876 B.C. King Omri makes Samariai new capital. 842 B.C. Queen Jezebel imposes the cult of Baal. The people revolt and the Aramaeans take advantage of this oppertunity and captures some land from Isreal. 786 B.C.-746 B.C. Renaissance of Isreal under Jerobam II. 783 B.C.-742 B.C. Renaissance of Judah under Uzziah. 750 B.C. The prophets Amos and Hosea speak out against the exploitation of the poor by the rich. 738 B.C. The Assyrians force Isreal to pay a large tribute. 721 B.C. The Assyrians manage to capture Isreal and deport the Jews. Judah becomes a vassal state of Assyria. 715 B.C. Hezekiah becomes King of Judah and rids the religion of Assyrian influence. 687 B.C. Assyrians attack Jereusalem. 640 B.C.-609 B.C. King Josiah of Judah wins back some land from the Assyrians. 597 B.C. The Babylonians capture Jerusalem and deport King Jehoiadin causing the end of the Kingdom of Judah. 587 B.C.-539 B.C. The Babylonians destroy Jerusalem and cause the collapse of the Kingdom of Judah. 587 marks the begining of the Babylonian exile which ended through the Edict of Liberation of Cyrus the Persian 538 B.C.-400 B.C. The Jews return to the Holy Land. Joshua and Zerubbabel are the religious heads of Judea. Haggai adn Zechariah are the prophets in Judea. 332 B.C. Alexander the Great conquers Jerusalem. 167 B.C.-164 B.C. The Jews are persecuted and the cult of Zeus is established in their temples. 104 B.C.-37 B.C. Hasmoneans rule Judea. 63 B.C. Pompey captures Jerusalem stretching the Roman power to the Holy Land. 26 A.D.-36 A.D. Pontius Pilate is the govenor of Judea. 66 A.D.-73 A.D. The Jews revolt for the first time against Rome. 70 A.D. Romans destroy the temple. 132 A.D.-135 A.D. The second Jewish revolt against Rome. Also known as Bar Kokhba. The Jews are destroyed in battle and the Jews are dispersed. 351 A.D. The Revolt of Patricius takes place. 637 A.D. The Arabs capture the city of Jerusalem. 1095 A.D.-1270 A.D. Crusades occour in a Christian attemptto regain the holy lond which was also sacred to them. 1492 A.D. The Jews are expulted from Spain and Ghettos are formed. 1917 A.D. Pogroms begin occouring in Russia. The rise of antisemitism. 1936 A.D. Hitler commands Nazis to destroy Jewish towns and blames it on hoodlums. 1939 A.D.-1945 World War II. 1948 A.D. Isreal becomes a country. Military Life The Hebrews viewed war as a holy act. War was thought of in this way because they believed that it was God's will that they fight and that they would win if he wanted them to. In their early days the Hebrews had no permanent army and relied on all Hebrew men over 20 to fight whenever there was a threat to the Hebrews. Military service was viewed as a religious obligation so men would always be willing to serve in the army. Before they established a full time army the Hebrews also relied on mercenaries and bandits to help them fight. When Saul became king he saw that it was necessary to set up a full time army. He gathered all of the men he could find into an unorganized group. Later, Solomon turned the army into a large highly organized group. Solomon also set up a recruiting office so that in times of danger temporary help could be gotten in addition to the regular army. However, by 700 B.C. the citizens army had replaced the regular army because there was no need for a regular army with the tremendous amount of volunteers. The Hebrew's army consisted mainly of their infantry which served as the backbone of the army. The infantry was equipped with only bronze helmets and coats of mail also made of bronze. Bronze was the metal that was chiefly used in the Hebrew's armor even though iron was discovered to be much stronger. The infantry was equipped with either swords, or lances for hand to hand combat, with lances being the weapon of choice. Either bows, slings or spears were used for artillery with bows being used much more than slings or spears. A second important part of the Hebrew army were the chariots they used. Solomon was the first to realize the important role that chariots could play in war and implemented them into the Hebrew army. The chariots could dominate a battle taking place on flat land, but on the other hand were rendered useless on hills and mountains. Because the Hebrews believed that war was a holy act the Hebrews had to prepare for the battle spiritually as well as physically. Before every battle sacrifices were made accompanied by prayers. Before any campaign was started a priest would be consulted on the precise time for which the campaign would be started. The priest would also be brought along on the campaign so he cold be consulted at crucial points during the campaign. All of these were done to gain God's will and determine his wishes. The main form of battle the Hebrews engaged in was siege warfare. They first would attempt to capture the city's water supply. Once they controlled the water they would cut of the supply of food from outside the city. Once they had accomplished these the would wait for months and sometimes years. This would cause the city to resort to it's stored food. Once the stored food ran out, people either died of malnutrition, paid high prices for food on the black market, or resorted to cannibalism. This method of battle proved to be highly effective for the Hebrews. The reason for much of the Hebrews success was their attitude toward war. Because of their belief that war was holy they got an enormous amount of support from their people. Also, believing that the result of the wars they were fighting was determined by what their God wanted had to have given the Hebrews some hope even when they were losing. Without their attitude towards was the Hebrews would have been a much weaker opponent. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Hinduis1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hinduism Table of Contents Introduction Page 1 Hindu Beliefs A. Hindu Gods Page 1 B. Life Before and After Death Page 2 C. The Caste System Page 2 Rituals of Life in Hinduism Page 3 & 4 Worship A. Daily Obligations Page 4 B. Daily Rituals Page 4 C. Puja Page 5 D. Yoga Page 5 Hindu Holy Books A. Veda Page 5 B. Laws of Manu Page 5 C. The Epics Page 6 Pilgrimage Page 6 Shivarati Page 6 & 7 Introduction Hinduism - stands for the faith and the way of life most of the people who live in India. Hinduism is such an ancient religion that it had many types of beliefs and religious practices. Around 1750 BC Aryan invaders from central Asia settled in North - West India and introduced their own religious ideas. Slowly the Hindu came to accept the idea of the existence of an eternal supreme being. They called this being, Brahman. Hindus also worship different gods which individually represent one particular aspect of Brahman. The most popular one of the lesser gods are Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer) Hinduism has no founder. It is a religion that has slowly developed over a period of time. Hindu Beliefs Hindu Gods The Hindus have four gods Brahman, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. There main god is Brahman. He is the origin and the sustainer of all life, and the goal of all things. He is eternal and omnipotent and only he is real. They believe that Brahman is so great that he cannot be explained in human words because all humans are imperfect and Brahman is perfect. Shiva Shiva is usually depicted with six arms each one representing a different function to preform. He is known as the destroyer and restorer of life, symbol of the reproductive force of nature, philosopher and sage. He has a third eye which signifies wisdom or higher consciousness. He has a blue throat which is a result of him swallowing a full cup of mans sins. Worship of Shiva includes fertility rites and veneration of the symbols of male and female sex organs. Most Hindus imagine Shiva as being in deep meditation high in the Himalayas. Shiva is the ultimate god who holds in divine tension the preservation and destruction of the cosmos, both its birth and death. At times he is portrayed as the great ascetic. He is often depicted as the reconciler of dualities such as good and evil, eroticism and asceticism, his creative energy is depicted in the Lingam and Yoni. Shiva is frequently shown in loving union with his consort Parvati (another form of the great goddess) Shiva devotees are called Shaivites, and devotion usually takes the form of Yogic practice. Shiva is often pictured, in one of the best known religious images from India, as the lord of the cosmic dance. Shiva "LORD OF THE DANCE". He is surrounded by flames (energy of the universe) and snakes (representing creative power). His upper right hand is holding a drum (to beat the rhythm of the time) while the upper left hand holds a flames (element of destruction). His second right hand is raised for blessing, while his second left hand points to the raised left foot (symbolizes release). The right foot treads on a dwarf that represents ignorance and spiritual blindness. Life Before and After Death A Hindu believes and hopes that eventually his soul will join with Brahman. They welcome death as a step towards gaining this everlasting union with him. They believe that their souls were never born and therefore never dies, but it moves on from one body to another. This movement form one body to another in the cycle of birth death and re-birth is called reincarnation. This belief that a person will be born again following the death is linked with the law of karma. They also believe that the type of existence a person will experience in the next life depends on the good and bad karma built up in the previous life. The white cows are considered holy because they believe that they are a symbol of "atman", which means the soul in all living things. The Caste System A caste is a group of people with a particular place in society. Hindu people are born into their caste, wether high or low, they must accept their place without question. This means that a person can only be born a Hindu. To maintain purity Hindus can only marry within their caste, they can only eat with members of their caste, and the men follow occupation of their caste which are passed from father to son. The difficulty that arise by the observing the caste system is that there are a large group of people who are classified as being outside of the caste system, some examples of this are untouchables and outcastes. These people are among the poorest and least educated people in India and they do all of the dirty work. Even though the government has passed laws against classifying people as untouchable, they still feel that customs die hard, therefore, there is still discrimination and hostility against them. A Diagram of the Caste System mouth = Brahmins Priests arms = Kshatriya's Warriors thighs = Vaisya's Skilled workers and Traders feet = Shudra's Unskilled workers, servants Rituals of Life in Hinduism The name for the series of rituals for various phases in a Hindus life is sanskaras. Conception: in the early days of marriage even before the children are conceived, the parents pray and meditate on the kind of child they wish to have. During pregnancy a number of rites are performed. The gods are asked to protect the unborn child, and to strengthen the mother spiritually, mentally and physically so that a healthy child is born. Name-giving: on the eleventh or twelfth day after birth a name is chosen for the baby. The choice of name is very important, it must be on which is hoped will bring good fortune. A boys name may indicate heroism and a girls name may be one which indicates beauty. Parents would choose the baby's name as a result of praying and making vows to their god in thanks to him that they had a child. The name is given in a very simple way. The father leans over the baby and says into its ear "Now your name is ..." The Thread Ceremony: This ceremony is a very important stage in the life of a Hindu boy, that is if he belongs to one of the three main castes. This ceremony is considered a birth by which a person is given a new king of life. The ceremony takes place any time between the boys seventh and twelfth birthdays. The ceremony involves putting the sacred thread across the boys body from his left shoulder to his right hip. Once he has received the thread he is allowed to recite passages from the Veda and perform the rituals described in it. Marriage: It is very important for a man to be married since it enables him to have sons who will continue his family line. Many Hindu marriages are arranged, this means that the parents find a suitable partner for their child. The parents make sure that this person is from the same caste and they also make sure that the couples horoscopes are a good match. Funeral: The last ceremony in the samskaras takes place when a person dies. A funeral ceremony is held, at which the body of the dead person is cremated. When a person dies their body is wrapped in a cloth and then taken away for cremation. No food or refreshments are served at the funeral because death and anything to do with food must be kept separate. Worship Daily Rituals Those of the highest and priestly caste and others who wear the sacred thread , observe five obligations each day: 1. They must always worship Brahman either directly or through other gods 2. They must give reverence to the saints and holy men by reciting the Veda. Usually this consists of a repetition of the Gayatri Mantra 3. They must show respect for their parents and elders 4. They must give shelter and alms to the poor or holy men 5. They are instructed to feed animals because Hindus believe all living things form one community A Hindu performs some simple daily rituals at the beginning of each day which include: 1. As he rises from bed he places his right foot on the ground first in order to make a good start to the day 2. He says a prayer as his foot touches the ground which he believes was created by god 3. He carefully cleans his teeth and tongue and then has a bath using running water. This daily bath is very important since Hindu must not eat any food or say any prayers before having a bath. 4. He may also put his forehead on the mark of the god he worships. For instance three horizontal lines indicates the god Shiva, and three vertical lines the god Vishnu. This is called a tilaka mark and it is usually made with red powder or paste. Puja Puja is the most common form of Hindu worship. This is worshiping a god, using mantras and making offerings. Usually Hindus prefer to worship one particular god. This god is chosen according to their personal wish, or because of a family tradition, or even because it is the main god of the area that they live in. Puja begins very early in the morning and continues intermittently throughout the day. The image is "Wakened up" with the lighting of the lamp, with the chanting of mantras and with the sounds of music. The image is washed and anointed with ghee clarified butter. It is touched with powders, hung with garlands, and offered flowers. Incense is burned and atrii is performed, especially anjali, which is done by putting then hands together and raising them up to the forehead or breast. Also a Hindu may kneel and place the forehead on the ground in front of the image. Both of these actions are acts of homage to the gods. Yoga Yoga is a form of meditation which is practiced by many Hindus. The word "yoga" means yoking disciplining and it is a means of achieving mastery over the mind by means of exercises. The idea is to cut oneself off from the world and concentrate on Brahman. Hindus teach that Karma decides what form a person will take in the next life. Karma, they say is an action done in a lifetime wether good or bad. A devout Hindu tries to avoid building up bad deeds so as to total as little bad karma as possible. On way to do this is to cut himself off from the from the world and concentrate on Brahman by practicing yoga. Hindu Holy Books Veda The Veda is the most ancient of all books. Veda means divine knowledge. The Veda was composed between 1200 BC and 500 BC. It is composed of three sections: The Rig-Veda - is a collection of hymns dedicated to 33 gods especially to Indri and Agni. This section consists of 1000 hymns arranged in ten books each of these books has a number of verses. Brahmans - this section describe the various Vedic religious rights and ceremonies and explains what they mean Upanishads - this section contains discussions in prose and verse, of the most important topics in the Hindu faith (Brahman, re-incarnation and the law of karma, and the creation) Laws of Manu Laws of Manu was written about 250 BC. This book shows how important Hindu beliefs are in everyday life. They give detailed instructions about what Hindus may and may not do. The Epics The Epics were written after the Veda around 500 BC. The book contains two important poems called the Mahalarata and the Ramayoud. These poems are important to people of the Hindu faith because they are two of their favorite stories and they teach them about how to live. Pilgrimage A pilgrimage is a journey made by a follower to a holy city, shrine or temple. There are many important places of pilgrimage in Northern India, and often associated with the River Ganges. The main centers are Rishikesh and Hardwar where the Ganges descends from the Himalayas, Vrindavan and Mathura on the river Jumna which are associated with the god Krishna, the meeting of the River Ganges and Jumna at Allahabad and the most sacred of the Indian cities, Benares also called Vanenasi. Going on pilgrimage plays an important part in Hinduism. There are a number of reasons for Hindus making a pilgrimage. They may wish to have a closer experience of the god that they worship, or they may wish to wash away their sins by bathing in a holy river. They may intend to pray for favors already received. The parents of a family will go to a site of a miracle in order to pray for the birth of a child or for a child to be cured of a long time sickness. There is no fixed time to go on a pilgrimage for. Many Hindus make a pilgrimage at festival time. Kumbla Mela is a great bathing festival held once every twelve years during the month of Magh which is January-February. The most important center during the festival is Allahabad. When on pilgrimage Hindus usually take gifts with them to present to the god at that shrine in the place they are visiting. The gifts could be money, food, cloth or flowers. The pilgrims spend their time in worship both praying and bathing. They wear their best clothes and eat festive food. They go sightseeing, meet old friends and buy souvenirs. Shivarati this festival is dedicated to Shiva and is held in January-February and lasts thirty-six hours. The name of this festival means "night sacred to Shiva", because worship goes on throughout the night. Compared to other festivals it is a solemn occasion marked by fasting. Some devotees of Shiva do not sleep, eat or drink for the thirty-six hours. During the night Shiva is worshiped with singing and dancing in shrines dedicated to the god. In the shrine is a small stone pillar representing the god Shiva around which people assemble and perform puja. Offerings are made by pouring milk, honey and melted butter over the linga. When the fast ends at about four o'clock much feasting follows with sweet potatoes and cucumbers among the many foods eaten. The people remember a story which helps to explain why they fast and keep watch throughout the night. The story tells of a hunter who was once chased by a tiger, he climbed a tree to escape, and he had to perch the whole night as the tiger crouched below. To make sure he did not fall asleep he plucked the leaves one by one and dropped them on the ground. There was an image of Shiva under the tree, as the leaves fell Shiva felt he was being worshiped and blessed the hunter. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Hinduis2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hinduism Hinduism The religion Hinduism refers a the civilization set up on the Indus river called the Hindus. Introduced in about 1830 by British writers, it is believed that the Indian civilization of approximately the last 2,000 years, which evolved from Vedism religion of the Indo- European people who settled in India in the last centuries of the 2nd millennium BC. "The Hindu religion ranges from a level of popular belief to one of Ritual's, and philosophy. Hinduism is very broad, and has many Transitional stages, as well as many ranges of coexistence." "Magic, animal worship, and belief in demons are combined with the worshiping of personal gods or with small thoughts, discipline, and complicated and learned theological systems or doctrines only few understand." "The worship of local deities does not rule out the belief in pan-Indian higher gods or even in a single high God. Such local deities are also often looked down on as manifestations of high god." Hinduism allows all forms of belief and worship without requiring the selection or elimination of any. "Hindus must respect the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and are doctrinally understanding, allowing others - including both Hindus and non-Hindus - whatever beliefs suit them best." "A Hindu may allow a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and because Hindus are likely to think unnaturally and to look upon other forms of worship, strange gods, and different doctrines as not complete rather than wrong or offensive."3 Hindus tend to believe that the highest divine powers are a balance of one another.2 Few religious ideas are considered to be conflicting. "The base of religion does not depend on the existence or nonexistence of God or on whether there is one god or many."2 Because religious truth is said to go beyond all spoken meaning, it is not conceived in strict terms.2 In addition, the tendency of Hindus to distinguish themselves from others on the basis of practice rather than principle does not emphasizes doctrinal differences. Hinduism is both a civilization and a congregation of religions it has, neither a beginning ,or founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organization.4 "Being and non-being,"4 is the main reality in Hindusim, and the ultimate cause and foundation, source, and goal of all existence.4 This ultimate reality is called Brahman. "As the All, Brahman causes the universe and all beings to originate from itself, transforms itself into the universe, or assumes its appearance. Brahman is in all things and is the Self (atman) of all living beings."5 Brahman is the creator, preserver, or transformer and reabsorber of everything.5 This fundamental belief of Brachman is that " the One is the All."5 This belief has continued unchanged for more than 30 centuries, and has been the main focus of India's spiritual life5. "A more common view of Hinduism is that many feel that it is 'atheistic'. An even more common view is that it has been labeled 'polytheistic'."5 The term 'polytheism' means there is not the presence of one god but a presence of many gods. Hindus actually worship many such beings we call God. But obviously this implies a very big difference in the understanding of what such a 'God' could be.1 It is often said that Hindus worship three gods and they are in fact called the Hindu Trinity.6 The gods involved are Brahma, Visnu and Siva. The first is supposed to create the world (at the beginning of each cosmic cycle), the second to maintain it in being, and Siva, at the end of a cosmic cycle, to destroy it again. But then a further idea is added which is ignored by the theory of a Hindu Trinity. It is also believed that Brahma and the others, who carry out these functions, are merely manifestations of that highest being, or they relate to it in some other way.1 "This is the idea of one, powerful, eternal, and loving God, this is the concept of Bhagavan."1 For us outside observers Bhagavan is not one, but Many for example Siva, Visnu, Krsna, Rama, Karttikeya and Ganesa. "The individual now must makes a decision as to how to regard such a figure. This means, for example Visnu could than be the Bhagavan for some people, a minor part of Siva for others, and a godling for a third group, possibly an evil demon like being for a fourth and Isvara for a fifth."7 Many Hindus who worship either Vishnu or Shiva generally consider one or the other as their 'favorite god' and as the Lord and Brahman Vishnu is often regarded as a "special manifestation of a stabilizing aspect of the Supreme and Shiva as opposed to the destructive function."5 Another god, "Brahma, the creator, remains in the background as a demiurge. These three great figures (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) make up the so-called Hindu Trinity " Trimuriti, the One or Whole with Three Forms".6 This concept leads people to believe that the Supreme Power is singular with the plurality of gods in daily religious worship. "Brahma, is the first of the three Hindu gods, he is called the Creator; he is the father of gods and men, the lord of creators. The term is used for the Absolute, or the Ultimate Principle, beyond which nothing exists or has any reality."6 In the Upanishads, Brahma is said to be beyond all description. "This universe was surrounded in darkness - unperceived, indistinguishable, undiscoverable, unknowable, as it were, entirely sunk in sleep. The irresistible self existent lord, undiscerned, creating this universe with the five elements, and all other things , was manifested dispelling the gloom. He who is beyond the insight of the senses, subtle, indiscernible, eternal, who is the essence of all things, and inconceivable, himself shone forth."8 "He, is looking to produce various creatures from his own body, first created the waters, and in them put a seed. This (seed) became a golden egg, an egg as bright as the sun, in which he himself was born as Brahma, the ancestor of all worlds. The waters are called Nara, because they are the offspring of Nara; and since they were formerly the place of his movement (Ayana), he is therefore called Narayana . Being formed by that First Cause, indiscernible, eternal, which is both existent and non-existent, that male is known in the world as Brahma. That lord having continued a year in the egg, divided it into two parts by his mere thought. In pictures, Brahma is represented as a "red man with four heads, though in the Puranas he is said to have had originally five. He is dressed in white garments, and rides upon a goose. In one hand he carries a staff, in the other a dish for receiving alms."6 A legend in the "Matsya Purana", gives the following account of the formation of his numerous heads "Brahma formed from his own immaculate substance a female who is celebrated under the names of Satarupa, Savitri, Sarasvati, Gayatri, and Brahmani. Beholding his daughter, born from his body, Brahma became wounded with the arrows of love and exclaimed, 'How surpassingly lovely she is !' Satarupa turned to the right side from his gaze; but as Brahma wished to look after her, a second head issued from his body. As she passed to the left, and behind him, to avoid his amorous glances, two other heads successively appeared. At length she sprang into the sky; and as Brahma was anxious to gaze after her there, a fifth head was immediately formed".5 In current times, Brahma is not largely worshipped by the Hindus.7 It is believed that the universe will come to an end at the end of Brahma's life, but Brahmas too are countless, and a new universe is reborn with each new Brahma.7 VISHNU is called the second person of the Hindu Trimuriti or Trinity: though called second, but this does not mean that he is regarded in any way inferior to Brahma. In some books Brahma is said to be the "first cause of all things, in others it is as strongly asserted that Vishnu has this honor; while in others it is claimed for Siva."4 As Brahma's special work is creation, Vishnu's is preservation. In the following passage from the "Padma Purana", it is taught that Vishnu is the supreme cause, thus identifying him with Brahma, and also that his special work is to preserve: " In the beginning of creation, the great Vishnu, desirous of creating the whole world, became threefold ; Creator, Preserver, Destroyer. In order to create this world, the Supreme Spirit produced from the right side of his body himself as Brahma ; then, in order to preserve the world, he produced from his left side Vishnu ; and in order to destroy the world, he produced from the middle of his body the eternal Shiva Some worship Brahma, others Vishnu, others Shiva ; but Vishnu creates, preserves, and destroys : therefore let the pious makes no difference between the three."8 In pictures Vishnu is represented as a "black man with four arms in one hand he holds a club ; in another a shell ; in a third a chakra, or diseus, with which he slew his enemies , and in the fourth a lotus. He rides upon the bird Garuda, and is dressed in yellow robes."6 This god is worshipped not only under the name and in the form of Vishnu, but also in one of his many incarnations. 'Whenever, any great hardship occurred in the world, or the evil of any of its people proved an unbearable problem to the gods, Vishnu, as Preserver, had to lay aside his invisibility, and come to earth in some form, generally human."9 When his work was done, he returned again to the skies. There is no certainty, as to the number of times he has become real. "Ten is the commonly received number, and these are the most important ones. Of these ten, nine have already been accomplished ; one, the Kalki, is still future. Some of these Avatars are of an entirely cosmic character ; others, however, are probably based on historical events, the leading personage of which was gradually endowed with divine nature, until he was regarded as the incarnation of the god himself."9 These are Fish (Matsya), Tortoise (Kurma), Boar (Varaha), Man-Lion (Narasimha), Dwarf (Vamana), Rama-with the Ax (Parasurama), King Rama, Krishna, Buddha, and the future incarnation, Kalki. Preference for any one of these manifestations is largely a matter of tradition. Krishna is one of the preferred ones. "In the Mahabharata, Krishna is primarily a hero, a chieftain of a tribe, and an ally of the Pandavas, the heroes of the Mahabharata. He accomplishes heroic feats with the Pandava prince Arjuna. Typically he helps the Pandava brothers to settle in their kingdom, and when the kingdom is taken from them, to regain it."4 In the process he emerges as a great teacher who reveals the Bhagavadgita, "the most important religious text of Hinduism."4 In the further development of the Krishna myth, it is found that as a child, "Krishna was full of boyish pranks and well known for his favoring for milk and butter. He would raid the dairies of the gopies (milkmaids) to steal fruit, milk, and butter, and would accuse others for his crimes."4 Krishna is the most celebrated god of the Hindu pantheon. "He is worshipped as an independent god in his own right, but is also regarded as the eighth incarnation of Vishnu. In the course of life he was supposed to have had 16,108 wives and 180,008 sons."4 In the epic he is a hero, a leader of his people, and an active helper of his friends. Shiva is the third person of the Hindu Trinity. As Brahma was Creator, Vishnu Preserver, in order to complete the system, as all things are subject to come to and end, so a Destroyer was necessary and destruction is regarded as the unusual work of Siva. "It must be remembered that, according to the teachings of Hinduism, death is not death in the sense of passing into non-existence, but simply a change into a new form of life."9 "He who destroys, therefore, causes beings to assume new phases of existence - the Destroyer is really the re-creator ; therefore the name Siva, the Bright or Happy One, is given to him, which would not have been the case had he been regarded as the destroyer."6 According to the ancient Indians, "Shiva primarily must have been the divine representative of the fallow, dangerous, doubtful, and much-to-be-feared aspects of nature."6 He is the great foundation of all existence and the source and ruler of all life, but it is not clear whether, Shiva is invoked as a great god of "frightful aspect, capable of conquering ungodly power."9 He is a terrible and mild, creator and an agent of reabsorption, eternal rest and endless activity. His myths describe him as the "absolute mighty unique One, who is not responsible to anybody or for anything."9 "As a dancer, his affectation expresses the eternal rhythm of the universe; he also catches the waters of the heavenly Ganges River, which destroys all sin; and he wears in his head dress the crescent moon, which drips the nectar of everlasting life. Sometimes in the act of trampling on or destroying demons, he wears around his black neck a serpent, and a necklace of skulls, furnished with a whole device of external emblems, such as a white bull on which he rides, a trident , tiger's skin, elephant's skin, rattle, noose, etc. He has three eyes, one being on his forehead, in reference either to the three Vedas, or time past, present and future and in the end of time, he will dance the universe to destruction."6 It is said that without his consort Mother Goddess, no Hindu god is much use or value to anyone. He may strut about, but his powers are limited. To be complete he requires a Devi, "Goddess," who takes many different names and forms, but always embodies Shakti. In some myths Devi is the prime mover, who commands the male gods to do work of creation and destruction.2 Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, all three have their own consorts. Sarasvati, the goddess of wisdom and science and, the mother of Vedas, is Brahma's wife. She is represented as a "fair young woman, with four arms; with one of her right hands, she is presenting a flower to her husband, by whose side she continually stands ; and in the other she holds a book of palm-leaves, indicating that she is fond of learning. In one of her left hands, she has a string of pearls, called Sivamala (Shiva's garland) and in the other a small drum."1 Lakshmi, or very commonly known as Sri, is the wife of Vishnu. "Sri, the bride of Vishnu, the mother of the world, is eternal, immortal ; as he is all-pervading, so she is godlike . Vishnu is meaning, she is speech ; Hari is polite, she is prudence ; Vishnu is understanding, she is intellect ; he is righteousness, she is devotion Sri is the earth, Hari is the support. In a word, of gods, animals, and men, Hari is all that is called male Lakshmi is all that is termed female ; there is nothing else than them." Lakshmi is regarded as the goddess of Love, Beauty, and Prosperity and is also known as Haripriya, "The beloved of Hari", and Lokamata, "The mother of the world". The law of Hinduism is basically defined by what people do rather than what they think. Therefore, far more steadiness of behavior than of belief is found among Hindus, although very few practices or beliefs are shared by all. A few usuages are Observed, by almost all Hindus: respect for Brahmans and cows, not eating meat (especially beef); and marriage within caste (jati), in the hope of producing male heirs. Most Hindus worship Shiva, Vishnu, or the Goddess (Devi), but they also worship hundreds of additional minor deities depending on the particular village or even to a particular family. Although Hindus believe and do many apparently conflicting things, each individual perceives an orderly pattern that gives form and meaning to his or her own life. No doctrinal or clerical power structure exists in Hinduism, but the complex hierarchy of the social system gives each person a sense of place within the whole. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Hinduism & Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Introduction- Hinduism and Buddhism are two of the five major religions in our world today. They are widely practiced, and have survived for centuries. Both have similarities and differences, as do all forms of religion. Hopefully, in this paper I will show you the basic structure of each religion. I would also like to show how they compare and contrast. Hinduism: Foundation No one is completely sure of where Hinduism was started and by whom. Their oldest written documents, the Vedas, were written down in 1000 B.C. but they had existed orally long before. The Vedas are where Hinduism originated. Today, Hinduism is the world's third largest religion. Many changes have come upon Hinduism since they practiced it first. Hinduism includes many different sects, or denominations, and beliefs that have arisen. Though, there are many things in common with all of the Hindu sects. Their basic beliefs are what ties them together. Basic Beliefs- The religion of Hinduism teaches us that each living body, including animals, is filled with an eternal soul. Hindus say that the individual soul was a part of the creator spirit, Brahma. It is each soul's job and wish eventually to return to Brahma. It is not possible though because by a soul's sins, and impurities from the world, they are no longer pure and holy to return. Instead, a soul must become pure before returning to Brahma, who is absolutely pure. The process of becoming pure is so hard that no soul can become pure in only one lifetime. The soul is forced to live life after life until it is pure enough to return to Brahma. The cycles of rebirths are called samsara, or the Wheel of Life, by the Hindus. When a soul is finally cleansed enough to break free of samsara it is called moksha. The soul returns to Brahma for an eternity of contentment and ecstasy. There is no one incorporating creed in Hinduism. A follower may choose any god as their personal god, or may worship several of them. Though to be a Hindu there are certain things that a follower must believe in and live by. Their main beliefs are: 1. A belief in karma, the result of one's good and bad deeds in a lifetime. 2. A belief in dharma, Hindu traditions. 3. A belief in the three main gods: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. 4. A belief in reincarnation after death. 5. Honor for the sacred Vedas. 6. A belief that, if lived a religious life, the Wheel of Life can end and achieve moksha. 7. An honor for an ascetic religious life, to be an orthodox Hindu. Hindus worship many gods, but they are truly monotheistic by believing in a single god. The reason behind this is that everything comes from Brahman. It does not matter who the worship is for because it is ultimately Brahman. Brahman does not reward or punish those for their deeds in life. Every soul creates their own rewards and punishments through karma. Karma rules what each soul will be in its next life, and it is formed from a soul's good and bad deeds in each life. If a soul has had more good deeds than bad deeds, then they have good karma. Or vice versa if they have had more bad deeds than good. Dharma is the ultimate meritorious balance of all things living. It belongs to everything, including the universe. Every soul is responsible for balancing their dharma. The areas to balance in dharma are religious, social, and within the family. They must keep promises, and remain faithful to religious rituals, while also taking care of their family. If a soul loses this balance, then it will affect their karma. Dharma has been called tradition, duty, and a custom, but to a Hindu it is spiritually more than that. Hindus also follow a caste system, resulted from dharma, which I will discuss later. Gods- There are three main gods in Hinduism. Many others exist in the religion, but these are the most noteworthy. Brahma is the creator of life. Vishnu is known as the preserver of life. You might pray to Vishnu if someone you knew was going in for surgery so that they'll come through it with no problems. Finally, Siva, or Shiva is the destroyer of life. All three of these gods are portrayed as female and male. Vishnu is more often a male, and Shiva is more often a female. The Caste System- The society of Hinduism is strictly divided. The different levels, called castes, do not mingle. The division is largely due to the practices of dharma and karma. Both practices express the idea that if someone is born into a specific lifestyle, they must stay there. It would be bad karma to attempt to leave that lifestyle. In the caste system, there are four levels along with two groups that are apart from the castes. Every caste comes from Brahma, but each is from a different body part. The highest level is the Brahmin. It means Brahman, but is spelled in another way to resist confusion of Brahman, the creator spirit. Brahmin comes from his head, and they are to be the voice of Brahma. They are the priestly caste, but many are also teachers and keepers of the religion. Today, many Brahmins are also involved in business and government. The second level of castes is the Kshatriyas (warrior) caste. They were the kings and soldiers, and come from Brahma's arms. The third level is the Vaisyas. They come from the thighs of Brahma, and occupy the jobs of merchants, artisans, and farmers. The fourth and final caste is Sudras. These people are the manual workers, represented by Brahma's feet. It is considered a sin to associate with people of a lower caste than you. So each caste is made up of a different level of the society. There are also two groups outside the caste system. One group is for foreigners. They might be a nonbeliever or anyone who receives special treatment from the Hindu society. The second "outcaste" group is the "Untouchables." These people are considered nonhuman and cannot participate in any Hindu practices. They do the work no one wants to do and do not associate with anyone that is of a higher caste. Buddhism: Foundation- Buddhism was founded by Siddartha Gautama, and he became the Buddha. His intentions were not to form a new religion, only to modify an older one. Brahmanism, or Hinduism, had become very orthodox. Siddartha was a minor king of northern India. One day, he ventured outside the palace walls and saw how life really was. Inspired, Siddartha left his home, and family to look for the meaning of life. For years he listened to and studied with the Indian wise men; then he turned to meditation. Discouraged from not finding the answer he wanted, he sat under a fig tree. Siddartha determined that he sat there until he found the answer, this lasted 49 days. It finally came to him, and he became Buddha. Buddhism was founded. Basic Beliefs- Buddhism is a reformed version of Hinduism. Buddha discovered the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths are the foundation for all forms of Buddhist philosophy. 1. There is suffering. 2. Suffering is caused. 3. Eliminating the causes of suffering can extinguish suffering. 4. The way to extinguish the causes of suffering is to follow the Middle Way stated in the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path also comes from Buddha. It teaches to practice moderation. It is the practical side of Buddhism. If followed, one may achieve true enlightenment, or nirvana. Nirvana is reaching Brahma in one lifetime. Buddha believed that you could live a perfect life and not have to continue in the samsara. The basic way to this is the Eightfold Path, which says to practice moderation in these areas: 1. Right views. You must have the right mind set. 2. Right intent (or right resolution) A person must want actively to eliminate suffering. 3. Right speech. You must not lie, slander others, or insult. You're not to cause suffering with words. 4. Right conduct (or right action). To behave in a way that does not cause suffering. 5. Right means of livelihood. Not to live in a way or hold a job that causes suffering. 6. Right endeavor (or right effort) To prevent unclean states of mind from happening. 7. Right mindfulness. To be aware of body activities, the senses, perceptions, and thoughts. 8. Right meditation. The specific concentration to improve oneself. Buddhists believe that if you follow this you will be enlightened. Many Buddhist beliefs are almost the same as a Hindu's. Buddhists do not practice the caste system. One of the only ways to achieve nirvana in one lifetime is to be a monk or a nun. If you break an area in the Eightfold Path, then you cannot achieve nirvana. Also in order to follow the 4th part of The Eightfold Path, all Buddhists are vegetarians. Killing of an animal is seen as causing suffering. Like the Hindus, an animal has a soul. Despite all the talk about suffering, Buddhism is really about the absence of suffering. Buddhism is a way to develop the ability to love the entire universe, simply because it is. It is understanding that the universe exits inside a blade of grass, just as the blade of grass resides within the universe. All things are inter-connected. Comparisons Between Hinduism and Buddhism- Both Hinduism and Buddhism accept and believe that there is one creator spirit. Each of them recognizes Brahma or a version of Brahma as the creator spirit. Though they also recognize other gods, Brahma is the ultimate god. All praise goes to him, no matter which god you are praising. This is a significant similarity between the two religions. The two religions of Hinduism and Buddhism believe in the process of reincarnation. Reincarnation is being reborn again with one soul. Inside this belief, they also believe that your deeds, or activities, during your life will determine where you will end up. If you have lived a good life, you will be rewarded by another good life, or you might be allowed finally to rejoin with Brahma. If you've led a bad life, you will remain on earth longer, and most likely have a bad life when you are reborn. Another similarity is that both Hinduism and Buddhism are very kind to animals. They believe every living creature has a soul, and through reincarnation, you might one day end up as one. Most Hindus and Buddhists that strictly follow the religion are vegetarians of one sort or another. It's impossible to tell whether or not that hamburger you ate at Burger King was a relative of yours. Eating them would bring you bad karma, and break one of the Eightfold Paths. Contrasts Between Hinduism and Buddhism- In the religion of Hinduism there are castes, or social classes. They decide what your lifestyle will be like in that lifetime. If you are born a slave, you must stay a slave your whole life. Or, if you are born a wealthy man or woman, that is what you must be all of your life. To the Hindus, it is a sin to try to change what caste you belong to. As well as to associate with a person from a caste that is lower than yours. On the other hand, the teachings of the Buddha did away with the caste system. A person is allowed to change their social class. They can go from a slave to an emperor or a president, if that is their calling. If they follow the Eightfold Path, then this is permissible. It is an honor to be a monk or a nun, for they are the ones who can achieve nirvana. Buddhists also will mingle with those of less importance then themselves. Hinduism teaches that you must go through samsara in order to finally reach moksha. They do not believe that a soul can totally cleanse itself of all impurities in just one life. It is a gradual process involving dharma, balancing one's life, and karma, weighing the deeds of a lifetime. Meanwhile, the Buddha again went and brought question to samsara. He found that it is possible to cleanse oneself in one lifetime and return to Brahma. He called it nirvana. In order to achieve nirvana, a Buddhist must follow and accept The Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path serves as an instructional guide as how to keep yourself on the right path to nirvana. Hinduism and Buddhism also have several smaller differences. The area of greatest concentration for Hinduism is India. India is where Buddhism originated, but Hinduism eventually was a more appealing religion and it died out. Buddhism is found mostly in East Asia, inside China and Mongolia. These areas prefer having many, many small gods, as opposed to the Hindus only having three major ones and then smaller, less important gods. Buddhism was founded by Suddartha Gautama, or the Buddha. Hinduism was started gradually; no one knows for sure who founded it; most likely, it was many people. Both practice meditation, but they practice it in different forms. A Hindu will meditate obtaining inner peace through the charkras of the body. Once all of the centers, charkras, have been balanced, a white light is said to be above the person's head, and they are enlightened. Buddhists meditate similarity, but have different variations of how it is preformed. Their main goal is to end suffering. Conclusion- The two religions of Buddhism and Hinduism are very alike, and yet very different. To accept their way of thinking, one must put aside their religion if they aren't Hindu or a Buddhist. They strive for an inner peace, and finally to reach heaven through either moksha or nirvana. I being a Christian, have found in some ways it hard to understand the process of reincarnation, and Brahma. Though, I can see how that for people of another culture, these religions are very supportive, and soothing. Culture plays a big part in determining your beliefs. Obviously, they are very deep-rooted for surviving for longer than Christianity's been around. Through this paper, I learned a lot about accepting different beliefs, and gained a sense of what it really means to be a Hindu or a Buddhist. I admire their strong faith and their desire to become pure and unblemished. Hinduism and Buddhism are two major religions, firmly planted in their cultures, and I am sure that they will remain for a long time to come. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Hinduism 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Table of Contents Introduction Page 1 Hindu Beliefs A. Hindu Gods Page 1 B. Life Before and After Death Page 2 C. The Caste System Page 2 Rituals of Life in Hinduism Page 3 & 4 Worship A. Daily Obligations Page 4 B. Daily Rituals Page 4 C. Puja Page 5 D. Yoga Page 5 Hindu Holy Books A. Veda Page 5 B. Laws of Manu Page 5 C. The Epics Page 6 Pilgrimage Page 6 Shivarati Page 6 & 7 Introduction Hinduism - stands for the faith and the way of life most of the people who live in India. Hinduism is such an ancient religion that it had many types of beliefs and religious practices. Around 1750 BC Aryan invaders from central Asia settled in North - West India and introduced their own religious ideas. Slowly the Hindu came to accept the idea of the existence of an eternal supreme being. They called this being, Brahman. Hindus also worship different gods which individually represent one particular aspect of Brahman. The most popular one of the lesser gods are Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer) Hinduism has no founder. It is a religion that has slowly developed over a period of time. Hindu Beliefs Hindu Gods The Hindus have four gods Brahman, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. There main god is Brahman. He is the origin and the sustainer of all life, and the goal of all things. He is eternal and omnipotent and only he is real. They believe that Brahman is so great that he cannot be explained in human words because all humans are imperfect and Brahman is perfect. Shiva Shiva is usually depicted with six arms each one representing a different function to preform. He is known as the destroyer and restorer of life, symbol of the reproductive force of nature, philosopher and sage. He has a third eye which signifies wisdom or higher consciousness. He has a blue throat which is a result of him swallowing a full cup of mans sins. Worship of Shiva includes fertility rites and veneration of the symbols of male and female sex organs. Most Hindus imagine Shiva as being in deep meditation high in the Himalayas. Shiva is the ultimate god who holds in divine tension the preservation and destruction of the cosmos, both its birth and death. At times he is portrayed as the great ascetic. He is often depicted as the reconciler of dualities such as good and evil, eroticism and asceticism, his creative energy is depicted in the Lingam and Yoni. Shiva is frequently shown in loving union with his consort Parvati (another form of the great goddess) Shiva devotees are called Shaivites, and devotion usually takes the form of Yogic practice. Shiva is often pictured, in one of the best known religious images from India, as the lord of the cosmic dance. Shiva "LORD OF THE DANCE". He is surrounded by flames (energy of the universe) and snakes (representing creative power). His upper right hand is holding a drum (to beat the rhythm of the time) while the upper left hand holds a flames (element of destruction). His second right hand is raised for blessing, while his second left hand points to the raised left foot (symbolizes release). The right foot treads on a dwarf that represents ignorance and spiritual blindness. Life Before and After Death A Hindu believes and hopes that eventually his soul will join with Brahman. They welcome death as a step towards gaining this everlasting union with him. They believe that their souls were never born and therefore never dies, but it moves on from one body to another. This movement form one body to another in the cycle of birth death and re-birth is called reincarnation. This belief that a person will be born again following the death is linked with the law of karma. They also believe that the type of existence a person will experience in the next life depends on the good and bad karma built up in the previous life. The white cows are considered holy because they believe that they are a symbol of "atman", which means the soul in all living things. The Caste System A caste is a group of people with a particular place in society. Hindu people are born into their caste, wether high or low, they must accept their place without question. This means that a person can only be born a Hindu. To maintain purity Hindus can only marry within their caste, they can only eat with members of their caste, and the men follow occupation of their caste which are passed from father to son. The difficulty that arise by the observing the caste system is that there are a large group of people who are classified as being outside of the caste system, some examples of this are untouchables and outcastes. These people are among the poorest and least educated people in India and they do all of the dirty work. Even though the government has passed laws against classifying people as untouchable, they still feel that customs die hard, therefore, there is still discrimination and hostility against them. A Diagram of the Caste System mouth = Brahmins Priests arms = Kshatriya's Warriors thighs = Vaisya's Skilled workers and Traders feet = Shudra's Unskilled workers, servants Rituals of Life in Hinduism The name for the series of rituals for various phases in a Hindus life is sanskaras. Conception: in the early days of marriage even before the children are conceived, the parents pray and meditate on the kind of child they wish to have. During pregnancy a number of rites are performed. The gods are asked to protect the unborn child, and to strengthen the mother spiritually, mentally and physically so that a healthy child is born. Name-giving: on the eleventh or twelfth day after birth a name is chosen for the baby. The choice of name is very important, it must be on which is hoped will bring good fortune. A boys name may indicate heroism and a girls name may be one which indicates beauty. Parents would choose the baby's name as a result of praying and making vows to their god in thanks to him that they had a child. The name is given in a very simple way. The father leans over the baby and says into its ear "Now your name is ..." The Thread Ceremony: This ceremony is a very important stage in the life of a Hindu boy, that is if he belongs to one of the three main castes. This ceremony is considered a birth by which a person is given a new king of life. The ceremony takes place any time between the boys seventh and twelfth birthdays. The ceremony involves putting the sacred thread across the boys body from his left shoulder to his right hip. Once he has received the thread he is allowed to recite passages from the Veda and perform the rituals described in it. Marriage: It is very important for a man to be married since it enables him to have sons who will continue his family line. Many Hindu marriages are arranged, this means that the parents find a suitable partner for their child. The parents make sure that this person is from the same caste and they also make sure that the couples horoscopes are a good match. Funeral: The last ceremony in the samskaras takes place when a person dies. A funeral ceremony is held, at which the body of the dead person is cremated. When a person dies their body is wrapped in a cloth and then taken away for cremation. No food or refreshments are served at the funeral because death and anything to do with food must be kept separate. Worship Daily Rituals Those of the highest and priestly caste and others who wear the sacred thread , observe five obligations each day: 1. They must always worship Brahman either directly or through other gods 2. They must give reverence to the saints and holy men by reciting the Veda. Usually this consists of a repetition of the Gayatri Mantra 3. They must show respect for their parents and elders 4. They must give shelter and alms to the poor or holy men 5. They are instructed to feed animals because Hindus believe all living things form one community A Hindu performs some simple daily rituals at the beginning of each day which include: 1. As he rises from bed he places his right foot on the ground first in order to make a good start to the day 2. He says a prayer as his foot touches the ground which he believes was created by god 3. He carefully cleans his teeth and tongue and then has a bath using running water. This daily bath is very important since Hindu must not eat any food or say any prayers before having a bath. 4. He may also put his forehead on the mark of the god he worships. For instance three horizontal lines indicates the god Shiva, and three vertical lines the god Vishnu. This is called a tilaka mark and it is usually made with red powder or paste. Puja Puja is the most common form of Hindu worship. This is worshiping a god, using mantras and making offerings. Usually Hindus prefer to worship one particular god. This god is chosen according to their personal wish, or because of a family tradition, or even because it is the main god of the area that they live in. Puja begins very early in the morning and continues intermittently throughout the day. The image is "Wakened up" with the lighting of the lamp, with the chanting of mantras and with the sounds of music. The image is washed and anointed with ghee clarified butter. It is touched with powders, hung with garlands, and offered flowers. Incense is burned and atrii is performed, especially anjali, which is done by putting then hands together and raising them up to the forehead or breast. Also a Hindu may kneel and place the forehead on the ground in front of the image. Both of these actions are acts of homage to the gods. Yoga Yoga is a form of meditation which is practiced by many Hindus. The word "yoga" means yoking disciplining and it is a means of achieving mastery over the mind by means of exercises. The idea is to cut oneself off from the world and concentrate on Brahman. Hindus teach that Karma decides what form a person will take in the next life. Karma, they say is an action done in a lifetime wether good or bad. A devout Hindu tries to avoid building up bad deeds so as to total as little bad karma as possible. On way to do this is to cut himself off from the from the world and concentrate on Brahman by practicing yoga. Hindu Holy Books Veda The Veda is the most ancient of all books. Veda means divine knowledge. The Veda was composed between 1200 BC and 500 BC. It is composed of three sections: The Rig-Veda - is a collection of hymns dedicated to 33 gods especially to Indri and Agni. This section consists of 1000 hymns arranged in ten books each of these books has a number of verses. Brahmans - this section describe the various Vedic religious rights and ceremonies and explains what they mean Upanishads - this section contains discussions in prose and verse, of the most important topics in the Hindu faith (Brahman, re-incarnation and the law of karma, and the creation) Laws of Manu Laws of Manu was written about 250 BC. This book shows how important Hindu beliefs are in everyday life. They give detailed instructions about what Hindus may and may not do. The Epics The Epics were written after the Veda around 500 BC. The book contains two important poems called the Mahalarata and the Ramayoud. These poems are important to people of the Hindu faith because they are two of their favorite stories and they teach them about how to live. Pilgrimage A pilgrimage is a journey made by a follower to a holy city, shrine or temple. There are many important places of pilgrimage in Northern India, and often associated with the River Ganges. The main centers are Rishikesh and Hardwar where the Ganges descends from the Himalayas, Vrindavan and Mathura on the river Jumna which are associated with the god Krishna, the meeting of the River Ganges and Jumna at Allahabad and the most sacred of the Indian cities, Benares also called Vanenasi. Going on pilgrimage plays an important part in Hinduism. There are a number of reasons for Hindus making a pilgrimage. They may wish to have a closer experience of the god that they worship, or they may wish to wash away their sins by bathing in a holy river. They may intend to pray for favors already received. The parents of a family will go to a site of a miracle in order to pray for the birth of a child or for a child to be cured of a long time sickness. There is no fixed time to go on a pilgrimage for. Many Hindus make a pilgrimage at festival time. Kumbla Mela is a great bathing festival held once every twelve years during the month of Magh which is January-February. The most important center during the festival is Allahabad. When on pilgrimage Hindus usually take gifts with them to present to the god at that shrine in the place they are visiting. The gifts could be money, food, cloth or flowers. The pilgrims spend their time in worship both praying and bathing. They wear their best clothes and eat festive food. They go sightseeing, meet old friends and buy souvenirs. Shivarati this festival is dedicated to Shiva and is held in January-February and lasts thirty-six hours. The name of this festival means "night sacred to Shiva", because worship goes on throughout the night. Compared to other festivals it is a solemn occasion marked by fasting. Some devotees of Shiva do not sleep, eat or drink for the thirty-six hours. During the night Shiva is worshiped with singing and dancing in shrines dedicated to the god. In the shrine is a small stone pillar representing the god Shiva around which people assemble and perform puja. Offerings are made by pouring milk, honey and melted butter over the linga. When the fast ends at about four o'clock much feasting follows with sweet potatoes and cucumbers among the many foods eaten. The people remember a story which helps to explain why they fast and keep watch throughout the night. The story tells of a hunter who was once chased by a tiger, he climbed a tree to escape, and he had to perch the whole night as the tiger crouched below. To make sure he did not fall asleep he plucked the leaves one by one and dropped them on the ground. There was an image of Shiva under the tree, as the leaves fell Shiva felt he was being worshiped and blessed the hunter. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Hinduism 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hinduism Introduction Hinduism is a religion that originated in India and is still practiced by most of the Natives as well as the people who have migrated from India to other parts of the world. Statistically there are over seven hundred million Hindus, mainly in Bharat, India and Nepal. Eighty five percent of the population in India is Hindu. The word Hindu comes from an ancient Sanskrit term meaning "dwellers by the Indus River," referring to the location of India's earliest know civilization, the Pakistan. There is not much organization and hierarchy is nonexistent. The religion suggests commitment to or respect for an ideal way of life know as Dharma. Hinduism absorbs foreign ideas and beliefs making it have a wide variety of beliefs and practices. This has given it a character of social and doctrinal system that extends to every aspect of life. The Hindus own definition of their community is "those who believe in Vedas." History/Origin The practices and beliefs of Hinduism cannot be understood without knowing the background. Hinduism is the worlds oldest religion, it dates back more than 3,000 years. Hinduism is unique in the fact that it has no founder. Its origins are lost in a very distant past. In 1500 BC the Indo-Aryan tribes invaded India and took over the Mahenjo-daro. From the combination of these two tribes came the worship of goddesses. The Hindus started practices such as bathing in temple tanks and the postures of yoga. Soon gods of war started being created and worshipped. Sakas then began invading the Hindus and made a large impact on the religion. The sacred temples started to be built and the sacred laws were codified and myths and legends were preserved in the Puranas. Soon great devotional movements began and ways of religion practice evolved and are still used today. In the medieval times the Hindus evolved into having philosophers, plays and music with their religion. A man named Chaitanya came into power and claimed to have a god reincarnated inside of him. In the 19th century, movements to reconcile traditional Hinduism with the social reforms and political ideas of the day took place. Many people where sent out to Europe and Asia preaching and spreading the religion. Throughout all these periods of time, the religion mutated and changed to fit with the times and as it did it just kept gathering more and more followers. Hinduism Today Today there are numerous self proclaimed teachers who have migrated to Europe and the United States, where they have inspired large followings. In India Hinduism thrives despite all the reforms and shortcuts made in the practicing due to the gradual modernization and urbanization of Hindu life. Hinduism continues to serve vital function by giving passionate meaning to the Hindus of today. Beliefs and Practices Caste System The ideal way of life is referred to as the "duties of one's class and station". In the phrase the word class is changed to CASTE. The ancient texts tell of four great classes, or castes: the Brahmins, or priests; the Ksatriyas, or warriors and rulers; the Vaisayas, or merchants and farmers; and the Sudras, or peasants and laborers. A fifth class, Panchamas, or untouchables, are people whose jobs make them touch unclean or unholy objects. In the new society the system is harder to work with but in the past the caste was very strict and kept different people in different classes very distinctly. Stages of Life The sacred texts also outline four ideal stages, or stations of life, each with its own duty. The first stage is studentship (brahmacarya). This stage lasts from initiation into the religion at 5 years of age to marriage at 13 years of age. The second stage, householdership (grihasthya) is during marriage, raising a family, and taking part in the society. The third stage, forest dwelling (vanaprasthya), is after the kids have grown and gone. The fourth and final stage is renunciation (samnyasa). It is when one gives up attachment to all worldly things and seeks spiritual liberation. Besides the duties from the class and station, there are also general duties (sanatanadharma). These include honesty, courage, service, faith, self-control, purity, and nonviolence. The classes and stations only apply to male Hindus. Purpose of Life The purpose of life is to respect the ideal way of life. There are also two other lesser purposes which are, enjoyment of desires and artha, or material prosperity. Karma and Rebirth A popular belief in Hinduism is Transmigration of souls, or samsara. Samsara is the passage of a soul from body to body as determined by the force of one's actions, or karma. The strict karma theory specifies that a person's type of birth, length of life, and life experiences are determined by one's previous acts. Yoga is a ritual used to assure rebirth. Philosophy Hinduism has six philosophical systems. The systems called Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, and Yoga emphasize the understanding of basic principles of metaphysics and epistemology. Nyaya in addition includes an analysis of logic. The systems called Mimamsa identify the performance of ritual. The many Vedanta systems emphasize understanding of the relationship between the self and ultimate reality. Hindu Deities (gods) The Hindus believe the universe is populated with many gods. These gods behave much as humans do and are related much like humans are. This view is very similar to the ancient Greek theories. The supreme gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are often viewed with the relations they have with female deities. The females are called Shakti. The gods are ranked by how closely they are related to the supreme gods. All the gods have duties but the supreme gods control the destiny. Each god has its own part of the year when it is worshipped and own style that it gets worshipped in. Worship Typical Hindu daily worship includes a stop at several shrines, a visit to the temple, and home worship. A Hindu may be devoted to several gods but there can only be one shrine in the family house and it must be devoted to just one god. To worship another god they must go to the nearby temple. Because everything is sacred in a Hindu's eyes, almost anything may be considered worthy of worship, such as rivers, cowpens, etc. During worship everything must be purified through fire, water, and drawing symbolic diagrams. Depending on a Hindu's class and station, the requirements for worship change. But they must offer food, flowers, and incense to the deity, as well as say the appropriate recitations of sacred words or text. Festivals Certain festival days are celebrated throughout the Hindu society on a fixed day according to the Hindu lunisolar calendar. One festival is Dipavali, the "Festival of Lights" occurring in October and November. On this day lamps are placed around the house to welcome Lakshmi, the goddess of prosperity. Holi, a spring festival in February and March, is a day of fun making, involving temporary suspension of a persons class or caste and social distinctions. Practical jokes are the purpose of the day. In fall, is a ten-day period set aside to honor the Mother Goddess, a day of processions and celebrations. Sacred Texts The ultimate series of books is the Vedas. The Vedas are the rules which the Hindu people follow. The oldest of the four Vedas is the Rig-Veda, which is made from an ancient form. This text was composed between 1300 and 1000 BC and contains 1028 hymns dedicated to many different gods. Other Vedas books are the Yajur-Veda (the text book for sacrifice), the Sama-Veda (a hymnal), and the Atharva-Veda (a collection of magic spells). The Atharva-Veda was probably added around 900 BC. The rituals for worship were also written down so that they would always be done correctly and never forgotten. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Hinduism and Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hinduism and Buddhism Introduction- Hinduism and Buddhism are two of the five major religions in our world today. They are widely practiced, and have survived for centuries. Both have similarities and differences, as do all forms of religion. Hopefully, in this paper I will show you the basic structure of each religion. I would also like to show how they compare and contrast. Hinduism: Foundation No one is completely sure of where Hinduism was started and by whom. Their oldest written documents, the Vedas, were written down in 1000 B.C. but they had existed orally long before. The Vedas are where Hinduism originated. Today, Hinduism is the world's third largest religion. Many changes have come upon Hinduism since they practiced it first. Hinduism includes many different sects, or denominations, and beliefs that have arisen. Though, there are many things in common with all of the Hindu sects. Their basic beliefs are what ties them together. Basic Beliefs- The religion of Hinduism teaches us that each living body, including animals, is filled with an eternal soul. Hindus say that the individual soul was a part of the creator spirit, Brahma. It is each soul's job and wish eventually to return to Brahma. It is not possible though because by a soul's sins, and impurities from the world, they are no longer pure and holy to return. Instead, a soul must become pure before returning to Brahma, who is absolutely pure. The process of becoming pure is so hard that no soul can become pure in only one lifetime. The soul is forced to live life after life until it is pure enough to return to Brahma. The cycles of rebirths are called samsara, or the Wheel of Life, by the Hindus. When a soul is finally cleansed enough to break free of samsara it is called moksha. The soul returns to Brahma for an eternity of contentment and ecstasy. There is no one incorporating creed in Hinduism. A follower may choose any god as their personal god, or may worship several of them. Though to be a Hindu there are certain things that a follower must believe in and live by. Their main beliefs are: 1. A belief in karma, the result of one's good and bad deeds in a lifetime. 2. A belief in dharma, Hindu traditions. 3. A belief in the three main gods: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. 4. A belief in reincarnation after death. 5. Honor for the sacred Vedas. 6. A belief that, if lived a religious life, the Wheel of Life can end and achieve moksha. 7. An honor for an ascetic religious life, to be an orthodox Hindu. Hindus worship many gods, but they are truly monotheistic by believing in a single god. The reason behind this is that everything comes from Brahman. It does not matter who the worship is for because it is ultimately Brahman. Brahman does not reward or punish those for their deeds in life. Every soul creates their own rewards and punishments through karma. Karma rules what each soul will be in its next life, and it is formed from a soul's good and bad deeds in each life. If a soul has had more good deeds than bad deeds, then they have good karma. Or vice versa if they have had more bad deeds than good. Dharma is the ultimate meritorious balance of all things living. It belongs to everything, including the universe. Every soul is responsible for balancing their dharma. The areas to balance in dharma are religious, social, and within the family. They must keep promises, and remain faithful to religious rituals, while also taking care of their family. If a soul loses this balance, then it will affect their karma. Dharma has been called tradition, duty, and a custom, but to a Hindu it is spiritually more than that. Hindus also follow a caste system, resulted from dharma, which I will discuss later. Gods- There are three main gods in Hinduism. Many others exist in the religion, but these are the most noteworthy. Brahma is the creator of life. Vishnu is known as the preserver of life. You might pray to Vishnu if someone you knew was going in for surgery so that they'll come through it with no problems. Finally, Siva, or Shiva is the destroyer of life. All three of these gods are portrayed as female and male. Vishnu is more often a male, and Shiva is more often a female. The Caste System- The society of Hinduism is strictly divided. The different levels, called castes, do not mingle. The division is largely due to the practices of dharma and karma. Both practices express the idea that if someone is born into a specific lifestyle, they must stay there. It would be bad karma to attempt to leave that lifestyle. In the caste system, there are four levels along with two groups that are apart from the castes. Every caste comes from Brahma, but each is from a different body part. The highest level is the Brahmin. It means Brahman, but is spelled in another way to resist confusion of Brahman, the creator spirit. Brahmin comes from his head, and they are to be the voice of Brahma. They are the priestly caste, but many are also teachers and keepers of the religion. Today, many Brahmins are also involved in business and government. The second level of castes is the Kshatriyas (warrior) caste. They were the kings and soldiers, and come from Brahma's arms. The third level is the Vaisyas. They come from the thighs of Brahma, and occupy the jobs of merchants, artisans, and farmers. The fourth and final caste is Sudras. These people are the manual workers, represented by Brahma's feet. It is considered a sin to associate with people of a lower caste than you. So each caste is made up of a different level of the society. There are also two groups outside the caste system. One group is for foreigners. They might be a nonbeliever or anyone who receives special treatment from the Hindu society. The second "outcaste" group is the "Untouchables." These people are considered nonhuman and cannot participate in any Hindu practices. They do the work no one wants to do and do not associate with anyone that is of a higher caste. Buddhism: Foundation- Buddhism was founded by Siddartha Gautama, and he became the Buddha. His intentions were not to form a new religion, only to modify an older one. Brahmanism, or Hinduism, had become very orthodox. Siddartha was a minor king of northern India. One day, he ventured outside the palace walls and saw how life really was. Inspired, Siddartha left his home, and family to look for the meaning of life. For years he listened to and studied with the Indian wise men; then he turned to meditation. Discouraged from not finding the answer he wanted, he sat under a fig tree. Siddartha determined that he sat there until he found the answer, this lasted 49 days. It finally came to him, and he became Buddha. Buddhism was founded. Basic Beliefs- Buddhism is a reformed version of Hinduism. Buddha discovered the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths are the foundation for all forms of Buddhist philosophy. 1. There is suffering. 2. Suffering is caused. 3. Eliminating the causes of suffering can extinguish suffering. 4. The way to extinguish the causes of suffering is to follow the Middle Way stated in the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path also comes from Buddha. It teaches to practice moderation. It is the practical side of Buddhism. If followed, one may achieve true enlightenment, or nirvana. Nirvana is reaching Brahma in one lifetime. Buddha believed that you could live a perfect life and not have to continue in the samsara. The basic way to this is the Eightfold Path, which says to practice moderation in these areas: 1. Right views. You must have the right mind set. 2. Right intent (or right resolution) A person must want actively to eliminate suffering. 3. Right speech. You must not lie, slander others, or insult. You're not to cause suffering with words. 4. Right conduct (or right action). To behave in a way that does not cause suffering. 5. Right means of livelihood. Not to live in a way or hold a job that causes suffering. 6. Right endeavor (or right effort) To prevent unclean states of mind from happening. 7. Right mindfulness. To be aware of body activities, the senses, perceptions, and thoughts. 8. Right meditation. The specific concentration to improve oneself. Buddhists believe that if you follow this you will be enlightened. Many Buddhist beliefs are almost the same as a Hindu's. Buddhists do not practice the caste system. One of the only ways to achieve nirvana in one lifetime is to be a monk or a nun. If you break an area in the Eightfold Path, then you cannot achieve nirvana. Also in order to follow the 4th part of The Eightfold Path, all Buddhists are vegetarians. Killing of an animal is seen as causing suffering. Like the Hindus, an animal has a soul. Despite all the talk about suffering, Buddhism is really about the absence of suffering. Buddhism is a way to develop the ability to love the entire universe, simply because it is. It is understanding that the universe exits inside a blade of grass, just as the blade of grass resides within the universe. All things are inter-connected. Comparisons Between Hinduism and Buddhism- Both Hinduism and Buddhism accept and believe that there is one creator spirit. Each of them recognizes Brahma or a version of Brahma as the creator spirit. Though they also recognize other gods, Brahma is the ultimate god. All praise goes to him, no matter which god you are praising. This is a significant similarity between the two religions. The two religions of Hinduism and Buddhism believe in the process of reincarnation. Reincarnation is being reborn again with one soul. Inside this belief, they also believe that your deeds, or activities, during your life will determine where you will end up. If you have lived a good life, you will be rewarded by another good life, or you might be allowed finally to rejoin with Brahma. If you've led a bad life, you will remain on earth longer, and most likely have a bad life when you are reborn. Another similarity is that both Hinduism and Buddhism are very kind to animals. They believe every living creature has a soul, and through reincarnation, you might one day end up as one. Most Hindus and Buddhists that strictly follow the religion are vegetarians of one sort or another. It's impossible to tell whether or not that hamburger you ate at Burger King was a relative of yours. Eating them would bring you bad karma, and break one of the Eightfold Paths. Contrasts Between Hinduism and Buddhism- In the religion of Hinduism there are castes, or social classes. They decide what your lifestyle will be like in that lifetime. If you are born a slave, you must stay a slave your whole life. Or, if you are born a wealthy man or woman, that is what you must be all of your life. To the Hindus, it is a sin to try to change what caste you belong to. As well as to associate with a person from a caste that is lower than yours. On the other hand, the teachings of the Buddha did away with the caste system. A person is allowed to change their social class. They can go from a slave to an emperor or a president, if that is their calling. If they follow the Eightfold Path, then this is permissible. It is an honor to be a monk or a nun, for they are the ones who can achieve nirvana. Buddhists also will mingle with those of less importance then themselves. Hinduism teaches that you must go through samsara in order to finally reach moksha. They do not believe that a soul can totally cleanse itself of all impurities in just one life. It is a gradual process involving dharma, balancing one's life, and karma, weighing the deeds of a lifetime. Meanwhile, the Buddha again went and brought question to samsara. He found that it is possible to cleanse oneself in one lifetime and return to Brahma. He called it nirvana. In order to achieve nirvana, a Buddhist must follow and accept The Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path serves as an instructional guide as how to keep yourself on the right path to nirvana. Hinduism and Buddhism also have several smaller differences. The area of greatest concentration for Hinduism is India. India is where Buddhism originated, but Hinduism eventually was a more appealing religion and it died out. Buddhism is found mostly in East Asia, inside China and Mongolia. These areas prefer having many, many small gods, as opposed to the Hindus only having three major ones and then smaller, less important gods. Buddhism was founded by Suddartha Gautama, or the Buddha. Hinduism was started gradually; no one knows for sure who founded it; most likely, it was many people. Both practice meditation, but they practice it in different forms. A Hindu will meditate obtaining inner peace through the charkras of the body. Once all of the centers, charkras, have been balanced, a white light is said to be above the person's head, and they are enlightened. Buddhists meditate similarity, but have different variations of how it is preformed. Their main goal is to end suffering. Conclusion- The two religions of Buddhism and Hinduism are very alike, and yet very different. To accept their way of thinking, one must put aside their religion if they aren't Hindu or a Buddhist. They strive for an inner peace, and finally to reach heaven through either moksha or nirvana. I being a Christian, have found in some ways it hard to understand the process of reincarnation, and Brahma. Though, I can see how that for people of another culture, these religions are very supportive, and soothing. Culture plays a big part in determining your beliefs. Obviously, they are very deep-rooted for surviving for longer than Christianity's been around. Through this paper, I learned a lot about accepting different beliefs, and gained a sense of what it really means to be a Hindu or a Buddhist. I admire their strong faith and their desire to become pure and unblemished. Hinduism and Buddhism are two major religions, firmly planted in their cultures, and I am sure that they will remain for a long time to come. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Hinduism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yourname Hinduism Introduction Hinduism is a religion that originated in India and is still practiced by most of the Natives as well as the people who have migrated from India to other parts of the world. Statistically there are over seven hundred million Hindus, mainly in Bharat, India and Nepal. Eighty five percent of the population in India is Hindu. The word Hindu comes from an ancient Sanskrit term meaning "dwellers by the Indus River," referring to the location of India's earliest know civilization, the Pakistan. There is not much organization and hierarchy is nonexistent. The religion suggests commitment to or respect for an ideal way of life know as Dharma. Hinduism absorbs foreign ideas and beliefs making it have a wide variety of beliefs and practices. This has given it a character of social and doctrinal system that extends to every aspect of life. The Hindus own definition of their community is "those who believe in Vedas." History/Origin The practices and beliefs of Hinduism cannot be understood without knowing the background. Hinduism is the worlds oldest religion, it dates back more than 3,000 years. Hinduism is unique in the fact that it has no founder. Its origins are lost in a very distant past. In 1500 BC the Indo-Aryan tribes invaded India and took over the Mahenjo-daro. From the combination of these two tribes came the worship of goddesses. The Hindus started practices such as bathing in temple tanks and the postures of yoga. Soon gods of war started being created and worshipped. Sakas then began invading the Hindus and made a large impact on the religion. The sacred temples started to be built and the sacred laws were codified and myths and legends were preserved in the Puranas. Soon great devotional movements began and ways of religion practice evolved and are still used today. In the medieval times the Hindus evolved into having philosophers, plays and music with their religion. A man named Chaitanya came into power and claimed to have a god reincarnated inside of him. In the 19th century, movements to reconcile traditional Hinduism with the social reforms and political ideas of the day took place. Many people where sent out to Europe and Asia preaching and spreading the religion. Throughout all these periods of time, the religion mutated and changed to fit with the times and as it did it just kept gathering more and more followers. Hinduism Today Today there are numerous self proclaimed teachers who have migrated to Europe and the United States, where they have inspired large followings. In India Hinduism thrives despite all the reforms and shortcuts made in the practicing due to the gradual modernization and urbanization of Hindu life. Hinduism continues to serve vital function by giving passionate meaning to the Hindus of today. Beliefs and Practices Caste System The ideal way of life is referred to as the "duties of one's class and station". In the phrase the word class is changed to CASTE. The ancient texts tell of four great classes, or castes: the Brahmins, or priests; the Ksatriyas, or warriors and rulers; the Vaisayas, or merchants and farmers; and the Sudras, or peasants and laborers. A fifth class, Panchamas, or untouchables, are people whose jobs make them touch unclean or unholy objects. In the new society the system is harder to work with but in the past the caste was very strict and kept different people in different classes very distinctly. Stages of Life The sacred texts also outline four ideal stages, or stations of life, each with its own duty. The first stage is studentship (brahmacarya). This stage lasts from initiation into the religion at 5 years of age to marriage at 13 years of age. The second stage, householdership (grihasthya) is during marriage, raising a family, and taking part in the society. The third stage, forest dwelling (vanaprasthya), is after the kids have grown and gone. The fourth and final stage is renunciation (samnyasa). It is when one gives up attachment to all worldly things and seeks spiritual liberation. Besides the duties from the class and station, there are also general duties (sanatanadharma). These include honesty, courage, service, faith, self-control, purity, and nonviolence. The classes and stations only apply to male Hindus. Purpose of Life The purpose of life is to respect the ideal way of life. There are also two other lesser purposes which are, enjoyment of desires and artha, or material prosperity. Karma and Rebirth A popular belief in Hinduism is Transmigration of souls, or samsara. Samsara is the passage of a soul from body to body as determined by the force of one's actions, or karma. The strict karma theory specifies that a person's type of birth, length of life, and life experiences are determined by one's previous acts. Yoga is a ritual used to assure rebirth. Philosophy Hinduism has six philosophical systems. The systems called Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, and Yoga emphasize the understanding of basic principles of metaphysics and epistemology. Nyaya in addition includes an analysis of logic. The systems called Mimamsa identify the performance of ritual. The many Vedanta systems emphasize understanding of the relationship between the self and ultimate reality. Hindu Deities (gods) The Hindus believe the universe is populated with many gods. These gods behave much as humans do and are related much like humans are. This view is very similar to the ancient Greek theories. The supreme gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are often viewed with the relations they have with female deities. The females are called Shakti. The gods are ranked by how closely they are related to the supreme gods. All the gods have duties but the supreme gods control the destiny. Each god has its own part of the year when it is worshipped and own style that it gets worshipped in. Worship Typical Hindu daily worship includes a stop at several shrines, a visit to the temple, and home worship. A Hindu may be devoted to several gods but there can only be one shrine in the family house and it must be devoted to just one god. To worship another god they must go to the nearby temple. Because everything is sacred in a Hindu's eyes, almost anything may be considered worthy of worship, such as rivers, cowpens, etc. During worship everything must be purified through fire, water, and drawing symbolic diagrams. Depending on a Hindu's class and station, the requirements for worship change. But they must offer food, flowers, and incense to the deity, as well as say the appropriate recitations of sacred words or text. Festivals Certain festival days are celebrated throughout the Hindu society on a fixed day according to the Hindu lunisolar calendar. One festival is Dipavali, the "Festival of Lights" occurring in October and November. On this day lamps are placed around the house to welcome Lakshmi, the goddess of prosperity. Holi, a spring festival in February and March, is a day of fun making, involving temporary suspension of a persons class or caste and social distinctions. Practical jokes are the purpose of the day. In fall, is a ten-day period set aside to honor the Mother Goddess, a day of processions and celebrations. Sacred Texts The ultimate series of books is the Vedas. The Vedas are the rules which the Hindu people follow. The oldest of the four Vedas is the Rig-Veda, which is made from an ancient form. This text was composed between 1300 and 1000 BC and contains 1028 hymns dedicated to many different gods. Other Vedas books are the Yajur-Veda (the text book for sacrifice), the Sama-Veda (a hymnal), and the Atharva-Veda (a collection of magic spells). The Atharva-Veda was probably added around 900 BC. The rituals for worship were also written down so that they would always be done correctly and never forgotten. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Historlical Reconstuction.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Text and Traditions: Work Requirement One Historical Reconstruction Major events in Jewish history to the first century AD 1250 BC Fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. 931 BC Divided Kingdoms. 721 BC Fall of Samaria. 587 BC Fall of Jerusalem, Babylonian captivity. 333 BC Jews under Hellenistic rule. 63 BC Jews under Roman rule. 70 AD Fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. Major events between 50 BC - 100 AD 63 BC - 40 BC Hyrcanus2 rules, but is subject to Rome. 41 BC - 30 BC Antony Caesar Roman Emperor. 40 BC - 37 BC Parathions conquer Jerusalem. 38 BC - 4 BC Herod rules as king. Subject to Rome. 37 BC Jerusalem besieged for 6 months. 32 BC Herod Defeated. 31 BC - 14 AD Caesar Augustus Roman Emperor. 19 BC Herod's Temple begun. 16 BC Herod visits Agrppa. 4 BC Herod dies; Archelaus succeeds. 37 AD - 41 AD Caliguta Roman Emperor. 41 AD - 54 AD Claudius Roman Emperor. 54 AD - 68 AD Nero Roman Emperor. The first persecutor of Christians. 66 AD Jews in Palestine tried to revolt. Were crushed by Titus. 69 AD - 79 AD Vespasia Roman Emperor. He continued the persecution. 70 AD Jewish temple destroyed. Small part of the wall left standing. 79 AD Titus Roman Emperor. Detailed analysis of major Jewish groups of the time Pharisees The Pharisees were a group of Jews, that believed strongly against the adoption of Greek ways. They wanted to uphold and protect their fragile Jewish culture, from the Greek influence that was flooding into Israel at the time. They developed as haters of the tradition Greek ways, because of their customs were related to idolatry and immorality. They joined up with a group know as the Hasmoneans and proceeded to conduct a rebellion against the Greek. After gaining religious freedom, they then separated from their new partners, and formed the breakaway party, known today as the Pharisees (meaning 'the separated'). They had extreme power in the synagogue, and eventually turned it into the center of the Jewish faith. This didn't last forever, as it was finally replaced by the temple, erected by David. Saducees The Sadducees (Sons of Zadok) seemed to be a group of aristocratic priestly families, that were powerful within the High Priesthood. They held a monopoly over all the High Priesthood positions and were also powerful in the Sanhedrin. They came across as being a very selfish group that retained their rights and traditions, and also trying to stay on the good side of the Roman Empire. Unlike the Pharisees, they were rigid and closed in sect, and not open to change. When the Romans destroyed the temple, they disappeared and were never heard from again. Zealots The Zealots were a group of radical extremists, that were the cause of many uprisings throughout their history, and eventually they lead a revolt against the Romans in 66-73 AD. To stop this, the Roman Emperor destroyed the third temple, which lead to the end of the uprising. This not only lead to their downfall, but that of the Jews when they were crushed by Emperor Titus in 73 AD. Qumrans/Essenes They were an important Jewish group in the community around the time of Jesus. Although it wasn't until 150 BC until they emerged, they lived their lives according to a strict set of beliefs and rules. To join the group a three year probationary period was imposed to new comers. Members were bound to keep secret the doctrines and practices. Its is believed that John the Baptist was and Essene, and had high connections to their community. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed a lot more light on the practices of the Essenes. These discoveries have proved that some Christian qualities and beliefs are an exact copy of that of the Qumrans/Essenes. Samaritans Samaritans originated from the area located between Judea and Galilee, when the Assyrian settlers intermarried with the Jews that lived there. The population created followed all the laws of Torah in their own special way, and considered themselves to be Jewish. The normal Jews did not accept this, as intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles was forbidden. Throughout the bible, it has been documented that the Samaritans and the Jews were at each other throats, constantly. Analysis of major philosophical ideas of the time Platonism Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher who taught in the period between 427 and 347 BC. He reasoned that the senses can't be trusted, and that one must use reason and maths, to solve problems and to guide oneself throughout life. Plato was a student of Socrates and throughout his works, he drew from other Greek philosophies, although as time progressed, he developed an entirely different philosophical form of thinking that became his own. Aristotelianism Aristotle was a Greek philosopher that was born nearly 400 year BC. During his well documented life, he served as the tutor to Alexander the Great and also wrote many papers on various topics such as Ethics, Physics and Metaphysics. Aristotle also developed theories on the human soul in relation to god. He represented it as a trinity of matter, being vegetable, animal and human in nature, and proposed a 'non-abstract theory of form, where the initiator of all existence is acknowledged as God. Epicureanism Epicurus set up a school in Athens that taught ethics, based on his writings and opinions, in the Hellenistic world. He proposed that the pursuit of happiness should be mans greatest concern, rather than modeling his life on the pleasing of gods and of the deeds needed to be completed for one to have a pleasurable afterlife. His philosophy was that the pleasure seeking of mankind, would not only provide fulfilment for one's own self, but also lead to the advancement and development of society in general. Stoicism Stoicism was a famous school of Hellenistic thought. Its teachings were not just philosophical, but could be used by everyday people, in everyday life. The main goal for the tradition was to attain happiness and liberation from emotion, through the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. We can draw many comparisons between the Christian faith and that of Stoicism. We can also see the influence that the tradition had on many of the late Christian theologians. Mystery Cults/Religions The mystery cults originated from many places in the first century AD. They developed to replace the Olympic pantheons that were becoming implausible and unsatisfying. The followers of these cults worshiped a variety of gods or philosophies, each with their own set of obscure rules and rituals. Secrecy played a great part in these cults (hence the name 'mystery religions') as one could incur the death sentence by revealing the mysteries through speech, dance, pantomime, or any other form of communication. Although one can debate the point of having these religions, it does prove that the human soul requires some form of religious worship, mainstream or otherwise. Gnosticism The Gnostics were a group/sect that existed in the first half of the 20th century, and were thought to lead Christians astray by teaching manipulations of the Gospel. The mixed the ideas of the Christians with that of the Greeks, producing a religion that wanted release from the prison of this world. It draws on the Jewish monldthum, Babylonian anthology and Iranian Deulum, and believes that light and darkness are entwined in a constant battle of cosmic realms. First Century Roman Judea Summary of major New Testament Christian Leaders Peter Peter was one of the first, and major disciples. Peter's original name was the Heb. Simon. His fathers name was Jonah. He worked as a fisherman at the two places of which he took residence: Beth-saida and Capernaum in Galilee. At these places he was in contact with the gentiles. He was probably effected by John the Baptist's movement. He was often the spokesperson for all the of the followers and friends. Before Pentecost it was Peter who took the lead role of educating the people and preaching the word of the bible. The church had made a large impact on the community, but it was Peter that was seen to be the hero and leader. He also was the first apostle to be associated with the Gentiles. At that time in history this move was bound to draw him a lot of criticism. Despite this criticism Peter with some support from his friends was able to make some progress in the acceptance of other racial groups. After the death of Stephen, Peter's whereabouts and activities became very scarce. At one stage he was imprisoned at Jerusalem and then later escaped. It has been thought that he travelled through many cities, taking many brief jobs and participating in some religious events James James was one of the sons of Zebedee. Was a fisherman when called to become one of the twelve apostles with his brother John. These two along with Peter formed the inner circle of the apostles. This inner group was present at most of the major events and were widely respected for their dedication and sheer faith. James was good friends with Jesus and with his brother John, were adeptly nicknamed Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder. It was these two again that cause a stir when requesting Jesus for a place in the Holy Christ's Kingdom. The two were not promised this privilege, they continued to believe and have the faith that would, in theory, get them there anyway. John John was the other son of Zebedee. Was the brother James (the son of Zebedee). It is also possible that John was the cousin of Jesus on his mothers side. As with his Brother James, he was present at many very significant events on the history of Christianity. He was also sent by Jesus to prepare the final pass over meal. John was the one that was probably the closest to Jesus, he was trusted with responsibilities that Jesus himself had given him. James, brother of Jesus James was Jesus's younger brother who, along with his other siblings, refused to accept Jesus's claims of authority before his resurrection. He along with some of his close friends were a group which failed to accept the power and authority of Jesus before the resurrection. The effect the resurrection had on James was unmistakable. He became the leader of the Jewish-Christian Church at Jerusalem. The tradition stated that he was placed the first leader of the faith by the lord himself. He remained leader of the Church, by himself, for some time. He was still the leader when Paul visited Jerusalem for the last time. After receiving a death by stoning, James was named the "just" for his Jewish piety. James is also said to have described himself as "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". Paul (Saul of Tarsis) Paul was born in Tarsus a Roman citizen. After a simple beginning Paul was only effected by preaching of Jesus after he had contact with the risen Christ. Paul then spent the next three years preaching in Damascus. After some pressure from the Jews of the area, Paul fled to Jerusalem where he met up with Barnabas. Barnabas then introduced Paul to the leaders of Christianity. His stay only lasted a brief two weeks because several Jews were trying to kill him. Retreating for some ten years, Barnabas contacted Paul and encouraged him to rejoin the now flourishing Gentile mission. Paul and Barnabas were sent on a mission to establish Christianity in the area surrounding Cyprus and the S Galatia. Despite several set backs and violent outbursts the mission was very successful with new territories become adapt to the Christian ways. As one would expect the relationship between the Gentiles and the newly turned Jewish community was one that was tested often. Differing beliefs lead to a number of verbal and physical conflicts and Barnabas and Paul were called upon to resolve these. They used the help and guidance of their elders and fellow Christians to help with their decisions. Paul once again set off through parts of Europe to convert people to Christianity. This time Barnabas did not travel with him because of a rift in there relationship. Paul discovered new friend that he took with him through Greece and the surrounding parts. He helped set up a large amount of new mission which set the standard for others to grow by. The next area to converted was the lands of Asia. This goal was quickly accomplished by Paul. He was then returned to Greece to help secure the faith there. It was in the years that followed that he wrote several telling letters. This letters were to become a crucial part of the Christian faith in years to come. Judas Iscariot Judas was a member of the 12 disciples, and was the one who betrayed Jesus, which ended in his crucifixion. The opportunity came about when Judas turned Jesus to the authorities. After the event, guilt was beset upon this traitor. Unable to over come this guilt, his life ended in suicide. Judas is widely remember for his treachery and betrayal of the other eleven apostles. He was thought of as a man who was touched by Satan and influenced into evil ways. He was bribed and accepted money to do evil deeds. He claimed this money would be used for the poor.. Barnabas Barnabas was born into a Jewish-Cypriot family. He a member of the Jerusalem church, and as he progressed he became very serious about religion. He also had a significant effect on several matters. He introduced a converted Saul to the main apostles, which lead to Saul being accepted after originally being called an impostor. It was Barnabas who stuck up for the gentiles when they were being condemned. Barnabas thought the movement to accept the Gentiles as equals was an act ignited by God and therefor took the side of God. Being a key member, he took a journey with Paul from Cyprus, to Asia minor, which was taken with the goal of setting up a group of successful Gentile churches. Barnabas was also placed in front of the Jerusalem council with Paul. Barnabas' importance to the issue is clearly shown by the mere fact that he is mentioned before Paul in accounts of the proceedings. Bibliography 'Setting the scene' Goosen & Thomlinson "Jesus; Mystery and Surprise" (Sydney: EJ Dywer, 1989) 'Philosophies' Elwell (ed.) "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1990) "The New Bible Dictionary" (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers Inc, 1962) Logos Bible Software v2.0 (Oakharbour: Logos Research System) World Book Encyclopedia World Wide Web (Internet) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\History Of Islam.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ History Of Islam When Charles Martel defeated the Muslims in Spain and stopped their advance into greater Europe (Ahmed 67)0, he most likely did not know just how much of an effect his victory had on the history of not only Europe, but of the known world. The fact that Islam may have overtaken the rest of the world had it not been for that crucial battle attests to the strength of this relatively new religion. If the strength of the religion is dependent upon those who start it, then it is important to analyze the life of the one key character in history who began it all. That key character is Muhammad, the man that is known as the first and last true prophet of Islam. Muhammad, the great prophet and founder of Islam, was born in 570 AD, and was soon an orphan without parents. He was raised by a family of modest means and was forced to work to support himself at an early age. He worked with a travelling caravan as a driver and at the age of twenty-five, married his employer, a woman by the name of Khadija, by which he had four daughters and no sons. In Mecca, the Ka'ba had long been a pagan pilgrimage site. A black stone, which had fallen to the earth, was kept in the cube that also held 360 idols representing different gods and prophets, one for each degree of the earth. The environment in which Muhammad was raised was a polytheistic society that had a strong emphasis on religion but not religious purity. This clear lack of religious dedication upset Muhammad greatly, and he began to speak out against the practice of idolatry. By this time Muhammad had gained a large following. By the age of forty, Muhammad began to receive visits from the angel Gabriel, who recited God's word to him at irregular intervals. These recitations, known as the Qur'an, were compiled by Muhammad's followers around 650 or 651. The basic message Muhammad received was that of submission. The very word Islam means "surrender" or "submission". The submission is to the will of Allah, the one and only true God. Muslims are those who have submitted themselves. The basic theme of Islam is very simple and clear: There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah (Denny 67-70). Islam teaches that there is one God, the creator and sustainer of the universe. Muhammad taught his followers that this God, Allah, is compassionate and just. Further, he taught them that because He is compassionate, He calls all people to believe in Him and worship Him. Because He is also just, on the Last Day He will judge every person according to his deeds. On the Last Day, all the dead will be resurrected and either rewarded with heaven or punished with hell. On the last day, or judgment day, the same holds true in Muhammad's Islamic teachings as does in modern day Christian beliefs, the dead will be resurrected and either rewarded with heaven or punished with hell. When Muhammad and his followers began to speak out against the pagan and immoral practices in Mecca and began teaching the above doctrine, they threatened the trade brought in by the pilgrims, which enraged the local merchants. Under serious persecution, Muhammad and his followers fled to the town of Medina, 240miles north of Mecca, in 622. This event has become known as the Hegira and marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. While in Medina, Muhammad and his men trained not only in religious aspects, but also trained to be mighty warriors. They attacked caravans going to and from Mecca for supplies and new recruits. They gathered more support as the years went on and became a powerful force ready for battle. In630, that battle came. Muhammad and his men attacked and seized Mecca in 630 and destroyed all of the 360 idols within the Ka'ba, with the exception of the sacred stone, which is still a revered Muslim artifact. It was during the Medina years that the basics of the Islamic beliefs came into focus. Firstly, all followers were to be fair and just in all that they did, including business actions. They were also expected to be completely loyal to the Muslim community of which they were a part, as well as to Muslims around the world. They were to abstain from pork and alcohol at all times. Men were allowed to have up to four wives, providing they loved and treated each one equally. Usually they only took more than one wife only if there were a reason such as infertility, lack of sexual desire on her part, or if her husband died in a war and there was no one to care for her. Women, on the other hand, were not allowed the right to polygamy, and could only show their faces to their husbands. Whereas men could divorce on demand, women had to prove wrongdoing before an elder on the part of the husband (Mayer 93). Muslims were expected to wash and pray toward Mecca five times daily (Esposito 86). Muslims were to contribute to the poor and needy as they may one day be in need themselves. Also, during the month of Ramadan, followers of Islam were to fast during daylight hours. They could eat during nighttime hours, however, and this holy month was followed by a feast for all who stayed true to the fast of the previous month. Another interesting requirement, which completes the Pillars of Faith, as they are, requires all followers to make a pilgrimage to Mecca once in their lifetime. While in Mecca, Muslims reenact many scenes from the life of Muhammad, such as the long walk from the Ka'ba to a mountain, where they stand in the blistering sun before Allah for hours on end. They also walk around the Ka'ba, which has been closed since Muhammad purged the idols, seven times, kissing the sacred stone at each pass. The pilgrimage is known as the hajj, and all those who make the hajj add "Haji" to the end of their names to signify they have fulfilled this important Pillar. The winning of Mecca by force shows an interesting historical fact. Throughout history Christianity has usually tried to convert individuals. Islam began to spread their message by violently taking over area governments and getting rid of any opposition to Muslim conversion. They invaded Spain in 711 and probably could have made a big change in the history of the Judeo-Christian practices in Western Europe under the rule of the Catholic Church if they had not been defeated in Gaul . Because Muhammad had no son's, when he died in 632, several caliphs took over control. These caliphs were men such as Abu Bakr, Muhammad's second-in-command from the time of Medina. However this leadership did not last long. After the assassination of Ali, leadership broke down into three groups. The first of these three groups were the Kharijites. They wanted to limit Islam to only the most serious observers of the Pillars of Faith. Next were the Sunnis. The Sunnis followed tradition to determine the new caliph. Finally there were the Shiites, probably the most radical, who follow the descendants of Alias the caliph. The Shiites are known in the present as those have hijacked airplanes and destroyed buildings, as well as being those that publicly torture themselves annually to demonstrate their sadness for the lost control of the Islamic religion. The revelations that Muhammad received were collected into a new book, the Koran, directing his followers what to believe and how to live. Many Muslims believed that all of what Muhammad said and did was spiritually given or inspired by Allah. Because of this belief, many reports of the things that he did and his sayings were collected. At first these were just remembered and spread by word of mouth. Later they were put down in writing, to basically be an additional guide for believers, along with the Koran. The Koran is very much similar to Christian traditions (Braswell 51). Muhammad felt that Christianity had moved away from belief in God's message as it was written in their Scriptures. God had sent many prophets, among them were men like Abraham, who is considered the founder of the faith for Islam, as he is also for Christianity. The Koran, using sources in the older Christian Scriptures and later traditions, tells many of the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Moses and Aaron, David, Solomon, Jesus, and others. All these men are said in Christianity to have been true prophets whose messages were basically ignored by Christians for many years. The fact that these prophets had very little success was repeated in many of Muhammad's own experiences, while he preached the oneness of God to the Arabs in Mecca. The main point of his message was that he was the last in the series of prophets, the last person that would reveal the divine truth. Muhammad changed the religious world a great deal with a his only twenty-two years of leadership and service. He is considered the last and greatest prophet of God by more than a few Muslim believers, and it has been predicted that by the year 2000, one-fourth of the world's by then six billion people will call themselves Muslims (Braswell 207). Works Cited Ahmed, Akbar S. From Samarkand to Stornoway Living Islam. Great Britain: BBC Books, 1994 Braswell, George W., Jr, Islam: Its Prophet, Peoples, Politics and Power. United States of America: Broadman & Holman, 1996 Denny, Frederick Mathewson. An Introduction to Islam. New Jersey: Macmillan, 1985 Esposito, John L. Islam: The Straight Path. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998 Mayer, Ann Elizabeth. Islam Tradition and Politics Human Rights. Colorado: Westview Press, 1995 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Hosea.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hosea THEME: There is nothing we can do which will separate us from God's compassion and love I certify that I am the author of this work and that any assistance I received in its preparation is fully acknowledged. PART I The book Hosea was written between 790 and 710 BC by the prophet Hosea. The story is about the relationship between Hosea and his wife, Gomer, and how their lives parallel that of the northern kingdom of Israel. There are several themes in the book of Hosea and I will discuss what I think to be the main one, " there is absolutely nothing we can do which will separate us from God's love and compassion". While the northern kingdom prospers monetarily its morals and spiritual condition is sacrificed. The peoples of the northern kingdom have fallen from God's grace due to their worship of God's other than the one true God. The following text describes my opinions, others opinions, and my observations of the book Hosea. The book begins with God telling Hosea to marry an adulterous wife . He does this to show the relationship of the Israelites adultery to God by worshipping idols and other God's. Hosea marries Gomer and they have a son. God informs Hosea to name the child Jezreel because he is going to punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel. Later they have a daughter and God tells Hosea to name her Lo-Ruhama which means, not loved, in Hebrew. Once again Hosea and Gomer have a son that God tells Hosea to name Lo-Ammi which means, not my people, in Hebrew. Chapter one ends with God describing how the two nations, Israel and Judah, be reunited under one appointed leader and one God. Chapter two describes God's feelings towards the nation Israel. He does this by comparing the nation Israel to Hosea's household. He describes how Hosea's wife has been unfaithful to her husband as the nation Israel has been unfaithful to God. He further goes on to describe his plans for the nation Israel and how he is going to let Israel search for Him, through other God's, and the obstacles he'll place in their path to hinder their search. God also declares he will punish the Israelites for forgetting about their one true God. God ends the narration by telling of the restoration of Israel to his favor and the many benefits that will fall upon the nation Israel, once they accept Him as the only God. Chapters three, four, and five describe Hosea and Gomers reconciliation, Israel's lack of faithfulness and love for God; and God's plan to deal with the people and priests of Israel; respectively. The LORD tells Hosea to love his wife again so he buys her back from a slave market and tells her she must live with and be faithful to him. The LORD is extremely distressed by Israel's lack of love and acknowledgment of His existence. He describes how they have reverted to lying, cheating , stealing, murder, etc. and further fail to follow his word. The priests during this time are not to be let off lightly. God tells how the priests have not spread His message, but rather they've fed off the Israelites sins. God tells how he's going to punish the people of Israel, for their sins, and the priests, for their lack of concern. He closes by saying he will go to his place and not recognize the peoples of Israel until they earnestly seek him out. In chapter 11 God capsulizes Israel's sins and his judgment against the people. He describes how he chose the Israelites as His people and how he delivered them from slavery in Egypt. During this dissertation he has a change of heart and decides he will not destroy the nation Israel even if they turn from Him. He decides he will force Israel to repent by less destructive means. In chapter 12 Hosea preaches the Lord's message to the Israelites. He starts by describing Israel's sins against God and how the Israelites wealth has taken them further and further from God's embrace. He talks about how the Israelites will be punished for their sins and that God will repay them, in-kind, for their goodness. He tells Israel they must return to God's favor or judgment will be upon them. His inclusion of Jacob in the reasons for Israel's downfall are also described in chapter 12. He believes since Jacob is His prophet he should also be held accountable for the sins of Israel. He also describes what is going to happen to Gillead because of their wickedness and sacrificing of bulls. The chapter closes as Hosea tells of God's anger at Israel for straying from His laws. Chapter 13 describes God's anger at Israel for idol worship and chapter 14 tells of God's blessings, on the nation, for its repentance. In chapter 13 Hosea tells how the worship of Baal has angered God. God intercedes and reminds the nation Israel that they should acknowledge no other God besides Himself. He also restates the exodus epic and how He led the nation Israel from slavery and saved them in the desert. He then goes on to describe an east wind that will destroy their crops and dry up their wells. The final chapter of Hosea describes how God will save Israel from itself and restore the people as His people. Even though He's angry with Israel he's unable to lay waste to the nation. PART II The experts don't all agree on whether God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute. According to Tullock (1992) this question can be answered in one of the following ways: 1. The LORD actually commanded Hosea to Marry a prostitute, which he did. 2. Gomer was not a prostitute physically. Instead, she was a Baal worshiper, and as such, was spiritually unfaithful. Whether she was ever physically unfaithful was not important. 3. Gomer was a virgin when Hosea married her, but she became unfaithful after marriage. Later, when he looked back upon the experience, he realized that she already had such tendencies when he married her. 4. The whole story is an allegory, which had no relationship to Gomer's morals (Hosea 1:2). (p. 195) Wood (1975) states, "The name of each child was linked symbolically to Israel's coming doom" (p. 20). According to Scott (1975), "By theses experiences Hosea became in heart the instrument of God to declare God's grace, mercy and love (p. 20). "In an oracle calling for his children to plead with their mother that she change her ways, Hosea compared his relations with Gomer to the Lord's relations with Israel" (Hos. 2:2-23) Tullock, 1992, p. 195). Scott (1975) took this verse to mean, "It is as though God is calling the children of Israel to indict their mother because of her crimes against God (2:2) (p. 21). Wood (1975) concludes, "She (Israel) was guilty because she credited her blessings to Baal, not to Jehovah God (p. 31). The comparison of Hosea's personal life with that of the nation Israel's spiritual life is evident throughout the entire book of Hosea. "This verse summarizes the case against Israel as seen in the first two chapters and now relates the whole to Hosea's own personal experience with Gomer as a fit comparison for teaching purposes" (Hos.3:1) Scott, 1975, p. 30). "Religious failures had corroded the national character. The unifying covenant of Sinai had long since been forgotten in practice, if not in name" (Southwestern Journal of Theology, 1975, p. 8). Throughout the whole of chapters three through five Israel's lack of faith and love for God is evident. "The sinful woman stands for Israel. Hosea's ransom speaks of God's love for his people" (Wood, 1975, p. 42). Three things in particular are mentioned as expected by God: (1) truth; (2) lovingkindness sometimes translated "goodness"; and (3) knowledge of God" (Scott, 1975, p. 32). Tullock (1992) describes how, "Israel had become so mired I the muck of Baal worship that the people could no longer find their way back to the LORD" (p. 197). Israel consistently ask for forgiveness, falsely, and was about to find out their fate. Verse 6 of chapter 11 describes God's describes the fall of Israel. "The sword (of the enemy Assyria) will whirl against Israel's cities" (Scott, 1975, p. 71). "Hosea had hope for the nation despite the fact that it had to go through judgment" (Tullock, 1992, p.199). Wood (1975) describes how, "Hosea pointed out that God's grace transcended Israel's guilt, and compelled him to spare her from complete oblivion: (p.103). "Happily, the message of Hosea is not one of ultimate despair. As with other Old Testament prophets this man succeeded in sustaining a note of hope and optimism in spite of the darkness of his time" (Southwestern Journal of Theology, 1975, p. 54). "Judgment must come (Hos 12:1-13:16). Judgment had to come. The people had sinned to much to avoid it" (Tullock, 1992, p. 199). "Hosea was no fatalist. The people made the choice themselves with their own free will" (Wood, 1975, p. 113). "Since God's real covenant lies with the father of both Judah and Israel, namely with Jacob, God's punishment will therefore be meted out to Israel and Judah and His mercy will be shown to both" (Scott 1975 p. 75). "Because Israel exalted herself she went to far and exalted herself against God going after Baal" (Scott 1975 p. 75). Chapter 13 is considered by most of my references to be the defining chapter of the book Hosea. God goes on record to describe the sins of the nation Israel and how they should be punished. "Instead of gratitude for the good things God gave them, they became satiated and proud" (Scott 1975 p. 78-79). "Hosea believed the sins were in heavens record. The guilt would not fade with the passing of time. Israel's sins were "bound up" (v. 12) to await the day of judgment" (Wood 1975, p. 121). "Like Gomer wanton Israel is running after other "loves" instead of being faithful in her "marriage" to "God" (NIV Study Bible 1992, p. 987). "The chapter closes with a horrible picture of the enemy's almost unbelievable cruelty and the nations awful fate (vv. 15-16)" (Wood 1975 p. 117). The final chapter of the book of Hosea describes God's judgment upon the nation Israel. "Only one solution was offered. Israel must repent" (Wood 1975, p.127). "He who said earlier that He would like to have healed Israel (7:1), now declares the He will do so" (Scott 1975, p. 83). "Could any contrast be greater than the declaration of judgment in 5:8-12 and the assurance of restoration in 14:4-7" (Southwestern Journal of Theology 1975, p.55). "The God who redeems us purposes that we walk in his statutes free from guilt, but also free from deceit, guile, and willful sin. Through Hosea's closing warning, God makes His appeal to us" (Wood 1975, p. 133). PART III At first I was confused by the way Hosea was talking about Israel and Judah in the same sentence (1:11). I didn't know that Israel had split into the Northern (Israel) and southern (Judah) kingdoms. This fact made me go back and read Tullock and find out what had happened. I also didn't know why the Lord would tell anyone to marry an adulterous (1:2). The whole first chapter had me confused and it wasn't until I read the book of Hosea and studied my reference material that I could make sense of what was going on. Once I'd read the entire book I was able to see how God had used Hosea's family life to relate to His relationship with the people of Israel. At first I thought Hosea 2:1 was God telling Hosea to dump his wife for her adultery. It wasn't until I'd read several of my references that I came to realize it was God telling Hosea's children to rebuke their mother for the way she behaved. I also came to realize this was a veiled reference for the Israelites to forsake their idols and worship of other Gods'. When I read Hosea 2:6 - 13 I saw a very angry God ready to punish Israel for its transgressions. Then Hosea 2:14 - 23 contradicted everything that was said in Hosea 2:6 - 13. This confused me to no end. I ten began to realize how the theme, "there is absolutely nothing we can do which will separate us from God's love and compassion" was going to play a role in this book. It also made me realize that some of the current problems (murder, robbery, theft, etc..) were prevalent in ancient times. I also came to understand a person could call themselves "born again" and feel completely secure in the feeling God would forgive them for their previous sins. Chapter 3 has played a part in my life. My father was unfaithful to my mother and my siblings and I had a hard time understanding how my mother could possibly forgive him. Not only did she forgive him she took him back, just as Hosea did with his unfaithful wife. The numerous references to prostitution in chapter 4 I thought was an excellent analogy to the way the Israelites were giving their bodies and souls over to false Gods' just as prostitutes do to those who also don't acknowledge nor love them. I also see a resemblance to today's society in these verses. Murder, robbery, theft, lying, cheating, etc. are on the rise and we spend all our time blaming everything and everybody without realizing that maybe we've lost our ways in Gods' eye. Reading chapter 5, to me, was redundant. I saw this entire chapter as a rehash of chapter 3 v. 6- 13. Chapter 11 reminded me of my relationship with my son. No matter how angry I get with him I still love him. It also confused me because I thought it was a sign of God showing human characteristics until I realized God created man. Therefore, maybe we show God - like characteristics when we forgive others. It also reminded me of my relationship with my own father. He's an alcoholic and spent the majority of my childhood in neighborhood bars. Needless to say our relationship was never close; yet I still love him. I also see this love - hate relationship among nations. Whether we're allies or enemies due to political or moral differences you never know when you'll forgive your enemy for his transgressions (perceived or real) and they become you staunchest ally. I had a hard time following along in chapter 12. Hosea preaches the lord's message to the Israelites and he starts by describing Israel's sins against God. Again I thought this was quite redundant even though it wasn't through the spoken word of the Lord. I would imagine had the writer of the book consolidated all of Israel and Judah's sins into one chapter and Gods anger into another the book could have been cut in half. Chapter 13 v. 8 made me think of the rich today. Do they also feel that since they're rich God can't find fault in them, or do they feel that if they become philanthropists God will only see good in them. Even reading my reference material I couldn't understand why God made reference to Gilgal sacrificing bulls (12:11). I assumed animal sacrifice was acceptable, at that time, and couldn't understand why God was angry at Gill. His inclusion of Jacob in the reasons for Israel's downfall led me to wonder whether the priests of today are feeding off other peoples misery and sins. I find many current articles and news stories of priests committing acts of pedophilia quite disturbing; are we also headed in the same direction as Israel and Judah? Chapter 13 made me wonder about Catholics. I'm not nor do I profess to be an expert on religion, but I have to wonder when I see Catholics praying to God through the Virgin Mary, St. Peter, St. Anthony, St. Pauly Girl, (a lame attempt at humor), and other saints and what I think are deities. It also made me wonder about my lack of knowledge about other religions besides my own Presbyterian background. Am I wrong to assume other major religions are trying to develop a relationship with God through the worship of idols? My own ignorance of other religions became quite apparent to me when I thought of the many religous images we take for granted, i. e. Crosses, images of Saints, statues and images of Jesus, etc. I also wonder what will happen to atheists and agnostics. Though I don't think they worship false God's I feel that denying the God's existence is just as bad. I felt that God was bribing the Israelites in chapter 14 by telling them what He would bestow upon them if they came back into his fold. I also sensed that God was unable to control his "chosen people" even though he constantly told them, through his prophet Hosea, what would happen to them should they stray from his flock. Since He was unable to control them I felt He had no recourse but to try to show them the benefits they would reap for their love and worship of Him. I also got the feeling that he was a benevolent God and would love mankind no matter what sins they committed. I came away from reading the book of Hosea feeling their was hope for all mankind. Though I'm constantly bombarded by newspaper articles and television reports about the sins and evils of mankind I know that deep down man is not evil nor is he wicked. I feel though, that society has a great deal to say about his brothers, and sisters, actions. Should we turn a "blind-eye" to the sins and wickedness of others, are we not just as sinful and wicked. God gives us a choice and it's up to us to determine the path we'll take. I have to honestly say this is the first chapter of the Bible (Old and New Testament) that I've studied this thoroughly and I can also say this will not be the last. I came into this course thinking it was just a requirement for me to receive my degree and I'll leave it with the knowledge that I've received more than just three credit hours. References Rainbow Studies, Inc. (1992). The new international version rainbow study bible (4th ed.). El Reno, Oklahoma: Author Scott, Jack B. (1971). The book of hosea: a study manual (2nd Printing). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House. Tullock, John H. (1981).The old testament story (3rd ed.). Englewoods Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, inc. Southwestern Journal of Theology (Fall 1975). Studies in hosea (No. 1). Fort Worth, Texas: Faculty of the School of Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Wood, Fred M. (1975). Hosea: prophet of reconciliation. Nashville, Tennessee: Convention Press. Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991). New York, Random House Inc. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\How Can We Tell What Is Good Or Bad 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How Can We Tell What Is Good Or Bad? To tell what is good or bad, a person needs to consider what he or she considers to be morally sound and immoral. A persons morals are taught by their parents and from the society from which they are raised. Society is not worried about what is good or bad, but how to obtain money and power. Money and power can dilute the values of what people judge morally right. While the moral way of living would be to work a normal forty hour week to earn income, the easy and immoral way is to lie and cheat in their occupation to obtain promotions and benefits. Aristotle said, Every art and every "scientific investigation", as well as every action and "purposive choice," appears to aim at some good, hence the good has rightly been declared that which all things aim (Aristotle, 517). Today society is not aimed at good. This society has become a "me" society. People are thinking of "me,me,me" rather than thinking of the good of others. This society has found it acceptable for a football superstar to be found with an illegal drug to depart the judicial system with probation and again to play football. This is a true example of how people today in our society live their dreams through celebrities. People idolize immoral sport stars instead of holding in a higher regard common everyday people, who are God fearing, hard working, and ethically moral. While in this society it is hard to tell what is true, it is also hard when compared with other societies. For example, some European countries have legalized the use of mild drugs. These countries have attributed this toward less crime. Putting the question of right or wrong on the individual rather than, in our case, the government. In America the majority consider legalization of drugs wrong, but has it really worked our way? Are not alcohol and tobacco just as dangerous, causing mind altering effects, attributing to deaths and diseases everyday? Why are not these illegal? The reason is because people in our society hold a higher regard for the "almighty dollar" rather than the safety and health of their fellow man! Apparently this society has a double-standard. On one hand advertising and sending messages telling kids to "Don't Do Drugs", but on the other hand televising, for all the world to hear, a president admitting to smoking marijuana and hearing him laugh about it. This society expects the best out of kids, but rewards people who take shortcuts. Showing kids it is easier to live an immoral life rather than a moral one! What is good or bad is a decision made by each individual. For one person it might be that he considers marijuana an acceptable part of life, for another it might be that abortion is immoral and against every thing that person believes. How a person decides is his or her prerogative either influenced by his society or his upbringing. Personally I believe our society, America, should get back to being a god-fearing society. We need to as individuals of this society elect a government with ethics and morals instead of on the amount an individual has of money and power. Society needs to worry about the problems confronting them at home rather than concerning themselves with problems from other societies. Basically this societies government needs to show it cares, which will in turn be seen by people and possibly practiced! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\How Can we tell what is good or bad.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How Can We Tell What Is Good Or Bad? To tell what is good or bad, a person needs to consider what he or she considers to be morally sound and immoral. A persons morals are taught by their parents and from the society from which they are raised. Society is not worried about what is good or bad, but how to obtain money and power. Money and power can dilute the values of what people judge morally right. While the moral way of living would be to work a normal forty hour week to earn income, the easy and immoral way is to lie and cheat in their occupation to obtain promotions and benefits. Aristotle said, Every art and every "scientific investigation", as well as every action and "purposive choice," appears to aim at some good, hence the good has rightly been declared that which all things aim (Aristotle, 517). Today society is not aimed at good. This society has become a "me" society. People are thinking of "me,me,me" rather than thinking of the good of others. This society has found it acceptable for a football superstar to be found with an illegal drug to depart the judicial system with probation and again to play football. This is a true example of how people today in our society live their dreams through celebrities. People idolize immoral sport stars instead of holding in a higher regard common everyday people, who are God fearing, hard working, and ethically moral. While in this society it is hard to tell what is true, it is also hard when compared with other societies. For example, some European countries have legalized the use of mild drugs. These countries have attributed this toward less crime. Putting the question of right or wrong on the individual rather than, in our case, the government. In America the majority consider legalization of drugs wrong, but has it really worked our way? Are not alcohol and tobacco just as dangerous, causing mind altering effects, attributing to deaths and diseases everyday? Why are not these illegal? The reason is because people in our society hold a higher regard for the "almighty dollar" rather than the safety and health of their fellow man! Apparently this society has a double-standard. On one hand advertising and sending messages telling kids to "Don't Do Drugs", but on the other hand televising, for all the world to hear, a president admitting to smoking marijuana and hearing him laugh about it. This society expects the best out of kids, but rewards people who take shortcuts. Showing kids it is easier to live an immoral life rather than a moral one! What is good or bad is a decision made by each individual. For one person it might be that he considers marijuana an acceptable part of life, for another it might be that abortion is immoral and against every thing that person believes. How a person decides is his or her prerogative either influenced by his society or his upbringing. Personally I believe our society, America, should get back to being a god-fearing society. We need to as individuals of this society elect a government with ethics and morals instead of on the amount an individual has of money and power. Society needs to worry about the problems confronting them at home rather than concerning themselves with problems from other societies. Basically this societies government needs to show it cares, which will in turn be seen by people and possibly practiced! How Can We Tell What Is Good Or Bad? To tell what is good or bad, a person needs to consider what he or she considers to be morally sound and immoral. A persons morals are taught by their parents and from the society from which they are raised. Society is not worried about what is good or bad, but how to obtain money and power. Money and power can dilute the values of what people judge morally right. While the moral way of living would be to work a normal forty hour week to earn income, the easy and immoral way is to lie and cheat in their occupation to obtain promotions and benefits. Aristotle said, Every art and every "scientific investigation", as well as every action and "purposive choice," appears to aim at some good, hence the good has rightly been declared that which all things aim (Aristotle, 517). Today society is not aimed at good. This society has become a "me" society. People are thinking of "me,me,me" rather than thinking of the good of others. This society has found it acceptable for a football superstar to be found with an illegal drug to depart the judicial system with probation and again to play football. This is a true example of how people today in our society live their dreams through celebrities. People idolize immoral sport stars instead of holding in a higher regard common everyday people, who are God fearing, hard working, and ethically moral. While in this society it is hard to tell what is true, it is also hard when compared with other societies. For example, some European countries have legalized the use of mild drugs. These countries have attributed this toward less crime. Putting the question of right or wrong on the individual rather than, in our case, the government. In America the majority consider legalization of drugs wrong, but has it really worked our way? Are not alcohol and tobacco just as dangerous, causing mind altering effects, attributing to deaths and diseases everyday? Why are not these illegal? The reason is because people in our society hold a higher regard for the "almighty dollar" rather than the safety and health of their fellow man! Apparently this society has a double-standard. On one hand advertising and sending messages telling kids to "Don't Do Drugs", but on the other hand televising, for all the world to hear, a president admitting to smoking marijuana and hearing him laugh about it. This society expects the best out of kids, but rewards people who take shortcuts. Showing kids it is easier to live an immoral life rather than a moral one! What is good or bad is a decision made by each individual. For one person it might be that he considers marijuana an acceptable part of life, for another it might be that abortion is immoral and against every thing that person believes. How a person decides is his or her prerogative either influenced by his society or his upbringing. Personally I believe our society, America, should get back to being a god-fearing society. We need to as individuals of this society elect a government with ethics and morals instead of on the amount an individual has of money and power. Society needs to worry about the problems confronting them at home rather than concerning themselves with problems from other societies. Basically this societies government needs to show it cares, which will in turn be seen by people and possibly practiced! How Can We Tell What Is Good Or Bad? To tell what is good or bad, a person needs to consider what he or she considers to be morally sound and immoral. A persons morals are taught by their parents and from the society from which they are raised. Society is not worried about what is good or bad, but how to obtain money and power. Money and power can dilute the values of what people judge morally right. While the moral way of living would be to work a normal forty hour week to earn income, the easy and immoral way is to lie and cheat in their occupation to obtain promotions and benefits. Aristotle said, Every art and every "scientific investigation", as well as every action and "purposive choice," appears to aim at some good, hence the good has rightly been declared that which all things aim (Aristotle, 517). Today society is not aimed at good. This society has become a "me" society. People are thinking of "me,me,me" rather than thinking of the good of others. This society has found it acceptable for a football superstar to be found with an illegal drug to depart the judicial system with probation and again to play football. This is a true example of how people today in our society live their dreams through celebrities. People idolize immoral sport stars instead of holding in a higher regard common everyday people, who are God fearing, hard working, and ethically moral. While in this society it is hard to tell what is true, it is also hard when compared with other societies. For example, some European countries have legalized the use of mild drugs. These countries have attributed this toward less crime. Putting the question of right or wrong on the individual rather than, in our case, the government. In America the majority consider legalization of drugs wrong, but has it really worked our way? Are not alcohol and tobacco just as dangerous, causing mind altering effects, attributing to deaths and diseases everyday? Why are not these illegal? The reason is because people in our society hold a higher regard for the "almighty dollar" rather than the safety and health of their fellow man! Apparently this society has a double-standard. On one hand advertising and sending messages telling kids to "Don't Do Drugs", but on the other hand televising, for all the world to hear, a president admitting to smoking marijuana and hearing him laugh about it. This society expects the best out of kids, but rewards people who take shortcuts. Showing kids it is easier to live an immoral life rather than a moral one! What is good or bad is a decision made by each individual. For one person it might be that he considers marijuana an acceptable part of life, for another it might be that abortion is immoral and against every thing that person believes. How a person decides is his or her prerogative either influenced by his society or his upbringing. Personally I believe our society, America, should get back to being a god-fearing society. We need to as individuals of this society elect a government with ethics and morals instead of on the amount an individual has of money and power. Society needs to worry about the problems confronting them at home rather than concerning themselves with problems from other societies. Basically this societies government needs to show it cares, which will in turn be seen by people and possibly practiced! How Can We Tell What Is Good Or Bad? To tell what is good or bad, a person needs to consider what he or she considers to be morally sound and immoral. A persons morals are taught by their parents and from the society from which they are raised. Society is not worried about what is good or bad, but how to obtain money and power. Money and power can dilute the values of what people judge morally right. While the moral way of living would be to work a normal forty hour week to earn income, the easy and immoral way is to lie and cheat in their occupation to obtain promotions and benefits. Aristotle said, Every art and every "scientific investigation", as well as every action and "purposive choice," appears to aim at some good, hence the good has rightly been declared that which all things aim (Aristotle, 517). Today society is not aimed at good. This society has become a "me" society. People are thinking of "me,me,me" rather than thinking of the good of others. This society has found it acceptable for a football superstar to be found with an illegal drug to depart the judicial system with probation and again to play football. This is a true example of how people today in our society live their dreams through celebrities. People idolize immoral sport stars instead of holding in a higher regard common everyday people, who are God fearing, hard working, and ethically moral. While in this society it is hard to tell what is true, it is also hard when compared with other societies. For example, some European countries have legalized the use of mild drugs. These countries have attributed this toward less crime. Putting the question of right or wrong on the individual rather than, in our case, the government. In America the majority consider legalization of drugs wrong, but has it really worked our way? Are not alcohol and tobacco just as dangerous, causing mind altering effects, attributing to deaths and diseases everyday? Why are not these illegal? The reason is because people in our society hold a higher regard for the "almighty dollar" rather than the safety and health of their fellow man! Apparently this society has a double-standard. On one hand advertising and sending messages telling kids to "Don't Do Drugs", but on the other hand televising, for all the world to hear, a president admitting to smoking marijuana and hearing him laugh about it. This society expects the best out of kids, but rewards people who take shortcuts. Showing kids it is easier to live an immoral life rather than a moral one! What is good or bad is a decision made by each individual. For one person it might be that he considers marijuana an acceptable part of life, for another it might be that abortion is immoral and against every thing that person believes. How a person decides is his or her prerogative either influenced by his society or his upbringing. Personally I believe our society, America, should get back to being a god-fearing society. We need to as individuals of this society elect a government with ethics and morals instead of on the amount an individual has of money and power. Society needs to worry about the problems confronting them at home rather than concerning themselves with problems from other societies. Basically this societies government needs to show it cares, which will in turn be seen by people and possibly practiced! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Human Migration Factors 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Human Migration Factors Migration, the movement of people from one place, origin or country to another1. For as long as man can remember migration has been a big part in our lives. People have migrated continuously since their emergence as a species. The art of migrating is to move from place to place or country to country, to find what we searched for, A suitable environment for our families and us to live in. It is vital for humans to keep on the move or migrating. Many people migrate to different places around the world, like Europe, Africa, The Americas, Australia, and the Soviet Union. Humans migrate because they feel that they need to have stable and suitable environment in which to live in and bring up their families. People may migrate to different places or countries due to many factors. These can be put into a category called Push Factors. These factors are reasons why people want to leave. Many people feel they have to leave a certain place because the environment in which they live is unstable. Push Factors like, Poverty, war, religions restriction, unemployment, poor education, illnesses, diseases, a poor health system, lack of liberty and even the climate, can change a humans mind and make them want to leave a particular country or place. One the other hand there are other factors called Pull factors. These factors are different and are the opposite of the Push Factors, making them want to leave the country they are living in. People may be in love and find better living standards in the other country. There may also find it to be safer and have laws that are more liberal. They might be more freedom and a chance to get a job and earn money to support their family, can pull humans to leave that country or place. In 1992 my parents told my sisters and I that we were leaving South Africa and heading for Australia. We decided to leave because my family did not feel that they wanted their children (my sisters and I) to be raised up with up in violence and political unsuitability. These 'Pull Factors' were overpowering and eventually on January the 24 1993 our whole family of 10 people arrived to live in Australia. Migration to other countries or places often ends up being a success. Sometimes the people, who migrated a few years ago, realise that the choice they made was a wrong one. The choice my family made was thank goodness a good one. The Migration of humans from around the world has been enormous. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is continuing to grow. I hope that it will continue to grow even more and many new and fantastic places will be discovered. 1 Collins Pocket English Dictionary, 1989 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Human Migration Factors.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Human Migration Factors Migration, the movement of people from one place, origin or country to another1. For as long as man can remember migration has been a big part in our lives. People have migrated continuously since their emergence as a species. The art of migrating is to move from place to place or country to country, to find what we searched for, A suitable environment for our families and us to live in. It is vital for humans to keep on the move or migrating. Many people migrate to different places around the world, like Europe, Africa, The Americas, Australia, and the Soviet Union. Humans migrate because they feel that they need to have stable and suitable environment in which to live in and bring up their families. People may migrate to different places or countries due to many factors. These can be put into a category called Push Factors. These factors are reasons why people want to leave. Many people feel they have to leave a certain place because the environment in which they live is unstable. Push Factors like, Poverty, war, religions restriction, unemployment, poor education, illnesses, diseases, a poor health system, lack of liberty and even the climate, can change a humans mind and make them want to leave a particular country or place. One the other hand there are other factors called Pull factors. These factors are different and are the opposite of the Push Factors, making them want to leave the country they are living in. People may be in love and find better living standards in the other country. There may also find it to be safer and have laws that are more liberal. They might be more freedom and a chance to get a job and earn money to support their family, can pull humans to leave that country or place. In 1992 my parents told my sisters and I that we were leaving South Africa and heading for Australia. We decided to leave because my family did not feel that they wanted their children (my sisters and I) to be raised up with up in violence and political unsuitability. These 'Pull Factors' were overpowering and eventually on January the 24 1993 our whole family of 10 people arrived to live in Australia. Migration to other countries or places often ends up being a success. Sometimes the people, who migrated a few years ago, realise that the choice they made was a wrong one. The choice my family made was thank goodness a good one. The Migration of humans from around the world has been enormous. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is continuing to grow. I hope that it will continue to grow even more and many new and fantastic places will be discovered. 1 Collins Pocket English Dictionary, 1989 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\In the beginning .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Aaron McKenzie English 2301-A Professor Spicer 18 March 1997 In the Beginning... "Where did man come from? Where did time begin? Who, or what, created all things?" These are questions that mankind has sought to answer from the beginning of existence as it is known today. Many stories and fables have been told and passed down from generation to generation, yet two have survived the test of time and criticism. The Biblical account in Genesis, probably written by Moses around 1500 B.C., and the story of creation and flood in Ovid's Metamorphosis, written somewhere between 8 and 17 A.D., have weathered the criticism and become the most famous. The Genesis account, however, may be the most prominent of the two accounts. Within these accounts, are many similarities, as well as differences, which make these two writings well respected, while holding their own in the literary world. Though both accounts of the creation and flood are well respected on their own, when compared side to side, they are drastically different. Ovid's purpose for writing the creation story is geared more towards explaining creation as it happens, in his opinion, whereas the Bible stresses the fact that the God of the Hebrews is responsible for the world's existence today. Overall, Ovid is very detailed in explaining the formless mass, creation of the earth, waters and land metaphorically. The Biblical account seems to be more plain, simple, and organized; not spending time on intricate detail. There seems to be no specific time frame for creation in Ovid's writing, whereas, the Bible states that it takes God six days to complete His creation; resting on the seventh. In Metamorphoses, the creation story is seven stanzas, a compilation of eighty lines. It takes Moses thirty- one verses of Old Testament history to complete his story of creation. There are a few discrepancies in detail as well. The water, in Ovid's, "[holds] up, [holds] in the land," while, in Genesis, the land "[separates] the waters from the waters" (549; 1:9). In Metamorphoses the air, land, light and water (as humans know it) seems to form at one instant when "God, or kindlier Nature, [settles] all"(549). In Genesis however, light; heaven; land and vegetation; stars, sun and moon; fish; animals and man are created on separate days. Though these two writings are different in many respects, they are strikingly similar as well. Both are great and beautiful poems that contiue to stand the test of time. They are also written for the purpose of explaining or answering some question, whether that be who, what, or how time and existence, as it is known today, came to pass. Both poems give credit for creation to a supreme being or supernatural beings. Ovid states that "the gods, who [make] the changes, will help me--or I hope so--with a poem"(548). Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God [creates] the heavens and the earth." In both accounts, each describe a "shapelessness" and the earth being "formless and void"(549;1:2). There is also "no sun to light the universe,"(Ovid, 549) so "darkness [is] over the surface of the deep"(Genesis 1:2). There is also water, but "water, which no man [can] swim," in both accounts(Ovid, 549). In Genesis, the "Spirit of God [is] moving over the surface of the water," before any of creation exists(1:2). Much like the stories of creation in the Bible and Metamorphoses, the accounts of the flood in each are very similar while holding firmly to their differences. Like the creation story in Metamorphoses, the flood story gives no specific time frame for the length of the flood. However, Genesis gives a detailed time frame for this event. The rains last "forty days and forty nights"(7:12). When the rain stops, "the water [prevails] upon the earth for one hundred and fifty days"(7:24). After ten months, the mountain tops [become] visible(8:5). At the end of one year, one month, and twenty- seven days, Noah, his family, and the various animals exit the ark(8:13-18). Another very obvious difference is the descriptiveness in Ovid's story, whereas Moses simply explains that all are breathing creation dies, except for those set aside by God. The biggest difference between these two account comes in explaining existence after the flood. In Metamorphoses, Deucalion and Pyrrha, the two survivors, throw stones over each of his and her shoulder. The stones that Deucalion throw become men, and the ones that Pyrrha toss, turn into women(Ovid 559). In Genesis all of the earth is populated by Noah, his wife, Shem, Ham, Japheth, along with their wives(9:1,7). In Ovid's tale, the animals of the earth form, or evolve, from heat and water amongst the mud(559). The creatures of the earth repopulate themselves in Genesis(8:17). Just as these stories have had their differences, they also share features and qualities. The flood, in each story, is sent upon mankind because of immorality and disobedience to God or the gods in which the subjects worship. It is also very strange that the deity, or deities, in control, decide to destroy mankind with flooding. In both accounts, only one family is "chosen" or "spared" to continue existence of the human race. In Metamorphoses it was Deucalion and Phyrrha. And Noah's family is chosen by God in Genesis. Both families seem to be in a right standing with God, or the gods, when the flood occurs. It is very interesting to notice that in both accounts, as soon as the families are delivered safely from the flood, each worship and show reverence to God, or the gods, in ultimate control(556; 8:20-22). Also, both accounts of the flood, give some explanation, though very different, for the survival of the human race and animal species. As one can see, when comparing each of the accounts of the flood and creation in Ovid's Metamorphoses and Genesis, there are some very similar actions or events that take place in each of these accounts, while separating themselves a great deal by putting emphasis on very different messages. It is because of these variations in writing and technique that each of these poems have acquired and maintained the respect they truly deserve through many years of evaluation and criticism. Works Cited New American Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Broadman 1977. Ovid. Metamorphoses. The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces. Ed. Maynard Mack. 5th edition. New York: Norton 1987. 549-560. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\In the Beginning.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the Beginning... Aaron McKenzie English 2301-A Professor Spicer 18 March 1997 "Where did man come from? Where did time begin? Who, or what, created all things?" These are questions that mankind has sought to answer from the beginning of existence as it is known today. Many stories and fables have been told and passed down from generation to generation, yet two have survived the test of time and criticism. The Biblical account in Genesis, probably written by Moses around 1500 B.C., and the story of creation and flood in Ovid's Metamorphosis, written somewhere between 8 and 17 A.D., have weathered the criticism and become the most famous. The Genesis account, however, may be the most prominent of the two accounts. Within these accounts, are many similarities, as well as differences, which make these two writings well respected, while holding their own in the literary world. Though both accounts of the creation and flood are well respected on their own, when compared side to side, they are drastically different. Ovid's purpose for writing the creation story is geared more towards explaining creation as it happens, in his opinion, whereas the Bible stresses the fact that the God of the Hebrews is responsible for the world's existence today. Overall, Ovid is very detailed in explaining the formless mass, creation of the earth, waters and land metaphorically. The Biblical account seems to be more plain, simple, and organized; not spending time on intricate detail. There seems to be no specific time frame for creation in Ovid's writing, whereas, the Bible states that it takes God six days to complete His creation; resting on the seventh. In Metamorphoses, the creation story is seven stanzas, a compilation of eighty lines. It takes Moses thirty- one verses of Old Testament history to complete his story of creation. There are a few discrepancies in detail as well. The water, in Ovid's, "[holds] up, [holds] in the land," while, in Genesis, the land "[separates] the waters from the waters" (549; 1:9). In Metamorphoses the air, land, light and water (as humans know it) seems to form at one instant when "God, or kindlier Nature, [settles] all"(549). In Genesis however, light; heaven; land and vegetation; stars, sun and moon; fish; animals and man are created on separate days. Though these two writings are different in many respects, they are strikingly similar as well. Both are great and beautiful poems that contiue to stand the test of time. They are also written for the purpose of explaining or answering some question, whether that be who, what, or how time and existence, as it is known today, came to pass. Both poems give credit for creation to a supreme being or supernatural beings. Ovid states that "the gods, who [make] the changes, will help me--or I hope so--with a poem"(548). Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God [creates] the heavens and the earth." In both accounts, each describe a "shapelessness" and the earth being "formless and void"(549;1:2). There is also "no sun to light the universe,"(Ovid, 549) so "darkness [is] over the surface of the deep"(Genesis 1:2). There is also water, but "water, which no man [can] swim," in both accounts(Ovid, 549). In Genesis, the "Spirit of God [is] moving over the surface of the water," before any of creation exists(1:2). Much like the stories of creation in the Bible and Metamorphoses, the accounts of the flood in each are very similar while holding firmly to their differences. Like the creation story in Metamorphoses, the flood story gives no specific time frame for the length of the flood. However, Genesis gives a detailed time frame for this event. The rains last "forty days and forty nights"(7:12). When the rain stops, "the water [prevails] upon the earth for one hundred and fifty days"(7:24). After ten months, the mountain tops [become] visible(8:5). At the end of one year, one month, and twenty- seven days, Noah, his family, and the various animals exit the ark(8:13-18). Another very obvious difference is the descriptiveness in Ovid's story, whereas Moses simply explains that all are breathing creation dies, except for those set aside by God. The biggest difference between these two account comes in explaining existence after the flood. In Metamorphoses, Deucalion and Pyrrha, the two survivors, throw stones over each of his and her shoulder. The stones that Deucalion throw become men, and the ones that Pyrrha toss, turn into women(Ovid 559). In Genesis all of the earth is populated by Noah, his wife, Shem, Ham, Japheth, along with their wives(9:1,7). In Ovid's tale, the animals of the earth form, or evolve, from heat and water amongst the mud(559). The creatures of the earth repopulate themselves in Genesis(8:17). Just as these stories have had their differences, they also share features and qualities. The flood, in each story, is sent upon mankind because of immorality and disobedience to God or the gods in which the subjects worship. It is also very strange that the deity, or deities, in control, decide to destroy mankind with flooding. In both accounts, only one family is "chosen" or "spared" to continue existence of the human race. In Metamorphoses it was Deucalion and Phyrrha. And Noah's family is chosen by God in Genesis. Both families seem to be in a right standing with God, or the gods, when the flood occurs. It is very interesting to notice that in both accounts, as soon as the families are delivered safely from the flood, each worship and show reverence to God, or the gods, in ultimate control(556; 8:20-22). Also, both accounts of the flood, give some explanation, though very different, for the survival of the human race and animal species. As one can see, when comparing each of the accounts of the flood and creation in Ovid's Metamorphoses and Genesis, there are some very similar actions or events that take place in each of these accounts, while separating themselves a great deal by putting emphasis on very different messages. It is because of these variations in writing and technique that each of these poems have acquired and maintained the respect they truly deserve through many years of evaluation and criticism. Works Cited New American Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Broadman 1977. Ovid. Metamorphoses. The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces. Ed. Maynard Mack. 5th edition. New York: Norton 1987. 549-560. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Indepenend.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Egyptians had a very influential religion that can be analyzed using the five elements of religion. The characteristics of the Ancient Egyptian's religion can be divided into the five elements of religion: authority, faith, rituals, moral code, and concept of the deity. First, the authority of the Egyptian religion. The main authority of the Egyptian religion was the Pharaoh, he had divine right over the people and was considered a god. Also, he could change the religion any way he wanted, for example in the 14th century BC Akhenaton, the Pharaoh outlawed all gods but Aton, who was the sun god, and this became the first monotheistic religion in history, but it was short lived, for when he died the new Pharaoh overruled the law and restored the other gods. The Egyptians Sacred literature was the "Book of the Dead" which consisted of 42 "negative confessions" , spells and prayers. Here is a excerpts from the "Book of the Dead" 1. I have not acted sinfully toward me 2. I have not oppressed the members of my family 3. I have not done wrong instead of what is right 4. I have known no worthless folk (Encarta '96) Their were also what we would call "Priests" who sold the people 'magical' items that they said would ensure the dead people a way into heaven. Therefore, the authority of the Egyptian religion was controlled heavily by the government. Second, the Egyptians Faith was an important characteristic of their religion. First, they believed that the Pharaoh was a god, and what he spoke became law. The Egyptians worshipped almost every form of life, the worshipped trees, water, animals, and even vegetables. The Egyptians also believed that a person had 2 souls, the ba and the ka, which left the body at death and then returned later to the body. The Egyptians believed that mummification make sure the ba and the ka would find the body when they returned to the body to transport it to the underworld. The Egyptians also believed that they were the 'cattle of the gods', and were controlled by them. They also believed that the gods owned all the land, so they sold all their crops at the temples. Furthermore, their idea of heaven was that it was in the milky way, that stood for a fertile Nile and where good crops grew every year. Their belief in a hell was that the soul was devoured by a savage animal called the 'Devourer of Souls' and then thrown into a pit of fire. The Egyptians believed that what was placed in a person's tomb was what they would have in the afterlife, so they stocked their tombs full of items, such as war chariots, tables, chairs, and for the king, his throne. Their were even gods and goddesses for Ancient Egyptian cites. Also, the Egyptians believed that no mater what the Pharaoh did, he was entitled to a afterlife. The Egyptians spent most of their lives preparing for the afterlife and a one Egyptologist put it: The dead man is at one and the same time in heaven, in the god's boat, under the earth, tilling the Elysian fields, and in his tomb enjoying his victuals (Casson 81). They also believed that the dead had to be buried on the west side of the Nile, since the sun 'died' in the west. When a person reached judgment day, they had to do a 'negative confession' to 42 sins, each with their own judge, and after that Anibus then proceeded to weigh the person's heart against a feather, the heart had to be lighter than the feather for the person to be admitted to heaven. Also, Thoth was their watching over the weighing. The Egyptians believed that setting of the sun was Nut, goddess of the sky, devouring it and in the morning would give birth to it again. Furthermore, the Egyptian creation myth said that in the beginning their was only the ocean, then Ptah, the Lord of Truth who made an egg, that hatched and made the moon and sun, from the sun came Amon-Ra, the sun god from him came air, from the air, the earth, from the earth, the Nile and from the Nile Egypt, which is how Egypt got the nickname 'the gift of the Nile". Therefore the characteristics of the Egyptian faith are very strict. The Egyptians performed many rituals that characterize their religion. First, when a person died, their body was mummified, the 'mumifier' was performing a ritual. Second, the Egyptians would practice reading the Book of the Dead so that they would be ready to recite it during the Judgment of the Dead. Also, the Egyptians also had hymns, here is an example of one to the sun god, Re: How beautiful it is when thou arisest on the horizon and lightenest the Two Lands with thy rays (Casson 80). In the morning the Pharaoh and would rise, praying to Ra. and in temples the people would sing also: Hail to thee, Ra, Lord of Truth whose shrine is hidden, Lord of gods; the creator in his boat: at whose command the gods were made: Atum, maker of men: supporting their words, giving them life. Lord of wisdom whose precepts are wise: at whose pleasure the Nile overflows: Lord of mercy most loving: at whose coming men live: opener of every eye: proceeding from the firmament: causer of pleasure and light: at whose goodness the gods rejoice (Evans ). These are the Rituals that make up the Egyptian Religion. The Egyptian Moral code is made up of the Book of the Dead, a book that is a list of 42 'Negative confessions', hymns and also prayers. The Book of the Dead has forty-two negative sins, here are some of the major ones: 1. I have not acted sinfully toward men 13. I have not inflicted pain. . . . 16. I have not committed murder 27. I have not added weights to the scales 46. I have not spoke treasonably about the king (marlowe.wimsey.com) The Egyptian moral code also acted as their code of law since it religion/government was so intertwined, and almost one. In conclusion, the Egyptian moral code is very strict and is make up of 'negative confessions'. The Egyptians were polytheistic, although for a short period of time were monotheistic. Some of their major gods were: Isis; wife of Osiris, Re; sun god of Heliopolis, Anibis, jackal god of mummification, Osiris; god of earth, and Thoth; god of wisdom. Furthermore, the Pharaoh of the time decided what gods their were, and at one time Akhenaton banned all gods and created Aton: It originally represented the light and heat of the sun. His name appeared frequently in texts, and used in expressions, the most common was [ All that Aten encompasses ] f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Intrinsic Flaws Inherent in Christianity.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Essay on the Intrinsic Flaws Inherent in Christianity Christianity is a religion in which events are claimed to have occured but which can never be proved. Those who practice it live by different morals than are preached by the most holy texts. It is an institution in which the most holy scripture is contradictory, and wherein the supreme being, by the very definition, cannot exist. Christianity is, therefore, a fundamentally flawed religion. According to the Bible, events have occured which are even more miraculous than the resurection of Jesus Christ. Events such as the stopping of the sun by Joshua (Joshua 10:12-14), the reversal of the sun's course by Isaiah (Isaiah 38:7-8) , the resurrection of the saints, and their subsequent appearance to many (Matthew 27:52-53) were witnessed by thousands of people. The stopping and reversal of the sun would have been visible worldwide. The idea that people could have witnessed these events without having been amazed by them is, quite simply, ludicrous. Other cultures having witnessed this would certainly have offered their own explanations in keeping with their own cultural and religious beliefs. Surely a society existing at the time would have documented this miraculous event. Yet nowhere have such works been found. In the instance of the resurrection of the saints, Matthew is the only person to mention this occurence in the Bible. Surely other first-century Christians would have used this as further proof of Jesus' divinty. It would fall to reason that Paul and the gospels would have mentioned it. This is not, however, the case. Nowhere else in the Bible is this mentioned or even hinted at. These events are then, at best, highly unlikely to have occured. The fact that Matthew is alone in writing of the resurrection of the saints leads us to believe that certain writers of the Bible had differing views on christianity. The christian Bible is highly contradictory, not just to modern day christian beliefs, but in and of itself. Today's society is of the belief that all people are created equal, and Christians submit that their god is of the same belief. Modern Christians believe that their god loves everyone, and that they are all equal. However, after Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree forbidden by god, this deity said to Eve "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master." (Genesis 3:16). This tells us that, according to the Christian religion, women shall naturally be dominated by men. This kind of behavior is not conducive to a being who believes in inherent equality. Women are repeadtedly treated as objects and told to be submissive in the Bible. "According to the rule observed in all the assemblies of believers, women should keep silent in such gatherings. Rather, as the law indicates, submissiveness is indicated for them. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgrace when a woman speaks in the assembly." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). "Man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, a woman ought to have a sign of submission on her head." (1 Corinthians 11:8-10). The Bible also permits bondage. "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among neighboring the nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and raised in their land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves." (Leviticus 25:44-46). This same Bible gives laws on the punishment of slaves. "When a man strikes his slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21) We find further examples of prejudice in Deuteronomy. In the Bible, it is stated that "No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord. No child of an ncestuous or adulterous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendant of his even to the tenth generation." (Deuteronomy 23:2-3). Consider the first statement. If a faithful Christian were to get in an automobile accident with a resulting injury to his genitals, he would not be admitted into Heaven. The second statement is even more ridiculous than the first. An innocent child, through no fault of its own, is born a bastard. He may not be admitted into heaven. But more than that, none of his descendants may ever be admitted. These are not characteristics which are normally associated with justice and goodness. These are petty, cruel actions. This is not the only discrepancy in the christian Bible. Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar, is said to have been a harlot (Genesis 38:24). Because of her harlotry, she became pregnant (Genesis 38:25). She had twins and named them Perez and Zerah. "These are the descendants of Perez: Perez was the father of Hezron, Hezron was the father of Ram, Ram was the father of Amminibad, Amminibad was the father of Nahshon, Nahshon was the father of Salmon, Salmon was the father of Boaz, Boaz was the father of Obed, Obed was the father of Jesse, and Jesse became the father of David." (Ruth 4:18-22). Therefore David, King of Israel, was a descendant of a bastard and subsequently should not have been allowed into the community the Lord. This is a huge contradiction, as David is such an important figure in the bible. The contradiction involving David pales in comparison, however, to the one of the very definition of a supreme being. In Christianity, Christ is central in atoning for the sins of mankind. Had there been no sins of mankind, there would be no story of Christ. The nature of sin must then therefore be analysed. It is accepted by Christians that god created everything. If this is true, then this same god created evil. It is written in the Bible that god is all-knowing (1 John 3:20). God is, in effect, omniscient. If god is omniscient and creates, he then knows all possible outcomes of all possible creations of all possible universes. If he created our universe, he chose what its destiny would be. In doing so, he chose the paths of our lives. Thus, we can conclude that the universe is completely deterministic to god and, by being a creator, he cannot allow freewill to exist unless the universe is no longer predetermined to him. If this is true, then humanity is merely a collection of automotons. If this is not not true, then god cannot be omniscient.If the Christian god were omniscient, then he could foresee his own future. If this being knows its own future, he does not have the power to change it. Considering, however, that god is omnipotent, there is a major conflict with his omniscient nature. If god were able to change his future, that would mean that god would not be able to foresee when he would make sudden changes in his future and what changes would result, eliminating the possibility of his being omniscient. Therefore, these qualities cannot be held simultaneously by one being. It is important now to look at the possibility of omnipotence. The Christian god is perfectly good and omnipotent. Yet evil exists. If god is omnipotent and perfectly good, he could and would dispell evil. Three possible conclusions arise from these statements. God is perfectly good but evil exists, so he is not able to dispell evil and thus is not omnipotent. The second possible conclusion is this: that god is omnipotent but evil exists, and god is therefore not perfectly good. The last possible, and most feasible, conclusion is that god does not exist. It can easily be seen that Christianity is a religion based on falsehoods and has many intrinsic flaws. They are seen by the fact that the followers of this religion do not conduct themselves in the manner proscribed by their most holy texts. These errors reside in the facts that these same texts are contradictory, and that their very god cannot possibly exist. These errors and omissions are then covered by a vague concept: faith. Word Count: 1506 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Intrinsic flaws of Christianity.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Intrinsic flaws of Christianity Christianity is a religion in which events are claimed to have occurred but which can never be proved. Those who practice it live by different morals than are preached by the most holy texts. It is an institution in which the most holy scripture is contradictory, and wherein the supreme being, by the very definition, cannot exist. Christianity is, therefore, a fundamentally flawed religion. According to the Bible, events have occurred which are even more miraculous than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Events such as the stopping of the sun by Joshua (Joshua 10:12-14), the reversal of the sun's course by Isaiah (Isaiah 38:7-8) , the resurrection of the saints, and their subsequent appearance to many (Matthew 27:52-53) were witnessed by thousands of people. The stopping and reversal of the sun would have been visible worldwide. The idea that people could have witnessed these events without having been amazed by them is, quite simply, ludicrous. Other cultures having witnessed this would certainly have offered their own explanations in keeping with their own cultural and religious beliefs. Surely a society existing at the time would have documented this miraculous event. Yet nowhere have such works been found. In the instance of the resurrection of the saints, Matthew is the only person to mention this occurence in the Bible. Surely other first-century Christians would have used this as further proof of Jesus' divinty. It would fall to reason that Paul and the gospels would have mentioned it. This is not, however, the case. Nowhere else in the Bible is this mentioned or even hinted at. These events are then, at best, highly unlikely to have occurred. The fact that Matthew is alone in writing of the resurrection of the saints leads us to believe that certain writers of the Bible had differing views on Christianity. The Christian Bible is highly contradictory, not just to modern day Christian beliefs, but in and of itself. Today's society is of the belief that all people are created equal, and Christians submit that their god is of the same belief. Modern Christians believe that their god loves everyone, and that they are all equal. However, after Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree forbidden by god, this deity said to Eve "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master." (Genesis 3:16). This tells us that, according to the Christian religion, women shall naturally be dominated by men. This kind of behavior is not conducive to a being who believes in inherent equality. Women are repeatedly treated as objects and told to be submissive in the Bible. "According to the rule observed in all the assemblies of believers, women should keep silent in such gatherings. Rather, as the law indicates, submissiveness is indicated for them. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgrace when a woman speaks in the assembly." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). "Man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, a woman ought to have a sign of submission on her head." (1 Corinthians 11:8-10). The Bible also permits bondage. "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among neighboring the nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and raised in their land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves." (Leviticus 25:44-46). This same Bible gives laws on the punishment of slaves. "When a man strikes his slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21) We find further examples of prejudice in Deuteronomy. In the Bible, it is stated that "No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord. No child of an incestuous or adulterous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendant of his even to the tenth generation." (Deuteronomy 23:2-3). Consider the first statement. If a faithful Christian were to get in an automobile accident with a resulting injury to his genitals, he would not be admitted into Heaven. The second statement is even more ridiculous than the first. An innocent child, through no fault of its own, is born a bastard. He may not be admitted into heaven. But more than that, none of his descendants may ever be admitted. These are not characteristics which are normally associated with justice and goodness. These are petty, cruel actions. This is not the only discrepancy in the Christian Bible. Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar, is said to have been a harlot (Genesis 38:24). Because of her harlotry, she became pregnant (Genesis 38:25). She had twins and named them Perez and Zerah. "These are the descendants of Perez: Perez was the father of Hezron, Hezron was the father of Ram, Ram was the father of Amminibad, Amminibad was the father of Nahshon, Nahshon was the father of Salmon, Salmon was the father of Boaz, Boaz was the father of Obed, Obed was the father of Jesse, and Jesse became the father of David." (Ruth 4:18-22). Therefore David, King of Israel, was a descendant of a bastard and subsequently should not have been allowed into the community the Lord. This is a huge contradiction, as David is such an important figure in the bible. The contradiction involving David pales in comparison, however, to the one of the very definition of a supreme being. In Christianity, Christ is central in atoning for the sins of mankind. Had there been no sins of mankind, there would be no story of Christ. The nature of sin must then therefore be analyzed. It is accepted by Christians that god created everything. If this is true, then this same god created evil. It is written in the Bible that god is all-knowing (1 John 3:20). God is, in effect, omniscient. If god is omniscient and creates, he then knows all possible outcomes of all possible creations of all possible universes. If he created our universe, he chose what its destiny would be. In doing so, he chose the paths of our lives. Thus, we can conclude that the universe is completely deterministic to god and, by being a creator, he cannot allow freewill to exist unless the universe is no longer predetermined to him. If this is true, then humanity is merely a collection of automotons. If this is not not true, then god cannot be omniscient. If the Christian god were omniscient, then he could foresee his own future. If this being knows its own future, he does not have the power to change it. Considering, however, that god is omnipotent, there is a major conflict with his omniscient nature. If god were able to change his future, that would mean that god would not be able to foresee when he would make sudden changes in his future and what changes would result, eliminating the possibility of his being omniscient. Therefore, these qualities cannot be held simultaneously by one being. It is important now to look at the possibility of omnipotence. The Christian god is perfectly good and omnipotent. Yet evil exists. If god is omnipotent and perfectly good, he could and would dispell evil. Three possible conclusions arise from these statements. God is perfectly good but evil exists, so he is not able to dispell evil and thus is not omnipotent. The second possible conclusion is this: that god is omnipotent but evil exists, and god is therefore not perfectly good. The last possible, and most feasible, conclusion is that god does not exist. It can easily be seen that Christianity is a religion based on falsehoods and has many intrinsic flaws. They are seen by the fact that the followers of this religion do not conduct themselves in the manner proscribed by their most holy texts. These errors reside in the facts that these same texts are contradictory, and that their very god cannot possibly exist. These errors and omissions are then covered by a vague concept. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Is Capital Punishment Biblical .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Is Capital Punishment Biblical? Capital punishment has always been an arguable issue and for good reason. The Old Testament clearly calls for the death penalty on many occasions, whereas; many of the teachings of Jesus and others in the New testament readily denounce it. Therefore, both advocates ands opponents of capital punishment have Biblical references to support their beliefs. Opponents use the creation story to show that all are created in God's image. Genesis 1:27a states that "God created man in his image."1 God, thus, has the power to give and take away life as he chooses. All men are to preserve life to the best of their ability. M. Margaret Falls says that we cannot treat people as mere instruments to personal survival, success or fulfillment.2 Advocates will also utilize Genesis 1:27 to prove that because man is created in God's image, man must preserve as many lives as possible, Therefore, the death of one, who has murdered many, will spare the useless and countless deaths of others. God's command to preserve life seems much more important here than the preservation of criminals. Capital punishment is never used legitimately in the New Testament. Jesus' constant preaching of love and forgiveness shows his contempt for the harming of others. One example of love is found in John 15:17 "This is my command: Love each other." An example of forgiveness is Matthew 6:14 "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." Jesus practiced what he preached by not condemning guilty persons. In John 8:1-11, Jesus did not let the people stone a woman that is caught in adultery. Jesus is known for giving people second chances. Opponents of the death penalty think that everyone should learn from Jesus and give others a second chance, because the execution of a criminal cannot be justified by the good which their death may do for the rest of society. As stated before, capital punishment was commanded by God of the people in the Old Testament. Exodus 21:14 states that "if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death." Levitical 24:17 and 24b essentially say the same thing to the effect that "whoever kills a man must be put to death." And lastly, Exodus 21:23 commands that "if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life." Genesis 9:5b-6 is the simplest statement mandating society to punish their fellow beings for murder3: "And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God has God made man." Advocates stress that these verses are not a suggestion, but instead a command that is not to be questioned - God demands, therfore, one should obey. The murderer must suffer for his actions because murder is denying the image of God in the harmed individual. To murder a man is equivalent to murdering God since man is created by him and in his image. The murderer, thus, did violence to God himself. Jesus, in a sense, rewrites the Old Testament by his lesson found in Matthew 5:38-44: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an Evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take you tunic, let him have you cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." These are commands, set forth by Jesus, to be taken literally and obeyed. Again, M. Margaret Falls argues against capital punishment. She believes that man must value in each individual his distinctively human capacity for moral understanding - the ability to assess situations rationally, to make judgments. She thinks that by isolating the criminal from the community, society makes it clear that the person's behavior will not be tolerated and insists that the wrong doer assess his action. Punishment of this kind demonstrates a respect for the individual.4 Incarceration and rehabilitation are also two effective ways of protecting the innocent against convicted murderers. It is sometimes argued that capital punishment is unjustified because those guilty of crimes cannot help acting as they do: the environment, possibly interacting with inherited characteristics, causes some people to commit crimes. If this were valid, all punishment would be unjustified. Those who break the law, it is said, are ill, suffering either from psychological malfunction or from treat them, to cure them of their illness so that they become able to function in socially acceptable ways. Death, obviously, cannot reform anyone.5 But, most people who break the law are not mentally ill and do know what they are doing. The state may not force them to go through treatment in place of the legal penalty for their offenses. To confine the victim to a mental institution until they are seen as cured is far more cruel than to imprison them.6 Advocates for the death penalty argue that criminals do not deserve respect, and that rehabilitation does not always work. Many times the criminal does not want to change. Some criminals do not seem to have a conscience and do not think that the crime they have committed is wrong and therefore do not usually rehabilitate. Also, with the prisons being more equipped than the average home, criminals will sometimes commit crimes just to get off the street. The death penalty must be installed in order to deter potential criminals and to spare the lives of potential victims.7 Even as far back as when Numbers was written, when a man was proved to be a murderer, he was to be executed with no opportunity for appeal.8 Capital punishment becomes the means of retribution for individual crimes. The most overlooked issues in the capital punishment debate is that persons condemned to death are compelled to accept total responsibility for their crimes.9 Gelatins 6:7 warns that "A man reaps what he sows." The commandment to not kill, found in Exodus 20:13 has made many opponents of capital punishment. "The Hebrew word for 'kill' really means a violent, unauthorized death; the killing in a violent passionate way."10 The man who commits murder has lost the right to be a member of society and to move freely among men. A murderer must be removed by force or be incarcerated, so that he is not permitted to bring sorrow, heartache, and disaster into other homes. Those who advocate the death penalty argue that when Jesus spoke of love and forgiveness, he meant that personally, all men should treat their neighbors as themselves; but, the government still was instructed by God to protect the society. Those against the death penalty believe that just as with sacrificing, which is commanded in the Old Testament, capital punishment is no longer needed to accommodate for individual's sin. Jesus paid the price for all sins, by dying. Everyone needs to repent, but nothing as drastic as death is expected. BIBLIOGRAPHY Falls, M. Margaret, The Christian Century, "Against the Death Penalty: A Christian Stance in a Secular World, The Christian Century Foundation, Cicero, IL, 1986. Finlay, Terence J., The Ten Commandments, Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, NY, 1961. Harrison, R. K., Numbers An Exegetical Commentary, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992. Hoekema, David, The Christian Century, "Capital Punishment: The Question of Justification, The Christian Century Foundation, Chicago, IL, 1979. Holy Bible, New International Version, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1973. Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, InerVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1988. Steffen, Lloyd, Christianity and Crisis, "Casting the First Stone," Christianity and Crisis, Inc., Syracuse, NY, 1990. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Is Capital Punishment Biblical.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Is Capital Punishment Biblical? Capital punishment has always been an arguable issue and for good reason. The Old Testament clearly calls for the death penalty on many occasions, whereas; many of the teachings of Jesus and others in the New testament readily denounce it. Therefore, both advocates ands opponents of capital punishment have Biblical references to support their beliefs. Opponents use the creation story to show that all are created in God's image. Genesis 1:27a states that "God created man in his image."1 God, thus, has the power to give and take away life as he chooses. All men are to preserve life to the best of their ability. M. Margaret Falls says that we cannot treat people as mere instruments to personal survival, success or fulfillment.2 Advocates will also utilize Genesis 1:27 to prove that because man is created in God's image, man must preserve as many lives as possible, Therefore, the death of one, who has murdered many, will spare the useless and countless deaths of others. God's command to preserve life seems much more important here than the preservation of criminals. Capital punishment is never used legitimately in the New Testament. Jesus' constant preaching of love and forgiveness shows his contempt for the harming of others. One example of love is found in John 15:17 "This is my command: Love each other." An example of forgiveness is Matthew 6:14 "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." Jesus practiced what he preached by not condemning guilty persons. In John 8:1-11, Jesus did not let the people stone a woman that is caught in adultery. Jesus is known for giving people second chances. Opponents of the death penalty think that everyone should learn from Jesus and give others a second chance, because the execution of a criminal cannot be justified by the good which their death may do for the rest of society. As stated before, capital punishment was commanded by God of the people in the Old Testament. Exodus 21:14 states that "if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death." Levitical 24:17 and 24b essentially say the same thing to the effect that " whoever kills a man must be put to death." And lastly, Exodus 21:23 commands that "if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life." Genesis 9:5b-6 is the simplest statement mandating society to punish their fellow beings for murder3: "And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God has God made man." Advocates stress that these verses are not a suggestion, but instead a command that is not to be questioned - God demands, therfore, one should obey. The murderer must suffer for his actions because murder is denying the image of God in the harmed individual. To murder a man is equivalent to murdering God since man is created by him and in his image. The murderer, thus, did violence to God himself. Jesus, in a sense, rewrites the Old Testament by his lesson found in Matthew 5:38-44: "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an Evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take you tunic, let him have you cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." "You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." These are commands, set forth by Jesus, to be taken literally and obeyed. Again, M. Margaret Falls argues against capital punishment. She believes that man must value in each individual his distinctively human capacity for moral understanding - the ability to assess situations rationally, to make judgments. She thinks that by isolating the criminal from the community, society makes it clear that the person's behavior will not be tolerated and insists that the wrong doer assess his action. Punishment of this kind demonstrates a respect for the individual.4 Incarceration and rehabilitation are also two effective ways of protecting the innocent against convicted murderers. It is sometimes argued that capital punishment is unjustified because those guilty of crimes cannot help acting as they do: the environment, possibly interacting with inherited characteristics, causes some people to commit crimes. If this were valid, all punishment would be unjustified. Those who break the law, it is said, are ill, suffering either from psychological malfunction or from treat them, to cure them of their illness so that they become able to function in socially acceptable ways. Death, obviously, cannot reform anyone.5 But, most people who break the law are not mentally ill and do know what they are doing. The state may not force them to go through treatment in place of the legal penalty for their offenses. To confine the victim to a mental institution until they are seen as cured is far more cruel than to imprison them.6 Advocates for the death penalty argue that criminals do not deserve respect, and that rehabilitation does not always work. Many times the criminal does not want to change. Some criminals do not seem to have a conscience and do not think that the crime they have committed is wrong and therefore do not usually rehabilitate. Also, with the prisons being more equipped than the average home, criminals will sometimes commit crimes just to get off the street. The death penalty must be installed in order to deter potential criminals and to spare the lives of potential victims.7 Even as far back as when Numbers was written, when a man was proved to be a murderer, he was to be executed with no opportunity for appeal.8 Capital punishment becomes the means of retribution for individual crimes. The most overlooked issues in the capital punishment debate is that persons condemned to death are compelled to accept total responsibility for their crimes.9 Gelatins 6:7 warns that "A man reaps what he sows." The commandment to not kill, found in Exodus 20:13 has made many opponents of capital punishment. "The Hebrew word for 'kill' really means a violent, unauthorized death; the killing in a violent passionate way."10 The man who commits murder has lost the right to be a member of society and to move freely among men. A murderer must be removed by force or be incarcerated, so that he is not permitted to bring sorrow, heartache, and disaster into other homes. Those who advocate the death penalty argue that when Jesus spoke of love and forgiveness, he meant that personally, all men should treat their neighbors as themselves; but, the government still was instructed by God to protect the society. Those against the death penalty believe that just as with sacrificing, which is commanded in the Old Testament, capital punishment is no longer needed to accommodate for individual's sin. Jesus paid the price for all sins, by dying. Everyone needs to repent, but nothing as drastic as death is expected. BIBLIOGRAPHY Falls, M. Margaret, The Christian Century, "Against the Death Penalty: A Christian Stance in a Secular World, The Christian Century Foundation, Cicero, IL, 1986. Finlay, Terence J., The Ten Commandments, Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, NY, 1961. Harrison, R. K., Numbers An Exegetical Commentary, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992. Hoekema, David, The Christian Century, "Capital Punishment: The Question of Justification, The Christian Century Foundation, Chicago, IL, 1979. Holy Bible, New International Version, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1973. Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, InerVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1988. Steffen, Lloyd, Christianity and Crisis, "Casting the First Stone," Christianity and Crisis, Inc., Syracuse, NY, 1990. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Isaiah 10 1 6 The Hebrews Prophets Isaiah Amos.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Isaiah 10:1-6 The Hebrews Prophets: Isaiah & Amos "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees , to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people. Making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of the reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches? Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives, of fall among the slain.. Yet for all this his anger is not turned away. His hand is still upraised. "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of the wrath! I send him against a Godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch, and to trample them down like mud in the streets." These writings, from the enscriptures of the bible some say philosophical, inspire mystery, wonder and the relation to how true they are. I have a monotheistic way of thinking, though the bible is said to be the writings of the way of life of Moses and the Hebrews, I am puzzled by how certain writings pertain to society, culture and the life of man and women today. As I try to decipher this passage in my own words of Isaiah. One is speaking of the oppression committed by man upon man. It is Jesus asking why man whom were created as brother and sister making unjustly laws...deprive the poor of their rights...withhold the justice from the oppressed of my people. I strongly believe there is a judgment day. For all the wrongs committed in society against one another and against oneself; as the sacred body that be. Harming thy brethren, killing thy neighbor, steeling. All to satisfy the wants for themselves. It is all competitive. Part of my heritage being of Blackfoot Indian descent, the way of life is to create and live life from the gifts of nature in which thy God provided. I can almost guarantee the society today living of monetary value, would not know how to survive if everything all of a sudden were taken away. A sudden exhausting rainfall, which flooded the cities, and devoured the homes, and cars, and other belongings. Some consider this to happen on Judgment Day or the day of Reckoning. As a punishment for man creating these evil doings. People today are so encompassed in the American Way of Living they cannot sacrifice for a minute to live without..forks, eating with thyne hands...the powers tocreate...cars...televisions. computers...telephones...steeling...killing...assaulting...raping...adultery. I myself look forward to the day when I do not have to work two jobs and go to school, to have a good house, a family, a nice car, to live happy. Now ask me have I eaten with my hands, or walked to school or read the newspaper instead of watched tv. Yes, to realize the best things in life are for free! So how can one judge them? How can they pay for their sins. is it " the day of Reckoning" or Judgment day the day in which the truth shall prevail.. So for those people who know about this day... I dispatch him against a people who anger me , seize loot and snatch , and to trample them down like mud in the streets. I believe a good person, inner person who has a good heart and does good will see the light in Judgment day.. Those who deprive the poor, steel commit adultery and follow the way of disobeying the 10 Commandments will pay for their sins. I, like many others in the same have a strong, yet kind heart. I question many times what are my personal attributes and skills and many times reach the same question not answered. Until a little birdie one day told me my heart is good and kind, I care for those who don not care and help those who will not admit they need help. Yet at the same time I give to the poor and can feel for the poor, though sometimes I feel like saying get a damn job. I have learned it is not that easy. Mentally they just cannot do it, it's like living in a world without work. What is one to do, just live? So am I depriving the poor of what they need? All these questions have to have answers and rest, someday I believe they will be answered on the day of Reckoning...Judgment day. In ending I am afraid of this day as I relate to the bible God shall come not a man or animal but as beast and will come take thyne which belongith in thy kindom of Heaven, and I believe that is me. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Islam More Than A Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Islam More Than A Religion Despite its huge following around the world and the growing Muslim communities in the United States, Islam is foreign to most Americans who are familiar with Christianity or Judaism. Because most Americans know little or nothing about Islam, they have many misconceptions about Muslim beliefs and rituals. The negative image many people in the United States and Europe have of Islam and the Muslim world has a long history. Many have judged Islam without making an effort to consider this religious tradition on its own terms, without bothering to become acquainted with its teaching and the ways in which Muslims practice their faith. Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is a monotheistic religion, based on the belief in one God.. This religion was proclaimed by the Prophet Muhammad in Arabia, in the 7th century A.D. The term Islam virtually means "surrender". Within Islam the believer (called a Muslim) use the Arabic word for God, Allah, to refer to the creator of the world and of all life within it. Allah is viewed as the sole God----creator, sustained, and restorer of the world. The will of Allah, to which man must submit, is made known through the sacred scriptures, the Qur'an (Koran). Allah revealed the Qur'an to his messenger, Muhammad. According to Islamic beliefs, Muhammad is the last of a series of prophets (including Adam, Noah, Jesus, and others). Muhammad's message concurrently perfect and do away with the "revelations" attributed to earlier prophets. From the very beginning of Islam, Muhammad had indoctrinated a sense of brotherhood and a bond of faith among his followers. The Prophet Muhammad fled to Medina in AD 622, it was during this time that his preaching was accepted and the community-state of Islam emerged. During this early period, Islam acquired its characteristics as a religion uniting in itself both the spiritual and temporal aspects of life. Islam also seeks to regulate not only the individual's relationship to God (through his conscience) but human relationship in a social setting as well. Thus, there is not only an Islamic religious institution but also an Islamic law, state, and other institutions governing society. During the earliest decades after the death of the Prophet, certain basic features of the religio-social organizations of Islam were singled out. The features are to serve as anchoring points of the community's life and fashioning as the "Pillars of Islam." There are five pillars. To these five, the Khawarij sect added a sixth pillar, the jihad, which, however, was not accepted by the general community. Jihad means "holy war" or "holy struggle". The first pillar is the profession of faith which states, "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the prophet of God." The profession must be recited at least once in one's lifetime, aloud, correctly, and purposively, with an understanding of its meaning and with a covenant from the heart. The second pillar consists of five daily congregational prayers, which may, however be offered individually if one is unable to go to the mosque. The first prayer is performed in the morning before sunrise. The second prayer is performed just after noon, the third in the later afternoon, the fourth immediately after sunset, and the fifth before retiring to bed. However, only three prayers are mentioned in the Qur'an: morning, evening, and middle prayer in the afternoon. In strict doctrine, the five daily prayers cannot be waived even for the sick, who may pray in bed and, if necessary lying down. The third pillar is the obligatory tax called zakat which means " purification." Zakat indicts that such a payment makes the rest of one's wealth religiously and legally pure. In today's society the payment of zakat has become a matter of voluntary charity dependent on individual conscience. The fourth pillar of the faith is fasting during the month of Ramadan (ninth month of the Muslim lunar calendar). Fasting begins at daybreak and ends at sunset, and during the day eating, drinking, and smoking are forbidden. The Qu'ran (2:185) states that it was during the month of Ramadan that the Qu'ran was revealed. The fifth pillar is the annual pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca prescribed for every Muslim once in a lifetime -- "provided one can afford it" and provided a person has enough provisions to leave for his family in his absence. By the eighteenth century Black Muslims begin to arrive in North America; coming by the thousands, working as slaves on plantations. As slaves these early communities were cut off from their heritage, families, and inevitable their Islamic identity. During the nineteenth century America experienced an influx of Arab Muslims arriving from Europe, settling in major industrial cities. The Arab Muslims were generally able to form their communities and to practice their religion freely. The early Twentieth Century witnessed the arrival of several hundred thousand Muslims from Eastern Europe; whom opened a mosque in Maine in 1915 and other mosque soon followed. After World War II an Islamic movement emerged among blacks in the US; members called themselves the Nation of Islam, but they were popularly known as Black Muslims. Although they adopted some Islamic social practices, the group was in large a black separatist and social-protest movement. Their leader, Elijah Muhammad, who claimed to be an inspired prophet, interpreted the doctrine of Resurrection in an unorthodox sense as the revival of oppressed ("dead") people. The popular leader and advocate Malcolm X (el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz) broke with Elijah Muhammad and adopted more orthodox Islamic views. After the death of Malcolm X in 1965 and the death of Elijah Muhammad in 1975, many blacks turned to Sunni Islam. While most Muslim blacks identify with the traditional Sunni Islam practiced worldwide, the black community's history is entwined with the Nation of Islam, founded about 1930. Malcom X was among the first black Muslims to turn to Sunni Islam through the Nation of Islam. Most Muslims are known as Sunni Muslims; and all other Muslims belong to the Shi'i sect and are known as the Shi'ah. Today many blacks point to the Islamic faith of their slave ancestors. Scholars estimate that as many as 20 percent of slaves brought to America were Muslims. In the early part of this century black communities started to take hold to the Islamic faith. In the Islamic faith the family is the foundation of the Muslim society. The peace and security offered by a stable family unit is greatly valued and seen as essential for the spiritual growth of its members. A friendly social order is created by the existence of external families; the children are treasured and rarely leave home until the time they marry. Also, Muslim women are seen as an individual in her own right, with the right too own and dispose of her property and earnings. Both men and women are expected to dress in a manner that is modest and dignified; the traditions of female dress found in some Muslim countries are often the expression of local custom. The code in which Muslims eat and drink forbids the consumption of pork meat and any kind of intoxicating drink. The Prophet Muhammad teachings stated that one's body has rights and the consumption of wholesome food and the leading of a healthy lifestyle is seen as a religious obligation and a way of life. In todays society many have come to believe that we live in a secular age, meaning, in effect, that religion is not an especially important issue for most people. But there is much evidence to suggest that this is not true. In many societies, including the United States, religion and religious values shape the lives of millions of individuals and play a key role in culture. REFERENCES Dawood, N.J. The Koran. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Classics, 1974 Gordon, S. Matthew., Islam World Religions, New York: Brown Publishing, 1991 Hiro, Dilip., Holy Wars: The Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism, New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc. 1989 The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago: 15th Edition: 1987 Islam More Than A Religion I. Introduction A. Historical Origins B. Source of Islamic Doctrine II. Fundamental Practices A. The Five Pillars B. Sacred Places and Days III. American Experience A. History of Migration B. Black Muslims IV. Cultural/Racial Appreciation A. Traditions B. General Culture - Family, Food, Music, etc.... f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Islam.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Islam More Than A Religion ISLAM MORE THAN A RELIGION Despite its huge following around the world and the growing Muslim communities in the United States, Islam is foreign to most Americans who are familiar with Christianity or Judaism. Because most Americans know little or nothing about Islam, they have many misconceptions about Muslim beliefs and rituals. The negative image many people in the United States and Europe have of Islam and the Muslim world has a long history. Many have judged Islam without making an effort to consider this religious tradition on its own terms, without bothering to become acquainted with its teaching and the ways in which Muslims practice their faith. Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is a monotheistic religion, based on the belief in one God.. This religion was proclaimed by the Prophet Muhammad in Arabia, in the 7th century A.D. The term Islam virtually means "surrender". Within Islam the believer (called a Muslim) use the Arabic word for God, Allah, to refer to the creator of the world and of all life within it. Allah is viewed as the sole God----creator, sustained, and restorer of the world. The will of Allah, to which man must submit, is made known through the sacred scriptures, the Qur'an (Koran). Allah revealed the Qur'an to his messenger, Muhammad. According to Islamic beliefs, Muhammad is the last of a series of prophets (including Adam, Noah, Jesus, and others). Muhammad's message concurrently perfect and do away with the "revelations" attributed to earlier prophets. Islam More Than A Religion From the very beginning of Islam, Muhammad had indoctrinated a sense of brotherhood and a bond of faith among his followers. The Prophet Muhammad fled to Medina in AD 622, it was during this time that his preaching was accepted and the community-state of Islam emerged. During this early period, Islam acquired its characteristics as a religion uniting in itself both the spiritual and temporal aspects of life. Islam also seeks to regulate not only the individual's relationship to God (through his conscience) but human relationship in a social setting as well. Thus, there is not only an Islamic religious institution but also an Islamic law, state, and other institutions governing society. During the earliest decades after the death of the Prophet, certain basic features of the religio-social organizations of Islam were singled out. The features are to serve as anchoring points of the community's life and fashioning as the "Pillars of Islam." There are five pillars. To these five, the Khawarij sect added a sixth pillar, the jihad, which, however, was not accepted by the general community. Jihad means "holy war" or "holy struggle". The first pillar is the profession of faith which states, "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the prophet of God." The profession must be recited at least once in one's lifetime, aloud, correctly, and purposively, with an understanding of its meaning and with a covenant from the heart. The second pillar consists of five daily congregational prayers, which may, however be offered individually if one is unable to go to the mosque. The first prayer is performed in the morning before sunrise. The second prayer is performed Islam More Than A Religion just after noon, the third in the later afternoon, the fourth immediately after sunset, and the fifth before retiring to bed. However, only three prayers are mentioned in the Qur'an: morning, evening, and middle prayer in the afternoon. In strict doctrine, the five daily prayers cannot be waived even for the sick, who may pray in bed and, if necessary lying down. The third pillar is the obligatory tax called zakat which means "purification." Zakat indicts that such a payment makes the rest of one's wealth religiously and legally pure. In today's society the payment of zakat has become a matter of voluntary charity dependent on individual conscience. The fourth pillar of the faith is fasting during the month of Ramadan (ninth month of the Muslim lunar calendar). Fasting begins at daybreak and ends at sunset, and during the day eating, drinking, and smoking are forbidden. The Qu'ran (2:185) states that it was during the month of Ramadan that the Qu'ran was revealed. The fifth pillar is the annual pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca prescribed for every Muslim once in a lifetime -- "provided one can afford it" and provided a person has enough provisions to leave for his family in his absence. By the eighteenth century Black Muslims begin to arrive in North America; coming by the thousands, working as slaves on plantations. As slaves these early communities were cut off from their heritage, families, and inevitable their Islamic identity. During the nineteenth century America experienced an influx of Arab Islam More Than A Religion Muslims arriving from Europe, settling in major industrial cities. The Arab Muslims were generally able to form their communities and to practice their religion freely. The early Twentieth Century witnessed the arrival of several hundred thousand Muslims from Eastern Europe; whom opened a mosque in Maine in 1915 and other mosque soon followed. After World War II an Islamic movement emerged among blacks in the US; members called themselves the Nation of Islam, but they were popularly known as Black Muslims. Although they adopted some Islamic social practices, the group was in large a black separatist and social-protest movement. Their leader, Elijah Muhammad, who claimed to be an inspired prophet, interpreted the doctrine of Resurrection in an unorthodox sense as the revival of oppressed ("dead") people. The popular leader and advocate Malcolm X (el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz) broke with Elijah Muhammad and adopted more orthodox Islamic views. After the death of Malcolm X in 1965 and the death of Elijah Muhammad in 1975, many blacks turned to Sunni Islam. While most Muslim blacks identify with the traditional Sunni Islam practiced worldwide, the black community's history is entwined with the Nation of Islam, founded about 1930. Malcom X was among the first black Muslims to turn to Sunni Islam through the Nation of Islam. Most Muslims are known as Sunni Muslims; and all other Muslims belong to the Shi'i sect and are known as the Shi'ah. Islam More Than A Religion Today many blacks point to the Islamic faith of their slave ancestors. Scholars estimate that as many as 20 percent of slaves brought to America were Muslims. In the early part of this century black communities started to take hold to the Islamic faith. In the Islamic faith the family is the foundation of the Muslim society. The peace and security offered by a stable family unit is greatly valued and seen as essential for the spiritual growth of its members. A friendly social order is created by the existence of external families; the children are treasured and rarely leave home until the time they marry. Also, Muslim women are seen as an individual in her own right, with the right too own and dispose of her property and earnings. Both men and women are expected to dress in a manner that is modest and dignified; the traditions of female dress found in some Muslim countries are often the expression of local custom. The code in which Muslims eat and drink forbids the consumption of pork meat and any kind of intoxicating drink. The Prophet Muhammad teachings stated that one's body has rights and the consumption of wholesome food and the leading of a healthy lifestyle is seen as a religious obligation and a way of life. In todays society many have come to believe that we live in a secular age, meaning, in effect, that religion is not an especially important issue for most people. But there is much evidence to suggest that this is not true. In many societies, including the United States, religion and religious values shape the lives of millions of individuals and play a key role in culture. Islam More Than A Religion REFERENCES Dawood, N.J. The Koran. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Classics, 1974 Gordon, S. Matthew., Islam World Religions, New York: Brown Publishing, 1991 Hiro, Dilip., Holy Wars: The Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism, New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc. 1989 The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago: 15th Edition: 1987 Islam More Than A Religion I. Introduction A. Historical Origins B. Source of Islamic Doctrine II. Fundamental Practices A. The Five Pillars B. Sacred Places and Days III. American Experience A. History of Migration B. Black Muslims IV. Cultural/Racial Appreciation A. Traditions B. General Culture - Family, Food, Music, etc.... f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Islamic Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Islamic Religion Today's Muslims are branded as terrorists or fundamentalist. But their religion is a gentle religion. On the Arabian Peninsula, home of the Arabs, was isolated and they were able to develop their civilization without outside influences. It is about 1 million miles square, that is located between the Red sea and the Persian Gulf. There are two distinctive regions. The first has well-watered valleys between mountains and the second is arid plains and desert. Grass grows quickly during the shows of the rainy season. In ancient times the Arabs were Bedouin (nomads that horsed sheep, goats, and camels. and lived in tents made of felt from camel or goat hair.) They ate fresh or dried dates and drank milk from their herds. On special occasions they ate mutton. their tribes were made of related families. They valued family ties because they ensured they ensured protection and survival. They had a chief (sheikh). The sheikh ruled as long as the tribe allowed him. They had a counsel of elders. There was warfare over waterholes and pastures. Their way of punishment is an eye for son eye and a tooth for a tooth. To improve warrior skills they had camel and horse. They had story telling in front of the campfire. They had poetry about battles, desert, camels, horses, and love. In 500 A.D. they started a town called MacKay, which was fifty miles inland of the Red sea. Trade was mostly of animal produces for reopens dates grains, spices, jewels ivory, silk, and perfumes. They had caravans travel there from as for china. Arabs had and worshipped many dirtied business ties were replacing family ties, and old tribal laws were not adequate Byzantine and the Person armies were threatening to conquer them. The tribes had the some language but they had no central government, or sense of unity, The Arabs searched for new beliefs. The prophet of Islam was Muhammad. He was born in MacKay in 570 A. D. . He was orphaned at an early age and was adopted by his uncle. He worked as a caravan leader on a trade route. He was know to be honest and able. His employer khaki's ,a wealthy window if age 40, put him in charge of this business and proposed marriage to him. He went to a cave outside the city in 610 A.D. to pray and fast revelation (vision) there. He was told to recite. "Recite in the name of your lord, the creator who created man from clots of blood. Recite! Your lord so the most bountiful one who by the pen has taught mankind things they didn't know.'' His second vision to rise and worn people. In 613 A.D. he preached to his family and friends that there was one god. And all that beloved in him are equal. The rich shared with poor lots of the converts were poor. The rich merchants and the religious leaders did not like,Mushamad and the Muslims were persecuted. After some theats on his life in 632 A.D. he sent 60 families to Yathrib.And then follows them in secret(Known then as the Hjrah immigration). 622 A.D. os know on the Muslim calendar as the first year. Muhammad became the rules of Yathris then it was called Medinch al-Neb orMadinah ''the city of the prophet.''The Madinch Compact of 624 A.D. was the foundation of Islamic state. Muhammad was the Judge and commander in chief. Quxan was their bible of Islam. They extended projection, to Jews and Christians who accepted Islam political authority. Makes invaded Yathrib,and the Muslims fought in self defense.The Makkans were defeated. And the Muslims won support of the Arab groups outside of Madinsh. They later invaded Makkah and hod little resistance. They accepted Islamic Religion and Muhammad. Islamic Religion and Muhammad. They destroyed idols, and turned the shrine of prophet Abraham into a place of worship. Makkah was the spiritual capital and Mdinth into the political capital. In 631 A.D. the Arabian Peninsula was supported by an army representing each of the Arab tribes. Muhammad later died at Madinah in 632 A.D. Beliefs The Quran was the divine messages from God over a period of 22 years. It was written down or memorized that was compiled into a written collection (Quran). is the final matters of faith and lifestyles. It was written in Arabic. It is stories, teachings, and exhortations of what is written in the Bible. Values Basic Moral values in the Quran are similar to Christianity and Judaism. Murder, lying, steeling and adultery are condemned. Honor parents, protect wideous and orphans, show kindness to neighbors and give money to the poor. They weren't allowed to eat pork. drink alcohol; gamboling. They have rules for marriage, divorce, family life business practices, and property inheritances. Law is not separated from religion. There is no rated in order of clergy. Sharii' ah organization moral principles into a body of law. Based on Quren and Hadith ( sayings of Muhammad) covered all aspects of Muslims private and public lifes. Five pillars of Islam faith Confessions of faith: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God." All Muslims are required to submit to god's will as given in the Quran. Muhammad role is stress in the Confession, that he is just the messenger and not divine.. Muslims think that he is the last and the greatest of the Prophets. They see life as a preparation of Judgment Day. And when they rise from the grave, they will be judge dor their actions( heaven or hell). Allah is also the god of the Jews, christens, Adam , Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. They are all given consider to be prophets. Muslims have great respect for the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity. They believe that the Arabs rea descendents of Ishmael, son of Abraham. Prayer: They pray five times a day sunrise, noon, afternoon, sunset and evening facing Makkah using the same motion and words. They kneel, bow, and touch their foreheads to the ground (sign of submission). They pray no matter what. Friday at noon in a mosque( shrine, court, school, and shelter). Imam (leader of the prayer) can be any male with the proper religious training. Alms are charity done privately and a state tax. Fasting: Is in the month of Ramadan ( the ninth month of the Ariabian calander). They can not eat or drink from sunrise to sunset. After the fasting they have a three day feast. Children, sick and pregant women are excempt. Cannon sounds for the prayers. Pilgemage- (Haji) everyone goes to Makkah at least once in their life. Once they go they are honored in their community. Haji is two months and ten days after Ramadum fast. They have three days of ceremony, prayer, and sacrifice. Now they worship at Kaaba, Nakkah, and madinah. It is a visible expression of unity and an expression of ideas. Role of Women "Men are responsible for women". Womens postion is largely defined by her relationship with her male relatives and Husbends. They stopped the tribusl killing of baby girls. They limited polygamy down to 4 wives. But they had to be equal to each other. Women had control over her own property and she could inherit property from her father and remarry. Their lives are invested into the family and household. Muisana the wife of Mu'awiyat wrote: " The coarse cloth woven in serenity of the desert Is more precious to me then luxuries robes of a Queen I love the Bedouins tent, caressed by the murmuring breeze and standing amid boundless horizons, More than the glided halls of marble in their royal splendor. I feel more at ease with my simple crust than with the delicious of the court; I prefer to rise early with the caravan Rather than to be in the golden glare of the sumptuous escort. The barking of the a watchdog keeping away strangers Pleases me more than the sounds of the trbourine played by court singers; I prefer a desert cavlier, generous and poor To a fat lout inn purple living behind closed doors." -Najib Ullah, Islamic literature Men Men were active in politics, army, business, and fields. They went to the bath houses for relaxation and to work out. Boys entered school at age seven. They take writing and reading. Which are Arab admires. They went to Madrasa (theroloigical school) after they finished regular school. Houses They are plain with very little furniture. They used carpets, small objects of art, and pillows. They sat on the rug and used pillows to lean on. During meals household members sit in a circle and ate from large trays of bread, fruits, and meats. Islamic Trade spices, textiles, glass, and carpets. Men met in bazaars ( market places) to converse and business. food was difficult to grow in a lot of Islamic country. They Irrigated, rotated, and fertilized land. Large landowners who owned the more productive got grants from the government. they hire nearby farmers to help. They produced wheat, rice, beans, cucumbers, celery and perfume. Islamic scientist translate the scientific books into Arabic. They invented algebra and equations to define curves and lines. Their work in geometry lead to invention of trigometry. They accurately predicted the solar eclipses. they accurately measured the circumference and size. they were unmatched until the 1990's. They produce the most accurate maps of the eastern Hemisphere. They developed alchemy, the branch of science that try to convert iron into gold. al-Ruiz classified chemical substances into animal, plant or mineral. He wrote a medical encyclopedia and a handbook that told the differences between small poxes and measles. Their knowledge of medicine was centuries ahead of the rest of the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jacob Naylor.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jacob Naylor Period 4 Research paper 4 March 1996 Church and State The theory of evolution is at odds with the views of many religions, and many people want to allow a religious view of creationism to be taught in the public school system. The foundation of evolution is based upon the belief that the origin of all ordered complex systems, including living creatures, can be explained by natural laws without the initiation or intervention of God. A person who believes in the biblical model of creation is viewed by some non-believers as a naive, narrow-minded religious fanatic who is not willing to look at the observable evidence with an open mind. Because the evolutionary idea of origins has been so widely accepted by the scientific community, many people have reasoned that the creation model should be completely rejected without fairly examining its claims. Even many Christians who have deep trust and faith in the Bible have never really understood the claims of the creation account (McLean 11). Over the past several years, a great deal of controversy surrounding the creation-evolution issue has been generated by scientists who have based their claims on the creation model and have been willing to let their reputations stand. Creationists have openly requested that when the discussion of origins occurs in the public school system, both the model of creation and evolution be presented side by side. Initially, scientists and educators who have accepted the theory of evolution without question were reluctant to pay any serious attention to creationism; however, it has now become apparent that substantial numbers of people are taking creationism seriously. Many evolutionists view this trend as a serious threat to the advancement of science and have vowed to do everything in their power to stop the teaching of creation in the public school system. Most evolutionists now view creationism as nothing more than a particular version of fundamentalist Christianity with no valid scientific content. One hundred-fifty years ago such a theory for the origin and history of the earth and life would have been termed absurd. Today, however, those who reject the idea of random evolutionary processes being responsible for designing life and shaping the geological features of the earth are termed religious, unscientific fanatics. Today, throughout the industrialized world, the moment children are able to respond to their environment, they are constantly bombarded with the doctrine of evolution. Faith in the biblical concept of creation by the hand of God is ridiculed and rejected by the secular system of education. Humanistic thinking widely accepts evolution as fact, even though "The all-too frequent picture of evolution as a progression from ameba to man, is, and always has been, utterly without foundation" (Weisz 665). Oddly, it is commonly accepted that all living things are the product of evolution, that evolution is taking place today, and that evolution will continue to shape the destiny of life in the future. Darwin's theory of evolution, based upon the idea of natural selection, set off a bitter controversy among scientists, religious leaders, and the general public. Noted British scientists such as Thomas Huxley and Alfred Wallace supported Darwin's work, and many different groups eventually accepted the theory of evolution. After Darwin's idea of the origin and development of life became well known, others used the concept of evolution for developing theories about society. A number of new philosophies began to emerge based on the Darwinian theory. These ideas came onto the world scene and made serious implications which made a view of agnosticism and atheism respectable. "As far as Darwin was concerned, a man's religion was his own affair, and he tried to keep his loss of faith to himself" (Gregor 112). For example, the German philosopher and social scientist Karl Marx, who is often called the founding father of the communist movement, compared the struggle for power among social classes to the struggle for survival among organisms. Marx was so awe stricken by the way Darwin was able to explain away the need for God regarding the origin of life that he decided to dedicate Das Kapital, a book against capitalism , to Charles Darwin. Marx and other humanists of his day believed the individual, not God, is the highest being. The acceptance of the evolutionary doctrine soon spread throughout the academic world in spite of the opposition put forward by scientists and religious leaders. Most scholars who had swallowed the humanistic philosophy were proud of the fact that they could explain the physical world around them without relying upon God. In many parts of the industrialized world, much of the controversy over evolution centered on the issue whether the theory should be taught in schools. Many people would not accept the theory of evolution because it conflicted with their belief that God is the creator and sustainer of life. The Bible also states human beings were created in the image of God, and were elevated above all other forms of life. Because of this view by the majority of people, the teaching of evolution in the public schools in the United States occurred through a gradual process over many years. The first major confrontation regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools occurred at the famous Scopes trial which took place in Tennessee in 1925. The effect of the trial on education was felt for many years, as most schools avoided teaching evolution and publishers produced textbooks that hardly covered the topic. For years following the Scopes trial, the creation-evolution controversy was not a high-priority issue. The issue lay dormant until the 1950s, when there was a growing concern among educators that science teaching in the public schools needed to be upgraded with current evolutionary teaching. The fact is, "The author or teacher who states [that evolution is an established fact] is either ignorant of the facts in the case, or is seeking to hide them from his students" (Schnabel 97). Works Cited Gregor, Arthur S. Charles Darwin. E.P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, 1966. Kerkut, ____. Implications of Evolution. Pergamon Press, 1960. McLean, G.S., Roger Oakland, Larry McLean. The Evidence for Creation. Understand the Times, Santa Ana, CA., 1995. Schnabel, A.O. Has God Spoken?. Tampa, FL., A.O. Schnabel Publisher, 1974. Weisz, Paul. The Science of Biology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1995. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jacobs Ladder.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jacob's Ladder Jacob's Ladder is a film which draws specific conclusions on exactly what takes place in a person right before death, and the afterlife which await them. Hell is seen as a temporary stop where people's memories and attachments are taken away so that they can enter heaven cleansed of their past life in order that a new beginning can be had. Death is seen as something that should not be feared, it only makes your inevitable transition into the next world more difficult, while being at peace with yourself at death allows the transition to your afterlife to run smoothly without remorse. Heaven is seen as a good place, a place of inner tranquillity where there is no pain. The cultural attitudes of this film in respect to death and afterlife have undertones of the Christian attitudes toward death and afterlife, although large differences do exist. The central cultural attitudes toward death and afterlife in this film can be summed up by a quotation from Jake's chiropractor (who can also be seen as his guardian angel), who said, "The only thing that burns in hell is the part of you that won't let go of your life, your memories, your attachments, they burn it all away. But they aren't punishing you, they're freeing your soul." The chiropractor also says that the way he sees it, "If you're frightened of dieing and you keep trying to hold on you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth." The film Jacob's Ladder uses the character of Jacob Singer to demonstrate how the film's creators view death and afterlife. The central character in the film is a man by the name of Jacob Singer (Jake), who is in Vietnam in 1971 fighting for the U.S. against the Vietcong. The film begins with a surprise attack by the Vietcong on the American camp which started a furious gun fight with heavy casualties. Jake is himself severely wounded in the stomach, which as you find out later is a mortal wound of which he is dieing. The rest of the film appears to take place over a period of days to weeks or at least that is how Jake perceives it to be, however as far as time goes this is all taking place between the time that he was wounded and the time that he dies (probably a few hours). All of what Jake sees he believes to be real, but it is really hell that his mind\soul has been taken to in order that his feelings and attachments to the life he is about to leave can be taken away. Jake wakes up from a dream where he had been thinking back to that time in Vietnam, and he realises that he is on a subway with strange demon-like individuals. The subway represents the way he is transported from this life to hell although he does not realise this, he believes that it is after the war and he is coming back from work like any normal day. After getting off the subway, Jake goes home to his girlfriend Jezebel. Jake believes he has been divorced from his wife Sara for some time and that she through him out. Jake looks at old pictures of Sara and his son's Gabe and Jed, he cries when he looks at them, because he misses them. Jezebel became annoyed with Jake's love for his former family and takes the pictures and burns them. All of this that Jake takes to be reality is really hell, Jezebel is really a devil (demon) including everyone else Jake encounters (accept the chiropractor who is his guardian angel). They are all trying to erase his memories and attachments to his past life so that his soul can be freed from earth and can enter heaven. This is why Jezebel burns the family pictures, so that Jake will not remember his family, to erase his memory of them. From time to time in the film Jake will flashback to memories of Vietnam during that period of time when he was wounded and being brought to the hospital. Almost like little images or clips that he picked up as he came in and out of consciousness. These images that he recalls are really Jake's periods of greatest resistance to death, where he is fighting hell's attempts at taking his memories and attachments. During these periods throughout the film Jake is really coming back to life for brief moments. The harder Jake tries to fight his inevitable death the worse and more bizarre his experiences become in hell, as the demons must try harder to take his memories and attachments from him. The majority of the devils\demons that Jake encounters in hell appear as normal looking human beings. However, some appeared slightly deformed and mutated looking more like what most people imagine them to be. Jake throughout the film is always in denial that he could be dieing. Therefore, the demons try to trick Jake into loosing his memories and attachments by confusing him, messing with his head. For example Jake had been a part of the Veteran's Outpatient Program under a doctor Carlson, after some strange encounters he needed to talk to Carlson so he went back to the hospital that he had been seeing Carlson at for years. He was told that the doctor had never worked there and that he was not on file as ever being a patient there. Another example involves Jake at a party with a palm reader who tells him that according to his lifeline he should already be dead. An interesting point in the film is when Jake meets up with five ex-army buddies who were with him on the day of the raid, and none of them can remember what happened during and after the massacre. They all blame this memory lapse on some sort of government cover-up and get a lawyer to investigate the matter, and they all admit that they keep seeing strange demons showing up around them. Suddenly Jake's five friends back out with their only excuse being that "it's war, stuff happens." Jake cannot understand why his friends have deserted him, but what has really happened is his friends were also mortally wounded in the raid in Vietnam and are now in hell with him, however they do not have the same will to hold on like Jake does and have given up in their resistance and died. Jake also meets up with another army buddy Paul Rutger from that day in Vietnam, Paul is completely paranoid of the demons and believes he is about to die. Sure enough after talking to Jake, Paul leaves and is killed in a car bomb. Paul was obviously also mortally wounded in the raid but had the most unpleasant stay in hell because he was the most frightened of all of death. Throughout the film the one person that Jake can trust is his chiropractor who is also his guardian angel. Jake has a bad back so he goes in for treatments to see his chiropractor for therapy. Not only is this therapy physical but spiritual as well, with the chiropractor guiding Jake in what he should do to make it through hell, without actually letting onto Jake that he is in hell. The chiropractor wants Jake to be at peace with himself so that he can leave hell and enter into heaven, he also physically protects Jake from the devils who would torment him more by tearing his life from him by force. For example Jake was kidnapped by human-like devils and escaped by jumping from their car, severely hurt he was taken to a hospital where he was brought on a stretcher through an insane asylum where blood and body parts covered the ground, he was strapped down and devils of which one was Jezebel began to poke him with needles. Jake woke up in a hospital room with the chiropractor barging in taking him out with little resistance from the hospital staff that were devils. It seems from this example that in this hell guardian angels have power over the devils, power to interfere and look out for the well-being of the person they are in charge of. The chiropractor brought Jake back to his office and gave him one of his treatments which fixed Jake up physically, then he gave Jake the spiritual advise he needed to make it through more easily during the period of time he would have to spend in hell. Repeating from earlier the chiropractor said "The only thing that burns in hell is the part of you that won't let go of your life, your memories, your attachments, they burn them all away. But they're not punishing you they're freeing your soul," "If you are frightened of dieing and keep on trying to hold on you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth." By saying this the chiropractor meant that if you are going to die (which Jake will do) then be at peace with yourself, don't try and hold on to the things which you can have any more (Jake's family), accept this fate and your experience in hell will not be as unpleasant. The biggest reason for Jake's difficult time in hell is that he won't give up his memories and attachment to his family, his wife Sara and two sons Gabe and Jed. The love for them and the desire to be with them again is the driving force behind him holding on to life as long as he can. However, after having that talk with the chiropractor Jake sees that he can still love his family and cherish the memories, but that he will never be able to see them again and that's just the way it is so don't try to stop the inevitable it will only hurt you more in the end. Be at peace with yourself, it is better for you. Jake's acceptance of this was displayed when he told a cab driver to take him back to his old house that he had with his family. His son Gabe was sitting at the bottom of the stairs, Jake hugged him and told Gabe that he loved him. A bright light began to shine at the top of the stairs, Gabe stood up and took his father by the hand and walked him up into the light (heaven). At that moment the doctors in the hospital back in Vietnam pronounced Jake dead, "Ok, he's gone, he looks sorta peaceful the guy, put up one hell of a fight though." Jake had finally made peace with himself allowing his physical body to die and freeing his soul to go on to heaven. The attitudes toward death and afterlife in the film are in many ways similar but also different then what the Christian views are. Both have a heaven and hell, however in the film hell is a temporary place where your soul is freed of your past life, it is prepared so it can enter heaven. Whereas the Christian view of hell is of a place where those who did not merit heaven through their life on earth are sent for all eternity in great suffering. Christianity believes you go to one or the other but not both as in the film. The film does not comment much about heaven other than giving the impression that it is a place that you can be at peace with yourself, free from any pain of your earthly life. Whereas Christianity sees heaven as being a place of eternal happiness, a place where you are delighted beyond your wildest dreams, a reward for leading a good life on earth. The difference portrayed of heaven and hell in the film is not as extreme as Christian views, where hell isn't "fire and brimstone" it'sjust a temporary place of cleansing and heaven just a calm peaceful place, not a place of more happiness then you could ever imagine. Christianity portrays a heaven and hell as major polar opposites, either incredibly good or unbelievably bad. Both are more similar in their views of guardians angels which are assigned to a person in order to protect and help them out. Christianity sees devils as incredibly evil spirits who tempt you into falling toward hell. The film sees devils as spirits who perform the unfortunate but necessary task of forcibly freeing a person's soul from the earth, not near as bad as the Christian outlook. No reference to a god is made in the film or even the existence of one, although one would assume a god must exist, a god who dictates the roles of hell and the devils, as well as heaven and the angels. The film Jacob's Ladder portrays a much different attitude toward death and the afterlife then what most religions profess. At death a person must go to hell where their soul is freed of the earth by the devils who erase their old memories and attachments, the more at peace the person is with their death the easier the process is. Once the person is at peace with themselves, they can enter heaven. Guardian angels are assigned to each person to help them make as smooth a transition from hell to heaven as possible. In certain ways the death and afterlife portrayed in Jacob's Ladder appear similar to those depicted in Christianity, although substantial differences do exist. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jacobs LadderFilm.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jacob's Ladder is a film which draws specific conclusions on exactly what takes place in a person right before death, and the afterlife which await them. Hell is seen as a temporary stop where people's memories and attachments are taken away so that they can enter heaven cleansed of their past life in order that a new beginning can be had. Death is seen as something that should not be feared, it only makes your inevitable transition into the next world more difficult, while being at peace with yourself at death allows the transition to your afterlife to run smoothly without remorse. Heaven is seen as a good place, a place of inner tranquillity where there is no pain. The cultural attitudes of this film in respect to death and afterlife have undertones of the Christian attitudes toward death and afterlife, although large differences do exist. The central cultural attitudes toward death and afterlife in this film can be summed up by a quotation from Jake's chiropractor (who can also be seen as his guardian angel), who said, "The only thing that burns in hell is the part of you that won't let go of your life, your memories, your attachments, they burn it all away. But they aren't punishing you, they're freeing your soul." The chiropractor also says that the way he sees it, "If you're frightened of dieing and you keep trying to hold on you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth." The film Jacob's Ladder uses the character of Jacob Singer to demonstrate how the film's creators view death and afterlife. The central character in the film is a man by the name of Jacob Singer (Jake), who is in Vietnam in 1971 fighting for the U.S. against the Vietcong. The film begins with a surprise attack by the Vietcong on the American camp which started a furious gun fight with heavy casualties. Jake is himself severely wounded in the stomach, which as you find out later is a mortal wound of which he is dieing. The rest of the film appears to take place over a period of days to weeks or at least that is how Jake perceives it to be, however as far as time goes this is all taking place between the time that he was wounded and the time that he dies (probably a few hours). All of what Jake sees he believes to be real, but it is really hell that his mind\soul has been taken to in order that his feelings and attachments to the life he is about to leave can be taken away. Jake wakes up from a dream where he had been thinking back to that time in Vietnam, and he realises that he is on a subway with strange demon-like individuals. The subway represents the way he is transported from this life to hell although he does not realise this, he believes that it is after the war and he is coming back from work like any normal day. After getting off the subway, Jake goes home to his girlfriend Jezebel. Jake believes he has been divorced from his wife Sara for some time and that she through him out. Jake looks at old pictures of Sara and his son's Gabe and Jed, he cries when he looks at them, because he misses them. Jezebel became annoyed with Jake's love for his former family and takes the pictures and burns them. All of this that Jake takes to be reality is really hell, Jezebel is really a devil (demon) including everyone else Jake encounters (accept the chiropractor who is his guardian angel). They are all trying to erase his memories and attachments to his past life so that his soul can be freed from earth and can enter heaven. This is why Jezebel burns the family pictures, so that Jake will not remember his family, to erase his memory of them. From time to time in the film Jake will flashback to memories of Vietnam during that period of time when he was wounded and being brought to the hospital. Almost like little images or clips that he picked up as he came in and out of consciousness. These images that he recalls are really Jake's periods of greatest resistance to death, where he is fighting hell's attempts at taking his memories and attachments. During these periods throughout the film Jake is really coming back to life for brief moments. The harder Jake tries to fight his inevitable death the worse and more bizarre his experiences become in hell, as the demons must try harder to take his memories and attachments from him. The majority of the devils\demons that Jake encounters in hell appear as normal looking human beings. However, some appeared slightly deformed and mutated looking more like what most people imagine them to be. Jake throughout the film is always in denial that he could be dieing. Therefore, the demons try to trick Jake into loosing his memories and attachments by confusing him, messing with his head. For example Jake had been a part of the Veteran's Outpatient Program under a doctor Carlson, after some strange encounters he needed to talk to Carlson so he went back to the hospital that he had been seeing Carlson at for years. He was told that the doctor had never worked there and that he was not on file as ever being a patient there. Another example involves Jake at a party with a palm reader who tells him that according to his lifeline he should already be dead. An interesting point in the film is when Jake meets up with five ex-army buddies who were with him on the day of the raid, and none of them can remember what happened during and after the massacre. They all blame this memory lapse on some sort of government cover-up and get a lawyer to investigate the matter, and they all admit that they keep seeing strange demons showing up around them. Suddenly Jake's five friends back out with their only excuse being that "it's war, stuff happens." Jake cannot understand why his friends have deserted him, but what has really happened is his friends were also mortally wounded in the raid in Vietnam and are now in hell with him, however they do not have the same will to hold on like Jake does and have given up in their resistance and died. Jake also meets up with another army buddy Paul Rutger from that day in Vietnam, Paul is completely paranoid of the demons and believes he is about to die. Sure enough after talking to Jake, Paul leaves and is killed in a car bomb. Paul was obviously also mortally wounded in the raid but had the most unpleasant stay in hell because he was the most frightened of all of death. Throughout the film the one person that Jake can trust is his chiropractor who is also his guardian angel. Jake has a bad back so he goes in for treatments to see his chiropractor for therapy. Not only is this therapy physical but spiritual as well, with the chiropractor guiding Jake in what he should do to make it through hell, without actually letting onto Jake that he is in hell. The chiropractor wants Jake to be at peace with himself so that he can leave hell and enter into heaven, he also physically protects Jake from the devils who would torment him more by tearing his life from him by force. For example Jake was kidnapped by human-like devils and escaped by jumping from their car, severely hurt he was taken to a hospital where he was brought on a stretcher through an insane asylum where blood and body parts covered the ground, he was strapped down and devils of which one was Jezebel began to poke him with needles. Jake woke up in a hospital room with the chiropractor barging in taking him out with little resistance from the hospital staff that were devils. It seems from this example that in this hell guardian angels have power over the devils, power to interfere and look out for the well-being of the person they are in charge of. The chiropractor brought Jake back to his office and gave him one of his treatments which fixed Jake up physically, then he gave Jake the spiritual advise he needed to make it through more easily during the period of time he would have to spend in hell. Repeating from earlier the chiropractor said "The only thing that burns in hell is the part of you that won't let go of your life, your memories, your attachments, they burn them all away. But they're not punishing you they're freeing your soul," "If you are frightened of dieing and keep on trying to hold on you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth." By saying this the chiropractor meant that if you are going to die (which Jake will do) then be at peace with yourself, don't try and hold on to the things which you can have any more (Jake's family), accept this fate and your experience in hell will not be as unpleasant. The biggest reason for Jake's difficult time in hell is that he won't give up his memories and attachment to his family, his wife Sara and two sons Gabe and Jed. The love for them and the desire to be with them again is the driving force behind him holding on to life as long as he can. However, after having that talk with the chiropractor Jake sees that he can still love his family and cherish the memories, but that he will never be able to see them again and that's just the way it is so don't try to stop the inevitable it will only hurt you more in the end. Be at peace with yourself, it is better for you. Jake's acceptance of this was displayed when he told a cab driver to take him back to his old house that he had with his family. His son Gabe was sitting at the bottom of the stairs, Jake hugged him and told Gabe that he loved him. A bright light began to shine at the top of the stairs, Gabe stood up and took his father by the hand and walked him up into the light (heaven). At that moment the doctors in the hospital back in Vietnam pronounced Jake dead, "Ok, he's gone, he looks sorta peaceful the guy, put up one hell of a fight though." Jake had finally made peace with himself allowing his physical body to die and freeing his soul to go on to heaven. The attitudes toward death and afterlife in the film are in many ways similar but also different then what the Christian views are. Both have a heaven and hell, however in the film hell is a temporary place where your soul is freed of your past life, it is prepared so it can enter heaven. Whereas the Christian view of hell is of a place where those who did not merit heaven through their life on earth are sent for all eternity in great suffering. Christianity believes you go to one or the other but not both as in the film. The film does not comment much about heaven other than giving the impression that it is a place that you can be at peace with yourself, free from any pain of your earthly life. Whereas Christianity sees heaven as being a place of eternal happiness, a place where you are delighted beyond your wildest dreams, a reward for leading a good life on earth. The difference portrayed of heaven and hell in the film is not as extreme as Christian views, where hell isn't "fire and brimstone" it's just a temporary place of cleansing and heaven just a calm peaceful place, not a place of more happiness then you could ever imagine. Christianity portrays a heaven and hell as major polar opposites, either incredibly good or unbelievably bad. Both are more similar in their views of guardians angels which are assigned to a person in order to protect and help them out. Christianity sees devils as incredibly evil spirits who tempt you into falling toward hell. The film sees devils as spirits who perform the unfortunate but necessary task of forcibly freeing a person's soul from the earth, not near as bad as the Christian outlook. No reference to a god is made in the film or even the existence of one, although one would assume a god must exist, a god who dictates the roles of hell and the devils, as well as heaven and the angels. The film Jacob's Ladder portrays a much different attitude toward death and the afterlife then what most religions profess. At death a person must go to hell where their soul is freed of the earth by the devils who erase their old memories and attachments, the more at peace the person is with their death the easier the process is. Once the person is at peace with themselves, they can enter heaven. Guardian angels are assigned to each person to help them make as smooth a transition from hell to heaven as possible. In certain ways the death and afterlife portrayed in Jacob's Ladder appear similar to those depicted in Christianity, although substantial differences do exist. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\James joyce reflective.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion is an important and recurring theme in James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Through his experiences with religion, Stephen Dedalus both matures and progressively becomes more individualistic as he grows. Though reared in a Catholic school, several key events lead Stephen to throw off the yoke of conformity and choose his own life, the life of an artist. Religion is central to the life of Stephen Dedalus the child. He was reared in a strict, if not harmonious, Catholic family. The severity of his parents, trying to raise him to be a good Catholic man, is evidenced by statements such as, "Pull out his eyes/ Apologise/ Apologise/ Pull out his eyes." This strict conformity shapes Stephen's life early in boarding school. Even as he is following the precepts of his Catholic school, however, a disillusionment becomes evident in his thoughts. The priests, originally above criticism or doubt in Stephen's mind, become symbols of intolerance. Chief to these thoughts is Father Dolan, whose statements such as, "Lazy little schemer. I see schemer in your face," exemplify the type of attitude Stephen begins to associate with his Catholic teachers. By the end of Chapter One, Stephen's individualism and lack of tolerance for disrespect become evident when he complains to the rector about the actions of Father Dolan. His confused attitude is clearly displayed by the end of the chapter when he says, "He was happy and free: but he would not be anyway proud with Father Dolan. He would be very kind and obedient: and he wished that he could do something kind for him to show him that he was not proud." Stephen still has respect for his priests, but he has lost his blind sense of acceptance. As Stephen grows, he slowly but inexorably distances himself from religion. His life becomes one concerned with pleasing his friends and family. However, as he matures he begins to feel lost and hopeless, stating, "He saw clearly too his own futile isolation. He had not gone one step nearer the lives he had sought to approach nor bridged the restless shame and rancor that divided him from mother and brother and sister." It is this very sense of isolation and loneliness that leads to Stephen's encounter with the prostitute, where, "He wanted to sin with another of his kind, to force another being to sin with him and to exult with her in sin." He wants to be loved, but the nearest thing he can find is prostitution. In the aftermath of this encounter and the numerous subsequent encounters, a feeling of guilt and even more pronounced loneliness begins to invade Stephen's being. Chapter Three represents the turning point of the novel, for here Stephen turns his life around. After the sermon on sin and hell, Stephen examines his soul and sees the shape it is in, wondering, "Why was he kneeling there like a child saying his evening prayers? To be alone with his soul, to examine his conscience, to meet his sins face to face, to recall their times and manners and circumstances, to weep over them." Religion pushes its way suddenly and unexpectedly back into Stephen's life. After his confession at the end of Chapter Three, he begins to lead a life nearly as devout as that of his Jesuit teachers and mentors. Even as he leads this life, however, shades of his former self are obliquely evident through statements such as, "This idea had a perilous attraction for his mind now that he felt his soul beset once again by the insistent voices of the flesh which began to murmur to him again during his prayers and meditations." Here it is evident that, even as his life becomes more and more devout, he can never lead the perfect and sinless life of the Jesuit. The offer of a position as a priest is met by memories of his childhood at Clongowes and thoughts such as, "He wondered how he would pass the first night in the novitiate and with what dismay he would wake the first morning in the dormitory." Stephen realizes that the clerical collar would be too tight for him to wear. A walk on the beach confirms this thought in Stephen's mind through the statement, "Heavenly God! cried Stephen's soul in an outburst of profane joy." The sight of a woman and the knowledge that, as a priest, he could not even talk to her, finally convinces Stephen to abandon religion. His running escape from the woman also symbolizes his run from religion and restriction, a run to freedom, to the life of an artist. The life of an artist is one of individuality and solitude, both of which Stephen exhibits in the final chapter. Religion is the last thing on Stephen's mind as he formulates his theses on art, aesthetic beauty, ideal pity and ideal terror. While these theses are important to the continuity of the novel, religion does not resurface until much later. Near the end of the novel, Cranly sees the folly of the life Stephen is trying to make for himself. He is surrounding himself with beautiful thoughts and images, but these images will not hold him later in life. Realizing such, Cranly gently tries to push religion back into Stephen's life, stating, "Do you not fear that those words may be spoken to you on the day of judgment?" This question, however, is met by the rebuke, "What is offered me on the other hand?...An eternity of bliss in the company of the dean of studies?" Stephen's bitterly sarcastic denunciation of the religious life represents a final break from all religion. The end of Stephen's life in Ireland rings hollow, for this exchange shows the emptiness he has to show for it. In response to the question of whether he loves his mother, Stephen says, "I don't know what your words mean." This statement shows the lack of love in Stephen's life that results from the absence of religion, for without religion there can be no true feeling or outlet for these feelings. While Stephen eventually turns away from religion, it is an important facet in his development as an artist. Religion, originally one of the "nets" by which he flies, leads to the loss of his naiveté and later to his disillusionment with a conformist society as a whole. Stephen's thoughts are too independent and liberal for his contemporaries, and thus it is inevitable that he will cast away his nets, reject society, and become an artist. Religion disturbs, shapes, and finally changes Stephen for good. While religion leads to an artistic and lonely life, Stephen can never totally break from his family or need for companionship. At the close of the novel he says, "Old father, old artificer, stand by me now and ever in good stead," belying the fact that no matter how independent Stephen becomes, no man can be an island. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jesus Buddha.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jesus & Buddha Brett Schopen Western Traditions 201 10/29/94 Disciple?: I have heard that you are two of the wisest men in the land and so I have come to you in hopes of advise. I am scared for my future and for the future of my newborn daughter. Can you tell me what is in store for us or give me an assurance me that we will be all right? Jesus: Do not worry about your life. Do not worry about food, drink, the body. Life is more than these things. Believe in your heavenly Father. He knows what you need and will provide you with it if you practice and have faith in his teachings. Strive for the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well. Buddha: No. Comfort in the present and future must come from inside the self , not from a God. In meditation you will find the truth of life that will set you free from worry. Don't chase after the past, Don't seek the future; The past is gone The future hasn't come But see clearly on the spot That object which is now, While finding and living in A still, unmoving state of mind. This focus on the present is the beginning of the path to enlightenment which is comfort through understanding. When you are able to keep your mind focused on the present in a 'still, unmoving state of mind' you have reached enlightenment, where you will be beyond all emotion including suffering and worry. Jesus: That is not so. A search for the entire true of life can never make you content in your life because you can never know everything there is. That is for God alone to know. To enter the kingdom of heaven you must have faith in our Father. You must trust in His wisdom even in hard times. For to know all and understand all you would be a god. And putting yourself on a platform with God is disrespectful and blasphemous. But if you follow His laws your suffering will end in the hereafter. Buddha: Truth is available to all people not just gods. For truth is in all things in the universe. We only have to learn not to react with emotion to see it. If you can master not reacting through meditation you will see the true nature of the universe that lies behind the illusion of emotion. In this truth you will see the cause and effect relationship of all things and in that an order which will bring you understanding and comfort. Disciple?: What are the truths and teachings you speak of? Jesus: In everything do to others as you would have them do to you. Always live by this rule and respect your Father and you will one day be allowed to walk beside Him in the kingdom of heaven. Buddha: In this we do not much differ. The most fundamental truth is to have compassion for all creatures. Without this you can never end suffering . "If a man foolishly does me wrong, I will return to him the protection of my ungrudging love. In trying to cause another anguish you only hurt yourself. A wicked man who spits at heaven spoils not the heaven, but defiles himself when the spittle comes back on him." Disciple?: But how can I know who is right? Jesus: You can know I speak the truth because I am our Father's Son and I carry his word. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God." Disciple?: That seems fair. But if I believe in God I cannot be saved because I have already gone against these without even knowing it. Jesus: You can still be saved my son. For I am the Son of God and I am here to heal you and absolve your sins. Disciple?: You even have the power to cleanse my rotted leg? Jesus: Yes I do. Be made clean! Disciple?: OH MY?! My eyes deceive my mind! How can this be?!? Jesus: The power of God my son. Buddha: My dear boy do you not see that no matter what power he might have he cannot truly free you from suffering? In your reaction to his healing you started again the cycle that leads to suffering but he leaves you no way to end it. Suffering is "any craving that is unsatisfied." If you are never allowed to find out how this can be, because you can't question, you will always suffer from your desire. To destroy this suffering you must free the self from the thirst of desire. But you can never do that if you're eyes are fighting with your mind, if you are fighting with yourself. There is an eight fold path which leads to the destruction of sorrow. Right understanding1 and thought2, that lead to wisdom. Right speech3, action4, and livelihood5, that lead to morality. Right effort6, minfulness7, and concentration8, that lead to concentration. But accepting his power on faith as unexplainable keeps you from the first step on the path, understanding. As d oes reacting favorably to the laws he states because they "seem" fair. If you react to them as fair and take them as true because "He" says so, you give up your power to be enlightened in your search for the truth. Without that to end your suffering you will go to his heaven with your desires numbed or constantly filled, but never quenched, and you will never truly be happy Disciple?: I am still thoroughly confused. Is there no definite answer!? Buddha: Not that we can give you. It is a question of faith in what could be or proof in what is. Jesus: Whether you trust in yourself or in the Almighty. Buddha: Whether you think comfort comes from the process of learning or simply having the answer. Jesus: It is a question of right and wrong. Buddha: It is a question of what you know in your heart of hearts. Disciple?: Thank you Jesus and Buddha. Although I am still deeply confused I know that only I have the answer. So I will be off to find out who and what, I believe. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jesus and Buddha.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brett Schopen Western Traditions 201 10/29/94 Jesus & Buddha Disciple?: I have heard that you are two of the wisest men in the land and so I have come to you in hopes of advise. I am scared for my future and for the future of my newborn daughter. Can you tell me what is in store for us or give me an assurance me that we will be all right? Jesus: Do not worry about your life. Do not worry about food, drink, the body. Life is more than these things. Believe in your heavenly Father. He knows what you need and will provide you with it if you practice and have faith in his teachings. Strive for the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well. Buddha: No. Comfort in the present and future must come from inside the self , not from a God. In meditation you will find the truth of life that will set you free from worry. Don't chase after the past, Don't seek the future; The past is gone The future hasn't come But see clearly on the spot That object which is now, While finding and living in A still, unmoving state of mind. This focus on the present is the beginning of the path to enlightenment which is comfort through understanding. When you are able to keep your mind focused on the present in a 'still, unmoving state of mind' you have reached enlightenment, where you will be beyond all emotion including suffering and worry. Jesus: That is not so. A search for the entire true of life can never make you content in your life because you can never know everything there is. That is for God alone to know. To enter the kingdom of heaven you must have faith in our Father. You must trust in His wisdom even in hard times. For to know all and understand all you would be a god. And putting yourself on a platform with God is disrespectful and blasphemous. But if you follow His laws your suffering will end in the hereafter. Buddha: Truth is available to all people not just gods. For truth is in all things in the universe. We only have to learn not to react with emotion to see it. If you can master not reacting through meditation you will see the true nature of the universe that lies behind the illusion of emotion. In this truth you will see the cause and effect relationship of all things and in that an order which will bring you understanding and comfort. Disciple?: What are the truths and teachings you speak of? Jesus: In everything do to others as you would have them do to you. Always live by this rule and respect your Father and you will one day be allowed to walk beside Him in the kingdom of heaven. Buddha: In this we do not much differ. The most fundamental truth is to have compassion for all creatures. Without this you can never end suffering . "If a man foolishly does me wrong, I will return to him the protection of my ungrudging love. In trying to cause another anguish you only hurt yourself. A wicked man who spits at heaven spoils not the heaven, but defiles himself when the spittle comes back on him." Disciple?: But how can I know who is right? Jesus: You can know I speak the truth because I am our Father's Son and I carry his word. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God." Disciple?: That seems fair. But if I believe in God I cannot be saved because I have already gone against these without even knowing it. Jesus: You can still be saved my son. For I am the Son of God and I am here to heal you and absolve your sins. Disciple?: You even have the power to cleanse my rotted leg? Jesus: Yes I do. Be made clean! Disciple?: OH MY ? ! My eyes deceive my mind! How can this be?!? Jesus: The power of God my son. Buddha: My dear boy do you not see that no matter what power he might have he cannot truly free you from suffering? In your reaction to his healing you started again the cycle that leads to suffering but he leaves you no way to end it. Suffering is "any craving that is unsatisfied." If you are never allowed to find out how this can be, because you can't question, you will always suffer from your desire. To destroy this suffering you must free the self from the thirst of desire. But you can never do that if you're eyes are fighting with your mind, if you are fighting with yourself. There is an eight fold path which leads to the destruction of sorrow. Right understanding1 and thought2, that lead to wisdom. Right speech3, action4, and livelihood5, that lead to morality. Right effort6, minfulness7, and concentration8, that lead to concentration. But accepting his power on faith as unexplainable keeps you from the first step on the path, understanding. As does reacting favorably to the laws he states because they "seem" fair. If you react to them as fair and take them as true because "He" says so, you give up your power to be enlightened in your search for the truth. Without that to end your suffering you will go to his heaven with your desires numbed or constantly filled, but never quenched, and you will never truly be happy Disciple?: I am still thoroughly confused. Is there no definite answer!? Buddha: Not that we can give you. It is a question of faith in what could be or proof in what is. Jesus: Whether you trust in yourself or in the Almighty. Buddha: Whether you think comfort comes from the process of learning or simply having the answer. Jesus: It is a question of right and wrong. Buddha: It is a question of what you know in your heart of hearts. Disciple?: Thank you Jesus and Buddha. Although I am still deeply confused I know that only I have the answer. So I will be off to find out who and what, I believe. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jesus Christ.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jesus Christ Jesus Christ's Life Ever since Jesus was born, he has always been perfect. There have never been any flaws that had to do with him. He had many different characteristics and qualities that w ere unique about him including holiness, purity, faithfulness, mercifulness, grace, righteousness, love, integrity, divinity, and courageousness. There is nothing that is more powerful than that of the triunity, which consists of God the Fat her, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son. This report deals mostly with God the Son, which is Jesus. Jesus has all these qualities and we are supposed to be following in His footsteps. Most Christians try as hard to have these great characteristics, but there is no possible way that we could achieve such a goal. It is impossible for humans to reach that goal. It says in the Bible "For everyone falls short of the glory of God.". That right there is enough proof to show that we are not worthy of his presence. God is of the Spirit. He is not made of matte r and mind, and he does not possess a physical nature. Some think that God is t hat of a human. There is no possible way that this could be, because in John 4:24 Jesus speaks "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.". Even though Jesus had flesh was of the spirit he still did have matter. He had flesh which is matter. In this flesh was very important qualities. God still possesses all of these qualities even though He does not have flesh. These characteristics would fit for either God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit. They all work in the triunity and have these qualities even though one might display it in a different manner than the other. In the thirty (c)three years of Jesus' life, He had three very important characteristics that are something we all should try and follow? Love liness, Faithfulness, and Forgiveness. Very often when people think of Love, they think of Jesus. In John 4:8,16 it says that God is love. This i s a paraphrase but it is still stating something that is very important. That v erse shows that Jesus had (and still does) mercy and compassion for us. Another verse that shows that God's love as apparent is John 3:16,"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that who believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.". He has so much love for us that he even gives us life. He could just let us Christians live our own life but, He helps us out with His great grace. Grace is part of the wh ole effect of God's love. Basically what grace is, is way that God deals with u s. It has nothing to do with what we deserve or basis of merit, but it is giving out by how much we need. God deals with them according to his goodness and generosity. That seems similar to benevolence, but it isn't. Jesus' grace is real ly shown in the New Testament. In Exodus 34:6it says "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious...". In Ephesians 2:7(c)9 it says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (c)and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (c)not by works, so that no one can boast. In those verses it Œis saying that God is allowing us to be saved. He doesn't have to save us; He could just let u s all go to hell, but he gives each and everyone of us a chance to accept Him. The list goes on and on of different verses in the Bible that shows us of God'sg race. God's grace is related to the Mercy that He gives us too. Jesus' mercy was his loving, compassion, tenderheartedness. He has a very tender heart toward the need y. That is the kind of mercy that Jesus has for ALL of us. We are supposed to f ear God and Jesus and then they will pity those who fears them. If they did not pity us and have mercy on us we would not be alive. They would have let us die by now. They cannot stand to be in the sinning world that we live in. They would just do away with us if they didn't care about us. Because of all of this c are He has for us I feel that we need to have faith in Him. If God i s really to be true and we believe that He is, then His faith in us has been proven. He is all powerful and He would never do something that could proven not t o be true. Jesus had faith in us in many ways. His father has one big example of faith. This example was the time in which Abraham was to sacrifice his son Isaac on the alter. God said that he (Isaac) would be very important in years to come. First of all Abraham didn't believe that a son would be sent to him, and one was. Abram didn't have faith in God but God had faith and said that a child would co me, and a child did come. Now that he was on the alter God relieved Abraham fro m killing his son by having a sheep walk by in which he was commanded to sacrifice instead of the son. Abraham showed Œa lot of faith in God by believing Him t hat he was right in what he was doing. I think that that was a very brave thing by Abraham to do. He must have had all the faith that you can in God, because in a situation like that I don't know what I would do. If we believe and have faith in God and Jesus we will be forgiven of our sins, in which is another great quality of Jesus "But with you there is forgiveness, therefore you are feared." (Psalm 130:4). If you believe in the Bible that verse should let you know that Jesus and His father does forgive us. "O'Isreal, put you hope in the Lord, for with the Lord is unfailing love and with him is full redemption." (Psalm 130:7) I feel that both of those verses are very strong in t heir speaking of forgiveness. The Lord will forgive us of all of our sins whenever we ask for forgiveness. This is all because of when Jesus died on the cross for our sins. He took all of the sins of the world upon Him at that time. If He wouldn't have been crucified we would not ever be able to go into heaven because we would always have sin with us. Jesus cannot be in the presence of sin now that he has resurrected and i s back in heaven. When our sins are forgiven they are completely forgotten. They are thrown as far as the East is from the West. All of these qualities that I have talked about are very important but there are many more. There are numerous characteristics of Jesus. These three that I spoke of where just some of the ones that I felt were very important. I am not saying that there are ones that aren't important, I was saying that these were three that were very important to me. As you can see, these three qualities were things that were very apparent in His life. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jesus Importance to me.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jesus is the center of Christianity, born in Bethlehem in Judea. To believers Jesus is the son of Mary. He is the son of God. Jesus was divine but led an ordinary life. Jesus was also a teacher. His method of teaching was without flaw. He taught by his example. Jesus lived by his faith, and his faith was in God. Jesus's twelve students or disciples helped spread the word of God or Christianity. When I think of everything that is good in the world and what brings about peace and harmony it makes me think of Jesus. I believe Jesus's life brought much hope to the world. Hope that one day if they lived a morally good life that they would be rewarded with a paradise called heaven. I also believe that Jesus's suffering and serves as an example for us when we face hard or difficult times. I believe that Jesus had great respect and love for his parents which makes me strive to be like him. To me Jesus was a gentle person who was compassionate and was forgiving toward sinners no matter how great the sin was. I also see Jesus as a loving friend, parent, and guardian. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jesus In The Year 2000.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jesus In The Year 2000 What does the Jesus of Mitchell's gospel have to say to those of us living in the year 2000? The true test of a literary work is the test of time. If a work has a universal theme, if it has a universal lesson that can be learned, it will last and be referred to as a classic and generation after generation of students will read and discuss it in school. While the Gospels are not necessarily considered classics, they have, indeed stood the test of time. Almost 2000 years after Jesus lived, people still talk about him and study his life. Perhaps this is why Stephen Mitchell was compelled to write The Gospel According to Jesus. If one looks carefully, the message of the Jesus of this gospel is universal; therefore, even though the stories were written quite a long time ago, they still have a lot to say to those living in the year 2000. To see what the Jesus of this gospel has to say to those living in the year 2000, one must look at its two major themes: inclusivity and not judging others. First, The Gospel According to Jesus is an inclusive gospel. If one looks carefully, one will see that Jesus is preaching a message of equality. While this can really be seen throughout the entire gospel, it is best shown in the following passage: "Everyone who hears what I say and does it is like a man who built his house upon a rock; and the rain fell and the floods came and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it didn't fall because it was founded on rock. And everyone who hears what I say and doesn't do it is like a man who built his house upon sand; and the rain fell and the floods came and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was its fall. (sic)" Notice that this passage does not say "every white man," or "every Catholic person," or any other discriminatory type of classification. The passage says "everyone." This message of equality can also be seen in the healing stories. Jesus does not discriminate against any group when he heals; anyone that asks him to help them, Jesus helps. It is as simple as that. Yet another example of this message can be found in the following: "... 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' And looking at those who sat in the circle around him, he said, 'These are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.'" This message of equality and inclusivity is extremely important to those living in the year 2000 because it shows that Jesus was not interested in social status, race, or gender. Though today's society seems to be striving for equality, it still has quite a long way to go. The other theme that seems to stand out as having huge significance to the year 2000, is the theme of not judging others actions. While this theme can also be seen all throughout this gospel, it is best expressed in the following: "Don't judge, and you will not be judged. For in the same way that you judge people, you yourself will be judged. Why do you see the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but don't notice the log that is in your own eye? ...So if you don't judge, you will not be judged; if you do not condemn, you will not be condemned; if you forgive, you will be forgiven..." This theme is incredibly vital to the year 2000 and particularly the year 2000 in the United States for many reasons. First, the United States is really an atomized society. There are many different parts of the whole and it is sometimes difficult to see that the some of the different parts are not necessarily inferior to the others; they are just different. Of late there has been much controversy over issues such as gay rights, abortion, and the death penalty. In all of these situations, people on both sides tend to point a finger at the other and judge them for what they believe in. In the year 2000, it is becoming increasingly evident that people need to stop this finger pointing and try to respect each other. This theme says a lot about how individuals should live their lives. It is a message that leads to understanding, compassion, and forgiveness-much of which seems to be lacking in society today. While the Gospel may not be considered classics, their messages have truly stood the test of time. Stephen Mitchell takes the messages of the Gospels and puts them into a gospel that people living in the year 2000 can relate to, if they just take the time to examine the gospel beyond the surface level. While there are numerous themes that pertain to the year 2000, the two that the Jesus of this gospel seems to be shouting are inclusivity/equality and that one should not judge others. Both themes really go hand in hand. They are both themes that try to give the reader a clue as to how he should live his life. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jesus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jesus Jesus is the center of Christianity, born in Bethlehem in Judea. To believers Jesus is the son of Mary. He is the son of God. Jesus was divine but led an ordinary life. Jesus was also a teacher. His method of teaching was without flaw. He taught by his example. Jesus lived by his faith, and his faith was in God. Jesus's twelve students or disciples helped spread the word of God or Christianity. When I think of everything that is good in the world and what brings about peace and harmony it makes me think of Jesus. I believe Jesus's life brought much hope to the world. Hope that one day if they lived a morally good life that they would be rewarded with a paradise called heaven. I also believe that Jesus's suffering and serves as an example for us when we face hard or difficult times. I believe that Jesus had great respect and love for his parents which makes me strive to be like him. To me Jesus was a gentle person who was compassionate and was forgiving toward sinners no matter how great the sin was. I also see Jesus as a loving friend, parent, and guardian. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jewish Art.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jewish Art On many occasions art has the power to tell a story or even express how someone feels. The speaker on Jewish art was very interesting. She translates many Jewish stories and commandments while portraying it through art. Very few people can accomplish this but I thought she did a pretty good job of it. Her pieces once explained told great stories of Jewish history. One thing that I found very iteresting was her idea of adding new riuals to the jewish religion through her art. I'm glad that I have always liked art because it helped me to understand her feelings towards it. The speaker showed a lot of enthusiasm and love for her art. She seemed to be very care-free and almost worry free. I though she was very cool and really did a good job of expressing her feelings toward her art. One important aspect of her art was that for her seeing her pieces come out of a fire was a reward in itself. She was not in it for the mmoney or material rewards. I think a lot of times people are only in it for material reward and it gets in the way of great art. It seems to me that this helped her to become such a good artist Her focus was mainly on very well known Jewish objects. Some of these include Menorahs, Sadaka boxes, and Mezuzahs. These where very evident part of her slide show. All of them were very obscure and odd looking but each told a storyf which only she knew. At first glance they were not so great but after her explanation they became beautiful. Her idea of creating new rituals for our religion through art really striked me. I found her ideas to be very interesting because it was som I think that many times Judaism is expressed through art because there are so many beliefs on what it means to be a Jew. Many people cant explain how they fell in words so , in this case, a more fun and interesting way was used. Even though many religious people don't agree with this way of expression I feel that it is obviously better than nothing. It was evident that the Holocaust Had a major influence on her works. She said that she liked the fact that even after her pieces were burned they still came out beautiful. I think that was a reference to when Hitler burned the Jewish people. Even though many died they were still great people. I found the speakers pieces to be very interesting and at the same time odd. At first glance I thought to myself "I could do that" but after her explanation and her talk I saw her pieces as great works of art. To be able to explain how you feel through art is a great gift which few people have. I found her gift to be very interesting. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\jewish ceramics.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Essay on Speaker On many occasions art has the power to tell a story or even express how someone feels. The speaker on Jewish art was very interesting. She translates many Jewish stories and commandments while portraying it through art. Very few people can accomplish this but I thought she did a pretty good job of it. Her pieces once explained told great stories of Jewish history. One thing that I found very iteresting was her idea of adding new riuals to the jewish religion through her art. I'm glad that I have always liked art because it helped me to understand her feelings towards it. The speaker showed a lot of enthusiasm and love for her art. She seemed to be very care-free and almost worry free. I though she was very cool and really did a good job of expressing her feelings toward her art. One important aspect of her art was that for her seeing her pieces come out of a fire was a reward in itself. She was not in it for the mmoney or material rewards. I think a lot of times people are only in it for material reward and it gets in the way of great art. It seems to me that this helped her to become such a good artist Her focus was mainly on very well known Jewish objects. Some of these include Menorahs, Sadaka boxes, and Mezuzahs. These where very evident part of her slide show. All of them were very obscure and odd looking but each told a story which only she knew. At first glance they were not so great but after her explanation they became beautiful. Her idea of creating new rituals for our religion through art really striked me. I found her ideas to be very interesting because it was som I think that many times Judaism is expressed through art because there are so many beliefs on what it means to be a Jew. Many people cant explain how they fell in words so , in this case, a more fun and interesting way was used. Even though many religious people don't agree with this way of expression I feel that it is obviously better than nothing. It was evident that the Holocaust Had a major influence on her works. She said that she liked the fact that even after her pieces were burned they still came out beautiful. I think that was a reference to when Hitler burned the Jewish people. Even though many died they were still great people. I found the speakers pieces to be very interesting and at the same time odd. At first glance I thought to myself "I could do that" but after her explanation and her talk I saw her pieces as great works of art. To be able to explain how you feel through art is a great gift which few people have. I found her gift to be very interesting. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jews.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jews "The enemy trapped the Jews in the city by building a wall around it. Foodstuffs could not be brought in: starvation and crowded conditions gave rise to disease, and epidemics spread among the populace. But surprisingly the Jews held on. Then the enemy massed troops outside the wall and brought out the latest in weaponry. They attacked, using fire to spread destruction. The Jews repelled the enemy a number of times. So savage was the resistance that the campaign to destroy the Jewish population took much longer and cost more troops than anticipated. Street by street the fighting raged with hand-to-hand combat between the heavily armed troops and the haggard defenders. Some Jews tried to escape through the sewers, but they were flushed out by fire. At the end the Jews had taken a heavy toll on their enemy but the city lay in smoking ruins. The remaining Jewish survivors were rounded up to be used as slave laborers or to be killed. What episode in Jewish history is depicted in this scenario? Most people would say this was the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis in 1943. But in fact it was the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in the year 70 The destruction of the Second temple and the attack on the Warsaw Ghetto, although separated by nearly two thousand years have and eerie sameness. The Germans sealed off the Warsaw's Jewish population with and eight-foot brick concrete wall. The Romans built a high earthen barricade around Jerusalem to make certain the Jews could not escape. Germans shot, on the spot Jews discovered outside the Warsaw Ghetto. The Romans crucified the Jews they found, placing crosses atop the hill to terrorize those watching from inside the city: as many as 500 were crucified in 1 day. The Germans tried to starve the Polish Jews into submission reducing their rations at first to 800 calories a day and later cutting off all food to the ghetto. The Romans used the tactic of siege to bring starvation in Jerusalem. In both episodes the actual fighting was in some ways similar. "Since the ghetto was impenetrable in frontal attack, General Stroop's forces set fire to the buildings with incendiary bombs and flame throwers" Titus's Roman legions used flaming torches of wood to set fire to the Temple and other buildings in the final battle. "Through the roar of the flames as they [the Romans] swept relentlessly on could be heard the groans of the falling... the entire city seemed to be on fire. The Nazis not only killed but plundered Jews if their possessions; the Romans "were so avaricious that they pushed on climbing over the piles or corpses for many valuables were found in the passages and all scruples were silenced by the prospect of gain. "The Romans took so much gold from the Jews that it's price fell by half in Syria. The Nazis used Jews for slave labor the Romans sent thousands of Jewish captives to work on projects on Egypt. The Nazis made grisly sport with their victims and conducted fiendish medical experiments before killing the Jews. Titus had thousands of Jewish captives killed in gladiatorial contests and staged fights between them and wild beasts to celebrate his victory and, on one occasion this brother's birthday and Vespasian the Roman Emperor had non swimmers shackled with their hands and feet behind them and thrown into the deepest parts of the Dead Sea to test the theory that no one could sink in the heavily salted water. There was one difference between the two events. Three years after destroying Jerusalem, the Romans put down the final Jewish revolt of the war by capturing Massada. Three years after the Holocaust ended the State of Israel was reborn. The destruction of the Second Temple serves with the Holocaust as a frame the Jewish experience in the world. For instance just as no other people in the modern era has suffered a devastation comparable to that of the Jews during the Holocaust the attack on Jerusalem was unparalleled in the ancient world. "No destruction ever wrought by G-D or man approached the wholesale carnage of this war" said Josephus. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Jobs.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The book of Job 1:3, in The New Oxford Annonated Bible, states "Job was the greatest man among all in the East." He was a faithful servant of God, he owned thousands of animals, and had many servants and friends. Job had a very large family with seven sons and three daughters. Why was Job chosen to suffer and receive punishment at the hands of the Lord one may ask? The major themes in the book describe the ways Job deals with suffering and despair the Lord handed him. How one deals with despair and suffering is what makes a person who he or she is. The Lord is not a stranger to suffering. Psalms 69:33-36, states "The Lord hears the needy and does not despise his captive people. Let heaven and earth praise him. The seas and all that move in them. For God will save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah. Then people will settle there and possess it; the children of his servants will inherit it; and those who love his name will dwell there." God does not intentionally inflict despair and heartache on his believers for no reason at all. I think the despair we experience, and how we deal with it, is a test to show our true selves. The Lord does not make us suffer because of what we have done. Through suffering, we become better people and grow as an individual. You find your identity through terrible experiences. I have dealt with serious heartache and do believe that I have grown from it. I have learned how to react to certain situations and how to overcome them. I looked up the word "suffering" in the bible, I was directed to Psalms 73:21-26. It states, "When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered, I was senseless and ignorant; I was a brute beast before you. Yet I am always with you; you hold me by my right hand. You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever". These verses explain that God is always with us. No matter how bad circumstances get, God will be beside us through it all. This is the main reason that Job does not understand why God is making him suffer. Job had always been true to the Lord's word and had never done anything to deserve what he was being handed. His fame, fortune, family, and health were stripped of him for no apparent reason. In Job 1:21, Job says, " Naked I came from my mothers womb. naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. May the name of the Lord be praised." Still Job was faithful to the Lord, Jobs faith was stronger than his anguish. What makes people believe in the Lord and stand beside him through everything? Wars, natural disasters, and disease are all events that can make people doubt God, but the strong believers stick with the Lord. When Job had basically his whole life taken away from him, he was all alone except for his friends. His friends were there for him, but not in a way that he wanted them to be. His friends kept asking him what he had done to deserve the suffering God placed upon him. They told him that if he repented his sins, he would get all he lost back. Job still insisted that he had done nothing wrong. His friends were not giving him the support he wanted. Job was in a lot of pain, physically and emotionally. He wanted to know why God chose him to suffer. In comparing the book of Job to modern day, I think of the Olympic Park bombing this last summer at the Summer Games. Richard Jewell was the targeted suspect for a good 4 months, he was eventually dropped as a suspect. This was good news for Jewell, but he will never be the same person. He will forever live his life in the shadow of this terrible incident. I wonder if Richard Jewell feels that he has become a better person due to his suffering? In the end, Job does finally get back all he had lost, and then some. The unfortunate thing about this is he got back his children, but they were not the same children as before. I am not a parent, but if I were to have my child taken away from me and then be given a different one, it would be a horrible experience. The love a parent has for his or her child can never be substituted. There is no replacement for a human being, you can replace just about anything else, however, no one can replace a lost life. If I were Job, I would have given up on the Lord. After what had happened I still would be very upset about how I was treated. It is the people that deal with adversity this way who are rewarded in the end. All we can do is just keep on having faith in the Lord and he will have faith in ourselves. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Joseph.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joseph Joseph was born in the royal line of King David, but in his time the descendents of David no longer held power or wealth. He left his ancestral home of Bethlehem in Judea to become a builder and carpenter in the town of Nazareth in Galilee. There he met Mary and became engaged to her. When she became pregnant before their marriage, he was uncertain as to what he should do. He finally decided to break off the engagement in accordance to the Law; but do to so quietly, so that she would not be subjected to charges of adultery and quite possibly a death sentence. However, an angel appeared to him in a dream and explained to him that God Himself was the father of Mary's child, and that Joseph should not be afraid to marry her. Joseph accepted the angel's message and the will of God and married Mary. After Mary's son was born, Joseph named him Jesus, as he and Mary had been told by the angel. He raised Jesus as his own son, and likely trained him in carpentry. The Gospels make no mention of Joseph during Jesus' adulthood, and so it is likely that he died before Jesus' ministry began. By marrying Mary, despite her pregnancy, and by accepting and naming Jesus, Joseph became Jesus' father in the eyes of the Law; and by raising Jesus and caring for Him, he became his father in all ways but one. Therefore, while God is truly the Father of Jesus, Joseph can also be called His father. The Gospels call Joseph a "just" and "righteous" man, and his righteousness can be shown in his acceptance of God's will, despite inconvenience and public scandal; the care he showed to his wife and Son; and his example, reflected in his Son. I chose Joseph for a couple of reasons. One is he followed and payed attention to what the angel came and told him. Another is his care for Mary and Jesus, and how he taught Jesus carpentry. Other then his inconvenience and public scandal he did care very much for Jesus when Jesus was born into the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\judaism 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Judaism is intrinsically open to history. It looks forward to a future event - the messianic redemption - that will dwarf the importance of Exodus. This paper will discuss the important holidays of the Jewish year and a look into the Holocaust from a Jewish standpoint. I talked to a friend of mine, Josh Cohen. Josh practices Conservative Judaism. I also retrieved some information from a book The Jewish Way; Living the Holidays. Rabbi Irving Greenburg wrote it. I will first explain the holidays I discussed with Josh, and then discuss Josh growing up in the Jewish culture. "They particularly exemplify the focus on developing human capacity in the Sabbath and days of awe. The primary, Holy days that nurture personal life along the way. The Sabbat, on a weekly basis, and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippers, annually, are the key periods of individual family renewal. These holidays accomplish their goals primarily by lifting the individual out of a routine that controls, too often, deadens daily life." The Sabbat is their weekly ceremony, held Friday evenings, to celebrate the end of a work week. Rosh Hashanah - Yom Kipper is the core that of being on trial for ones life. During that trial one moves from life through death to renewed life. Also discussed in this paper is Hanukkah, the festival of lights. Hanukkah stands for the temple that burned to the ground. The Jewish people only had an oil lamp to provide light for six nights and seven days. Therefore that is why they celebrate Hanukkah for six nights and seven days. Passover is also discussed. It is a time where Jewish families are to be fasting, no bread or meat. This last one week. Similar to the Christian Easter celebration. When a Jewish boy turns, age thirteen into an adult Jew they know it as a Bar Mitzvah. In order for this to happen a young teenage boy must attend Hebrew school. They usually take place a couple times a week. There are three types of Judaism worship Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Orthodox would be the most religious, Conservatism being middle of the road, and Reform being the least practiced. Josh grew up into the Orthodox beliefs because of his grandparents. Josh's grandparents, his father's mother and father, were Orthodox. His mother's, mother and father were Conservative. Eventually his mother and father switched over to the Conservative beliefs. The Orthodox beliefs would show the in the center and the women on the outside. They viewed women as caretakers. There are three temples in the city of Toledo. B'NAI Israel which is the conservative temple. Josh attends this temple. JCC, Jewish Community Center, which is the Reformer temple. And, Etz Chay, the Orthodox temple. As a child his parents were not strict followers. They didn't celebrate Sabbat every Friday but did celebrate all the holidays of Judaism. Josh went Sunday to school every Sunday to learn about the Jewish religion, and he went to Hebrew school every Tuesday and Thursday. At the age of thirteen, Josh celebrated Bar Mitzvah. The Worship procedures are conducted from the Torah, which is actually the Bible. The only difference is they read the lessons in Hebrew. Since Josh is not full practice of Judaism, he has a hard time following along. Since the Jewish religion does not believe in Christ, they believe that Jesus was born a Jew. They do not celebrate the birth of Christ, Christmas. I asked Josh did this effect him growing up?, His peers mostly celebrating Christmas. As it turns out, his peers were jealous of him. Being able to receive gifts seven days in a row and being able to take off more school than the other children. Josh in turn was very envious of his peers being able to receive their gifts all at once. The questioned was asked what did your family do on December twenty fifth? "It was a normal day for my family. We went to the movies as a family." Josh celebrated his very first Christmas this past year. He celebrated with his girlfriend and her family. I asked which celebration was to his liking? "It was weird for him. I'm not use to the huge family gathering and presents being opened all at once. My family, during Hanukkah, says a prayer and lights a candle every night. Hanukkah was more peaceful and subdued" He received a gift every day though. I asked are the gifts you receive as outrageous as some gifts kids receive nowadays, at Christmas? " It depends on the family. They spoiled my sister, brother and me. We would receive an encyclopedia the first day and on the last day we could have received a car." The other traditional holidays the Cohens celebrate are Yom Kipper, Rosh Hashanah, and Passover. Passover is close to the Christian holiday Easter. During Passover they do not allow that you ate bread or meat. Josh commented on how "His family didn't go all out on the fasting, only the true religious take part on the fasting, Orthodox." Nevertheless, he told me a story of one of his closet friends growing up. " My friend's family had a separate kitchen called the Kosher kitchen, meaning no meat. They stocked the kitchen with the normal utensils. The only difference was, none of the utensils in the Kosher kitchen never touched meat. All the dishes were prepared in a special way." Then I asked him if we could talk about the Holocaust. I didn't know if this was a touchy subject with Josh. I had recently viewed Schindler's List. I had allot of questions for him on this subject. I basically got Josh's viewpoint. In your mind why were the Germans wanting to abolish the Jewish people? "It was all about money. The Jews had held of most of the assets. Meaning they owned banks, were doctors and lawyers. The Germans didn't want the Jews running their lives. It is a big stereotype of all Jews being accountants, doctors, and lawyers." I asked Josh "you are studying to become a lawyer, you graduate this spring, how can I not stereotype you? Is it in your upbringing to become a doctor or lawyer?" "My upbringing was very good. My parents installed excellent morals and work ethic in me. Not all Jews are rich, you have your middle class and you have your poor Jews." "We grew up being constantly reminded of the Holocaust. My mother's parents were in the concentration camps and survived. They survived because my grandfather was an accountant. He agreed to work for the Germans only if they kept him and his wife alive. His grandfather had no idea they kept his wife alive until after the fact. He found her in a hospital. Before his grandparents were taking into custody, the Germans went door to door looking for children. His grandparents hid his aunt and uncle under the floorboards of the kitchen. The Germans heard the children crying. The Nazi soldiers shot both of the children in front of his grandparents." This is the story he has heard from his parents. His grandparents won't talk about the situation. All he sees is the picture of his aunt and uncle. He never met, on the mantle. His grandfather still has a concentration number tattooed on his arm. "I think this helped us, instead of hurt us. We were like the typical Jewish community, very closely knit. Everybody helped each other out, the smartest Jews helped install strong morals and beliefs into the weaker Jews." In closing, I think everybody can look at the Jewish Culture and learn. If you look back into history everybody at one point and time has tried to abolish the Judaism religion, but they still prevail. It is the strong morals and beliefs installed in them at an early age that makes them successful. Everything they have been through, but yet they don't hold a grudge. They keep moving forward. Josh said "respect the past, live for today, and build a future." Also in closing I would like to thank Josh Cohen to take time out of his busy schedule to sit and talk to me. Josh Cohen Bibliography THE JEWISH WAY: LIVING THE HOLIDAYS. RABBI IRVING GREENBURG. SUMMIT BOOKS: NEW YORK INTERVIEW. JOSH COHEN Judaism is intrinsically open to history. It looks forward to a future event - the messianic redemption - that will dwarf the importance of Exodus. This paper will discuss the important holidays of the Jewish year and a look into the Holocaust from a Jewish standpoint. I talked to a friend of mine, Josh Cohen. Josh practices Conservative Judaism. I also retrieved some information from a book The Jewish Way; Living the Holidays. Rabbi Irving Greenburg wrote it. I will first explain the holidays I discussed with Josh, and then discuss Josh growing up in the Jewish culture. "They particularly exemplify the focus on developing human capacity in the Sabbath and days of awe. The primary, Holy days that nurture personal life along the way. The Sabbat, on a weekly basis, and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippers, annually, are the key periods of individual family renewal. These holidays accomplish their goals primarily by lifting the individual out of a routine that controls, too often, deadens daily life." The Sabbat is their weekly ceremony, held Friday evenings, to celebrate the end of a work week. Rosh Hashanah - Yom Kipper is the core that of being on trial for ones life. During that trial one moves from life through death to renewed life. Also discussed in this paper is Hanukkah, the festival of lights. Hanukkah stands for the temple that burned to the ground. The Jewish people only had an oil lamp to provide light for six nights and seven days. Therefore that is why they celebrate Hanukkah for six nights and seven days. Passover is also discussed. It is a time where Jewish families are to be fasting, no bread or meat. This last one week. Similar to the Christian Easter celebration. When a Jewish boy turns, age thirteen into an adult Jew they know it as a Bar Mitzvah. In order for this to happen a young teenage boy must attend Hebrew school. They usually take place a couple times a week. There are three types of Judaism worship Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Orthodox would be the most religious, Conservatism being middle of the road, and Reform being the least practiced. Josh grew up into the Orthodox beliefs because of his grandparents. Josh's grandparents, his father's mother and father, were Orthodox. His mother's, mother and father were Conservative. Eventually his mother and father switched over to the Conservative beliefs. The Orthodox beliefs would show the in the center and the women on the outside. They viewed women as caretakers. There are three temples in the city of Toledo. B'NAI Israel which is the conservative temple. Josh attends this temple. JCC, Jewish Community Center, which is the Reformer temple. And, Etz Chay, the Orthodox temple. As a child his parents were not strict followers. They didn't celebrate Sabbat every Friday but did celebrate all the holidays of Judaism. Josh went Sunday to school every Sunday to learn about the Jewish religion, and he went to Hebrew school every Tuesday and Thursday. At the age of thirteen, Josh celebrated Bar Mitzvah. The Worship procedures are conducted from the Torah, which is actually the Bible. The only difference is they read the lessons in Hebrew. Since Josh is not full practice of Judaism, he has a hard time following along. Since the Jewish religion does not believe in Christ, they believe that Jesus was born a Jew. They do not celebrate the birth of Christ, Christmas. I asked Josh did this effect him growing up?, His peers mostly celebrating Christmas. As it turns out, his peers were jealous of him. Being able to receive gifts seven days in a row and being able to take off more school than the other children. Josh in turn was very envious of his peers being able to receive their gifts all at once. The questioned was asked what did your family do on December twenty fifth? "It was a normal day for my family. We went to the movies as a family." Josh celebrated his very first Christmas this past year. He celebrated with his girlfriend and her family. I asked which celebration was to his liking? "It was weird for him. I'm not use to the huge family gathering and presents being opened all at once. My family, during Hanukkah, says a prayer and lights a candle every night. Hanukkah was more peaceful and subdued" He received a gift every day though. I asked are the gifts you receive as outrageous as some gifts kids receive nowadays, at Christmas? " It depends on the family. They spoiled my sister, brother and me. We would receive an encyclopedia the first day and on the last day we could have received a car." The other traditional holidays the Cohens celebrate are Yom Kipper, Rosh Hashanah, and Passover. Passover is close to the Christian holiday Easter. During Passover they do not allow that you ate bread or meat. Josh commented on how "His family didn't go all out on the fasting, only the true religious take part on the fasting, Orthodox." Nevertheless, he told me a story of one of his closet friends growing up. " My friend's family had a separate kitchen called the Kosher kitchen, meaning no meat. They stocked the kitchen with the normal utensils. The only difference was, none of the utensils in the Kosher kitchen never touched meat. All the dishes were prepared in a special way." Then I asked him if we could talk about the Holocaust. I didn't know if this was a touchy subject with Josh. I had recently viewed Schindler's List. I had allot of questions for him on this subject. I basically got Josh's viewpoint. In your mind why were the Germans wanting to abolish the Jewish people? "It was all about money. The Jews had held of most of the assets. Meaning they owned banks, were doctors and lawyers. The Germans didn't want the Jews running their lives. It is a big stereotype of all Jews being accountants, doctors, and lawyers." I asked Josh "you are studying to become a lawyer, you graduate this spring, how can I not stereotype you? Is it in your upbringing to become a doctor or lawyer?" "My upbringing was very good. My parents installed excellent morals and work ethic in me. Not all Jews are rich, you have your middle class and you have your poor Jews." "We grew up being constantly reminded of the Holocaust. My mother's parents were in the concentration camps and survived. They survived because my grandfather was an accountant. He agreed to work for the Germans only if they kept him and his wife alive. His grandfather had no idea they kept his wife alive until after the fact. He found her in a hospital. Before his grandparents were taking into custody, the Germans went door to door looking for children. His grandparents hid his aunt and uncle under the floorboards of the kitchen. The Germans heard the children crying. The Nazi soldiers shot both of the children in front of his grandparents." This is the story he has heard from his parents. His grandparents won't talk about the situation. All he sees is the picture of his aunt and uncle. He never met, on the mantle. His grandfather still has a concentration number tattooed on his arm. "I think this helped us, instead of hurt us. We were like the typical Jewish community, very closely knit. Everybody helped each other out, the smartest Jews helped install strong morals and beliefs into the weaker Jews." In closing, I think everybody can look at the Jewish Culture and learn. If you look back into history everybody at one point and time has tried to abolish the Judaism religion, but they still prevail. It is the strong morals and beliefs installed in them at an early age that makes them successful. Everything they have been through, but yet they don't hold a grudge. They keep moving forward. Josh said "respect the past, live for today, and build a future." Also in closing I would like to thank Josh Cohen to take time out of his busy schedule to sit and talk to me. Josh Cohen Bibliography THE JEWISH WAY: LIVING THE HOLIDAYS. RABBI IRVING GREENBURG. SUMMIT BOOKS: NEW YORK INTERVIEW. JOSH COHEN f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Judaism 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Judaism Judaism is intrinsically open to history. It looks forward to a future event - the messianic redemption - that will dwarf the importance of Exodus. This paper will discuss the important holidays of the Jewish year and a look into the Holocaust from a Jewish standpoint. I talked to a friend of mine, Josh Cohen. Josh practices Conservative Judaism. I also retrieved some information from a book The Jewish Way; Living the Holidays. Rabbi Irving Greenburg wrote it. I will first explain the holidays I discussed with Josh, and then discuss Josh growing up in the Jewish culture. "They particularly exemplify the focus on developing human capacity in the Sabbath and days of awe. The primary, Holy days that nurture personal life along the way. The Sabbat, on a weekly basis, and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippers, annually, are the key periods of individual family renewal. These holidays accomplish their goals primarily by lifting the individual out of a routine that controls, too often, deadens daily life." The Sabbat is their weekly ceremony, held Friday evenings, to celebrate the end of a work week. Rosh Hashanah - Yom Kipper is the core that of being on trial for ones life. During that trial one moves from life through death to renewed life. Also discussed in this paper is Hanukkah, the festival of lights. Hanukkah stands for the temple that burned to the ground. The Jewish people only had an oil lamp to provide light for six nights and seven days. Therefore that is why they celebrate Hanukkah for six nights and seven days. Passover is also discussed. It is a time where Jewish families are to be fasting, no bread or meat. This last one week. Similar to the Christian Easter celebration. When a Jewish boy turns, age thirteen into an adult Jew they know it as a Bar Mitzvah. In order for this to happen a young teenage boy must attend Hebrew school. They usually take place a couple times a week. There are three types of Judaism worship Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Orthodox would be the most religious, Conservatism being middle of the road, and Reform being the least practiced. Josh grew up into the Orthodox beliefs because of his grandparents. Josh's grandparents, his father's mother and father, were Orthodox. His mother's, mother and father were Conservative. Eventually his mother and father switched over to the Conservative beliefs. The Orthodox beliefs would show the in the center and the women on the outside. They viewed women as caretakers. There are three temples in the city of Toledo. B'NAI Israel which is the conservative temple. Josh attends this temple. JCC, Jewish Community Center, which is the Reformer temple. And, Etz Chay, the Orthodox temple. As a child his parents were not strict followers. They didn't celebrate Sabbat every Friday but did celebrate all the holidays of Judaism. Josh went Sunday to school every Sunday to learn about the Jewish religion, and he went to Hebrew school every Tuesday and Thursday. At the age of thirteen, Josh celebrated Bar Mitzvah. The Worship procedures are conducted from the Torah, which is actually the Bible. The only difference is they read the lessons in Hebrew. Since Josh is not full practice of Judaism, he has a hard time following along. Since the Jewish religion does not believe in Christ, they believe that Jesus was born a Jew. They do not celebrate the birth of Christ, Christmas. I asked Josh did this effect him growing up?, His peers mostly celebrating Christmas. As it turns out, his peers were jealous of him. Being able to receive gifts seven days in a row and being able to take off more school than the other children. Josh in turn was very envious of his peers being able to receive their gifts all at once. The questioned was asked what did your family do on December twenty fifth? "It was a normal day for my family. We went to the movies as a family." Josh celebrated his very first Christmas this past year. He celebrated with his girlfriend and her family. I asked which celebration was to his liking? "It was weird for him. I'm not use to the huge family gathering and presents being opened all at once. My family, during Hanukkah, says a prayer and lights a candle every night. Hanukkah was more peaceful and subdued" He received a gift every day though. I asked are the gifts you receive as outrageous as some gifts kids receive nowadays, at Christmas? " It depends on the family. They spoiled my sister, brother and me. We would receive an encyclopedia the first day and on the last day we could have received a car." The other traditional holidays the Cohens celebrate are Yom Kipper, Rosh Hashanah, and Passover. Passover is close to the Christian holiday Easter. During Passover they do not allow that you ate bread or meat. Josh commented on how "His family didn't go all out on the fasting, only the true religious take part on the fasting, Orthodox." Nevertheless, he told me a story of one of his closet friends growing up. " My friend's family had a separate kitchen called the Kosher kitchen,meaning no meat. They stocked the kitchen with the normal utensils. The only difference was, none of the utensils in the Kosher kitchen never touched meat. All the dishes were prepared in a special way." Then I asked him if we could talk about the Holocaust. I didn't know if this was a touchy subject with Josh. I had recently viewed Schindler's List. I had allot of questions for him on this subject. I basically got Josh's viewpoint. In your mind why were the Germans wanting to abolish the Jewish people? "It was all about money. The Jews had held of most of the assets. Meaning they owned banks, were doctors and lawyers. The Germans didn't want the Jews running their lives. It is a big stereotype of all Jews being accountants, doctors, and lawyers." I asked Josh "you are studying to become a lawyer, you graduate this spring, how can I not stereotype you? Is it in your upbringing to become a doctor or lawyer?" "My upbringing was very good. My parents installed excellent morals and work ethic in me. Not all Jews are rich, you have your middle class and you have your poor Jews." "We grew up being constantly reminded of the Holocaust. My mother's parents were in the concentration camps and survived. They survived because my grandfather was an accountant. He agreed to work for the Germans only if they kept him and his wife alive. His grandfather had no idea they kept his wife alive until after the fact. He found her in a hospital. Before his grandparents were taking into custody, the Germans went door to door looking for children. His grandparents hid his aunt and uncle under the floorboards of the kitchen. The Germans heard the children crying. The Nazi soldiers shot both of the children in front of his grandparents." This is the story he has heard from his parents. His grandparents won't talk about the situation. All he sees is the picture of his aunt and uncle. He never met, on the mantle. His grand father still has a concentration number tattooed on his arm. "I think this helped us, instead of hurt us. We were like the typical Jewish community, very closely knit. Everybody helped each other out, the smartest Jews helped install strong morals and beliefs into the weaker Jews." In closing, I think everybody can look at the Jewish Culture and learn. If you look back into history everybody at one point and time has tried to abolish the Judaism religion, but they still prevail. It is the strong morals and beliefs installed in them at an early age that makes them successful. Everything they have been through, but yet they don't hold a grudge. They keep moving forward. Josh said "respect the past, live for today, and build a future." Also in closing I would like to thank Josh Cohen to take time out of his busy schedule to sit and talk to me. Josh Cohen Bibliography THE JEWISH WAY: LIVING THE HOLIDAYS. RABBI IRVING GREENBURG. SUMMIT BOOKS: NEW YORK f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Judaism Or Judaisms.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Judaism Or Judaisms? It has been argued that Judaism can be seen not only as a single religion, but as a group of similar religions. It has also been pointed-out that through all the trials and tribulations that Judaism has suffered through, that there have been common themes that have proven omni-pervasive. Any institution with roots as ancient and varied as the religion of the Jews is bound to have a few variations, especially when most of its history takes place in the political and theological hot spot of the Middle East. In this discussion, many facets of Judaism will be examined, primarily in the three temporal subdivisions labeled the Tribal / Pre-Monarchy Period, the Divided Monarchy, and the Hasmonean / Maccabean and Roman Era. Among all the time periods where the religion has been split, these three seem to be the most representative of the forces responsible. As for a common thread seen throughout all Judiasms, the area of focus here is the place associated with the religion : Jerusalem. This topic will be covered in detail first, and then the multiple Judaism arguments will be presented. In this way, it is possible to keep a common focus in mind when reading about all the other situations in which the religion has found itself. A brief conclusion follows the discussion. A Place to Call Home No other religion has ever been so attached to its birthplace as Judaism. Perhaps this is because Jews have been exiled and restricted from this place for most of their history. Jerusalem is not only home to Judaism, but to the Muslim and Christian religions as well. Historically this has made it quite a busy place for the various groups. Jerusalem is where the temple of the Jews once stood; the only place on the whole Earth where one could leave the confines of day to day life and get closer to God. In 586 BCE when the temple was destroyed, no Jew would have denied Jerusalem as being the geographic center of the religion. From that point on, the Jewish people have migrated around the world, but not one of them forgets the fact that Jerusalem is where it all began. It is truly a sacred place, and helps to define what Judaism means to many people; a common thread to run through all the various splinters of the religion and help hold them together. Even today, as the Jewish people have their precious Jerusalem back (through the help of other nations and their politics) there is great conflict and emotion surrounding it. Other nations and people in the area feel that they should be in control of the renowned city, and the Jews deny fervently any attempt to wrestle it from their occupation. It is true that there is no temple in Jeruslaem today, nor are all the Jews in the world rushing to get back there. But it is apparent that the city represents more to the religion of Judaism than a mere place to live and work. The city of Jerusalem is a spiritual epicenter, and throughout Judaism's long and varied history, this single fact has never changed. Tribal / Pre-Monarchy Judaism's roots lie far back in the beginnings of recorded history. The religion did not spring into existence exactly as it is known today, rather it was pushed and prodded by various environmental factors along the way. One of the first major influences on the religion was the Canaanite nation. Various theories exist as to how and when the people that would later be called Jews entered into this civilization. But regardless of how they ultimately got there, these pioneers of the new faith were subjected to many of the ideas and prejudices of the time. Any new society that finds itself in an existing social situation, can do no more than to try and integrate into that framework. And this is exactly what the Jews did. Early Judaism worshipped multiple gods. One of these gods was known as Ba'al, and was generally thought-of as a 'statue god' with certain limitations on his power. The other primary deity was called YHWH (or Yahweh) and enjoyed a much more mysterious and illusive reputation. He was very numinous, and one was to have great respect, but great fear for him at the same time. Ba'al was not ever really feared, as his cycles (metaphorically seen as the seasons) were fairly well known, and not at all fear-inducing. The fact that the early Jews and Canaanites had these two radically different representations of a deity active in their culture, basically assured that there would be splits in the faith. One group inevitably would focus on one of the gods, and another would focus on another. In this way, the single religion could support multiple types of worship, leading to multiple philosophies and patterns of behavior, which could then focus more and more on their respective niche, widening the gap into a clear cut distinction between religious groups. This early time period was generally quite temporary and non-centralized, stemming from the fact that technology was at a very low level, and people's lifespan was fairly short. These conditions led to a rapid rate of turnover in religious thought, and left many factions of people to their own devices. Widespread geographic distribution coupled with poor communication certainly did not help in holding the many faiths together. The Tribal Period in Jewish history is one of the more splintered eras in the religion, but since these people were all living in the area near Jerusalem, the common thread can be seen clearly through the other less-defined elements of the religion. Divided Monarchy By its very name, it is apparent that this period of history is host to a great deal of divergence in the Jewish religion. As Solomon was king, people began to grow more and more restless. Some objected to worshiping a human king, while others balked at the oppression of the poor that was going on. Political unrest in this period led to a decisive split in geographic territory, and thus a split in religious views. A group of people left the area of Judah and traveled North to found Israel, where they could be free to practice their own political flavors, and their own religious flavors as well. This sort of behavior has come to be seen as common of oppressed people, and the result is almost always a great deviation in the ways of the 'old world'. A perfect example of this comes when examining the point in American history where independence was declared from England. Now, mere centuries later, America is as different in its politics, religions, and social forces from England as one could imagine. This was most likely the result when Israel was founded, far back in Biblical history. Communication between the two cities was sparse. The priests and prophets were undoubtedly addressing items pertinent to one group, but not neccesarily the other. The influence of foreign traders to each of the two places, as well as the political attitudes of each all would have had enormous impact on a newly-spawned religion. Thus, it can easily be seen that the religion was split into (at least) two major divisions during this time period. Toward the end of the Divided Monarchy, it seems that the prophets began calling for major changes in the basic foundation of the early Jews' lives. The kings and priests had no major disputes with the status quo, but apparently the prophets were calling for a reorganization. This sort of 'turmoil within' can do nothing but further split people's faith. It was is if the question was posed : to follow the kings and the priests, who have guided us and kept us safe? or follow the far-seeing prophets, who are more like us and honestly have our best interests at heart? As the next major historical division occurred this sort of argument would continue, and thus the Jewish people were left to practice their religion in whatever way they felt best : multiple groups of people with varying faith in the many forms of Judaism as it existed toward the end of the Divided Monarchy. Hasmonean / Maccabean and Roman Era This time period in Jewish history is politically tumultuous, leading to high levels of splits and variations in the religion itself. One of the most disruptive types of all wars is a civil war. And this is exactly what occurs at the outset in the Jewish homeland of Jerusalem. The Jewish civil war was against the extreme Hellenizers (people who tended toward utter reason in their beliefs) and the moderate Hellenizers (people who can see things rationally, but believe there are more items to consider than this -- ex. the Maccabean family, who became the Hasmonean kings). So right away, it is apparent that the ideas that the Greeks introduced into Jewish culture have acted as time-bombs of social memes, and have created a major split in the religion. When the violence of the war has subsided, the moderate Hellenizers have won ("everything in moderation!") and rule for a short time, until the Roman empire attacks and throws even more kinks into the Jewish society. When the Romans take over, the Hasmonean kings are left in place as 'puppet kings,' which ultimately forces the general population to question their governing body. When the Romans destroy the temple in Jerusalem, it is made painfully clear that some changes are going to be made. Most obvious, the priests suddenly have no major role in the religion. Their primary purpose had been to tend to the sacrificing of animals, and since it is illegal to sacrifice an animal outside the temple, the priests were in an unsettling position. As can be seen in countless other examples, politics and religion are invariably tied, and people began practicing their own flavors of Judaism after their civilization had been so radically altered. At this point in history, there is really no solid rule to prevent such splits, and for a time a mixed form of Judaism with many varieties flourishes. No one was sure what to do once the heart of Judaism (the temple) had been destroyed, but it soon became apparent that an appealing option was arising. Two major social groups of the time period were vying for power. The first group, the Saducees were associated with the displaced Hasmonean kings. The second group, the Pharisees, had an idea that would help work around the tragic destruction of the temple. People were split, once again. They could stay with the traditional Saducees (who had the political power, believed in only written Torah, and did not subscribe to resurrection -- basically a conservative view), or they could side with the newcomers, the Pharisees (who had religious power, believed in both the written and the oral Torah, and believed in resurrection) and hope to preserve their Jewish heritage by worshiping outside of the temple, in their everyday life. It was not a hard decision, and the Pharisees eventually gained power, leading the Jewish religion into its next phase of Rabbinic Judaism. It is apparent that in each of the three time periods discussed above that many factions of the same religion were active. Competing philosophies, outside political forces, and geographic isolation are among the most obvious of the dividing forces. However many other influences 'pound' each and every day on a given social institution, subtly forming it and changing it into something it was not. For this reason, the answer to the debate whether Judaism is a single, or multiple religion(s) is an obvious one, depending upon how you choose to look at it. Every religion has many pieces, but as long as there are a few constants (such as the birthplace, the language, literature, etc) it is possible to view the whole as a single force, and still acknowledge variations that will inevitably spring-up. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\judaism religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ religion? Judaism or Judaisms? It has been argued that Judaism can be seen not only as a single religion, but as a group of similar religions. It has also been pointed-out that through all the trials and tribulations that Judaism has suffered through, that there have been common themes that have proven omni-pervasive. Any institution with roots as ancient and varied as the religion of the Jews is bound to have a few variations, especially when most of its history takes place in the political and theological hot spot of the Middle East. In this discussion, many facets of Judaism will be examined, primarily in the three temporal subdivisions labeled the Tribal / Pre-Monarchy Period, the Divided Monarchy, and the Hasmonean / Maccabean and Roman Era. Among all the time periods where the religion has been split, these three seem to be the most representative of the forces responsible. As for a common thread seen throughout all Judiasms, the area of focus here is the place associated with the religion : Jerusalem. This topic will be covered in detail first, and then the multiple Judaism arguments will be presented. In this way, it is possible to keep a common focus in mind when reading about all the other situations in which the religion has found itself. A brief conclusion follows the discussion. A Place to Call Home No other religion has ever been so attached to its birthplace as Judaism. Perhaps this is because Jews have been exiled and restricted from this place for most of their history. Jerusalem is not only home to Judaism, but to the Muslim and Christian religions as well. Historically this has made it quite a busy place for the various groups. Jerusalem is where the temple of the Jews once stood; the only place on the whole Earth where one could leave the confines of day to day life and get closer to God. In 586 BCE when the temple was destroyed, no Jew would have denied Jerusalem as being the geographic center of the religion. From that point on, the Jewish people have migrated around the world, but not one of them forgets the fact that Jerusalem is where it all began. It is truly a sacred place, and helps to define what Judaism means to many people; a common thread to run through all the various splinters of the religion and help hold them together. Even today, as the Jewish people have their precious Jerusalem back (through the help of other nations and their politics) there is great conflict and emotion surrounding it. Other nations and people in the area feel that they should be in control of the renowned city, and the Jews deny fervently any attempt to wrestle it from their occupation. It is true that there is no temple in Jeruslaem today, nor are all the Jews in the world rushing to get back there. But it is apparent that the city represents more to the religion of Judaism than a mere place to live and work. The city of Jerusalem is a spiritual epicenter, and throughout Judaism's long and varied history, this single fact has never changed. Tribal / Pre-Monarchy Judaism's roots lie far back in the beginnings of recorded history. The religion did not spring into existence exactly as it is known today, rather it was pushed and prodded by various environmental factors along the way. One of the first major influences on the religion was the Canaanite nation. Various theories exist as to how and when the people that would later be called Jews entered into this civilization. But regardless of how they ultimately got there, these pioneers of the new faith were subjected to many of the ideas and prejudices of the time. Any new society that finds itself in an existing social situation, can do no more than to try and integrate into that framework. And this is exactly what the Jews did. Early Judaism worshipped multiple gods. One of these gods was known as Ba'al, and was generally thought-of as a 'statue god' with certain limitations on his power. The other primary deity was called YHWH (or Yahweh) and enjoyed a much more mysterious and illusive reputation. He was very numinous, and one was to have great respect, but great fear for him at the same time. Ba'al was not ever really feared, as his cycles (metaphorically seen as the seasons) were fairly well known, and not at all fear-inducing. The fact that the early Jews and Canaanites had these two radically different representations of a deity active in their culture, basically assured that there would be splits in the faith. One group inevitably would focus on one of the gods, and another would focus on another. In this way, the single religion could support multiple types of worship, leading to multiple philosophies and patterns of behavior, which could then focus more and more on their respective niche, widening the gap into a clear cut distinction between religious groups. This early time period was generally quite temporary and non-centralized, stemming from the fact that technology was at a very low level, and people's lifespan was fairly short. These conditions led to a rapid rate of turnover in religious thought, and left many factions of people to their own devices. Widespread geographic distribution coupled with poor communication certainly did not help in holding the many faiths together. The Tribal Period in Jewish history is one of the more splintered eras in the religion, but since these people were all living in the area near Jerusalem, the common thread can be seen clearly through the other less-defined elements of the religion. Divided Monarchy By its very name, it is apparent that this period of history is host to a great deal of divergence in the Jewish religion. As Solomon was king, people began to grow more and more restless. Some objected to worshiping a human king, while others balked at the oppression of the poor that was going on. Political unrest in this period led to a decisive split in geographic territory, and thus a split in religious views. A group of people left the area of Judah and traveled North to found Israel, where they could be free to practice their own political flavors, and their own religious flavors as well. This sort of behavior has come to be seen as common of oppressed people, and the result is almost always a great deviation in the ways of the 'old world'. A perfect example of this comes when examining the point in American history where independence was declared from England. Now, mere centuries later, America is as different in its politics, religions, and social forces from England as one could imagine. This was most likely the result when Israel was founded, far back in Biblical history. Communication between the two cities was sparse. The priests and prophets were undoubtedly addressing items pertinent to one group, but not neccesarily the other. The influence of foreign traders to each of the two places, as well as the political attitudes of each all would have had enormous impact on a newly-spawned religion. Thus, it can easily be seen that the religion was split into (at least) two major divisions during this time period. Toward the end of the Divided Monarchy, it seems that the prophets began calling for major changes in the basic foundation of the early Jews' lives. The kings and priests had no major disputes with the status quo, but apparently the prophets were calling for a reorganization. This sort of 'turmoil within' can do nothing but further split people's faith. It was is if the question was posed : to follow the kings and the priests, who have guided us and kept us safe? or follow the far-seeing prophets, who are more like us and honestly have our best interests at heart? As the next major historical division occurred this sort of argument would continue, and thus the Jewish people were left to practice their religion in whatever way they felt best : multiple groups of people with varying faith in the many forms of Judaism as it existed toward the end of the Divided Monarchy. Hasmonean / Maccabean and Roman Era This time period in Jewish history is politically tumultuous, leading to high levels of splits and variations in the religion itself. One of the most disruptive types of all wars is a civil war. And this is exactly what occurs at the outset in the Jewish homeland of Jerusalem. The Jewish civil war was against the extreme Hellenizers (people who tended toward utter reason in their beliefs) and the moderate Hellenizers (people who can see things rationally, but believe there are more items to consider than this -- ex. the Maccabean family, who became the Hasmonean kings). So right away, it is apparent that the ideas that the Greeks introduced into Jewish culture have acted as time-bombs of social memes, and have created a major split in the religion. When the violence of the war has subsided, the moderate Hellenizers have won ("everything in moderation!") and rule for a short time, until the Roman empire attacks and throws even more kinks into the Jewish society. When the Romans take over, the Hasmonean kings are left in place as 'puppet kings,' which ultimately forces the general population to question their governing body. When the Romans destroy the temple in Jerusalem, it is made painfully clear that some changes are going to be made. Most obvious, the priests suddenly have no major role in the religion. Their primary purpose had been to tend to the sacrificing of animals, and since it is illegal to sacrifice an animal outside the temple, the priests were in an unsettling position. As can be seen in countless other examples, politics and religion are invariably tied, and people began practicing their own flavors of Judaism after their civilization had been so radically altered. At this point in history, there is really no solid rule to prevent such splits, and for a time a mixed form of Judaism with many varieties flourishes. No one was sure what to do once the heart of Judaism (the temple) had been destroyed, but it soon became apparent that an appealing option was arising. Two major social groups of the time period were vying for power. The first group, the Saducees were associated with the displaced Hasmonean kings. The second group, the Pharisees, had an idea that would help work around the tragic destruction of the temple. People were split, once again. They could stay with the traditional Saducees (who had the political power, believed in only written Torah, and did not subscribe to resurrection -- basically a conservative view), or they could side with the newcomers, the Pharisees (who had religious power, believed in both the written and the oral Torah, and believed in resurrection) and hope to preserve their Jewish heritage by worshiping outside of the temple, in their everyday life. It was not a hard decision, and the Pharisees eventually gained power, leading the Jewish religion into its next phase of Rabbinic Judaism. It is apparent that in each of the three time periods discussed above that many factions of the same religion were active. Competing philosophies, outside political forces, and geographic isolation are among the most obvious of the dividing forces. However many other influences 'pound' each and every day on a given social institution, subtly forming it and changing it into something it was not. For this reason, the answer to the debate whether Judaism is a single, or multiple religion(s) is an obvious one, depending upon how you choose to look at it. Every religion has many pieces, but as long as there are a few constants (such as the birthplace, the language, literature, etc) it is possible to view the whole as a single force, and still acknowledge varia f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\judaism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ religion? Judaism or Judaisms? It has been argued that Judaism can be seen not only as a single religion, but as a group of similar religions. It has also been pointed-out that through all the trials and tribulations that Judaism has suffered through, that there have been common themes that have proven omni-pervasive. Any institution with roots as ancient and varied as the religion of the Jews is bound to have a few variations, especially when most of its history takes place in the political and theological hot spot of the Middle East. In this discussion, many facets of Judaism will be examined, primarily in the three temporal subdivisions labeled the Tribal / Pre-Monarchy Period, the Divided Monarchy, and the Hasmonean / Maccabean and Roman Era. Among all the time periods where the religion has been split, these three seem to be the most representative of the forces responsible. As for a common thread seen throughout all Judiasms, the area of focus here is the place associated with the religion : Jerusalem. This topic will be covered in detail first, and then the multiple Judaism arguments will be presented. In this way, it is possible to keep a common focus in mind when reading about all the other situations in which the religion has found itself. A brief conclusion follows the discussion. A Place to Call Home No other religion has ever been so attached to its birthplace as Judaism. Perhaps this is because Jews have been exiled and restricted from this place for most of their history. Jerusalem is not only home to Judaism, but to the Muslim and Christian religions as well. Historically this has made it quite a busy place for the various groups. Jerusalem is where the temple of the Jews once stood; the only place on the whole Earth where one could leave the confines of day to day life and get closer to God. In 586 BCE when the temple was destroyed, no Jew would have denied Jerusalem as being the geographic center of the religion. From that point on, the Jewish people have migrated around the world, but not one of them forgets the fact that Jerusalem is where it all began. It is truly a sacred place, and helps to define what Judaism means to many people; a common thread to run through all the various splinters of the religion and help hold them together. Even today, as the Jewish people have their precious Jerusalem back (through the help of other nations and their politics) there is great conflict and emotion surrounding it. Other nations and people in the area feel that they should be in control of the renowned city, and the Jews deny fervently any attempt to wrestle it from their occupation. It is true that there is no temple in Jeruslaem today, nor are all the Jews in the world rushing to get back there. But it is apparent that the city represents more to the religion of Judaism than a mere place to live and work. The city of Jerusalem is a spiritual epicenter, and throughout Judaism's long and varied history, this single fact has never changed. Tribal / Pre-Monarchy Judaism's roots lie far back in the beginnings of recorded history. The religion did not spring into existence exactly as it is known today, rather it was pushed and prodded by various environmental factors along the way. One of the first major influences on the religion was the Canaanite nation. Various theories exist as to how and when the people that would later be called Jews entered into this civilization. But regardless of how they ultimately got there, these pioneers of the new faith were subjected to many of the ideas and prejudices of the time. Any new society that finds itself in an existing social situation, can do no more than to try and integrate into that framework. And this is exactly what the Jews did. Early Judaism worshipped multiple gods. One of these gods was known as Ba'al, and was generally thought-of as a 'statue god' with certain limitations on his power. The other primary deity was called YHWH (or Yahweh) and enjoyed a much more mysterious and illusive reputation. He was very numinous, and one was to have great respect, but great fear for him at the same time. Ba'al was not ever really feared, as his cycles (metaphorically seen as the seasons) were fairly well known, and not at all fear-inducing. The fact that the early Jews and Canaanites had these two radically different representations of a deity active in their culture, basically assured that there would be splits in the faith. One group inevitably would focus on one of the gods, and another would focus on another. In this way, the single religion could support multiple types of worship, leading to multiple philosophies and patterns of behavior, which could then focus more and more on their respective niche, widening the gap into a clear cut distinction between religious groups. This early time period was generally quite temporary and non-centralized, stemming from the fact that technology was at a very low level, and people's lifespan was fairly short. These conditions led to a rapid rate of turnover in religious thought, and left many factions of people to their own devices. Widespread geographic distribution coupled with poor communication certainly did not help in holding the many faiths together. The Tribal Period in Jewish history is one of the more splintered eras in the religion, but since these people were all living in the area near Jerusalem, the common thread can be seen clearly through the other less-defined elements of the religion. Divided Monarchy By its very name, it is apparent that this period of history is host to a great deal of divergence in the Jewish religion. As Solomon was king, people began to grow more and more restless. Some objected to worshiping a human king, while others balked at the oppression of the poor that was going on. Political unrest in this period led to a decisive split in geographic territory, and thus a split in religious views. A group of people left the area of Judah and traveled North to found Israel, where they could be free to practice their own political flavors, and their own religious flavors as well. This sort of behavior has come to be seen as common of oppressed people, and the result is almost always a great deviation in the ways of the 'old world'. A perfect example of this comes when examining the point in American history where independence was declared from England. Now, mere centuries later, America is as different in its politics, religions, and social forces from England as one could imagine. This was most likely the result when Israel was founded, far back in Biblical history. Communication between the two cities was sparse. The priests and prophets were undoubtedly addressing items pertinent to one group, but not neccesarily the other. The influence of foreign traders to each of the two places, as well as the political attitudes of each all would have had enormous impact on a newly-spawned religion. Thus, it can easily be seen that the religion was split into (at least) two major divisions during this time period. Toward the end of the Divided Monarchy, it seems that the prophets began calling for major changes in the basic foundation of the early Jews' lives. The kings and priests had no major disputes with the status quo, but apparently the prophets were calling for a reorganization. This sort of 'turmoil within' can do nothing but further split people's faith. It was is if the question was posed : to follow the kings and the priests, who have guided us and kept us safe? or follow the far-seeing prophets, who are more like us and honestly have our best interests at heart? As the next major historical division occurred this sort of argument would continue, and thus the Jewish people were left to practice their religion in whatever way they felt best : multiple groups of people with varying faith in the many forms of Judaism as it existed toward the end of the Divided Monarchy. Hasmonean / Maccabean and Roman Era This time period in Jewish history is politically tumultuous, leading to high levels of splits and variations in the religion itself. One of the most disruptive types of all wars is a civil war. And this is exactly what occurs at the outset in the Jewish homeland of Jerusalem. The Jewish civil war was against the extreme Hellenizers (people who tended toward utter reason in their beliefs) and the moderate Hellenizers (people who can see things rationally, but believe there are more items to consider than this -- ex. the Maccabean family, who became the Hasmonean kings). So right away, it is apparent that the ideas that the Greeks introduced into Jewish culture have acted as time-bombs of social memes, and have created a major split in the religion. When the violence of the war has subsided, the moderate Hellenizers have won ("everything in moderation!") and rule for a short time, until the Roman empire attacks and throws even more kinks into the Jewish society. When the Romans take over, the Hasmonean kings are left in place as 'puppet kings,' which ultimately forces the general population to question their governing body. When the Romans destroy the temple in Jerusalem, it is made painfully clear that some changes are going to be made. Most obvious, the priests suddenly have no major role in the religion. Their primary purpose had been to tend to the sacrificing of animals, and since it is illegal to sacrifice an animal outside the temple, the priests were in an unsettling position. As can be seen in countless other examples, politics and religion are invariably tied, and people began practicing their own flavors of Judaism after their civilization had been so radically altered. At this point in history, there is really no solid rule to prevent such splits, and for a time a mixed form of Judaism with many varieties flourishes. No one was sure what to do once the heart of Judaism (the temple) had been destroyed, but it soon became apparent that an appealing option was arising. Two major social groups of the time period were vying for power. The first group, the Saducees were associated with the displaced Hasmonean kings. The second group, the Pharisees, had an idea that would help work around the tragic destruction of the temple. People were split, once again. They could stay with the traditional Saducees (who had the political power, believed in only written Torah, and did not subscribe to resurrection -- basically a conservative view), or they could side with the newcomers, the Pharisees (who had religious power, believed in both the written and the oral Torah, and believed in resurrection) and hope to preserve their Jewish heritage by worshiping outside of the temple, in their everyday life. It was not a hard decision, and the Pharisees eventually gained power, leading the Jewish religion into its next phase of Rabbinic Judaism. It is apparent that in each of the three time periods discussed above that many factions of the same religion were active. Competing philosophies, outside political forces, and geographic isolation are among the most obvious of the dividing forces. However many other influences 'pound' each and every day on a given social institution, subtly forming it and changing it into something it was not. For this reason, the answer to the debate whether Judaism is a single, or multiple religion(s) is an obvious one, depending upon how you choose to look at it. Every religion has many pieces, but as long as there are a few constants (such as the birthplace, the language, literature, etc) it is possible to view the whole as a single force, and still acknowledge varia f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Judaism1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Judaism The religions of Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism all have there own beliefs. These beliefs play a big role in a person's everyday life, and influence aspects of their culture such as holidays, diet, social structure, art, and music. In Judaism, they believe that the Sabbath day should be kept holy, and that you should follow the Ten Commandments, the laws of G-d. Their diets consist of kosher food, and have there own New Year, Rosh Hashanah. Hindus believe in Brahman and Karma, which are both a part of the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. They're vegetarians, and have a fairly complex social structure called the caste system. Buddhists believe in Buddha's teachings of the Four Noble Truths. These lead to there belief in following the Eightfold Path in order to reach nirvana. Their art consists of statues of the Buddha, each part having its own meaning. Their music was for the temple and they had their own special way of singing. Two basic beliefs in the religion of Judaism are that the Sabbath is holy, and that you should follow the Ten Commandments. Sabbath, or Shabbat in Hebrew means "cease" or "desist." It takes place from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday, and you are prohibited from doing any work, unless it severely effects your life or health. The mistress of the house lights two white candles and says a blessing. An Omeg is held after Friday night or Saturday afternoon services, where there's usually refreshments, songs, and lectures. It took G-d six days to create the world, and on the seventh day he rested. When G-d gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, he asked that the people also rest on the seventh day of the week. The Ten Commandments are the laws of G-d given to Moses at Mount Sinai. They state that: (1) You shall have no other g-ds before me, (2) I am the only g-d, (3) You shall not take the Lord's name in vain, (4) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, (5) Honor your Father and Mother, (6) You shall not kill, (7) You shall not commit adultery, (8) You shall not steal, (9) You shall not bare false witness against your neighbor, and (10) You shall not covet (be jealous of) your neighbor. The first four are covenants between you and G-d, and the last six are between you and other people. The Ten Commandments were written on two stone tablets by G-d, and are in the Old Testament of the Bible. It is believed that Moses, in fury of the sight of people disobeying G-d, threw down and destroyed them. No one knows where the tablets remain today. Jewish people eat kosher food, and celebrate the holiday of Rosh Hashanah. Kosher, meaning "fit or proper" is used to refer to food in accordance to Jewish dietary laws. The animals must chew their cud and have cloven hooves. Fish must have distinct scales and fins (no shellfish). The food must not be derived from animals, birds, or fish prohibited in Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14, meat must be slaughtered by the method of shehitah, the meat must be salted and soaked to get rid of all blood, and milk will not be mixed with meat. A special way of preparing and slaughtering the meat (shehitah) also applies. First, a certified (by a rabbi) shohet says a prayer over the animal. Using an extremely sharp, nick-free knife, a swift sweep is made across the throat, making the animal unconscious. All blood is then drained from the animal. Many Jewish people keep a kosher home every day and on holidays like Rosh Hashanah. This is the Jewish New Year, and means, "head of the year" in Hebrew. It is also sometimes referred to as Yom Ha-Zikkaron ("the day of remembrance"), or Yom Teruah ("the day of the sounding of the shofar"). It takes place on the first and second of Tishrei (Jewish calendar), and is one of the most holy days of the year. It's celebrating the creation of the world, and some traditions are the blowing of the shofar and dipping apples into honey. The shofar, or ram's horn, is sounded after service, and its notes call for a spiritual awakening. Dipping apples (or bread) into honey is to remind us to have a sweet new year. This is a time for self-evaluation, and to look back on the mistakes you've made in the past year. It is the first of ten days of penitence, and you make up for mistakes that you've made, and confess sins. It ends with the holiday of Yom Kippur, the last day you are judged. In Hinduism, they believe in Brahman, Karma, and do not eat meat. Brahman is the Supreme Hindu G-d. All other g-ds and goddesses are aspects of Brahman. In fact, everything in the world is part of Brahman. He destroys, recreates, maintains and creates in samsara, which is the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth again. It is a Hindu's main goal in life to reach Brahman, and by following one's dharma (rules and regulations one must follow starting at birth), one's soul may eventually be united with him. By following your dharma, you may also have a good next life and be reborn into a higher social class. The total bad and good deed a human soul carries from one life to the next is karma. The number of good and bad deeds you do also affects your next life, whether you're human/animal, rich/poor, happy/sad, and things you may experience in this next life. They believe that even though your body dies, your soul is taken into a new body. Hindus' diets consist of only vegetation, because they believe that a person in one life could be an animal in another. Therefore, if you killed an animal, it would be like murdering a human. So you would be robbing them of the chance to ever reach their goal in life (reaching Brahman). That is why they treat animals and people as equals. Hindu social structure is broken into special groups based on birth (you'd belong to your parent's group), called castes. The castes, or varnas, were organized from highest to lowest in the following order: priests/Brahmans, warriors, landowners/ merchants/ herders, servants/ peasants, and the untouchables. Each had its' own set of rules regarding cooking, diet, marriage, home, clothing, employment, contact, and much more. For example, you could only marry members of the same class, and a higher Varna could not come into contact with a person of a lower Varna. The highest caste was considered spiritually clean, so when they came in contact with the lower, they were no longer considered pure. This is also why Brahmans/ priests had to be the cooks. Each caste had different jobs that were determined at birth. In 1947, Gandhi rejected the caste system, when India became independent. Beliefs of the religion of Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. The four parts to the Four Noble Truths are: (1) Life is suffering (Dukka). This recognizes that there is always suffering in life, may it be aging, death, sickness, grief, or separation from loved ones. (2) Desire causes suffering (Samudaya), because when you crave things, you become greedy, and can't always get what you want. (3) Suffering can be ended (Nirodha), because once you stop craving things, you stop suffering. (4) Following the Eightfold Path leads to rejection of desire/suffering (Magga), and reaching nirvana, which is perfect peace. The Eightfold Path says that you have right: view and thought which is the quality of wisdom (panna); speech, action, and livelihood which is the quality of morality (sila); and effort, mindfulness, and concentration which is the quality of meditation (samadhi). All are important in order to reach nirvana. In art, the Buddha is very special, and each part of it has a meaning. His hands are always in one of several positions (mudras). When his hand is on his knee (bhumisparsha), he is calling early beings to be witnesses for his Enlightenment. His hand in his lap represents the physical world. An open hand (abhaya) means blessing and protection, and when the pointer-finger is up, he is favor granting a position. Hands folded in his lap mean he is teaching. His "hair/brain" is representing his superior knowledge, and is in a top not, or wisdom bun (ushnisa). This was typical for a wandering ascetic. His long earlobes remind us of when the prince wore elaborate earrings, and his robe for when he gave up his property in search of Enlightenment. We recognize him for his long, straight toes, and sitting position (dyanasana). Buddhist's temple music is particularly renowned in the west for its two forms of polyphonic singing known as jok-kay (low tone) and bar-da (high tone). In both forms, each of the main chantmasters simultaneously intones three notes (each individually creating a complete chord). They are the only people on Earth that have this vocal ability. This tradition is also known as "overtone singing" because it is accomplished by means of learning to control the muscles of the vocal cavity and then re-shaping it while singing, thus intensifying the natural overtones of the voice. The body is therefore transformed into an effective overtone amplifier. All of these beliefs are important to each religion in there own way. They're what make each religion individual and special. They've affected our cultures today greatly in various topics. The Sabbath, Ten Commandments, Rosh Hashanah, and kosher food are all part of Judaism. Hindus believe in Brahman, Karma, and they are vegetarians and are organized into a system of castes. Buddhist statues, music, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path are all part of the religion of Buddhism. These things make up their religions. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Justice in the World.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ When the question is asked "Can we live in a just world?" In effect it is asking us a variety of things. "Can there be justice for all?" and "Can there be equality for all people?". The answer to this question is no. Unfortunately we live in a world where justice has never really transpired. The first justice that I would like to speak about is personal justice. Blessed are those reared in a household innocence of the deadly sin of envy. Their lives will be tormented by a grinding resentment that they are not beautiful, or famous, or favored with gifts of fortune. They will not demand as a natural right or an entitlement of personal equality with everybody under the sun; nor maintain that their opinions are as good as anybody else's. They will not covet a neighbors' goods. And thus they may come to know peace of soul. The injustice of equality 10/15/93 The point of this statement is not to say that envy makes equality. When we wish for "personal equality" with people, we wish to deny what we really are and allow for superficialness. We become so obsessed with our possessions that we forget who we are and the beauty of our differences. Aristole said that "it is unjust to treat unequal things equally". All people are different, that is exactly what makes us human, so when we treat people entirely the same, we deny their identity. For example that does not mean that I should not treat all people with respect, but I feel that even that may differ depending on who you are and how I am related to you. For instance, I will not give a stranger the same amount of respect that I might give my mother or father. I feel that would be unfair, and ignorant. The stranger should have to earn my respect, just like my parents or friends. The teachings of Marx exemplified this very wrong that I am discussing. Marx believed (if I am not mistaken)that in order to bring about equality for all, first we must find the inequality between classes and get rid of it. When this deed is performed it would in essence place everybody on the same level. This would place all people in an equality of conditions, where all are in the same boat. The average person would be faced with the same problems as the next. This is the type of "just" society that I do not think should exist. It is absolutely unjust. I have no doubt that when we recognize the differences between people, without being envious of their talents and gifts, we may find things that we may learn from. By doing this we not only make life more bearable by eliminating ignorance, but learning to love differences Many of the problems today are caused because people fail to see the glory in variance. This is the problem of mis-education, or lack of it. Education is also part of justice. I believe that all people (however unrealistic that this may be) whether rich or poor should be placed with an equivalence of education. The dilemma I face when making this statement is that it is contradictory to almost all that I have previously stated. If people should not be on a personal state of justice, does that include education? I can not answer this. I imagine that all people should have the same opportunity to reach their peak or greatness, and also to stop the breading of ignorance and individualism. Individualism places the interests of the individual over the interests of the state or social group. The act of individualists infringe upon another persons right to live in a peaceful, loving environment, and with the basic rights that are deserved by human beings. I do not think that it is just for children to grow up in an atmosphere of violence and poverty, that is unjust. They should not be the target of starvation. These situations exist because people place their selfish needs before the needs of others. The Spiritual Justice , that may only be achieved by God, is the ideal Justice in the world. I believe it to be untouchable by humans. God's ultimate justice is not affected by how you look, how smart you are, your rank, class, or the amount of power that you have obtained. All that matters to God is the integrity of your heart. The justice that God gives is the only true justice that may be obtained. When obtained material possessions mean nothing to you, the only thing that matters is your love for others. I do not believe it possible under any standards that we may ever have a just world. It is against human nature. Justice is a theme only God may accomplish. In my opinion I believe that I try to be as fair, and just as possible to all people. I do not make it my business to intimidate or discriminate against anybody based on a prejudice. When with anybody I try to be as friendly and respectful as possible. The problem with being too friendly is that a lot of the time people will take advantage of you because of it. Indirectly however I might inflict harm upon a person by not getting involved. To cite an instance, if an wrong towards an individual is being performed, sometimes I feel that it is not my place to interfere. That is an injustice. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Justice.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Justice When the question is asked "Can we live in a just world?" In effect it is asking us a variety of things. "Can there be justice for all?" and "Can there be equality for all people?". The answer to this question is no. Unfortunately we live in a world where justice has never really transpired. The first justice that I would like to speak about is personal justice. Blessed are those reared in a household innocence of the deadly sin of envy. Their lives will be tormented by a grinding resentment that they are not beautiful, or famous, or favored with gifts of fortune. They will not demand as a natural right or an entitlement of personal equality with everybody under the sun; nor maintain that their opinions are as good as anybody else's. They will not covet a neighbors' goods. And thus they may come to know peace of soul. The injustice of equality 10/15/93 The point of this statement is not to say that envy makes equality. When we wish for "personal equality" with people, we wish to deny what we really are and allow for superficialness. We become so obsessed with our possessions that we forget who we are and the beauty of our differences. Aristole said that "it is unjust to treat unequal things equally". All people are different, that is exactly what makes us human, so when we treat people entirely the same, we deny their identity. For example that does not mean that I should not treat all people with respect, but I feel that even that may differ depending on who you are and how I am related to you. For instance, I will not give a stranger the same amount of respect that I might give my mother or father. I feel that would be unfair, and ignorant. The stranger should have to earn my respect, just like my parents or friends. The teachings of Marx exemplified this very wrong that I am discussing. Marx believed (if I am not mistaken)that in order to bring about equality for all, first we must find the inequality between classes and get rid of it. When this deed is performed it would in essence place everybody on the same level. This would place all people in an equality of conditions, where all are in the same boat. The average person would be faced with the same problems as the next. This is the type of "just" society that I do not think should exist. It is absolutely unjust. I have no doubt that when we recognize the differences between people, without being envious of their talents and gifts, we may find things that we may learn from. By doing this we not only make life more bearable by eliminating ignorance, but learning to love differences Many of the problems today are caused because people fail to see the glory in variance. This is the problem of mis-education, or lack of it. Education is also part of justice. I believe that all people (however unrealistic that this may be) whether rich or poor should be placed with an equivalence of education. The dilemma I face when making this statement is that it is contradictory to almost all that I have previously stated. If people should not be on a personal state of justice, does that include education? I can not answer this. I imagine that all people should have the same opportunity to reach their peak or greatness, and also to stop the breading of ignorance and individualism. Individualism places the interests of the individual over the interests of the state or social group. The act of individualists infringe upon another persons right to live in a peaceful, loving environment, and with the basic rights that are deserved by human beings. I do not think that it is just for children to grow up in an atmosphere of violence and poverty, that is unjust. They should not be the target of starvation. These situations exist because people place their selfish needs before the needs of others. The Spiritual Justice , that may only be achieved by God, is the ideal Justice in the world. I believe it to be untouchable by humans. God's ultimate justice is not affected by how you look, how smart you are, your rank, class, or the amount of power that you have obtained. All that matters to God is the integrity of your heart. The justice that God gives is the only true justice that may be obtained. When obtained material possessions mean nothing to you, the only thing that matters is your love for others. I do not believe it possible under any standards that we may ever have a just world. It is against human nature. Justice is a theme only God may accomplish. In my opinion I believe that I try to be as fair, and just as possible to all people. I do not make it my business to intimidate or discriminate against anybody based on a prejudice. When with anybody I try to be as friendly and respectful as possible. The problem with being too friendly is that a lot of the time people will take advantage of you because of it. Indirectly however I might inflict harm upon a person by not getting involved. To cite an instance, if an wrong towards an individual is being performed, sometimes I feel that it is not my place to interfere. That is an injustice. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Justification of Violence 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Justification of Violence Violence and the justification of it has been an issue for as long as the world has been in existence. There are many conflicting opinions on the subject, many in favor and many opposing the idea. I am personally split on the issue; I believe that in some cases, violence can be justified; however, I also believe that in others, it cannot be. In my opinion, the only instance in which violence can be justified is self-defense. I believe that if an innocent person is attacked for some reason and their life is put in danger, they have the right to fight back to save themselves. How can a person let themselves be attacked and do nothing to help themselves survive? It's almost unreasonable to believe that. There are plenty of situations that fit this example. One of them is rape. If a woman is being attacked and sexually forced to do something she did not consent on doing, she has the right to fight back and prevent it from happening. Rape does not only involve sexual assault; there is much physical assault involved, also. Many women are held at gunpoint, knife, tied or beaten by their attackers, and this is not right. Any woman under these circumstances should fight back and do what they have to do to save themselves before it's too late. Other situations which call for justifiable violence, in my opinion, are robbery at gunpoint and any other type of unprovoked violence. Other than self-defense, I do not believe violence should be tolerated at any cost. Hitting children when they do something "wrong" is not justifiable. I believe that if a child does something their parents don't want them to do, they should be taught not to do it anymore simply because their parents don't want them to do it. But, I believe that when you hit a child when they do something wrong, they don't repeat the action because they're afraid of the consequences, rather than understanding why they shouldn't do it again. It gives the wrong impression on the child and teaches them that violence is okay if you're trying to teach someone a lesson, so they carry this over into their lives when they get older, and the chain of violence is never broken. War, in general, I believe, is ineffective. I think that it totally uses the wrong reasons for countries to agree to compromise. It's amazing that before war, countries are totally against one another, yet after blowing away half of each other's population, they're willing to talk. It makes you think. I think that if countries would talk out their problems in a more peaceful manner, they would much easier come up with plans that would include both of their needs and desires. I think the world uses war in the wrong way; they're in wars to show their own power and prove themselves to the world. War is not only bad because of those reasons. It is also negative because innocent men and women from the involved countries are killed. Even if they couldn't care less about what was going on, they are drafted to fight for their country. And many of them die, which is really depressing, because they didn't want to be there in the first place. The government declares war, yet the citizens suffer their decision. Why don't the Congressmen strap on some uniforms and get out on the field and fight? If they're the ones making the decision to fight, they should be subject to the same consequences we are. They are determining the fate of millions of people, yet keeping themselves safe. It's unfair. Though I think that war isn't justifiable, I still hold to my belief that if we must fight in our self-defense, then we should. However, I don't believe we should ever provoke another country to start a war, nor should we declare war on another country unless they have already started attacking and killing our people. Two acts of violence that I have a split opinion on are both the death penalty and abortion. I don't believe that both are either totally wrong or totally right. I think the death penalty is a good concept, because I think it might scare some people away from committing any crime that would require its use. However, I don't think it's very effective because it doesn't really teach the person a lesson; they never have a chance to change. I think a life-long jail term would be much more effective, because the person would be forced to live in a bad environment and suffer and realize that what they did was wrong, and this is how they have to pay for it. Death doesn't really teach them anything. I don't support abortions, but I do understand that in some cases it is better to not have the child than have it and let it grow up in bad conditions. Most teens who get pregnant consider abortions because they are too young, too irresponsible, and don't have the time or money to raise a child. And most of all, they don't want the child. If they were to have the child and raise it themselves, it wouldn't grow up in very good care. The mother wouldn't necessarily put her child first, and it would probably end up getting raised by grandparents. I think having the child and giving it up for adoption is better than abortion in most cases. It avoids the violence of abortions and gives the child a chance to live in the world. Overall, I do not condone violence. However, I do believe that it is justifiable in some very few cases, mainly, self-defense. All other times, I feel it is unnecessary and differences can be worked out in other ways. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Justification of Violence.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Justification of Violence Violence and the justification of it has been an issue for as long as the world has been in existence. There are many conflicting opinions on the subject, many in favor and many opposing the idea. I am personally split on the issue; I believe that in some cases, violence can be justified; however, I also believe that in others, it cannot be. In my opinion, the only instance in which violence can be justified is self-defense. I believe that if an innocent person is attacked for some reason and their life is put in danger, they have the right to fight back to save themselves. How can a person let themselves be attacked and do nothing to help themselves survive? It's almost unreasonable to believe that. There are plenty of situations that fit this example. One of them is rape. If a woman is being attacked and sexually forced to do something she did not consent on doing, she has the right to fight back and prevent it from happening. Rape does not only involve sexual assault; there is much physical assault involved, also. Many women are held at gunpoint, knife, tied or beaten by their attackers, and this is not right. Any woman under these circumstances should fight back and do what they have to do to save themselves before it's too late. Other situations which call for justifiable violence, in my opinion, are robbery at gunpoint and any other type of unprovoked violence. Other than self-defense, I do not believe violence should be tolerated at any cost. Hitting children when they do something "wrong" is not justifiable. I believe that if a child does something their parents don't want them to do, they should be taught not to do it anymore simply because their parents don't want them to do it. But, I believe that when you hit a child when they do something wrong, they don't repeat the action because they're afraid of the consequences, rather than understanding why they shouldn't do it again. It gives the wrong impression on the child and teaches them that violence is okay if you're trying to teach someone a lesson, so they carry this over into their lives when they get older, and the chain of violence is never broken. War, in general, I believe, is ineffective. I think that it totally uses the wrong reasons for countries to agree to compromise. It's amazing that before war, countries are totally against one another, yet after blowing away half of each other's population, they're willing to talk. It makes you think. I think that if countries would talk out their problems in a more peaceful manner, they would much easier come up with plans that would include both of their needs and desires. I think the world uses war in the wrong way; they're in wars to show their own power and prove themselves to the world. War is not only bad because of those reasons. It is also negative because innocent men and women from the involved countries are killed. Even if they couldn't care less about what was going on, they are drafted to fight for their country. And many of them die, which is really depressing, because they didn't want to be there in the first place. The government declares war, yet the citizens suffer their decision. Why don't the Congressmen strap on some uniforms and get out on the field and fight? If they're the ones making the decision to fight, they should be subject to the same consequences we are. They are determining the fate of millions of people, yet keeping themselves safe. It's unfair. Though I think that war isn't justifiable, I still hold to my belief that if we must fight in our self-defense, then we should. However, I don't believe we should ever provoke another country to start a war, nor should we declare war on another country unless they have already started attacking and killing our people. Two acts of violence that I have a split opinion on are both the death penalty and abortion. I don't believe that both are either totally wrong or totally right. I think the death penalty is a good concept, because I think it might scare some people away from committing any crime that would require its use. However, I don't think it's very effective because it doesn't really teach the person a lesson; they never have a chance to change. I think a life-long jail term would be much more effective, because the person would be forced to live in a bad environment and suffer and realize that what they did was wrong, and this is how they have to pay for it. Death doesn't really teach them anything. I don't support abortions, but I do understand that in some cases it is better to not have the child than have it and let it grow up in bad conditions. Most teens who get pregnant consider abortions because they are too young, too irresponsible, and don't have the time or money to raise a child. And most of all, they don't want the child. If they were to have the child and raise it themselves, it wouldn't grow up in very good care. The mother wouldn't necessarily put her child first, and it would probably end up getting raised by grandparents. I think having the child and giving it up for adoption is better than abortion in most cases. It avoids the violence of abortions and gives the child a chance to live in the world. Overall, I do not condone violence. However, I do believe that it is justifiable in some very few cases, mainly, self-defense. All other times, I feel it is unnecessary and differences can be worked out in other ways. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Kadelphianism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kadelphianism Psychologists often refer to the period of life known as adolescence as one of the most difficult stages of development that an individual will endure. It has been stated that adolescence is the time when an individual forms his/her own sense of identity. A sense of identity is defined as "an organized sense of how our own personality traits, values, and beliefs fit together in defining who we are." Therefor, the development of a sense of identity is, in fact, the basis for a stable adult personality. Certain responsibilities accompany this development of an identity, such as the commitments "to oneself, to one's family, to significant others, and to the various subgroups in society of which one is a member." One's sense of identity is chronically jeopardized by the difficulty in holding to these commitments; one important attribute in the retention of these commitments involves a belief and faith in a given religion. This religion yields a basis for all decisions that must be made in adolescent life; it forms the moral and ethical skeleton of an individual, and affects all choices that are made and all actions that are taken. The students here at Texas Christian University are faced with difficult choices each and every day, and are in dire need of a source of higher direction. It is my opinion that a belief in the religion known as "Kadelphianism" serves as a firm basis for self commitment, peer commitment, and social commitment, and provides an excellent example of the correct way to lead one's life. The religion known as Kadelphianism differs from many conventional religions due to the fact that it does not actually affect a student until he/she makes the decision to attend Texas Christian University. Upon making this decision, each student will immediately begin his transition into the Kadelphian way. The mythology behind Kadelphianism is quite simple; it is this simplicity and basic severity of its ideals that makes the religion so successful. From it's earliest origination in the nineteenth century, Kadelphianism has exemplified human kindness, friendship, and peer unity. The earliest Kadelphians formed the religion as a means of uniting the students at T.C.U. The founding fathers, Robert Tucker Fitzgerald and Edward Pierce Turner, began the organization based on the belief that Kadelphianism is more than a ritual or a symbol; they believed it was a way of life. The basic principle formed by the founders was that of friendship and unity of the students; through this friendship and unity, an individual is able to develop his/her own sense of identity and responsibility. The founders believed in unselfish service to mankind, and they felt that personal leadership requires confidence tempered with humility and tolerance. The rituals of Kadelphianism are also quite simple and pure in nature. With Frog Fountain serving as a center for all activity, the Kadelphian students meet on a bi-weekly basis; during these meetings there is an opening prayer session, a candle lighting ceremony, and an open discussion or forum involving all of the students present. The members discuss private and public issues which they attempt to resolve through peer support and interaction. After the forum is complete, the candles are blown out simultaneously, and a closing prayer is recited. During the ritual ceremony, all Kadelphians wear a small pin bearing the symbol of Kadelphianism: a diamond shaped badge with the inscribed letters TCU and a pair of hands clasped in friendship. The hierarchy of the Kadelphians is based on the leadership and dedication set forth by its members. The Grand Kadelphian, or leader of the students, is chosen by majority opinion; the other leading Kadelphians are chosen by the Grand Kadelphian based on merit, scholarship, and service to fellow students. It is considered an honor to be chosen by one's peers for any of the above-mentioned leadership roles, however, every Kadelphian is believed to be equal and comparable in the religion. The main text, or manual of the Kadelphians is a small book bearing the diamond shaped symbol of Kadlephianism, and is known as the Sorgan. It contains the basic beliefs and teachings of Kadelphianism, and provides the students with the true way to lead their daily life; the Sorgan also highlights the way all students can support each other and forms a basis for the development of friendship and unity so important to the Kadelphian way. The most representational figures known to the Kadelphians do not come in the form of gods and goddesses so common to other religions. They are, instead, mere human beings who, upon the founding of Kadelphianism, exemplified the beliefs and values set forth by the founding fathers. The first, known only as Andrew, proved to be the finest example of courage and honesty; today he is viewed as a superior example of the way a Kadelphian should behave. Secondly, the woman known only as Sophronia, serves as an example of the patient and accepting manner that is synonymous with Kadelphianism. Finally, the woman known as Octavia, provides a model of the qualities of loyalty and friendship that radiate from every Kadelphian. The figures do not serve as gods or goddesses to be worshipped; they instead serve as role models by which the Kadelphians look to for an example on how to fashion their own lives. It is painfully obvious that the basic principles set forth in Kadelphianism are rare, or in some cases, completely non-existent throughout the universities of this nation. Crime rates are at an all time high, drop out rates are extraordinary, and there is an overall absence of direction and identity in the students across the world. Perhaps, with the examples set forth here at Texas Christian University by the Kadelphians, we truly can make a difference in the moral and ethical beliefs of the young people of the world. Adolescence is an extremely troubling period of life; without the development of a true sense of identity, adulthood will prove to be no easier. It is absolutely necessary to have a firm religious belief that will aid an adolescent in the choices he/she makes, and the actions he/she takes; I believe that Kadelphianism is the first step in this pursuit of friendship, unity, and responsibility that inevitably leads to success here at TCU and in the world beyond. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Kahlil Gibran.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kahlil Gibran Information on the Author Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931), a poet, philosopher, and an artist was born in Lebanon, a land which has produced many prophets. The millions of Arabic speaking people, familiar with his writing consider him a genius of his age. However, his fame and influence was not limited to the Near East only, but far beyond these borders. His poetry has been translated into more than twenty languages. His drawings and paintings have been exhibited in the great capitals of the world and compared by Auguste Rodin to the work of William Blake. In the United States, which he made his home for the last twenty years of his life., he began to write in English. The Prophet and his other books of poetry, illustrated with his mystical drawings are known and loved by innumerable Americans who find them an expression of the deepest impulses of manÿs heart and mind. Introduction This book is one of Kahlil Gibrans masterpieces and has become a beloved classic of this era. This book contains poetry about a prophet-called Al- Mustafa- who tells people about different subjects which are all related to subjects in everyday life; for example love, hate etc.. The book also contains a series of illustrations created by the author himself. The book is based slightly on fiction, but the topics discussed in the poetry are all very realistic. If a person read the poetry today it would still be relative to the things happening around us. The poetry is in composition form, and a major part of the book contains dialogue. Summary In the first Chapter the location and story line is shown. A prophet; by the name of Al-Mustafa, has been stranded in the city of Orphalese for twelve years, and has been awaiting the arrival of his ship. During this time in Orphalese this Prophet has become accustomed to the cultures and traditions of the land. The native accepted him as one of their own, and he was no longer a stranger. Thus it was quite painful for him to think of leaving Oorphalese, however he had to go to his homeland in any circumstances. When it was time for him to leave the people of Orpahalese asked him to stay, but he couldnÿt stop. Then a wise woman called Altmira, came up with a solution. She did not ask him to stay but asked him to give them the knowledge that he has obtained and been revealed to him by God. Thus he tells them how to handle everyday situations and what is right and wrong about such things. Among the twenty-six subjects (each given a chapter) that are written about; a few of them are Love, Marriage, Laws, Freedom, Time and Death. The form of expression used in the book can be explained with the help of a few examples: About love Gibran says, "When love beckons you, follow him, Though his ways are hard and steep. And when his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound youÿ." (From the chapter "Love") About Laws he says, "You delight in laying down laws, Yet you delight more in bAAbout Laws he says, "You delight in laying down laws, Yet you delight more in breaking them. Like children playing by the ocean who build sand-towers with constancy and then destroy them with laughterÿ." From the chapter "Laws" About Death he says, "You would know the secret of death. But how should you find it unless you seek it in the heart of life? The owl whose night-bound eyes are blind unto the day cannot unveil the mystery of lightÿ." (From the chapter "Death") From the above examples it is clear that the author of the book is trying to get a message across. All the subjects discussed in the book are about everyday lifAAbout Laws he says, "You delight in laying down laws, Yet you delight more in breaking them. Like children playing. The text gives some explanation to the facts of life a lot of advice to people on the subjects discussed. Main Characters The story line of the book is does not discuss certain individuals in any detail at all except "The Prophet". Instead people on the whole are discussed in each of the chapters. This is so beacause the topics include happenings in the life of all common people. In the case of Al-Mustafa (The name of the Prophet in this story), only his attachment to the land where he haad been stranded to for 12 years was discussed. His background was not shown, only that he was a Prophet. Another character who could be considered important is Altmira. She is a seer who persuaded Al-Mustafa to sty for a while and tell the people the truth of nature and all that was around them. "ÿthat you speak to . The text gives some explanation to the facts of life a lot of advice to people on the subjects disck. The poetry used is very good, and at the same time not too hard to understand. In most cases poetry which is considered good usually contains difficult word and hidden meaning. This can be interesting but in longer poems it gets dull. "The Prophet" contains a large amount of poetry but it never gets dull in any portion of the book. I would suggest this book to anyone, because it deals with reality and can be very useful because of the advice about everyday topics found in the book. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Law Gospel.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Law-Gospel Law in short- Old Testament, Gospel- New Testament. This is as far as how these two testaments teach us to live. Before Christ, the law governed us. It was our side of the covenant that Moses made with God for Israel. He would be our God, offer protection and provide while we would obey his instruction. The covenant is an interesting concept because it is not your every day, run of the mill "deal." Throughout the exodus we saw God's people failing to keep their side of the covenant yet God remained faithful. The same is true in today's New Testament word. Since we belong to Christ, in a sense we are in dept to Him, we should live our lives in His instruction so as to please Him. Try as we might to always live as we should, we fail. We fall into the trap of believing we know what we want out of life and what is beneficial for ourselves. Are we gods to make such a declaration? Contrary, we are the host for sin. For sin is our original nature from which Christ pulled us and so often finds us running to. The law creates a fence to help prevent us from crossing the line of sin and shows us our blemishes which our blind eyes cant see. There is sin, there is law, and there is a perfect God from whom we are cut off from because of the former. So what are we to do? Nothing... God has saved us with his Gospel.. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," Rom. 3:23,24 The Gospel of Christ death and resurrection is our salvation. "But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God." Rom. 5:8,9 We are no longer sinners separated from Christ. He has declared us "saints," His children. However, we still have the taste that original sinner who was in us, and we often will go our own way. Christ died for that and despite our rejections and imperfections... "You are mine" (Is 43) Says the Lord! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Law.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Law-Gospel Law in short- Old Testament, Gospel- New Testament. This is as far as how these two testaments teach us to live. Before Christ, the law governed us. It was our side of the covenant that Moses made with God for Israel. He would be our God, offer protection and provide while we would obey his instruction. The covenant is an interesting concept because it is not your every day, run of the mill "deal." Throughout the exodus we saw God's people failing to keep their side of the covenant yet God remained faithful. The same is true in today's New Testament word. Since we belong to Christ, in a sense we are in dept to Him, we should live our lives in His instruction so as to please Him. Try as we might to always live as we should, we fail. We fall into the trap of believing we know what we want out of life and what is beneficial for ourselves. Are we gods to make such a declaration? Contrary, we are the host for sin. For sin is our original nature from which Christ pulled us and so often finds us running to. The law creates a fence to help prevent us from crossing the line of sin and shows us our blemishes which our blind eyes cant see. There is sin, there is law, and there is a perfect God from whom we are cut off from because of the former. So what are we to do? Nothing... God has saved us with his Gospel.. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," Rom. 3:23,24 The Gospel of Christ death and resurrection is our salvation. "But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God." Rom. 5:8,9 We are no longer sinners separated from Christ. He has declared us "saints," His children. However, we still have the taste that original sinner who was in us, and we often will go our own way. Christ died for that and despite our rejections and imperfections... "You are mine" (Is 43) Says the Lord! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Legalization of Abortion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Legalization of Abortion On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court legalized abortion. When the it ruled that abortion was legal, the court not only gave women the right to choose but also gave the unborn babies a right to die. Since that day, millions upon millions of unborn children have been ripped apart, burned with saline solutions, and sucked from their mothers' wombs. With every abortion that occurs another inaudible scream from the unborn child is silenced and the rights of that child are taken away . If someone where to be asked if murder was wrong, the general answer would be yes. When that same person is asked if abortion is murder, the answer may be yes, but most likely the answer is no. Why do most people think that murder is wrong, but do not agree that abortion is murder? The reason for this contradiction is that most people believe that the unborn infant is not a human, but an organ or part of the woman's body, which would make the act of aborting the child just the same as removing an appendix. This problem of when life begins stems from the inconsistencies which come from the case of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court interrupted that by the ninth and fourteenth amendments that a woman has the right to an abortion. The court that day, however, did not rule when a life begins for a human. If society is to assume that a fetus is a human the second it leaves the uterus, then what is the unborn baby three minutes from birth , a monkey. When an unborn baby is aborted, society must realize that an organ was not taken out, but a living human being. This would make abortion wrong because according to law, no one has the right to take away anther's life. With many people considering the cases of unwanted pregnancy due to rape or incest to be acceptable, they must realize that the child is not the crime. Society's reason behind this is, why should the woman suffer from the pain and remembrance that the pregnancy brings. Even though cases of abortion due to rape and incest only make up one percent of the total number abortion performed, there is no reason why 15,000 unborn babies should be murdered annually. Why should the baby be condemned to death because of a crime that was committed by another person. If innocent people should be condemned to death because they are the result of the crime, then instead of imprisoning or putting death a convicted murder we should kill one of that prisoner's family members. If the woman does not want to have the baby they could either carry the unborn baby until full term and give the child up for adoption, or go within twenty four hours to a hospital and have the rapist's semen removed before conception. The last reason why abortion should be wrong is the use of it as genocide. With the growing technologies in the world today, society is able to see and hear their child inside the mother. Technology today also allows humans to find out if there is something wrong with the child or if the child is male or a female. Many times this advanced warning can help the parents cope with the trauma if something is wrong with their baby; however, many couples are opting to have the unborn babies aborted rather than keeping them. The couple's logic is that they were looking out for the child's well-being or that they did not want a girl but a boy. If they are trying to protect their child, why do they kill the unborn baby? God for some reason is giving them a child who is not normal and rather then parents thinking that the child is a blessing the parents see the child as a freak of nature. God will not have giving that child to them if He knew the parents could not handle the child. Parents are also using the same technology, in order to see if the child will be a certain gender. There is nothing wrong with this, but many parents after finding out the child does not have the gender the want abort it. Almost fifty years ago the world stopped a man named Hitler because he was committing genocide. The reason he was murdering millions of people was because he wanted a race of blond hair and blue humans to rule the world. If the Holocausts were consider wrong fifty years ago, why is not the genocide that is happening in the United States. Also the world would be a dull place if society was made up of one gender and people with a certain eye or hair color. Many different reasons are given why women have abortions in this country. Since the decision of Roe v. Wade, twenty-two million unborn children have died. With these children dead, so are their dreams and ideas that could have revolutionized the world. When the government allowed abortions to be legal, they also put themselves in the same category with men like Stalin and Hitler. The citizens of the United States need to wake up and see that the holocausts did not end in Germany but continue today on American soil. At one time blacks did not have rights because the were consider below white and not citizens. America needs to realize that unborn children are also citizens and have rights. Even though these babies can not be heard and are not able to contact their congressmen to suggest that a law against the murdering of them should be legalized, society should realizes they have a voice through their vote. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Life After Death.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Life After Death As the irritating, yet monotonous beeps of the life-monitor in the emergency room began to slowly die away, George struggled to hang on. It's not my time yet, he thought. Please, give me just one more day... The beeps soon became increasingly far in between, while the doctors frantically bustled on in a futile attempt to stabilize the dying man like a bunch of panicking bees trying to save their doomed hive from a pouring rain. The world turned hazy, then completely dark, as George felt himself slowly floating into the darkness. He flew and flew without end. Then there was the light - that infamous "light at the end of the tunnel." (Randles 2) It gave out a strange, comforting warmth that enveloped him, easing his fears and relieving all doubts. George somehow knew what to do - to just let go. He felt quite at home. Back on earth, the rhythmic, mechanical beeps suddenly turned into a solid, continuous high E, signaling the end. George was about to cross over. Being bathed in the strangely comforting light, he was soon greeted by his long- lost friends and relatives, beckoning for him to come, come join them. George wanted to stay. More than anything he cared for, George wanted to stay right here, basking in the light of love. But he felt something pull him back. Wait, not yet, he thought. It's not my time yet... The next moment, George was somehow reunited with his physical body, lying on that uncomfortable hospital bed, amidst the doctors sighing in relief, surrounded no longer by that soft glow, but again by that rhythmic beep, beep, beep... Is there a parallel between George's account of a near-death experience (NDE), and what really happens when we ourselves die? Is there indeed a part of us that conquers death and continues to live a different kind of existence where it has new powers and undergoes unfamiliar experiences? Is there really a heaven, or numerous heavens, full of blissful joys awaiting some of us and a hell, or countless hells, full of different punishments for others? Or is physical death, in fact, the end of life as we know it? Such questions about death and dying has intrigued humanity since the dawn of time. One area to which we might look for some answers to this puzzle is religion. Unlike science, dealing only with the material and tangible, traditional religion takes another view of our reality by recognizing the validity of metaphysical experiences. World's major religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity, as well as primal pagan ones, such as the Greek and Roman mythology, although quite different in basic fundamentals of belief, all attempt to give its followers an explanation of the world on the other side of life. In Greek and Roman mythology, Hades is the god of the dead. He was the son of the Titans Cronus and Rhea and the brother of Zeus and Poseidon. (Cumont 34) When the three brothers divided up the universe after they had deposed their father, Cronus, Hades was awarded the underworld. There, with his queen, Persephone, whom he had abducted from the world above, he ruled the kingdom of the dead. The underworld itself was often called Hades. It was divided into two regions: Erebus, where the dead pass as soon as they die, and Tartarus, the deeper region, where the Titans had been imprisoned. It was a dim and unhappy place, inhabited by vague forms and shadows and guarded by Cerberus, the three- headed, dragon-tailed dog. Sinister rivers separated the underworld from the world above, and the aged boatman Charon ferried the souls of the dead across these waters. Somewhere in the darkness of the underworld Hades' palace was located. It was represented as a many-gated, dark and gloomy place, thronged with guests, and set in the midst of shadowy fields and an apparition-haunted landscape. To Greeks and Romans, life after death was not a pleasant thing. Hades, a dark and gloomy place, was originally the apparent destination for all - the good and the bad. Perhaps with the unintended influence of the incipient contemporary Christianity, Hades was mollified into a much more organized place, giving rewards to the good and punishments to the wicked. One notable aspect of this mythology is that Greeks, much like most of the major religions today, believed in an eternal, undying self in each of us that conquers death and carries on another life after a physical death. Today, unlike the Greeks and Romans, Hindus do not believe in a set place where our undying selves end up after the inevitable physical death. Personal eschatology is concerned with the immediate fate of righteous and unrighteous souls following death, and the conditions governing each category of souls between death and the universal resurrection of humanity. General eschatology, on the other hand, considers the final destiny of the whole human race, especially the events of the last days, that is universal resurrection and final judgment. Hinduism, however, is only concerned with personal eschatology. (Ma'sumian 2) As with any aspect of Hinduism, the teachings of life after death must take into consideration the many different sectarian beliefs. (Smith 26) Different philosophies of Hinduism hold divergent views about what happens after death, but the twin doctrines of karma and samsara are at the center of the eschatological beliefs of most Hindus. According to the samsara (literally "the round of existence") doctrine, the present life of each person is shaped by the fruits of the acts he or she performed in previous lives. Karma can be defined as the law of automatic justice. For every action, there is a reward or retribution; all our present pleasures, pains, and sufferings are the direct result of our past actions. (Ma'sumian 4) As long as our karma results in sins and imperfections, we will continue to be reborn into other existences. More than likely, these successive rebirths will not be on the same plane of being - they may occur in any of a number of temporary heavens or hells, or on earth. Human rebirth is considered most significant because only in human form can we accumulate good karma. (Smith 27) Traditional Hindu literature such as the Puranas identify numerous temporary heavens and hells that are set aside for karmic retribution. Once the consequences of virtuous or evil deeds are exhausted, the soul is reborn as a human being on earth. The purpose of life is to break the vicious cycle of birth-death-rebirth and liberate one's soul, but very few of us can do this at any given time. (Ma'sumian 4) Once enough good karma is collected, the soul is then transmigrated to "the kingdom of inexhaustible light," as mentioned in Rig- Veda. (Ma'sumian 5) The Vedas are the entire body of Hindu sacred writings. (Ma'sumian 3) The Rig-Veda notes that the way to heaven is perilous and believers will have to face many dangers before getting there, including demons who are ready to devour them should they stray from the right path. To help the faithful in this dangerous journey, the Rig-Veda identifies a colorful god named Yama, who was the first man to die but is now the god of the dead and the ruler and judge of the departed. (Ma'sumian 5) It is the twin doctrines of samsara and karma that make the meaning of death and the afterlife in Hinduism very different from the views offered by most other religions. Another major world religion, Buddhism, is also from the East. Like Hinduism, the term Buddhism refers to a diverse array of beliefs and practices and implies a degree of uniformity that does not exist. (Noss 157) After originating in India, Buddhism soon spread to various parts of Asia and eventually reached the western hemisphere in the nineteenth century. Like Hinduism, Buddhism is only concerned with personal eschatology; there is no mention of a collective destiny for humankind. Because Buddhism is essentially a reform movement within Hinduism, Buddhists maintain beliefs in the twin doctrines of transmigration (Hindu samsara) and karma. According to these beliefs, each person is reborn countless times and lives through different types of existence. The quality of his current life is a reflection of present and past karma. Hence, if the individual now lives a comfortable life, this is the reward of good deeds performed in present and past lives. In contrast, those experiencing misery can only blame themselves for evil deeds they are committing or have committed in previous existences. Thus the individual is held totally responsible for the quality of the life he is now experiencing, and pointing the finger of blame at external forces such as a deity, demons, or fate is not acceptable. (Noss 164) Both Buddhists and Hinduists view the universe as a stage for countless rebirths of human beings in a spectrum from evil to goodness. Nonetheless, there are notable differences between the two interpretations of the transmigration, or reincarnation, doctrine. For instance, the Buddhist belief system rejects the Hindu notion of atman (the human soul), the undying self. (Ma'sumian 44) In fact, Buddhist definition of human existence leaves out any reference to a soul. The attributes of a person are carried on to the next life through one of the five elements (physical body, feelings, senses, volition, and consciousness) that make up a human entity: the consciousness. Passages from Buddhist literature acknowledge the survival and immortality of this part of the personality: The mind takes possession of everything not only on earth, but also in heaven, and immortality is its securest treasure-trove. (Buddhist Catena, Anathapindika- Jethavana) In another text, Buddha defines consciousness (Vijnana) as that entity which is "invisible, boundless, all-penetrating, and the ground for Rupa (former body), Vedana (sensation), Samjna (perception), and Samskara (will)." (Noss 164) The Buddhist element of consciousness or mind appears to replace the Hindu notion of atman as the only immortal substance in humans. As with its parent religion Hinduism, belief in the twin doctrines of transmigration and karma makes Buddhism very different from western religions. The main theme of Buddhism is that life is suffering, and the best way to eliminate suffering is to achieve detachment from the world and material possessions. However, most people continually fail to become detached, commit evil, and are thus condemned to successive rebirths. Unlike the two personal eschatological religions from the East, the New Testament of Christianity, which deals mainly with the subject of life and death, has little to say on what happens to individual souls after death. Instead, the major focus of the eschatology of many New Testament books is general. The final destiny of human kind and dramatic events such as the return of Christ in glory in the hereafter are major themes in the Synoptic Gospels (the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Here can be found a number of passages that refer to the return of Christ as an unexpected event preceding the final judgment. (Badham 85) While in some passages the Synoptic Gospels present God as the judge of the world, more often it is Christ who is expected to discharge the duties of the judge. For instance, in Matthew's scene of final judgment (25: 31-32) all the nations of the past and present are brought before Christ: "When the Son of man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Before Him will be gathered all the nations, and He will separate one from the other as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." (Badham 86) Christ will use the believers' earthly deeds as the main criterion for judgment. The lot of the righteous will be eternal life in the Kingdom of God while the evil-doer's fate is eternal punishment: "And they [the wicked] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt 25:46) For centuries, Matthew's vision of the after life, as well as similar prophecies from other authors of the Bible, including the Book of Revelation, inspired many Christian painters including Michelangelo, Giotto, and Moschos to create remarkable visual representations of the events of the last days. (Badham 146) In most of their pictures Jesus is glorified in radiant divine light, surrounded by angels. Such pictures over time became the accepted images of heaven, the final destiny for the righteous. On the other hand, in other pictures, terrifying devils continue to torture sinners, whose names are missing from the Book of Life. It is here that the wicked will burn and be tortured for eternity. The New Testament contains little specific information on the sate of the soul after death. However, like most of its doctrines, the personal eschatology of Christianity revolves around Jesus. Perhaps the major contribution of Christian eschatology is the significance it attaches to belief in the person of Jesus as humankind's only hope for salvation. (Badham 172) Our eternal bliss or damnation in the afterlife depends on whether we accept or reject Jesus as our personal savior. Later Christian teaching related Christ's redemptive role to the doctrine of "original sin," which states that, as descendants of the fallen Adam, the first man created by God, all men are sinful and deserve eternal punishment. However, in His loving kindness, God sent Jesus to atone for our sins by sacrificing His life for us and dying in our place. Those who choose to believe in this and accept Jesus as their only savior will enter paradise and experience eternal life. Those who reject Jesus are condemned to hell-fire and eternal damnation. Evidence of belief in an afterlife can be found since the beginning of recorded time in many cultures. Since then, religions have tried to give its followers an explanation of the world on the other side of life. Greeks and Romans believed in an afterlife where the god of the underworld, Hades, tormented all dead in his unearthly realm. Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation of individual beings, continued on by an undying self, a soul or his consciousness, and his karma. Christians believe in the coming of a savior of mankind, Jesus Christ, whose followers will go to eternal bliss and life, while whose rejecters will eternally burn in hell. Although very different in details of our future life, all of these spiritual guidance teach and advise its followers good actions and intentions in this life so that one may be rewarded a good life in the next world, whichever it may be. Likewise, the wicked shall be punished in the most undesired ways for eternity. Works Cited Badham, Paul. Christian Beliefs about Life after Death. London: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1976. Cumont, Franz Valery Marie. After Life in Roman Paganism; Lectures Delivered at Yale University on the Silinam Foundation. New York: Dover Publications, 1959. Mann, A. T. The Elements of Reincarnation. Rockport, MA: Element Books, Inc., 1995. Ma'sumian, Farnaz. Life After Death; a Study of the Afterlife in World Religions. Rockport, MA: Oneword, 1995. Meek, George W. After We Die, What Then?; Evidence You Will Live Forever. Columbus, Ohio: Ariel Press, 1987. Noss, D. S. and Noss, J. B. A History of the World's Religions. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990. Randles, Jenny. The Afterlife: an Investigation into the Mysteries of Life After Death. New York: Berkeley Books, 1994. Reanney, Darryl. After Death: a New Future for Human Consciousness. New York: W. Morrow, 1995. Smith, Huston. The Illustrated World's Religions. New York: Labyrinth Publishing Ltd., 1994. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\LOGIC IS NOT PRACTICAL.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LOGIC IS NOT PRACTICAL Who needs logic? Logic is but an entrapment - a false sense of security to let us rest easy at night. Countless numbers take solace in the world in which we live, a world we know virtually nothing about, by forcing themselves to believe that if something is intangible, or unimaginable, it is impossible. The Spanish told Christopher Columbus in 1492 that he was setting sail on suicide mission when he discovered North America. Logic had told them, from the beginning of time, that the world was flat. Of course it is, at least as far as the eye can see. But in this case, and in many others too numerous to mention, there is so much beyond what the eye can see. A modern-time example would be the mass suicide of 39 Heavens' Gate cult members. They reportedly timed their suicides to correlate with the passing of the comet named Hale-Bopp. They supposedly believed that their spirits were going to rendezvous with a UFO that was enveloped by Hale-Bopp's tail. How preposterous! What an obtuse notion! I am sure these are the same feelings expressed by the Spanish in the 1400's. Who are we to second-guess someone else's actions? Our culture is quick to shoot down ideas that cannot be backed up by logic. I feel that this limits the human race hugely. We believe in God. As a whole, we are a nation built on Christian beliefs - "One Nation Under God". I've never seen him, nor have I ever heard him - not in a logical sense. However, these facts make him no less real. A common belief that is highly criticized is reincarnation. Some believe it is absurd to think that all living things are intertwined - that a human can be reborn as a bird, or a fish, or a goat. I can't remember every dying and being reborn as a human - or anything else, so I will straddle the fence on that argument. Forever, we believed that life could not be duplicated by any other means than by conventional reproduction. Once again, we have been educated otherwise. In 1997, two world-renown universities conducted successful experiments cloning animals. It began with sheep and monkeys, but now the race is on to clone the first human! Logically, we want to believe that this is impossible, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating! There's another slap in the face for logic. Many people don't believe angels exist. I believe there are angels among us every day, in everything we do. Little Sara McCloud shares my belief. One day last winter, Sara was boarding her school bus for the afternoon ride home when a stranger approached her. The nice elderly woman was technically a stranger to her, but Sara agreed to let the woman walk her home. Even though this was against her better judgment, Sara knew the twelve blocks weren't too far to walk, and besides, her bus took a very out-of-the-way route to her home, so this way would probably be much quicker. It wasn't until Sara arrived home that she realized the importance of this decision. When she stepped onto her front porch, Sara's distraught mother clutched her tightly in her arms. Sara had never been squeezed so hard. Her mother had just received word that Sara's school bus had run off an icy bridge, just half a mile from the school. The little girl reassured her mother that everything was fine, thanks to her new friend who offered to walk her home. As she turned around to introduce the sweet old lady, she was gone - vanished without a trace. I feel that this is proof that there are stronger powers working out there. Stronger than that power in our minds - logic. While it is true, that seeing is believing, maybe sometimes we try to see with our eyes shut. A wise teacher once told me that is "OK to be ignorant, it is not OK to be proud of being ignorant." Who knows what may unfold in the future? Practically every day logic is disproved. I'll never depend on it. But then again... never say never. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Love One Another .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well, I sure hope I was not the only one who caught the main message of today's gospel. If you accidently missed the gospel, the main message from Jesus was that he commanded us to "love one another." I gave the message some thought thinking of "how can I love everybody?" How could I love my enemies? How can I love someone when they already have a lover? How can I love someone that I do not know? It is all these "how's." So how can I love my enemy? After giving it more thought, I found a little solution. It might not be the best solution, but it will suit my needs. If this enemy offends me, I tell the enemy with my heart that I truly did not appreciate that comment. What does that relate to love your enemy? I was trying to show my love to my enemy by expressing my feelings. What about how can I love someone when they already have a lover? We can still love someone and still be friends or maybe even best friends. There is nothing wrong in being friendly with someone that already has a lover. Well, what about how can I love someone that I do not know? An easy solution is to get to know society. Just do not have doubt and end up using assumption. Be critical, be open, ask questions, and get to know how peers. Okay, but what if I am a shy person? There is wrong being shy. Everybody is shy of something, but shyness can always be reverse. I used to be shy of something, but then I gave it some thought when I was thinking when life was getting boring. I thought that if I were more open and sought friendship, my life would be much happier. So loving one another. Is it possible? In my words it is possible, but it is a long process that cannot happen overnight. It takes a period of time. I never accomplished the full meaning of loving one another, but just because I never completed in loving everybody, it does not mean I do not have to try. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Love One Another.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Love One Another Well, I sure hope I was not the only one who caught the main message of today's gospel. If you accidently missed the gospel, the main message from Jesus was that he commanded us to "love one another." I gave the message some thought thinking of "how can I love everybody?" How could I love my enemies? How can I love someone when they already have a lover? How can I love someone that I do not know? It is all these "how's." So how can I love my enemy? After giving it more thought, I found a little solution. It might not be the best solution, but it will suit my needs. If this enemy offends me, I tell the enemy with my heart that I truly did not appreciate that comment. What does that relate to love your enemy? I was trying to show my love to my enemy by expressing my feelings. What about how can I love someone when they already have a lover? We can still love someone and still be friends or maybe even best friends. There is nothing wrong in being friendly with someone that already has a lover. Well, what about how can I love someone that I do not know? An easy solution is to get to know society. Just do not have doubt and end up using assumption. Be critical, be open, ask questions, and get to know how peers. Okay, but what if I am a shy person? There is wrong being shy. Everybody is shy of something, but shyness can always be reverse. I used to be shy of something, but then I gave it some thought when I was thinking when life was getting boring. I thought that if I were more open and sought friendship, my life would be much happier. So loving one another. Is it possible? In my words it is possible, but it is a long process that cannot happen overnight. It takes a period of time. I never accomplished the full meaning of loving one another, but just because I never completed in loving everybody, it does not mean I do not have to try. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Luther Martin.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Martin Luther. Born. Novemeber 10, 1483. Eisleben, Saxon Died. Febuary 18, 1546. Eiselben. German priest, biblical scholar and linguist whose Ninety-five Theses, an attack on various eclesiastical abuses, precipitated the Protestant Reformation. Lutherm the son of a minor who wanted him to become a lawyer, attended the University of Erfurt. In 1506he joined the monastic order of St. Augustine and was ordained a priest in 1507. From 1508 to 1546 he taught at the new University of Wittenberg, receiving a doctorate in theology in 1512. The degree was important to Luher because of its implications of public responsibility, and these were soon joned with the duties of a professor when he was apponted to the chair of biblical theology. This was his lifelong calling, and the exposition of the bible to his students was a task that called forth his best gifts and energies. In between his lectures he began the Protestant Reformation. Luther had entered on the search for evangelic perfection with zeal and sought exactly to fulfil the rule of his order f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Luther.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Luther The pages 87 - 108 are mainly about righteousness. The heart of Luther's religion is the justification of faith. Luther writes about the different kinds of righteousness and how they relate to God and Christ. Then Luther talked about Paul wanting to setup a doctrine of Grace. Then he jumps into the kinds of righteousness. Luther says that there is a political, ceremonial, human tradition, law, and faith righteousness.(p.88) In Luther's own words the most excellent righteousness is faith, because it is not earned but given freely by God. The other kinds of righteousness are active and done by humans not given by God. Luther's reason for this if we earned grace then God would be in dept to us(97). Next he has 2 paragraphs on the "Human weakness" which is to do the active righteousness(89). "Law until Christ" is saying that we had to follow the laws given by Mosses because they were from God until Christ came along and broke away from those laws 2 worlds says that there is an earthly world, one with laws, and a heavenly world, infinite. The earthly world, which has, laws, the active righteousness, and is limited. While the Heavenly world is the ruler of the earthly not the other way around, and the giver of faith, but that faith most be accepted or rejected by us. Then Luther goes on to Jesus who is righteousness, a giver of wisdom and more. He then says that when you fear or conscience is present then grace is gone and God has hidden himself from us. On Page one hundred Luther writes about how if one does good works then God can infuse charity into him. Next he writes about how Christ and God is the thing of our faith and that we are the faith. Q: One of the few things that Luther said that I liked was the last line "Christ and God is the thing of our faith and that we are the faith. How do you respond to that? First look at "we are the faith", we are not the faith then there is no God or Christ. If you look at "God is the thing of our faith", it means to me is that this religion or any other would not be able to survive because it would hold no meaning or sway in their life. This also shows that What ever you chose to worship, like money or people's thoughts, will run your life for good or evil who knows. Q2: In the beginning Luther first says that you cannot earn faith but then on page 100 he says that by doing good works you can earn Grace. The question is grace and faith the same? Is Luther contradicting himself? And can you earn grace? I believe they are one in the same thing. I was taught that if you have faith then you would have the grace of God with you. Next I believe that Luther is contradicting himself because you can be a pagan and do good works and be given God's grace by your deeds because it shows what your heart is about. Also it is not that person's fault that they were raised in a different religion. Q3: On page 95-96 there is " works of law," What is it? I did not understand this and I was wondering if you knew what it meant. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Marks Theology Reflected In Writing 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mark's Theology Reflected In Writing Mark and the other evangelists used basically five ways to change, edit or enhance Jesus' sayings to reflect their own views of Christianity. According to the Five Gospels Book, plagiarism and changing of writing was not a crime, but actually very common Mark's time. Besides, Mark never knew Jesus first-hand, he somehow had to make a 'story' from basically Hearsay! Mark groups different parables and sayings of Jesus by topic; making a false impression that these things happened in order. This may have little effect on changing the meaning of the lesson, however it illustrates the fact that Mark was trying to author a "readable" story for people, rather than a book of facts. The best example would be in Mark 10:17-31 (Jesus Counsel to the Rich) & (Parable of The Camel and the Eye of a Needle). It is doubtful that these things happened at the same time; however, they are GREY in The Five Gospels anyway ... and probably didn't happen as Mark describes. This brings us to Mark's writing style. Mark seems to tack-on sentences to Jesus' teachings to make themmore "Christian." This really changes the meaning more than any other tactic! Who knows what Mark may have edited-out to accomplish what he wanted to impress upon his readers? In this, he tries to interpret the meaning of Jesus' actions ... and does this in a misleadingway! For example: Mark 2:19, Jesus regarding Fasting. Jesus makes a strong statement against importance to fasting, but Mark (in 2:20) tags on: "But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and they will fast in those days." This blatantly shows that Mark held higher regard for the Old Traditions of Fasting rather than Jesus' new teachings! This is also an example of "ChristianizingJesus" according to traditions that have already earned respect from Jews in their tradition. (Wow, this is starting to sound like a fight between Today's Political Parties, isn't it?! [Jesus = Liberal Politics / Judaism = Conservative Politics]). Finally, Mark likes to "soften the blow" of Jesus' Hard sayings. He does this for probably the same reason Paul preached that Circumcision was not required for Christians. A good example is The Unforgivable Sin (Mark 3:28-). Jesus clearly states that words against the Holy Spirit are unforgivable. However, Mark adds that "all things are possible with God," which softens this harsh rule! MARK & THE PAROUSIA Mark lived during the Jewish War of 66-70 ADE. Unlike the later evangelists, Matthew and Luke, Mark believed the Parousia was upon us, about to happen at any time! And, for obvious reason: he lived in an extremely troubled time for the Jews, and he had not been worried yet by the Parousia's delay as were later evangelists. Mark 13:4 - 'Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?' According to Mark's writing, Jesus first predicts the destruction of the Temple. However, Mark had written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 ADE! This tactic agrees with The Five Gospels: writing apocalyptic sayings of Jesus after they have already been "fulfilled." I would suppose he did this to give credit to his writing of the second coming of God. An example is the parable of The Fig Tree in Mark 13:28-37. This addition, obviously written by Mark and not said by Jesus, shows the urgency in which Mark expected the parousia: "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." You can easily see why the other evangelists, Matthew, Luke & John, re-wrote Mark's apocalyptic writing to be more of a "Sacred Time," and less definite. Mark used a common tactic of quoting scripture (especially Dan, Isa, Mic & some Psalms) for his apocalyptic writing. We also saw this in Paul's letters years before. People regarded scripture as fact, therefore a perfect tool to give credit to Mark's & Paul's new writing! Our own culture today is wrapped-up in tradition and Bible quotes as undisputable fact, even though people twist these things to promote their own interests! My own family justifies their hatred for gays by quoting the Bible; they justify a "Woman's Place" by using the Bible; they justify their racism through the Bible (saying that "Love your Brother" could only possibly refer to people of your own color, because your brother could not possibly be of another color); they justify violent punishment for criminals by using the Bible; they choose their political party according to their actions being as conservative as the Bible. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish that my own community was not still living in the dark-ages. PART B THE PARABLE: THE UNFORGIVING SLAVE This parable reflects a part of our American Lifestyle that is very Un- -Jesus! Our culture, our government and our judiciary system thrives on punishment; at least we don't still have debtors' prison! Contrary to Mark's interpretation of this parable, I belive it represents a type of perfect love for one's neighbor that is reflected in Jesus' Kingdom of God. Rather than forcing a rule upon the reader, as Mark does, Jesus meant it to be a story where the listener may choose an appropriate mode of behavior; for forgiveness cannot be compromised without undesirable consequences. Instead, Mark adds a Threat to the end of the parable (which is obviously NOT the words of Jesus)! "That's what your heavenly Father will do to you, unless you find it in your heart to forgive ..." I find in many examples that Jesus wanted to have his followers think for themselves, and make choices according to their own conscious; He only made sayings and parables to aid followers in finding the truth for themselves (much like Socrate's tactic for the finding of Truth or Justice). Mark, for his own reasons, felt that it was his duty to attach every saying of Jesus with a command or threat ... therefore making God seem vindictive! CONCLUSION: COMPARISON TO MY FIRST PAPER I remember that when I wrote my first paper, I made a point to discuss quotes from Jesus that seemed foreign to my traditional feeling for Jesus. I wanted to see something in Jesus that I never knew before! Well, I was surprised to find that these same quotes turned-up to be mostly Pink in the Five Gospels (some grey, but no black)! My first quote of Jesus was from Matthew 12:49-50; Jesus refers to the multitudes as his mother and brothers. This turned-up pink in the Five Gospels. I thought that this quote represented Jesus as a God on a equal level with his followers, creating a sense of community (I think that if Jesus were around today (and wasn't in an asylum), he would be a Communist). To me, this contradicts today's church of authority, having Bishops, Deacons, etc. Next, I quoted a few of Jesus' words to live by in chapters 6 and 7 of Matthew. Most of these quotes turned up pink, however a few were mixed with grey, showing the additions of Matthew's redaction. I noted in my paper that I felt these rules were simple & logical ways to lead a happy and loving lifestyle, rather than hard rules that we are used to. The next two quotes I used (Matthew 12:13 - Jesus Breaking the Sabbath) (Mark 15:1-15 - Jesus' dealing with P. Pilate) were grey and black in the Five Gospels. The interesting point to this is that these are the two quotes in which I criticized Jesus' actions. I made points that I thought Jesus was a hypocrite in preaching to keep Jewish Law, and at the same time, break the Sabbath! I also seriously questioned Matthew's interpretation that P. Pilate tried to save Jesus, knowing that Pilate was not a friend to the Jews! It is refreshing to me to find these quotes in grey & black, because they were very confusing to me in forming an opinion about Jesus. I have enjoyed this assignment because I really feel like I am getting to understand the Historical New Testament! I tested my knowledge of Jesus by reading his quotes from my New King James Version Bible, and tried to spot additions that were not Jesus', and by guessing the color of some of his quotes. In checking back with The Five Gospels, I found myself to be pretty darn accurate! Amazing! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Marks Theology Reflected in Writing.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MARK'S THEOLOGY REFLECTED IN WRITING Mark and the other evangelists used basically five ways to change, edit or enhance Jesus' sayings to reflect their own views of Christianity. According to the Five Gospels Book, plagiarism and changing of writing was not a crime, but actually very common Mark's time. Besides, Mark never knew Jesus first-hand, he somehow had to make a 'story' from basically Hearsay! Mark groups different parables and sayings of Jesus by topic; making a false impression that these things happened in order. This may have little effect on changing the meaning of the lesson, however it illustrates the fact that Mark was trying to author a "readable" story for people, rather than a book of facts. The best example would be in Mark 10:17-31 (Jesus Counsel to the Rich) & (Parable of The Camel and the Eye of a Needle). It is doubtful that these things happened at the same time; however, they are GREY in The Five Gospels anyway ... and probably didn't happen as Mark describes. This brings us to Mark's writing style. Mark seems to "tack-on" sentences to Jesus' teachings to make themmore "Christian." This really changes the meaning more than any other tactic! Who knows what Mark may have edited-out to accomplish what he wanted to impress upon his readers? In this, he tries to interpret the meaning of Jesus' actions ... and does this in a misleadingway! For example: Mark 2:19, Jesus regarding Fasting. Jesus makes a strong statement against importance to fasting, but Mark (in 2:20) tags on: "But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and they will fast in those days." This blatantly shows that Mark held higher regard for the Old Traditions of Fasting rather than Jesus' new teachings! This is also an example of "ChristianizingJesus" according to traditions that have already earned respect from Jews in their tradition. (Wow, this is starting to sound like a fight between Today's Political Parties, isn't it?! [Jesus = Liberal Politics / Judaism = Conservative Politics]). Finally, Mark likes to "soften the blow" of Jesus' Hard sayings. He does this for probably the same reason Paul preached that Circumcision was not required for Christians. A good example is The Unforgivable Sin (Mark 3:28-). Jesus clearly states that words against the Holy Spirit are unforgivable. However, Mark adds that "all things are possible with God," which softens this harsh rule! MARK & THE PAROUSIA Mark lived during the Jewish War of 66-70 ADE. Unlike the later evangelists, Matthew and Luke, Mark believed the Parousia was upon us, about to happen at any time! And, for obvious reason: he lived in an extremely troubled time for the Jews, and he had not been worried yet by the Parousia's delay as were later evangelists. Mark 13:4 - 'Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?' According to Mark's writing, Jesus first predicts the destruction of the Temple. However, Mark had written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 ADE! This tactic agrees with The Five Gospels: writing apocalyptic sayings of Jesus after they have already been "fulfilled." I would suppose he did this to give credit to his writing of the second coming of God. An example is the parable of The Fig Tree in Mark 13:28-37. This addition, obviously written by Mark and not said by Jesus, shows the urgency in which Mark expected the parousia: "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." You can easily see why the other evangelists, Matthew, Luke & John, re-wrote Mark's apocalyptic writing to be more of a "Sacred Time," and less definite. Mark used a common tactic of quoting scripture (especially Dan, Isa, Mic & some Psalms) for his apocalyptic writing. We also saw this in Paul's letters years before. People regarded scripture as fact, therefore a perfect tool to give credit to Mark's & Paul's new writing! Our own culture today is wrapped-up in tradition and Bible quotes as undisputable fact, even though people twist these things to promote their own interests! My own family justifies their hatred for gays by quoting the Bible; they justify a "Woman's Place" by using the Bible; they justify their racism through the Bible (saying that "Love your Brother" could only possibly refer to people of your own color, because your brother could not possibly be of another color); they justify violent punishment for criminals by using the Bible; they choose their political party according to their actions being as conservative as the Bible. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish that my own community was not still living in the dark-ages. PART B THE PARABLE: THE UNFORGIVING SLAVE This parable reflects a part of our American Lifestyle that is very Un-Jesus! Our culture, our government and our judiciary system thrives on punishment; at least we don't still have debtors' prison! Contrary to Mark's interpretation of this parable, I belive it represents a type of perfect love for one's neighbor that is reflected in Jesus' Kingdom of God. Rather than forcing a rule upon the reader, as Mark does, Jesus meant it to be a story where the listener may choose an appropriate mode of behavior; for forgiveness cannot be compromised without undesirable consequences. Instead, Mark adds a Threat to the end of the parable (which is obviously NOT the words of Jesus)! "That's what your heavenly Father will do to you, unless you find it in your heart to forgive ..." I find in many examples that Jesus wanted to have his followers think for themselves, and make choices according to their own conscious; He only made sayings and parables to aid followers in finding the truth for themselves (much like Socrate's tactic for the finding of Truth or Justice). Mark, for his own reasons, felt that it was his duty to attach every saying of Jesus with a command or threat ... therefore making God seem vindictive! CONCLUSION: COMPARISON TO MY FIRST PAPER I remember that when I wrote my first paper, I made a point to discuss quotes from Jesus that seemed foreign to my traditional feeling for Jesus. I wanted to see something in Jesus that I never knew before! Well, I was surprised to find that these same quotes turned-up to be mostly Pink in the Five Gospels (some grey, but no black)! My first quote of Jesus was from Matthew 12:49-50; Jesus refers to the multitudes as his mother and brothers. This turned-up pink in the Five Gospels. I thought that this quote represented Jesus as a God on a equal level with his followers, creating a sense of community (I think that if Jesus were around today (and wasn't in an asylum), he would be a Communist). To me, this contradicts today's church of authority, having Bishops, Deacons, etc. Next, I quoted a few of Jesus' words to live by in chapters 6 and 7 of Matthew. Most of these quotes turned up pink, however a few were mixed with grey, showing the additions of Matthew's redaction. I noted in my paper that I felt these rules were simple & logical ways to lead a happy and loving lifestyle, rather than hard rules that we are used to. The next two quotes I used (Matthew 12:13 - Jesus Breaking the Sabbath) (Mark 15:1-15 - Jesus' dealing with P. Pilate) were grey and black in the Five Gospels. The interesting point to this is that these are the two quotes in which I criticized Jesus' actions. I made points that I thought Jesus was a hypocrite in preaching to keep Jewish Law, and at the same time, break the Sabbath! I also seriously questioned Matthew's interpretation that P. Pilate tried to save Jesus, knowing that Pilate was not a friend to the Jews! It is refreshing to me to find these quotes in grey & black, because they were very confusing to me in forming an opinion about Jesus. I have enjoyed this assignment because I really feel like I am getting to understand the Historical New Testament! I tested my knowledge of Jesus by reading his quotes from my New King James Version Bible, and tried to spot additions that were not Jesus', and by guessing the color of some of his quotes. In checking back with The Five Gospels, I found myself to be pretty darn accurate! Amazing! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Martin Luther.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Martin Luther. Born. Novemeber 10, 1483. Eisleben, Saxon Died. Febuary 18, 1546. Eiselben. German priest, biblical scholar and linguist whose Ninety-five Theses, an attack on various eclesiastical abuses, precipitated the Protestant Reformation. Lutherm the son of a minor who wanted him to become a lawyer, attended the University of Erfurt. In 1506he joined the monastic order of St. Augustine and was ordained a priest in 1507. From 1508 to 1546 he taught at the new University of Wittenberg, receiving a doctorate in theology in 1512. The degree was important to Luher because of its implications of public responsibility, and these were soon joned with the duties of a professor when he was apponted to the chair of biblical theology. This was his lifelong calling, and the exposition of the bible to his students was a task that called forth his best gifts and energies. In between his lectures he began the Protestant Reformation. Luther had entered on the search for evangelic perfection with zeal and sought exactly to fulfil the rule of his order f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Matthew Mark Luke and John.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Theocentric Studies-Part I February 2, 1996 The four Gospels are neither histories of the life of Christ nor biographies. They are portraits of the person and work of the long promised Messiah, Israel's King and the world's Savior. As portraits they present four different poses of one unique personality. Matthew by the Holy Spirit presents Christ as King, Mark as Servant, Luke as Man, and John as God. Although featuring Christ as King, Matthew sketches His role as a King in closest connection with His character as Servant, as Man, and as God (Matthew 13:53-19:30). Likewise, although featuring Him as Servant, Mark depicts Christ's servant role in closest connection with His character as King, Man and God (Mark 11:1-16:1-8). Similarly Luke focuses the spotlight on Christ as Man and John as God, but like other evangelists they do not separate Him from His full- orbed character (Luke 4:14-9:50, John 1:19- 2:50). The four Gospels narrate, largely, the same things, but with some differences. Only Matthew and Luke tell of the Birth and childhood of Jesus (Matthew 1:14-9:1, Luke 1:5-4:13). Matthew and Mark dwell on the Galilean Ministry; Luke, the Perean; John, the Judean. John omits most of the Galilean Ministry, and records visits to Jerusalem that the others omit (Luke 9:51-19:27). The others omit the Judean Ministry, except the Last Week, which all four cover rather extensively. The Last Week occupies one-third of Matthew, approximately one-third of Mark, one-quarter of Luke, and one-half of John. John devotes seven chapters, about one-third of his book, to Crucifixion Day, sunset to sunset. Thus all four writers present the one and same Person: the God-Man, Servant of the Lord, King of Israel, humanity's Redeemer. The special emphasis of Matthew is that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by Old Testament Prophets. As he quotes from the Old Testament repeatedly, he seems to have had Jewish readers in mind. Mark's special emphasis is the Superhuman power of Jesus, by demonstrating His Deity by His Miracles (Mark 1:14-9:1). Omits most of Jesus' lectures. Narrates things Jesus did rather than things Jesus said. Seems to have had Gentile readers in mind. Luke's special emphasis is the humanity of Jesus. Representing Jesus as the Son of God. Luke features His kindness toward the weak, the suffering and the outcast (Luke 9:51-18:27). He seems to have had the Greeks, who represented culture, philosophy and wisdom, in mind. John places special emphasis on the Deity of Jesus. Consists mostly of Jesus' lectures and conversations. Discusses things Jesus said rather than things He did (John 1:1-18). By describing the eternal pre-existence, human birth, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus the Christ and His life and teachings, the four Gospels present a living, dynamic, unique personality. God became man to work out man's redemption from sin. These four portraits present Him as Lord and Savior, rather than describing all He did and in the precise order in which He did it. They introduce us to Him, rather than to His life as a whole. The Gospels are designedly incomplete as a story, but marvelously complete and purposeful as a divine revelation of the Son of God, our Savior. And this is faith's need. It is also disbelief's stumbling block. Works Cited Bibliography National,"The Holy Bible", Authorized (King James) Version. Philadelphia: The National Bible Press (1963). Cambridge, "The New English Bible", The New English Translation. Cambridge: The University Press (1972). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Mhs In Human Civilization.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mhs In Human Civilization Throughout the history of human civilization, myths have been an integral part of human society. Myths have no cultural boundaries as they can be found in all cultural societies. The word myth can be referred to the classical Greek and Roman mythology or a contemporary myth. Regardless of the type of myth, they are stories used to give meaning to a phenomenon or symbolic manner to the natural cycles that surround humankind. Myths are used to explain and understand our existence in our world whether it is something that we can tangibly see or not. The saga of a myth is past down from one generation to the next. For the purpose of this assignment, I will be analyzing three articles that deal with a myth. With each of these articles, I will attempt to explain how the author uses the term within the context of the article. Finally, I will be concluding the analysis of the articles with reference to class notes on what we have learned to date. The first article is "Phyllis Burke: Exploding Myths of Male and Female." which is a book review. The author of the book, Phyllis Burke, writes of Gender Identity Disorder or GIS that effects both male and female children. A child labeled with GIS occurs when the child is not confirming to appropriate gender behaviour. For example, if a boy wants to play with dolls and dress up as the opposite sex. Burke reveals that at a young age all children in the gender socialization process are encouraged to play with gender appropriate toys and roles. If the child does not conform to these roles laid out by our gender conscious society, they are forbidden and discouraged to continue with their behaviour. Burke continues to write that GIS children may find themselves in play therapy or even in psychiatric hospitals. In analyzing the way in which myth is used in this article, it is found in the way our society has created gender roles for children, teenagers and even adults. There is no biological evidence that girls can not play rough with other girls and boys. It is the gender appropriate behaviour that has stereotyped our thinking that this activity is not appropriate. Most would rather see girls playing with dolls and boys being the ones who play rough. Burke analyzed GIS cases from the 1930s through to the early 1990s and found no biological evidence to support GIS. The behaviour that is deemed inappropriate is suppressed not by the child themselves but by others around them. In relation to this myth as being scientific or journalistic, I would have to say it is a bit of both. Through the media, gender roles are reinforced. For example, this can be found in television commercials of toys, where boys are depicted playing with trucks while girls are shown playing with dolls. In a recent article from the Toronto Star entitled "You gotta feel sad for banker bashed by 'myth'." by Joey Slinger, centers around the Bank of Montreal chairperson, Matthew Barrett. The subject of the article inspires the title of Slinger's article. Barrett claims that the public is bashing his as a result of 'stereotypes, myths and sheer misinformation'. This comment from Barrett was a result of public outcry of the banks making high profit and the chairpersons of the banks holding down a substantial salary. The article reports that the Bank of Montreal profit for 1996 was $1.17 billion while Barrett made $3.9 million. This is clearly an example of a journalistic myth. There is a sense of truth that Barrett wants to reveal and rid of the falseness from his point of view. The third article from The Humanist entitled "The Myth of the Middle Class" is a clear example of a journalistic myth. The article written by Lynn H. Ehrle looks at the disappearance of the American middle class. The author suggests with changes in the average household income there is a greater disparity between poor and rich households. Thus, summarizing the middle class is being divided with most going to the lower or poorer income groups. Ehrle throughout the article backs up in support of the title with statistics and charts and in doing so points the finger at the corporate world as the one seeing the middle class disappear. Changes in the corporate economy such as corporate downsizing, outsourcing, inflation and unemployment just to name a few. The word myth is used here is the sense that society wants to think that they are in the average or 'norm' group that being the middle class. However, with the changes in corporate economy mentioned, the middle class is a growing disparity. Myths are used in all aspects of our society and culture. Examples of myths can be found in science, sports, medicine, business and religion. The general view or opinion is that myth is something that is false or not true. The journalistic myth exposes the falsehood of myths. The living myth is a product of our culture is to dismiss myth. Today, humans are more reflective, philosophical and analytical of events placed before them. We are humans started out as mythical thinkers, moving to a mystic, asking questions approach. Then finally moving to an analytical way of thinking. Today, it is harder to believe in myths as we are focused on numbers, facts and statistics. Stories were told by the word using imaginative pictures, then transgressed to words, arguments and intensive language and finally a reliance on numbers and statistics. Regardless of the type of myth, we the reader should draw attention to the context in which it is written. Question what is being written, who is benefiting from the information and the power of the myth. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Mind over Matter 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mind over Matter Matt Pickering Religion 101 Brantley Gasaway Section BD Out of the myriad of religions that encompass the earth, one of the least understood is Buddhism. In the pursuit of a higher plane of existence, a Buddhist monk will renounce his worldly secular life, instead embracing a life of meditation and study. While attempting to achieve enlightenment, and therefore nirvana, a Buddhist must first come to eradicate his sense of self, effectively destroying his ego. By doing this, "durkha," (pain and suffering), end and one can be at peace and harmony with the world and all who reside in it. A practice that helps monks achieve this enlightened state is meditation. By clearing the mind of mundane clutter and distractions, a monk can become in tune with his inner being and body, which results in a greater understanding of the barriers that need to collapse before nirvana can be achieved. This practice of meditation was the Buddhist practice that I participated in, with the intent on a greater understanding of what being a Buddhist means. This exercise taught me the inherent difficulty in calming the mind, along with the negative effects outside influences like other people have on the practice. The first place I attempted to meditate was outside my dorm next to a tree. This proved to be a comfortable place, yet full of distractions. I have meditated before in my martial arts classes, yet it was difficult calming my mind. While concentrating on my breathing, I was easily distracted by outside occurrences such as leaves falling and people walking by. The more I attempted to shut out the outside world, the more my mind focused on the little things around me. I gained immediate appreciation of the Buddhist monk's ability to shirk the outside world and focus on his inner self. When I had meditated before in my dojo, it was as a group and in silence. This greatly helped the exercise and I can see why this is the modus operandi at most temples. The second place I attempted to meditate was in the basement of Reid Hall. I hoped that the familiar surroundings would calm the mind easier and allow me to concentrate on clearing my mind. While not an ideal setting, it was better than outside. As I concentrated on my breathing and felt myself unwind, I was able to tune into the sound of the dryers in the distance and this white noise helped me focus on my spirit and not anything happening around me. I imagined myself first as earth, then air, striving to feel these elements inside of me. However, friends from the hall soon entered the basement and inquired about what I was doing. This broke my concentration, snapping my mind back into the present. I was unable to achieve that sense of oneness again, as people came down to play Ping-Pong, making the exercise virtually worthless. I had come closer than the first time, yet had a long way to go. My third attempt at imitating a Buddhist monk while meditating took place in my room, while my roommates were gone. I sat cross-legged (the lotus position was impossible for me) on the floor and once again concentrated on the air flowing through my body. I found that just like the dryers in the basement, I was able to concentrate better with classical music on very softly. I guess, for me, the incessant noise of society makes white noise better for concentrating than absolute silence. This time, I quickly sunk into a sense of calm, all my thoughts of school fading away. I imagined myself a monk in the Chin Shan temple, striving for enlightenment. Just to add another level to the activity (by this time is was fairly boring) I attempted to decipher the Zen Buddhist koan "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" This proved utterly impossible in the half-hour time period I was meditating, yet it gave me a feel for what a Buddhist monk does and helped focus my errant mind, preventing it from wandering. By far, the last time I meditated was the most successful. There were no major advances, everything was a measure of degree. Yet sitting for a half-hour cross-legged was no longer extremely uncomfortable, focusing the breathing and mind was easier, and I felt at peace which was nice feeling in a usually hectic college day. After trying to emulate the life of a Buddhist monk, even for a total of an hour and a half, I have infinite more respect for these men and women. I have always respected forms of mental concentration and the ability to raise oneself into a higher plane of consciousness. In my study of the martial arts, the ability to become one with your opponent and therefore know how he will move before he actually moves is paramount. This omniscient sense occurs only after years of training, and while a black belt who has trained for six years I am still far from this state of ability. I can readily see why the pursuit of nirvana can span a lifetime, indeed, multiple lifetimes. The mind is, indeed, the hardest element of the human body to control. With the brain's need for activity, a combination of seclusion from society and group meditation is of great importance, especially in the beginning of one's path toward the mastery of the Eight-fold Path. The seclusion is necessary so that outside distractions and desires are eliminated. If the mind has nothing to crave or look forward to, it is easier to pursue the task at hand. Unlike the hustle and noise of Oxford, a temple offers a place to get away from life and find the inner life within oneself. Yet this inner self, which is ultimately to be eradicated, is hard to find. One can know who one is and yet not be able to define oneself. One of the goals of a Buddhist monk is to be able truthfully define oneself and this knowledge will then set one's soul free. Yet this endeavor is the hardest task a human can undertake. To truly face what one really is takes more courage than most people have. To aid this, the community of the temple comes into play heavily. It is easier to meditate and deny oneself the riches of secular life if you struggle beside others. While Buddhism advocates a personal struggle toward enlightenment, humans are gregarious beings at heart and so normally work better in the presence of brethren. Along with one's fellow monks, the abbot and preceptor's help guide and direct the learning of the monks. They offer subtle forms of encouragement, often disguised in hardship, that aid the monks in their struggle toward understanding. This is a boon, allowing enlightenment to occur quicker than in the solitary meditation I experienced. A Buddhist way of life is a lot harder than one may suspect, for while they are released from the worries of everyday life, the mental tasks assigned to them are far greater than worrying about what to cook for dinner tonight or paying one's electricity bill. Furthermore, a Buddhist lifestyle is not very conducive to an American lifestyle. I give a lot of credit to the founders of the Zen Mountain Center in San Francisco, creating a microcosm which can support the solitude necessary for personal growth is a daunting task. From my limited venture into the life of a Buddhist, I learned that controlling one's mind and then harnessing this power to delve out truths and desires from oneself is a feat almost inconceivable by the normal mind. Those who accomplish this task are truly Buddha's, master's of the world and therefore outside the grasp of time, free at last. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Mind over Matter.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Matt Pickering Religion 101 Brantley Gasaway Section BD Mind over Matter Out of the myriad of religions that encompass the earth, one of the least understood is Buddhism. In the pursuit of a higher plane of existence, a Buddhist monk will renounce his worldly secular life, instead embracing a life of meditation and study. While attempting to achieve enlightenment, and therefore nirvana, a Buddhist must first come to eradicate his sense of self, effectively destroying his ego. By doing this, "durkha," (pain and suffering), end and one can be at peace and harmony with the world and all who reside in it. A practice that helps monks achieve this enlightened state is meditation. By clearing the mind of mundane clutter and distractions, a monk can become in tune with his inner being and body, which results in a greater understanding of the barriers that need to collapse before nirvana can be achieved. This practice of meditation was the Buddhist practice that I participated in, with the intent on a greater understanding of what being a Buddhist means. This exercise taught me the inherent difficulty in calming the mind, along with the negative effects outside influences like other people have on the practice. The first place I attempted to meditate was outside my dorm next to a tree. This proved to be a comfortable place, yet full of distractions. I have meditated before in my martial arts classes, yet it was difficult calming my mind. While concentrating on my breathing, I was easily distracted by outside occurrences such as leaves falling and people walking by. The more I attempted to shut out the outside world, the more my mind focused on the little things around me. I gained immediate appreciation of the Buddhist monk's ability to shirk the outside world and focus on his inner self. When I had meditated before in my dojo, it was as a group and in silence. This greatly helped the exercise and I can see why this is the modus operandi at most temples. The second place I attempted to meditate was in the basement of Reid Hall. I hoped that the familiar surroundings would calm the mind easier and allow me to concentrate on clearing my mind. While not an ideal setting, it was better than outside. As I concentrated on my breathing and felt myself unwind, I was able to tune into the sound of the dryers in the distance and this white noise helped me focus on my spirit and not anything happening around me. I imagined myself first as earth, then air, striving to feel these elements inside of me. However, friends from the hall soon entered the basement and inquired about what I was doing. This broke my concentration, snapping my mind back into the present. I was unable to achieve that sense of oneness again, as people came down to play Ping-Pong, making the exercise virtually worthless. I had come closer than the first time, yet had a long way to go. My third attempt at imitating a Buddhist monk while meditating took place in my room, while my roommates were gone. I sat cross-legged (the lotus position was impossible for me) on the floor and once again concentrated on the air flowing through my body. I found that just like the dryers in the basement, I was able to concentrate better with classical music on very softly. I guess, for me, the incessant noise of society makes white noise better for concentrating than absolute silence. This time, I quickly sunk into a sense of calm, all my thoughts of school fading away. I imagined myself a monk in the Chin Shan temple, striving for enlightenment. Just to add another level to the activity (by this time is was fairly boring) I attempted to decipher the Zen Buddhist koan "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" This proved utterly impossible in the half-hour time period I was meditating, yet it gave me a feel for what a Buddhist monk does and helped focus my errant mind, preventing it from wandering. By far, the last time I meditated was the most successful. There were no major advances, everything was a measure of degree. Yet sitting for a half-hour cross-legged was no longer extremely uncomfortable, focusing the breathing and mind was easier, and I felt at peace which was nice feeling in a usually hectic college day. After trying to emulate the life of a Buddhist monk, even for a total of an hour and a half, I have infinite more respect for these men and women. I have always respected forms of mental concentration and the ability to raise oneself into a higher plane of consciousness. In my study of the martial arts, the ability to become one with your opponent and therefore know how he will move before he actually moves is paramount. This omniscient sense occurs only after years of training, and while a black belt who has trained for six years I am still far from this state of ability. I can readily see why the pursuit of nirvana can span a lifetime, indeed, multiple lifetimes. The mind is, indeed, the hardest element of the human body to control. With the brain's need for activity, a combination of seclusion from society and group meditation is of great importance, especially in the beginning of one's path toward the mastery of the Eight-fold Path. The seclusion is necessary so that outside distractions and desires are eliminated. If the mind has nothing to crave or look forward to, it is easier to pursue the task at hand. Unlike the hustle and noise of Oxford, a temple offers a place to get away from life and find the inner life within oneself. Yet this inner self, which is ultimately to be eradicated, is hard to find. One can know who one is and yet not be able to define oneself. One of the goals of a Buddhist monk is to be able truthfully define oneself and this knowledge will then set one's soul free. Yet this endeavor is the hardest task a human can undertake. To truly face what one really is takes more courage than most people have. To aid this, the community of the temple comes into play heavily. It is easier to meditate and deny oneself the riches of secular life if you struggle beside others. While Buddhism advocates a personal struggle toward enlightenment, humans are gregarious beings at heart and so normally work better in the presence of brethren. Along with one's fellow monks, the abbot and preceptor's help guide and direct the learning of the monks. They offer subtle forms of encouragement, often disguised in hardship, that aid the monks in their struggle toward understanding. This is a boon, allowing enlightenment to occur quicker than in the solitary meditation I experienced. A Buddhist way of life is a lot harder than one may suspect, for while they are released from the worries of everyday life, the mental tasks assigned to them are far greater than worrying about what to cook for dinner tonight or paying one's electricity bill. Furthermore, a Buddhist lifestyle is not very conducive to an American lifestyle. I give a lot of credit to the founders of the Zen Mountain Center in San Francisco, creating a microcosm which can support the solitude necessary for personal growth is a daunting task. From my limited venture into the life of a Buddhist, I learned that controlling one's mind and then harnessing this power to delve out truths and desires from oneself is a feat almost inconceivable by the normal mind. Those who accomplish this task are truly Buddha's, master's of the world and therefore outside the grasp of time, free at last. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Mithraism 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mithraism It is the third day of December, only twenty-two days remain till the celebration of Mithra begins (Cunningham, 197). Myself and a few of my army comrades have big plans for this upcoming occasion, it is just a shame though that some of our fellow country men, and our own wives even, are trying to spoil our Mithristic festivities. It seems the beliefs of Mithra are becoming quite unpopular in Rome. Only a small portion of my fellow soldiers still belong to the brotherhood, and the soldiers are the only ones who follow the ways of Mithra. Most of the Roman people will not even admit of an existence of my religion, women do not like it because they are not aloud to partake in it (197). That is for their own good though, Mithraism is not meant for women or the weak, their are some things they just can not understand. No, the people of this land do not believe in Mithraism, but they do have their own god to worship. In fact it is all my wife can speak of, this Christianity. The faith the people of Rome are demonstrating for this man Jesus and his teachings is very uncanny, and it is only hurting my creed. The nerve these Christians have, putting their most holy of days on the same day as ours (197). This must be some sort of conspiracy in trying to finish off a dying religion. If that is not enough, they even tore down my place of worship and built a church of their own in place of it (197). Now I must travel two hours by horse just to fulfill my spiritual needs. My wife, she cannot understand anything. We argue continuously over how to raise our son. Before my church was torn down there was little to fuss over, now all she does is complain. She says that it is to far of a trip for him to journey with me every week, and that he should go with her to the Christian church. She also protests that our ways are to barbaric, and he should not take part in some of its activities. She is in great dismay over what I have in store for our young lad this coming twenty-fifth. In my religion only men can join, and the men must follow certain rites of passage to be aloud to enter. One of the more important rites is the sacrifice of a bull (197). She believes that she is going to take him to her chuch in celebration of the Christian god Jesus. The sacrifice of a bull is what I had in store for my son this twenty-fifth, and it is what he will do regardless of what my wife says. I think I know why this Christian religion is gaining so much popularity in Rome, and the answer is jealousy. Anyone can be a Christian; a woman, a man, a child, etc. But only a man who completes the rites of passage may become one under the care of Mithra (197). After all, from what my wife tells me, our religions are quite similar. Both religions have "a dying and reborn god; a kind of baptism; a ceremonial meal; and so on" (197). It almost seems to me as if the Christians have taken Mithraism, incorporated what it likes from it and put it in there own religion to make it more convenient and accepted for everyone. There can be no honor in such a religion. My wife tells me to leave my religion, that in the eyes of the Christians Mithraism is "a demonic parody"(197). I can only laugh at her and her religion, I just can not get it through her head that I am a follower of Mithra for life. It is my faith in Mithra that gives me the strength to be such a great warrior for my home land of Rome. It is this same faith that my son shall one day have when he too is a great warrior for the Roman Empire. If this Christianity prevails through the masses in the future, and the followers of Mithraism become extinct, bad things will happen. I foresee a very weak army defending a weak and corrupted Empire. Hopefully neither my son nor myself will ever see such a day, but I cringe when I think my grandchildren will be worshipping a Christian God . Works Cited Cunningham, Lawrence S. and Reich, John J. Culture and Values: A Survey of Western Humanities. Hardcourt Brace College Publishers. Fort Worth, 1982. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\mithraism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It is the third day of December, only twenty-two days remain till the celebration of Mithra begins (Cunningham, 197). Myself and a few of my army comrades have big plans for this upcoming occasion, it is just a shame though that some of our fellow country men, and our own wives even, are trying to spoil our Mithristic festivities. It seems the beliefs of Mithra are becoming quite unpopular in Rome. Only a small portion of my fellow soldiers still belong to the brotherhood, and the soldiers are the only ones who follow the ways of Mithra. Most of the Roman people will not even admit of an existence of my religion, women do not like it because they are not aloud to partake in it (197). That is for their own good though, Mithraism is not meant for women or the weak, their are some things they just can not understand. No, the people of this land do not believe in Mithraism, but they do have their own god to worship. In fact it is all my wife can speak of, this Christianity. The faith the people of Rome are demonstrating for this man Jesus and his teachings is very uncanny, and it is only hurting my creed. The nerve these Christians have, putting their most holy of days on the same day as ours (197). This must be some sort of conspiracy in trying to finish off a dying religion. If that is not enough, they even tore down my place of worship and built a church of their own in place of it (197). Now I must travel two hours by horse just to fulfill my spiritual needs. My wife, she cannot understand anything. We argue continuously over how to raise our son. Before my church was torn down there was little to fuss over, now all she does is complain. She says that it is to far of a trip for him to journey with me every week, and that he should go with her to the Christian church. She also protests that our ways are to barbaric, and he should not take part in some of its activities. She is in great dismay over what I have in store for our young lad this coming twenty-fifth. In my religion only men can join, and the men must follow certain rites of passage to be aloud to enter. One of the more important rites is the sacrifice of a bull (197). She believes that she is going to take him to her chuch in celebration of the Christian god Jesus. The sacrifice of a bull is what I had in store for my son this twenty- fifth, and it is what he will do regardless of what my wife says. I think I know why this Christian religion is gaining so much popularity in Rome, and the answer is jealousy. Anyone can be a Christian; a woman, a man, a child, etc. But only a man who completes the rites of passage may become one under the care of Mithra (197). After all, from what my wife tells me, our religions are quite similar. Both religions have "a dying and reborn god; a kind of baptism; a ceremonial meal; and so on" (197). It almost seems to me as if the Christians have taken Mithraism, incorporated what it likes from it and put it in there own religion to make it more convenient and accepted for everyone. There can be no honor in such a religion. My wife tells me to leave my religion, that in the eyes of the Christians Mithraism is "a demonic parody"(197). I can only laugh at her and her religion, I just can not get it through her head that I am a follower of Mithra for life. It is my faith in Mithra that gives me the strength to be such a great warrior for my home land of Rome. It is this same faith that my son shall one day have when he too is a great warrior for the Roman Empire. If this Christianity prevails through the masses in the future, and the followers of Mithraism become extinct, bad things will happen. I foresee a very weak army defending a weak and corrupted Empire. Hopefully neither my son nor myself will ever see such a day, but I cringe when I think my grandchildren will be worshipping a Christian God . Works Cited Cunningham, Lawrence S. and Reich, John J. Culture and Values: A Survey of Western Humanities. Hardcourt Brace College Publishers. Fort Worth, 1982. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Monasticism and the Code of Chivalry 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Monasticism and the Code of Chivalry In the Middle Ages, there were many factors contributing to the building of monasticism. One of the most important components of the fourth century came when the Christians believed that Jesus would return very soon. So they did not care what the world did to itself. Instead they waited for Jesus to fix things, but it did not happen. This caused the world to become a violent place to live. Christians were persecuted for their beliefs by the Roman Government. The Christians had enough and were ready to leave. Some Christians went to a place where they could have communion in peace without the fear of the Roman government, this place was Egypt. They were called hermit monks. But others, Christians, had their ideas of the way that a Christian life should be lived. They wanted to live in a community, so they could worship together as a group instead of being alone. Benedict of Nursia established a rule that was used by most of the monks as a way of life. In this there were three specific vows, they are used to make it easier for monks to be closer to God. They are poverty, chastity, and obedience. Poverty meant that the need for money and material possessions were not needed as a means of worship. The monasteries gave the monks the things that they needed, and this was only the bare essentials. The monasteries made their own money by owning land and selling surplus products. Thus, they became very wealthy. Chastity meant that the men and women would not have sex or get married. This was said to have saved the monks from the "devilish acts" that happen when sexual desires were exploited for selfish reasons. Obedience was essential, each monk had to be absolutely obedient to their abbot. The purpose of this obedience was to develop personal humility, and to become more holy by becoming humiliated or less proud of one's self. Only making them worship and become closer to God. The monasteries were a place to get away from evil and anything to deter them from God. The Code of Chivalry means, if you own a horse than you can have wealth or power in the Middle Ages. As there are more people with horses, the tension gets tighter and tempers are flared, this is how elite soldiers and knights are established. These knights are faithful to their local lord as well as to the Church. And thus moral order is imposed with the bonding of the local lord's and the Church. In conclusion, Francis' followers were moral. They trusted God to be the one they can pray and depend on. This is why the local lords were so depended on and the monks were so devoted and abundant as the world started to move in the direction of God as the Christians moved away from the Roman government. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Monasticism and the Code of Chivalry.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Monasticism and the Code of Chivalry In the Middle Ages, there were many factors contributing to the building of monasticism. One of the most important components of the fourth century came when the Christians believed that Jesus would return very soon. So they did not care what the world did to itself. Instead they waited for Jesus to fix things, but it did not happen. This caused the world to become a violent place to live. Christians were persecuted for their beliefs by the Roman Government. The Christians had enough and were ready to leave. Some Christians went to a place where they could have communion in peace without the fear of the Roman government, this place was Egypt. They were called hermit monks. But others, Christians, had their ideas of the way that a Christian life should be lived. They wanted to live in a community, so they could worship together as a group instead of being alone. Benedict of Nursia established a rule that was used by most of the monks as a way of life. In this there were three specific vows, they are used to make it easier for monks to be closer to God. They are poverty, chastity, and obedience. Poverty meant that the need for money and material possessions were not needed as a means of worship. The monasteries gave the monks the things that they needed, and this was only the bare essentials. The monasteries made their own money by owning land and selling surplus products. Thus, they became very wealthy. Chastity meant that the men and women would not have sex or get married. This was said to have saved the monks from the "devilish acts" that happen when sexual desires were exploited for selfish reasons. Obedience was essential, each monk had to be absolutely obedient to their abbot. The purpose of this obedience was to develop personal humility, and to become more holy by becoming humiliated or less proud of one's self. Only making them worship and become closer to God. The monasteries were a place to get away from evil and anything to deter them from God. The Code of Chivalry means, if you own a horse than you can have wealth or power in the Middle Ages. As there are more people with horses, the tension gets tighter and tempers are flared, this is how elite soldiers and knights are established. These knights are faithful to their local lord as well as to the Church. And thus moral order is imposed with the bonding of the local lord's and the Church. In conclusion, Francis' followers were moral. They trusted God to be the one they can pray and depend on. This is why the local lords were so depended on and the monks were so devoted and abundant as the world started to move in the direction of God as the Christians moved away from the Roman government. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Monasticism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Monasticism Monasticism, also commonly called monachism, is a special form of religious community life where the people separate themselves from normal the ways of life to pursue an idea of perfection or a higher religious experience. Monasticism entails Asceticism, the practice of disciplined self-denial. This asceticism may include fasting, silence, a prohibition against personal ownership, and an acceptance of bodily discomfort. It usually includes poverty, celibacy, and obedience to a spiritual leader. The goal of such practices is usually a more intense relationship with God, some type of personal enlightenment, or the service of God through prayer, meditation, or good works such as teaching or nursing. The word monasticism originates from the Greek word "monos" meaning alone; the early Christian monastic people, or hermits, were called the "ones that lived alone" because they went into the desert alone to live a life of solitude. Both men and women practiced monasticism. The men were called monks and lived in monasteries. The women were called nuns and lived in convents. Monasticism has an important part in many major religions including the following: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, The Sufi branch of Islam, and Christianity. Monasticism has flourished both in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox churches from earliest Christian times to present times, being reformed and renewed periodically by dynamic individuals with new ideas from current practice. Christian monasticism started in the deserts of Egypt and Syria in the third and fourth centuries AD. Around 271, AD Saint Anthony the Great went into the desert alone to lead a holy life. Later went to live in the desert. Some were Christians fleeing persecution in the Roman Empire others were people who found the vices, or bad things in their lives, intolerable. About 346, AD Saint Pachomuis was associated with the first communities cenobites in Egypt. Saint Brasil the Great, bishop of Caesarea, placed monasticism in an urban context by introducing charitable service as a work discipline. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Moral and Ethical Dilemmas.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Moral and Ethical Dilemmas One of the most difficult trials I face in my life are ethical and moral dilemmas. They can be soul-wrenching and searching experiences that tax my character and cause me to really "put my money where my mouth is." Sometimes I'm quick to see ethical faults in others, but slow to see them in myself. Other times I see all to clearly my mistakes and wonder why I don't measure up. I believe one purpose for this life is to learn to act for ourselves. Learn to see a situation correctly and act righteously. In this paper I wish to discuss many of the thoughts I have had recently on setting a pattern for making ethical decisions throughout my life. I will present many of the traps I have fallen into or observed in others. Everyday I'm faced with decisions of right and wrong, most of which are easily and correctly dealt with. Sometimes however, decisions need to be made that are not easy or clear-cut. They require thought and often prayer. I like to draw on past experience to make comparisons that help give insight to new problems. Many times, however past experiences cannot be related to present problems and can confuse and obscure possibilities. Even the opinions or actions of friends faced with similar dilemmas may not be helpful. Often you feel pressured by piers that say, "it's no big deal", or "you'll understand later". It's important that I understand why a particular action or resolution is correct or incorrect. If I can't or don't it's difficult to feel I've been honest with myself. That for me can be a good measure of ethical behavior, my conscience. The ideal way to deal with difficult questions is to have a foolproof formula. Find steps that will always lead to correct decisions. Unfortunately I do not yet have such a formula and often learn by hard experience right and wrong. Let me start by saying I firmly believe the formula exists, and is to be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The only way to live a perfectly ethical and moral life is to be Like Him. There is no other way. The entire world will experiment and try all other forms of self-indulgence and soul searching and will not be one step closer until they begin with His gospel. I heard it said once that "he who picks up one end of a stick, picks up the other end also." No matter how hard you try or want happiness, you cannot pick and choose values and beliefs according to your tastes and wants. It really is all or nothing. That is why I will discuss my formula in a gospel light, because any other way is a waist of time. I believe that in order to make correct and righteous decisions you must first have proper perspective and motivation. The Apostle (???), said that "the true character of a man can really be seen when he is alone and no one will know." Many people, myself included, are motivated by responsibility or leadership. They ask, "what will my wife, or kids think?" or "what will my ward think?". These are good motivations and the mantle of responsibility can mold a person, but they can also betray us and make decisions quite difficult. If you rely on pressure to make decisions, what will you do when a decision is unpopular, or when no one is looking? Still others weigh consequences or outcomes to aid in decision making. Rather than look at the question and judge it by it's own merits, they want to see who's affected or what it would really cost. It's like putting a price on your character. If it's small or doesn't hurt anybody, than it won't be a big deal. We can "nickel and dime" our moral piggy bank to death. It's the old, "the ends justify the means." Criminals aren't made in a day. Some of the most unethical and unjustifiable behavior I know of has come out of our own political system. The very men who are responsible for making our laws have little or no regard for them. They live under the philosophy that "I'm an ethical person until I get caught..." and when their caught they exclaim that their human. Ethics has nothing to do with other people. It's called personal integrity and character and no one else will ever be my judge but me in that regard. An ethical person has character and personal integrity. What of the argument, "Remember the SPIRIT, or LETTER of the law"? I think all too often I use both of these arguments to justify myself. When I may not exactly follow a law to the letter I can justify myself by babbling about "original intent or spirit". On other occasions it's an easy way out of a dilemma by taking too literally the letter of the law. The classic argument against war is "thou shalt not kill". If a person wishes to look blindly on a rule or a law and will not see a larger picture, than they easily justify the letter of the law. It is for this reason our courts are overloaded with endless cases and appeals. Criminals go free on technicalities caused by forced "letter of the law" rulings. I believe it's important to understand both the letter and spirit of the law in order to make correct decisions. Drawing analogies can often help me to understand complex subjects. I think traffic laws are a good microcosm of our society. We are a car along the road of life (sorry if this is too much, just bare with me). On the road we have laws, which are straight forward and strict. We also have guidelines, that are not laws, but still expected. On this road, we also interact with other cars and difficult situations. "Can I pull a u-turn in the middle of the road when there's no sign that says I can't?", or "Can I park here?", "Should I stop that drunk driver?" etc. There are many examples that can be directly related to our lives, and can demonstrate the purpose for law and order. Are there times on the road when we justify an action by an individual situation or outcome? Are there times when we are justified to not obey the law? Some may think these examples are too much of a stretch, and I agree that they only apply so far, but in a Priesthood session not long ago we were asked, "how many of you brethren obeyed all traffic laws when driving to conference today?" I believe that it is easy to justify traffic infractions, just as it is easy to justify small compromises in our character. I believe there are situations that merit not following the law. As we discussed in class, The revolutionary war was begun as a result of outright rebellion of the colonies. When a people is deprived of life or liberty they have a human right to claim it and fight for it if necessary. Imagine if a police officer over enforced laws on you, or unreasonably harassed you. Even though technically he may be within the law to do so, do you have a right to not obey him. Many courts have stated you do, and for good reason. Recently in Alabama an officer was chasing a women on the highway for a traffic violation. He was in an unmarked car. It had no police lights on the top or any markings that would show it's identity. He flashed his brights and told her to pull over for miles, but she wouldn't pull over. She was frightened of the man and wouldn't believe he was an officer. After several miles she finally pulled to the side of the rode. The officer was furious and pulled her out of her car, through her on the ground, cuffed her, and arrested her. Here, the officer was justified in pulling her over. In Alabama police are not required to be in a marked police car. The officer has the right to arrest someone that doesn't pull over. Technically the women broke the law, but was she justified? I believe she was. She feared for her own safety, and could not be faulted for doing so. Fortunately her judge felt the same way and the officer was suspended. I believe this example, and others can show that ethical decisions are not always black and white. They usually require thinking and good judgement. I realize that I can't look at situations always at face value, but must endeavor to understand them if I always want to make the best decision I can. A simple guide that I have used throughout my life is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I believe this is a good rule of thumb to fall back on, but I don't believe it's foolproof. So often we can justify actions by using this kind of reason. Just because you would do it, or have it done to you in no way means it's ethical or right. Sure it may keep you from stealing, or murdering, but what about the gray areas. "I'll do it for him because he'd do it for me." "Everyone else would take this opportunity, so why can't I." Even putting yourself in someone else's shoes may not help very much. You must have a stronger foundation to base all your ethics on. The motivation for doing right should be based far deeper than just testimony, commandments, or responsibility. I believe it must come from a true desire to be the best person you can be. Don't settle for second rate behavior. Expect the best out of yourself and your fellow man. Be forgiving both of yourself and others, but don't be clumsy and just stumble through your mistakes. I believe the savior didn't do all he did on the earth just to obey, or just to be righteous. Those were true motivations, but I believe His motivation was more proactive rather than reactive. He was good, and He loved us, and wanted us to be like Him. He knew the only path possible for our return. That is why He volunteered and submitted. I could compare it to temple attendance or missionary service. We may serve by commandment alone, and reap all the blessing and rewards, or we could look beyond and see the work of saving souls. We could see the absolute need for our service and give our lives for it. I believe with that kind of true motivation we will more easily be able to see right from wrong. We will not seek to satisfy our own needs or wants, but will see others needs along with ours. We could more clearly see the importance of ethical and moral behavior. Whether someone is watching or not is irrelevant and has no part in our decisions. I admit that this in no way will make the decision making process easier; quite the contrary. No longer will decisions be made based on popularity or gain, but on what's right and good. Unfortunately I will still have to learn by experience when the answers are not clear, so I will get burned a few times. But in the process of learning, I can be confident that I am really doing my best and improving always. By refining this formula I will find myself better able to resolve difficult dilemmas and feel good about my decisions. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Moral decisions.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Moral and Ethical Dilemmas One of the most difficult trials I face in my life are ethical and moral dilemmas. They can be soul-wrenching and searching experiences that tax my character and cause me to really "put my money where my mouth is." Sometimes I'm quick to see ethical faults in others, but slow to see them in myself. Other times I see all to clearly my mistakes and wonder why I don't measure up. I believe one purpose for this life is to learn to act for ourselves. Learn to see a situation correctly and act righteously. In this paper I wish to discuss many of the thoughts I have had recently on setting a pattern for making ethical decisions throughout my life. I will present many of the traps I have fallen into or observed in others. Everyday I'm faced with decisions of right and wrong, most of which are easily and correctly dealt with. Sometimes however, decisions need to be made that are not easy or clear-cut. They require thought and often prayer. I like to draw on past experience to make comparisons that help give insight to new problems. Many times, however past experiences cannot be related to present problems and can confuse and obscure possibilities. Even the opinions or actions of friends faced with similar dilemmas may not be helpful. Often you feel pressured by piers that say, "it's no big deal", or "you'll understand later". It's important that I understand why a particular action or resolution is correct or incorrect. If I can't or don't it's difficult to feel I've been honest with myself. That for me can be a good measure of ethical behavior, my conscience. The ideal way to deal with difficult questions is to have a foolproof formula. Find steps that will always lead to correct decisions. Unfortunately I do not yet have such a formula and often learn by hard experience right and wrong. Let me start by saying I firmly believe the formula exists, and is to be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The only way to live a perfectly ethical and moral life is to be Like Him. There is no other way. The entire world will experiment and try all other forms of self-indulgence and soul searching and will not be one step closer until they begin with His gospel. I heard it said once that "he who picks up one end of a stick, picks up the other end also." No matter how hard you try or want happiness, you cannot pick and choose values and beliefs according to your tastes and wants. It really is all or nothing. That is why I will discuss my formula in a gospel light, because any other way is a waist of time. I believe that in order to make correct and righteous decisions you must first have proper perspective and motivation. The Apostle (???), said that "the true character of a man can really be seen when he is alone and no one will know." Many people, myself included, are motivated by responsibility or leadership. They ask, "what will my wife, or kids think?" or "what will my ward think?". These are good motivations and the mantle of responsibility can mold a person, but they can also betray us and make decisions quite difficult. If you rely on pressure to make decisions, what will you do when a decision is unpopular, or when no one is looking? Still others weigh consequences or outcomes to aid in decision making. Rather than look at the question and judge it by it's own merits, they want to see who's affected or what it would really cost. It's like putting a price on your character. If it's small or doesn't hurt anybody, than it won't be a big deal. We can "nickel and dime" our moral piggy bank to death. It's the old, "the ends justify the means." Criminals aren't made in a day. Some of the most unethical and unjustifiable behavior I know of has come out of our own political system. The very men who are responsible for making our laws have little or no regard for them. They live under the philosophy that "I'm an ethical person until I get caught..." and when their caught they exclaim that their human. Ethics has nothing to do with other people. It's called personal integrity and character and no one else will ever be my judge but me in that regard. An ethical person has character and personal integrity. What of the argument, "Remember the SPIRIT, or LETTER of the law"? I think all too often I use both of these arguments to justify myself. When I may not exactly follow a law to the letter I can justify myself by babbling about "original intent or spirit". On other occasions it's an easy way out of a dilemma by taking too literally the letter of the law. The classic argument against war is "thou shalt not kill". If a person wishes to look blindly on a rule or a law and will not see a larger picture, than they easily justify the letter of the law. It is for this reason our courts are overloaded with endless cases and appeals. Criminals go free on technicalities caused by forced "letter of the law" rulings. I believe it's important to understand both the letter and spirit of the law in order to make correct decisions. Drawing analogies can often help me to understand complex subjects. I think traffic laws are a good microcosm of our society. We are a car along the road of life (sorry if this is too much, just bare with me). On the road we have laws, which are straight forward and strict. We also have guidelines, that are not laws, but still expected. On this road, we also interact with other cars and difficult situations. "Can I pull a u-turn in the middle of the road when there's no sign that says I can't?", or "Can I park here?", "Should I stop that drunk driver?" etc. There are many examples that can be directly related to our lives, and can demonstrate the purpose for law and order. Are there times on the road when we justify an action by an individual situation or outcome? Are there times when we are justified to not obey the law? Some may think these examples are too much of a stretch, and I agree that they only apply so far, but in a Priesthood session not long ago we were asked, "how many of you brethren obeyed all traffic laws when driving to conference today?" I believe that it is easy to justify traffic infractions, just as it is easy to justify small compromises in our character. I believe there are situations that merit not following the law. As we discussed in class, The revolutionary war was begun as a result of outright rebellion of the colonies. When a people is deprived of life or liberty they have a human right to claim it and fight for it if necessary. Imagine if a police officer over enforced laws on you, or unreasonably harassed you. Even though technically he may be within the law to do so, do you have a right to not obey him. Many courts have stated you do, and for good reason. Recently in Alabama an officer was chasing a women on the highway for a traffic violation. He was in an unmarked car. It had no police lights on the top or any markings that would show it's identity. He flashed his brights and told her to pull over for miles, but she wouldn't pull over. She was frightened of the man and wouldn't believe he was an officer. After several miles she finally pulled to the side of the rode. The officer was furious and pulled her out of her car, through her on the ground, cuffed her, and arrested her. Here, the officer was justified in pulling her over. In Alabama police are not required to be in a marked police car. The officer has the right to arrest someone that doesn't pull over. Technically the women broke the law, but was she justified? I believe she was. She feared for her own safety, and could not be faulted for doing so. Fortunately her judge felt the same way and the officer was suspended. I believe this example, and others can show that ethical decisions are not always black and white. They usually require thinking and good judgement. I realize that I can't look at situations always at face value, but must endeavor to understand them if I always want to make the best decision I can. A simple guide that I have used throughout my life is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I believe this is a good rule of thumb to fall back on, but I don't believe it's foolproof. So often we can justify actions by using this kind of reason. Just because you would do it, or have it done to you in no way means it's ethical or right. Sure it may keep you from stealing, or murdering, but what about the gray areas. "I'll do it for him because he'd do it for me." "Everyone else would take this opportunity, so why can't I." Even putting yourself in someone else's shoes may not help very much. You must have a stronger foundation to base all your ethics on. The motivation for doing right should be based far deeper than just testimony, commandments, or responsibility. I believe it must come from a true desire to be the best person you can be. Don't settle for second rate behavior. Expect the best out of yourself and your fellow man. Be forgiving both of yourself and others, but don't be clumsy and just stumble through your mistakes. I believe the savior didn't do all he did on the earth just to obey, or just to be righteous. Those were true motivations, but I believe His motivation was more proactive rather than reactive. He was good, and He loved us, and wanted us to be like Him. He knew the only path possible for our return. That is why He volunteered and submitted. I could compare it to temple attendance or missionary service. We may serve by commandment alone, and reap all the blessing and rewards, or we could look beyond and see the work of saving souls. We could see the absolute need for our service and give our lives for it. I believe with that kind of true motivation we will more easily be able to see right from wrong. We will not seek to satisfy our own needs or wants, but will see others needs along with ours. We could more clearly see the importance of ethical and moral behavior. Whether someone is watching or not is irrelevant and has no part in our decisions. I admit that this in no way will make the decision making process easier; quite the contrary. No longer will decisions be made based on popularity or gain, but on what's right and good. Unfortunately I will still have to learn by experience when the answers are not clear, so I will get burned a few times. But in the process of learning, I can be confident that I am really doing my best and improving always. By refining this formula I will find myself better able to resolve difficult dilemmas and feel good about my decisions. Moral and Ethical Dilemmas One of the most difficult trials I face in my life are ethical and moral dilemmas. They can be soul-wrenching and searching experiences that tax my character and cause me to really "put my money where my mouth is." Sometimes I'm quick to see ethical faults in others, but slow to see them in myself. Other times I see all to clearly my mistakes and wonder why I don't measure up. I believe one purpose for this life is to learn to act for ourselves. Learn to see a situation correctly and act righteously. In this paper I wish to discuss many of the thoughts I have had recently on setting a pattern for making ethical decisions throughout my life. I will present many of the traps I have fallen into or observed in others. Everyday I'm faced with decisions of right and wrong, most of which are easily and correctly dealt with. Sometimes however, decisions need to be made that are not easy or clear-cut. They require thought and often prayer. I like to draw on past experience to make comparisons that help give insight to new problems. Many times, however past experiences cannot be related to present problems and can confuse and obscure possibilities. Even the opinions or actions of friends faced with similar dilemmas may not be helpful. Often you feel pressured by piers that say, "it's no big deal", or "you'll understand later". It's important that I understand why a particular action or resolution is correct or incorrect. If I can't or don't it's difficult to feel I've been honest with myself. That for me can be a good measure of ethical behavior, my conscience. The ideal way to deal with difficult questions is to have a foolproof formula. Find steps that will always lead to correct decisions. Unfortunately I do not yet have such a formula and often learn by hard experience right and wrong. Let me start by saying I firmly believe the formula exists, and is to be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The only way to live a perfectly ethical and moral life is to be Like Him. There is no other way. The entire world will experiment and try all other forms of self-indulgence and soul searching and will not be one step closer until they begin with His gospel. I heard it said once that "he who picks up one end of a stick, picks up the other end also." No matter how hard you try or want happiness, you cannot pick and choose values and beliefs according to your tastes and wants. It really is all or nothing. That is why I will discuss my formula in a gospel light, because any other way is a waist of time. I believe that in order to make correct and righteous decisions you must first have proper perspective and motivation. The Apostle (???), said that "the true character of a man can really be seen when he is alone and no one will know." Many people, myself included, are motivated by responsibility or leadership. They ask, "what will my wife, or kids think?" or "what will my ward think?". These are good motivations and the mantle of responsibility can mold a person, but they can also betray us and make decisions quite difficult. If you rely on pressure to make decisions, what will you do when a decision is unpopular, or when no one is looking? Still others weigh consequences or outcomes to aid in decision making. Rather than look at the question and judge it by it's own merits, they want to see who's affected or what it would really cost. It's like putting a price on your character. If it's small or doesn't hurt anybody, than it won't be a big deal. We can "nickel and dime" our moral piggy bank to death. It's the old, "the ends justify the means." Criminals aren't made in a day. Some of the most unethical and unjustifiable behavior I know of has come out of our own political system. The very men who are responsible for making our laws have little or no regard for them. They live under the philosophy that "I'm an ethical person until I get caught..." and when their caught they exclaim that their human. Ethics has nothing to do with other people. It's called personal integrity and character and no one else will ever be my judge but me in that regard. An ethical person has character and personal integrity. What of the argument, "Remember the SPIRIT, or LETTER of the law"? I think all too often I use both of these arguments to justify myself. When I may not exactly follow a law to the letter I can justify myself by babbling about "original intent or spirit". On other occasions it's an easy way out of a dilemma by taking too literally the letter of the law. The classic argument against war is "thou shalt not kill". If a person wishes to look blindly on a rule or a law and will not see a larger picture, than they easily justify the letter of the law. It is for this reason our courts are overloaded with endless cases and appeals. Criminals go free on technicalities caused by forced "letter of the law" rulings. I believe it's important to understand both the letter and spirit of the law in order to make correct decisions. Drawing analogies can often help me to understand complex subjects. I think traffic laws are a good microcosm of our society. We are a car along the road of life (sorry if this is too much, just bare with me). On the road we have laws, which are straight forward and strict. We also have guidelines, that are not laws, but still expected. On this road, we also interact with other cars and difficult situations. "Can I pull a u-turn in the middle of the road when there's no sign that says I can't?", or "Can I park here?", "Should I stop that drunk driver?" etc. There are many examples that can be directly related to our lives, and can demonstrate the purpose for law and order. Are there times on the road when we justify an action by an individual situation or outcome? Are there times when we are justified to not obey the law? Some may think these examples are too much of a stretch, and I agree that they only apply so far, but in a Priesthood session not long ago we were asked, "how many of you brethren obeyed all traffic laws when driving to conference today?" I believe that it is easy to justify traffic infractions, just as it is easy to justify small compromises in our character. I believe there are situations that merit not following the law. As we discussed in class, The revolutionary war was begun as a result of outright rebellion of the colonies. When a people is deprived of life or liberty they have a human right to claim it and fight for it if necessary. Imagine if a police officer over enforced laws on you, or unreasonably harassed you. Even though technically he may be within the law to do so, do you have a right to not obey him. Many courts have stated you do, and for good reason. Recently in Alabama an officer was chasing a women on the highway for a traffic violation. He was in an unmarked car. It had no police lights on the top or any markings that would show it's identity. He flashed his brights and told her to pull over for miles, but she wouldn't pull over. She was frightened of the man and wouldn't believe he was an officer. After several miles she finally pulled to the side of the rode. The officer was furious and pulled her out of her car, through her on the ground, cuffed her, and arrested her. Here, the officer was justified in pulling her over. In Alabama police are not required to be in a marked police car. The officer has the right to arrest someone that doesn't pull over. Technically the women broke the law, but was she justified? I believe she was. She feared for her own safety, and could not be faulted for doing so. Fortunately her judge felt the same way and the officer was suspended. I believe this example, and others can show that ethical decisions are not always black and white. They usually require thinking and good judgement. I realize that I can't look at situations always at face value, but must endeavor to understand them if I always want to make the best decision I can. A simple guide that I have used throughout my life is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I believe this is a good rule of thumb to fall back on, but I don't believe it's foolproof. So often we can justify actions by using this kind of reason. Just because you would do it, or have it done to you in no way means it's ethical or right. Sure it may keep you from stealing, or murdering, but what about the gray areas. "I'll do it for him because he'd do it for me." "Everyone else would take this opportunity, so why can't I." Even putting yourself in someone else's shoes may not help very much. You must have a stronger foundation to base all your ethics on. The motivation for doing right should be based far deeper than just testimony, commandments, or responsibility. I believe it must come from a true desire to be the best person you can be. Don't settle for second rate behavior. Expect the best out of yourself and your fellow man. Be forgiving both of yourself and others, but don't be clumsy and just stumble through your mistakes. I believe the savior didn't do all he did on the earth just to obey, or just to be righteous. Those were true motivations, but I believe His motivation was more proactive rather than reactive. He was good, and He loved us, and wanted us to be like Him. He knew the only path possible for our return. That is why He volunteered and submitted. I could compare it to temple attendance or missionary service. We may serve by commandment alone, and reap all the blessing and rewards, or we could look beyond and see the work of saving souls. We could see the absolute need for our service and give our lives for it. I believe with that kind of true motivation we will more easily be able to see right from wrong. We will not seek to satisfy our own needs or wants, but will see others needs along with ours. We could more clearly see the importance of ethical and moral behavior. Whether someone is watching or not is irrelevant and has no part in our decisions. I admit that this in no way will make the decision making process easier; quite the contrary. No longer will decisions be made based on popularity or gain, but on what's right and good. Unfortunately I will still have to learn by experience when the answers are not clear, so I will get burned a few times. But in the process of learning, I can be confident that I am really doing my best and improving always. By refining this formula I will find myself better able to resolve difficult dilemmas and feel good about my decisions. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Mormonism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Mormons Mormonism is a way of life that is practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Over two-thirds of the church's membership is in the United States. However, members are also located in many other countries around the world. Mormons use the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and two other books or revelations to Joseph Smith, founder of the church. These other two revelations are the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The Mormon organization consists of a three member First Presidency and a twelve man Council of Apostles who make up the major policy-making body of the church. Mormonism's founding doctrine was based on the assumption that Christianity was corrupt and that it was necessary to restore the "true" Christian gospel. The Mormon church sees only itself as recognized by God. Joseph Smith founded the church in New York in 1830. He said that he had visions of God and other heavenly beings that told him to establish the restored Christian Church. He was "directed" to some thin metal plates that he translated into what is now called the book of Mormons. This book describes the history, wars, and religious beliefs of a group of people who migrated from Jerusalem to America. Smith attracted a small group of followers who settled in Kirtland, Ohio, and Jackson County, Missouri. Because of persecution, the church moved to northern Missouri, then to Nauvoo, Illinois. The people of Illinois welcomed the persecuted Mormons, and Smith began to construct a temple and a hotel there. In 1843, Smith secretly instituted the practice of plural marriage among a group of his followers. This could be because he himself had 50 wives. The Mormons lived in relative peace until 1844 when a group became mad about Smith's practices. They started a newspaper called the "Nauvoo Expositor" and attacked him, accusing him of practicing polygamy. Smith denied this charge but was killed anyway. Brigham Young took over as their new leader. In 1852 , polygamy was officially announced at the Mormon conference. Points of Debate What was so wrong with their views? * Belief in the Bible and Book of Mormon ==> How? The Mormons believe the Bible and The Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. However, the Bible states that it is the only Word of God. ==> Mormonism believes that God has a physical body. The Bible contradicts this belief * Belief in Polygamy ==> Teach that Jesus Christ himself is a polygamist. * Mormonism and Blacks ==> Mormonism teaches that African Americans have dark skin because they are cursed by God, and are an inferior race. * King James Bible is Plagiarized ==> An analysis by Michael Marquard, shows that the portion of the Book of Mormon that was supposed to have been written during the Old Testament period is literally peppered with phrases and quotations from the King James New Testament. ==> The book of Mormon virtually copies the life of the Apostle Paul with its own teacher, named Alma. * Blunders in Biblical Material ==> Peter's paraphrase of Moses' words in the Bible is referred to as Moses' own words in the Book of Mormon. Thus Peter is accidentally quoted hundreds of years before the book of Acts was written or Peter had ever uttered his words. Are their limits on acceptable beliefs in our democracy? * Yes, but not enough ==> There are limits to keep religious beliefs from physically harming us, such as the Branch Dividians, but there are no limits on beliefs that can spiritually harm us, such as the Mormon religion. Should we welcome and tolerate all views? * We should listen, then judge ==> We should allow these religions to state their purpose and determine how their teachings will affect us. ==> We should not tolerate any view which is detrimental to our society or to our country. Mormonism goes against all beliefs of the early Christian church. The Mormon Church was too radical for the people and that is why they were persecuted. Bibliography Allen, James B., and Leonard, Glen M., The Story of the Latter-day Saints (1976). Arrington, Leonard J., and Bitton, Davis, The Mormon Experience (1979). Bitton, Davis, and Beecher, Maureen, eds., New Views of Mormon History (1987). Hansen, Klaus J., Mormonism and the American Experience (1981). Shipps, Jan, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (1984). Walters, Wesley P. Mormonism (1996). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Mormons in Utah 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mormons in Utah I intend to prove that the Mormon religion, which began to rise in both reputation and numbers in Utah, is a strange mixer of Christianity, American pragmatism, millennialist expectations, economic experimentation, political conservation, evangelical fervor and international activity, but is still a highly followed, rapidly growing, and successful religion. Mormonism is a major modern religion with more than 8 million members, and over 4 million in the United States. Mormonism was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith who was known as the prophet. This is a young age for such a widely practiced religion, and its numbers grow daily. Mormonism is officially the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Its founding doctrine is based on the assumption that Christianity was too corrupt and ungodly, and that restoring true Christian values was necessary. A revelation like this may only come through God who needs to put the true, pure forms of Christianity in a divine authority. The Mormons, who follow four books including The Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine of Covenants, and Pearl of a Great Price do believe that all religions have some amount of truth to them and do good in one form or another, but it is only their religion that is " the only true and living church upon Earth". In 1820 , Mormonism was founded by a teenage Joseph Smith during the 19th century United States religious movement known as the "Second Great Awakening". On April 6, 1830, The Book of Mormon was completed and a new religion was born. Mormonism attracted many people and the firs official home of the Mormons was in Fayette, New York. In 1831, the Mormons moved to Kirtland, Ohio, now known as Kirtland Hills. Other Mormon areas were being established, especially in Mississippi. Newly proclaimed Mormons were rushing to their new religious grounds, mainly in norttheastern Ohio and western Mississippi. Although the Mormons were thrilled with their "perfect" religion, there were many problems where they had established themselves. The people who were already present in strongly populated Mormon areas began to get upset and act very hostile. Threats were made, and the Mormons became very scared-scared enough to move. So they did. The Mormons reestablished themselves somewhere along the Mississippi River at a place known as Commerce, Illinois. They Mormons were granted permission by Chicago to latter rename their property as Nauvoo. The Mormons still were not wanted. The people living around the Mormons became worried about their local economy and the affects the block voting done by the Mormons would have. The Mormons were allowed to set up their own army to protect themselves. Soon, rumors of monarchical powers and the practice of polygamy began floating around. This enraged locals even more and the federal government sent armies into Mormon territory to see if they could dispel any of these rumors. This only caused more of an upset. In 1844, Joseph Mormon and his younger brother were placed into a prison in Illinois on charges of treason and conspiracy. After they were released they were promised protection by the government, but this was not the case because shortly after their release, they were assassinated. The leadership of the Mormons fell onto the shoulders of a group of men known as the 12 Apostles. The 12 Apostles, knowing they couldn't stay in Illinois, decided they had to move. Brigham Young, who took over as prophet and president of the Mormon group, decided to move the Mormons in 1847. They moved from Illinois to Great Basin in the rocky Mountains in Utah. salt Lake City was set up as the main Mormon city of worship, and soon over 300 other cities of worship sprouted up nearby. The Mormon religious territories spread from California to Colorado, and from Mexico to Canada. In their new land, the Mormons thought they were safe, and 10% -20% openly practiced polygamy. The rumors about this had proved to be true and the government sent in an army to stop this form of worship. This propelled the supposed Utah War that lasted from 1857 to 1858. The Mormons went through battle after battle of judicial trials. Finally, in 1890, the church president at that time, Wilford Woodruff, publicly ended all Mormon polygamy. The Mormons finally were left alone and their little city in Utah created thousands more cities like it. The contemporary Mormon church still has many problems, and while it is seen as a conservative Christian church, their ideas about God's nature and salvation greatly differ from other Christian religions. However, the Mormons have constantly proved they believe their religion is worth fighting for. In this report, I have proven the Mormons are an odd mixture of Christianity, American pragmatism, millennialist expectations, economic experimentation, political conservation, evangelical fervor, and international activity, and continue to grow because they are a highly followed rapidly growing, successful religion. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Mormons in Utah.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mormons in Utah I intend to prove that the Mormon religion, which began to rise in both reputation and numbers in Utah, is a strange mixer of Christianity, American pragmatism, millennialist expectations, economic experimentation, political conservation, evangelical fervor and international activity, but is still a highly followed, rapidly growing, and successful religion. Mormonism is a major modern religion with more than 8 million members, and over 4 million in the United States. Mormonism was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith who was known as the prophet. This is a young age for such a widely practiced religion, and its numbers grow daily. Mormonism is officially the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Its founding doctrine is based on the assumption that Christianity was too corrupt and ungodly, and that restoring true Christian values was necessary. A revelation like this may only come through God who needs to put the true, pure forms of Christianity in a divine authority. The Mormons, who follow four books including The Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine of Covenants, and Pearl of a Great Price do believe that all religions have some amount of truth to them and do good in one form or another, but it is only their religion that is " the only true and living church upon Earth". In 1820 , Mormonism was founded by a teenage Joseph Smith during the 19th century United States religious movement known as the "Second Great Awakening". On April 6, 1830, The Book of Mormon was completed and a new religion was born. Mormonism attracted many people and the firs official home of the Mormons was in Fayette, New York. In 1831, the Mormons moved to Kirtland, Ohio, now known as Kirtland Hills. Other Mormon areas were being established, especially in Mississippi. Newly proclaimed Mormons were rushing to their new religious grounds, mainly in norttheastern Ohio and western Mississippi. Although the Mormons were thrilled with their "perfect" religion, there were many problems where they had established themselves. The people who were already present in strongly populated Mormon areas began to get upset and act very hostile. Threats were made, and the Mormons became very scared-scared enough to move. So they did. The Mormons reestablished themselves somewhere along the Mississippi River at a place known as Commerce, Illinois. They Mormons were granted permission by Chicago to latter rename their property as Nauvoo. The Mormons still were not wanted. The people living around the Mormons became worried about their local economy and the affects the block voting done by the Mormons would have. The Mormons were allowed to set up their own army to protect themselves. Soon, rumors of monarchical powers and the practice of polygamy began floating around. This enraged locals even more and the federal government sent armies into Mormon territory to see if they could dispel any of these rumors. This only caused more of an upset. In 1844, Joseph Mormon and his younger brother were placed into a prison in Illinois on charges of treason and conspiracy. After they were released they were promised protection by the government, but this was not the case because shortly after their release, they were assassinated. The leadership of the Mormons fell onto the shoulders of a group of men known as the 12 Apostles. The 12 Apostles, knowing they couldn't stay in Illinois, decided they had to move. Brigham Young, who took over as prophet and president of the Mormon group, decided to move the Mormons in 1847. They moved from Illinois to Great Basin in the rocky Mountains in Utah. salt Lake City was set up as the main Mormon city of worship, and soon over 300 other cities of worship sprouted up nearby. The Mormon religious territories spread from California to Colorado, and from Mexico to Canada. In their new land, the Mormons thought they were safe, and 10% -20% openly practiced polygamy. The rumors about this had proved to be true and the government sent in an army to stop this form of worship. This propelled the supposed Utah War that lasted from 1857 to 1858. The Mormons went through battle after battle of judicial trials. Finally, in 1890, the church president at that time, Wilford Woodruff, publicly ended all Mormon polygamy. The Mormons finally were left alone and their little city in Utah created thousands more cities like it. The contemporary Mormon church still has many problems, and while it is seen as a conservative Christian church, their ideas about God's nature and salvation greatly differ from other Christian religions. However, the Mormons have constantly proved they believe their religion is worth fighting for. In this report, I have proven the Mormons are an odd mixture of Christianity, American pragmatism, millennialist expectations, economic experimentation, political conservation, evangelical fervor, and international activity, and continue to grow because they are a highly followed rapidly growing, successful religion. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Mother katharine drexel.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mother katharine drexel Mother Katharine Drexel was one of the most caring and unselfish people in the world. She was born in Philadelphia in 1858 into an affluent family. Her father was a wealthy banker named Francis Drexel. Mother Katharine Drexel had the desire to give her services completely to God by taking care of the poor. Mother Drexel had started out by giving direct service to fulfill the immediate needs of the less fortunate. She later began to see that donating money alone was not enough to help the poor. Giving money to the poor didn't go to the root of the problem. Mother Drexel had begun giving more of herself. In 1891, she started the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament. Mother Drexel founded a religious order for women, which was dedicated to helping the poor Native Americans and African Americans. Along with setting up a religious order, she founded schools and missions in the South and West of the United States. The Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament have grown and have missions in eleven states as well as in Haiti. Mother Drexel had continued to be an active worker until she reached her seventies. Because of serious health problems, Mother Drexel could no longer go out and work. Instead she lived in the SBS motherhouse where she spent time praying and reflecting. In 1988, Pope John Paul II gave Katharine Drexel the title of "Blessed" after Robert Gutherman had been cured of hearing loss after his family prayed to Mother Drexel. Also in January of 2000, the Pope John Paul II had reported that Amy Wall, a young girl had been cured of her deafness after prayers were made to Mother Drexel. Mother Katharine Drexel's feast day is on March 3./ On October 1, 2000 Mother Katharine had been canonized. Her body was laid at the Saint Katharine Drexel Shrine in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Mother Teresa.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mother Teresa Mother Teresa was a powerful woman with her missions and countless acts of mercy. Powerful leaders in our world today should learn from Mother Teresa and her countless acts of mercy, which she performed. Often men and women in powerful positions misuse their strengths simply for their own personal benefit. Mother Teresa is a perfect example of a modern day saint. Through her love and guidance of Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa proves to be savior. Now if you compare Mother Teresa to some of today's wealthy politics and the way they conduct themselves, you will see a great contrast between to two. Mother Teresa does not work out of the intent to profit but instead out of her love to help others, like no other women our society has seen. Mother Teresa used her power of love from God to help those in desperate need. Mother Teresa didn't get paid for anything she did nor would she except money from organizations or donations. It was not like Mother Teresa had an overwhelming amount of money but she was simply a person who devoted her entire life to serving others and helping those in need. Many people may not have noticed it, but all Mother Teresa had to do was touch a person and that was almost enough. She helped thousands of people in poor countries with ailing diseases, but most importantly see touched the souls of common men. She made even the rich and selfish take a deep look into their lives, which brought out the best in everyone. When one person can captivate the world as she could, it makes you realize how very important she really was. It was not always what she did, but rather how she conducted herself while doing it. For all the many deeds she did, she never once asked for anything in return. Most leaders today are very selfish and are only contributing to society when they feel it looks good for their image. Leaders such as Mother Teresa should be highly respected for their accomplishments. It is people like Mother Teresa who give us all a new meaning to life. She truly proved that one person can really make a difference in the lives of millions. Mother Teresa set examples for future generations to continue her work. This shows how much of an impact she truly had. She made a difference, not by helping everyone, but by making people stop and realize how they could do the same. It should be instilled in our minds that we have a duty to help and serve others. If we as a hole took the examples of Mother Teresa and followed them our society would be a much better place. She went to countries with no medical care, no food, no drinking water, and never mind other necessities. When talking about the life and times of Mother Teresa, it is astonishing to see the number of people she has affected. If one person can do so much, maybe we should think of how much we could all do as a society. Mother Teresa is a role model for every America, but it is up to us to follow her path. Through her ability to love and help those in need, Mother Teresa has shown great pride in her work and will be remembered forever as a great leader. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Natural Law Theory.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Natural Law Theory The natural law theory is a theory that dates back to the time of the Greeks and great thinkers like Plato and Aristotle. Defined as the law which states that human are inborn with certain laws preordained into them which let them determine what is right and what is wrong.(Bainton 174) This theory was them adapted by religious philosophers to fit the Christian religion.(Berkhof 114) This, however was not exactly the same as the original. The classical thinkers were the first to define the natural law. Heraclitus, in the sixth century BC, specified one the components by saying, *for all human laws are nourished by one, the divine.* This meant that a divine power determined a logic and gave to all humans. (Microsoft Encarta) This definition put this law into direct conflict with positive laws. Aristotle elaborated on the word natural in relation to law. He said that a natural law was one that had the same validity for every one and situation.(Berkhof 268) An example of this would be that a man contemplating murder would see that it was wrong by his nature. His reason would tell him that to kill another was unnatural, and therefore wrong. Cicero tries to determine what the actual law encompassed and he came up with the theory of Stoicism. Stoicism is an interpretation of the natural law which states that every, single person is a part of the universe that was created and is ruled by a divine power rationally. To live rationally and with virtue, according to the Stoics, was to follow one*s nature and reason. Thus, they deemed emotion and passion irrational, and therefore unnatural. For Stoics, the wise would be those who excluded emotion and passion from their decision making process.(Bainton 21-22) The great Christian philosophers came upon this theory and realized that it was compatible to their religion. Probably the most famous of them was St. Thomas Aquinas. He stated in his Summa Theologiae that God gave man the ability to determine the difference of right from wrong by the *Eternal Law.* This law gave all beings a tendency to do what was proper or natural. He went on to say that by doing what was right, each being was in fact using divine reason. The natural law, according to Aquinas, was the participation in the Eternal Law, doing what was right.(Comptons) Marriage and the procreation of children, for example, are natural to all beings. The desire to marry and make offspring is an inborn instinct given by God. The natural law, in both Christian and secular views, state that all humans act or should act in certain ways and abide by certain rules, and that these were predestined by a divine power. The Christian thinkers, led by St. Thomas Aquinas, only added that the divine power was God and that by doing what was right, one was using divine reason. The natural law is the essence of the word natural. It just means anything normal or feels normal is right. I do agree with most of the natural law. I very much believe that God gave man the ability to reason right from wrong and that sometimes we just have a feel for what is right and wrong. I don agree, however, with the Stoics* viewpoint that emotion and passion are unnatural. They must be natural because they are found in every person. Also, the emotion of passion is a very desirable trait in the Bible. I think emotions are one way God tries to tell us what is just. Bibliography Bainton, Roland H. Christianity. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 1987. Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990. Compton*s Encyclopedia. *St. Thomas Aquinas* Britannica Inc.: Chicago, 1989. vol. 2. pg. 520. Compton*s Encyclopedia. *Natural Law* Britannica Inc.: Chicago, 1989. vol. 16. pg. 87-88. ELibrary, Internet, *Natural Law* Microsoft Encarta. *Natural Law.* f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat For my book report, I have chosen the novel Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat. In this report I will give a brief summary of the novel as well as why I have chosen it for my report. Finally, I will give my reactions to the novel with regards to its analysis of the place of human beings in nature, whether the destiny of humans and nature is intertwined, and how nature is regarded by the different religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the novel. Never Cry Wolf is based upon the true story of the author's experiences during two years spent as a biologist studying a family of wolves in northern Canada during the mid nineteen fifties. When Mowat is sent on his expedition his goal is to bring back proof of the wolves decimating effect on the northern herds of Caribou. After arriving at the remote location, he finds a group of wolves and begins his research. He then discovers the differing peculiarities of the wolves and finds that they are more than the savage and merciless hunters that he had previously believed them to be. He discovers that they are in fact a very efficient and resourceful and have their own distinctive culture. For example he discovers that they in fact have a symbiotic relationship with the caribou in that they keep the caribou population strong by hunting down only the sick and weaker members of the herd. This leads to a situation where the strongest caribou survive and thus the herd is made stronger. As well they have their own social orders that ensure peaceful co-existence with one another instead of being reduced to fighting amongst themselves. Before Mowat's excursion conventional wisdom thought that that was the only interraction that the wolves were capable of. In his group he finds a monogamous pair who are raising their litter with assistance from another male wolf who Mowat terms to be an "uncle". His previous assumptions which portrayed the wolves as cold heated killers who lived only for the hunt, is challenged as he observes these animals play and interact within their environment his previous assumptions about the role that these animals play in nature. His attitude metamorphosis' from one of disdain and contempt to one of genuine respect and admiration. I chose this novel for study instead of Siddhartha because I felt that this novel speaks more directly to me. I felt this way firstly, because of the location of the novel, northern Canada, in which I traveled for a summer, and secondly because I enjoy spending time in the outdoors. This meant that I could more easily identify the setting and thus relate better to the author's feelings and perceptions. Meanwhile, Siddhartha was set in India and in my mind was dated and unreal humankind (society) seems today to have more of a desire and a need to get back to nature and the simple life. The spirit of peace that emanates from Mowat's book allows one to focus on what is possible when one has time to reflect In this I mean that Never Cry Wolf seemed to hold a more meaningful message for modern times. As well I found the style of writing in the Mowat novel to be clearer then in Siddhartha. These were some of the factors that combined to produce a situation where Never Cry Wolf captured my attention more than Siddhartha. It was for these reasons that I chose the novel by Farley Mowat. In my opinion, Never Cry Wolf placed humans in the role of intruders as far as nature is concerned. Mowat cites several instances where humans violate nature and represent a threat to its sanctity. Even though this threat is not reciprocated by nature, humans continue to infringe upon nature and then deny the consequences of their actions. Two prevalent examples of this occur: when Mowat accidentally wanders into the wolves den when the wolves' are there, and again when he discovers a herd of deer that have been slaughtered by hunters. Both examples show humans intruding upon nature and using it for their own purposes. In the first example Mowat decides to explore the wolves' den without realizing that they are still inside. Once inside he discovers that they are still there and he fears that he is going to be killed by them. Even though he is an intruder the wolves take no action against his presence and he manages to escape. The most disturbing aspect of this event is afterwards when he describes the rage and fear that overcame him at the thought of having been at their mercy: "I sat down on a stone and shakily lit a cigarette, becoming aware as I did that I was no longer frightened. Instead an irrational rage possessed me. If I had had my rifle I believe that I might have reacted in brute fury and tried to kill both wolves." (P. 175) In the second incident Mowat illustrates how humans brutally use nature for their own benefit and pleasure. The situation occurs when a trapper comes to Mowat to show him "proof" of the savage and merciless ways of wolves. Following the trapper they come to a spot where approximately 50 deer have been slaughtered. However, he quickly finds out that the deaths were the result of human hunters. Of the herd only two or three had been touched after the kill, their heads taken home as trophies. Despite the evidence Mowat is unable to convince people of the true nature of the predators and in response to the incidence the bounty on wolves is raised by twenty dollars. Overall I would say that Mowat's book makes the point that the destiny of humans and animals are closely entwined. Several times in the novel he illustrates how each affects the other. As well he also demonstrates how humans can still learn from nature. One example of this occurs when Mowat's food supplies run low and he adapts the fishing tactics of the wolves in order to catch fish. The final aspect of Never Cry Wolf that I will examine is how nature is regarded by the various religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the novel. The two different philosophies which are demonstrated are one which are diametrically opposed. The first philosophy is that of mainstream western culture. This philosophy views nature as something to be feared and ultimately conquered. Throughout the book there are examples where people with this viewpoint attempt to dominate nature or at least attempt to impose human moral judgment upon it. This is especially prevalent in people's attitudes towards wolves. They see the wolves bloodthirsty, merciless killers who are pillaging the caribou herds for mere blood sport. And yet those people fail to recognize that the true slaughterers are the human predators who blatantly overhunt the caribou herds. For instance, Mowat finds that conservatively, trappers kill a combined 112 000 deer every year but still blame the wolf for the caribous' decimation. The other philosophy demonstrated in Never Cry Wolf is that of the native Americans of northern Canada. Their philosophy, as presented by Mowat is one which views humans as only being a fraction of the total importance of nature. In their culture they are taught to have reverence for nature and to be efficient in their use of natural resources. This philosophy causes them to see wolves, not as bloodthirsty menaces, but as animals simply fulfilling their role in the natural chain. In conclusion I believe that Never Cry Wolf illustrates the various beliefs that different people have about nature and the environment. Mowat also effectively demonstrates how these beliefs influence people's interaction with nature. Finally, Mowat leaves no doubt that humans do have a large and sometimes traumatic impact upon nature. However with his experience changing Mowat's own change of thinking, we see that it is possible for humans to correct the error of their humanistic thinking. This can particularly be seen in Mowat's closing sentences... "I thought of Angeline and her pup cowering at the bottom of the den where they had taken refuge from the thundering apparition of the aircraft, and I was shamed." (P.175) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Nicholas Ferra1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Nicholas Ferrar Nicholas Ferrar was assumed to be born in 1592. I have found that his most probable birth date was in February of 1593. This is due to the usual calendar confusion: England was not at that time using the new calendar adopted in October 1582. It was 1593 according to our modern calendar, but at the time the new year in England began on the following March 25th. Nicholas Ferrar was one of the more interesting figures in English history. His family was quite wealthy and were heavily involved in the Virginia Company, which had a Royal Charter for the plantation of Virginia. People like Sir Walter Raleigh were often visitors to the family home in London. Ferrars' niece was named Virginia, the first known use of this name. Ferrar studied at Cambridge and would have gone further with his studies but the damp air of the fens was bad for his health and he traveled to Europe, spending time in the warmer climate of Italy. On his return to England he found his family had fared badly. His brother John had become over extended financially and the Virginia Company was in danger of loosing its charter. Nicholas dedicated himself to saving the family fortune and was successful. He served for a short time as Member of Parliament, where he tried to promote the cause for the Virginia Company. His efforts were in vain for the company lost their charter anyway. Nicholas is given credit for founding a Christian community called the English Protestant Nunnery at Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire, England. After Ferrar was ordained as a deacon, he retired and started his little community. Ferrar was given help and support with his semi-religious community by John Collet, as well as Collet's wife and fourteen children. They devoted themselves to a life of prayer, fasting and almsgiving (Matthew 6:2,5,16). The community was founded in 1626, when Nicholas was 34 years old. Banning together, they restored an abandoned church that was being used as a barn. Being of wealthy decent, Ferrar purchased the manor of Little Gidding, a village which had been discarded since the Black Death (a major outbreak of the bubonic plague in the 14th century), a few miles off the Great North Road, and probably recommended by John Williams, Bishop of Lincoln whose palace was in the nearby village of Buckden. About thirty people along with Mary Ferrar (Ferrars' mother) moved into the manor house. Nicholas became spiritual leader of the community. The community was very strict under the supervision of Nicholas. They read daily offices of the Book of Common Prayer, including the recital of the complete Psalter. every day. Day and night there was at least one member of the community kneeling in prayer at the alter, that they were keeping the word, "Pray without ceasing". They taught the neighborhood children, and looked after the health and well being of the community. They fasted and in many ways embraced voluntary poverty so that they might have as much money as possible for the relief of the poor. They wrote books and stories dealing with various aspects of Christian faith and practice. The memory of the community survived to inspire and influence later undertakings of Christian communal living, and one of T.S. Eliots' Four Quartets is called "Little Gidding." Nicholas was a bookbinder and he taught the community the craft as well as gilding and the so-called pasting printing by means of a rolling press. The members of the community produced the remarkable "Harmonies" of the scriptures, one of which was produced by Mary Collet for King Charles I.. Some of the bindings were in gold toothed leather, some were in velvet which had a considerable amount of gold tooling. Some of the embroidered bindings of this period have also been attributed to the so-called nuns of Little Gidding. The community attracted much attention and was visited by the king, Charles I. He was attracted by a gospel harmony they had produced. The king asked to borrow it only to return it a few months later in exchange for a promise of a new harmony to give his son, Charles, Prince of Wales. This the Ferrars did, and the superbly produced and bound manuscript passed through the royal collection, and is now on display at the British Library. Nicholas Ferrar, who was never married, died in 1637, and was buried outside the church in Little Gidding. Nicholas's brother John assumed the leadership of the community. John did his best to make the community thrive. He was visited by the king several times. At one time the king came for a visit with the Prince of Wales, he donated some money that he had won in a card game from the prince. The kings last visit was in secret and at night. He was fleeing from defeat from the battle of Naseby and was heading north to try to enlist support from the Scots. John brought him secretly to Little Gidding and got him away the next day. The community was now in much danger. The Presbyterian Puritans were now on the rise and the community was condemned with a series of pamphlets calling them an "Arminian Nunnery" (Ariminius was a Dutch reformer and theologian who opposed the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and election) In 1646 the community was forcibly broken up by Parliamentary soldiers. Their brass baptismal font was damaged, cast into the pond and not recovered until 200 years later. The village remained in the Ferrar family but it was not until the 18th century that the church was restored by another Nicholas Ferrar. Ferrar restored the church, shortened the nave by about 8 feet and built the "dull facade" that Eliot spoke of. In the mid 19th century, William Hodgkinson came along and restored the church more. He installed the armorial stain glass windows, (4 windows with the arms of Ferrar, Charles the 1st and Bishop Williams inserted). He then put in a rose window at the east end (this rose window was later replaced by a Palladian-style plain glass window). Hodgkinson recovered the brass font, restored it and reinstalled it in the church. An elaborate 18th century chandelier now hangs in the church, installed by Hodgkinson. Bibliography Etherington & Roberts. Dictionary--Ferrar, Nicholas - Bookbinding and the Conservation of Books A Dictionary of Descriptive Terminology. Ferrar, Nicholas ( 1592-1637 ) Columbia Encyclopedia - Table Of Contents - Columbia Encyclopedia. F. Faber, Frederick William. Faber, Johannes. Fabian, Saint. Fabian Society. Fabius. Fabius, Laurent. fable. fabliau, plural... Christian Biographies Commemorated in November - FOR THE FEAST OF ALL SAINTS (1 NOV) FIRST READING: Ecclesiasticus 44:1-10,13-14 ("Let us now praise famous men...."; a commemoration of patriarchs,... A History Of The Church In England, J.R.H.Moorman, Morehouse Publishing copyright 1980 The Story Of Christianity, Justo L Gonzalez, Harper Collins Publishers copyright 1984 The Episcopal Church, David Locke Hippocrene Books, New York copyright 1991 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Nicholas Ferrar 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Nicholas Ferrar Nicholas Ferrar was assumed to be born in 1592. I have found that his most probable birth date was in February of 1593. This is due to the usual calendar confusion: England was not at that time using the new calendar adopted in October 1582. It was 1593 according to our modern calendar, but at the time the new year in England began on the following March 25th. Nicholas Ferrar was one of the more interesting figures in English history. His family was quite wealthy and were heavily involved in the Virginia Company, which had a Royal Charter for the plantation of Virginia. People like Sir Walter Raleigh were often visitors to the family home in London. Ferrarsÿ niece was named Virginia, the first known use of this name. Ferrar studied at Cambridge and would have gone further with his studies but the damp air of the fens was bad for his health and he traveled to Europe, spending time in the warmer climate of Italy. On his return to England he found his family had fared badly. His brother John had become over extended financially and the Virginia Company was in danger of loosing its charter. Nicholas dedicated himself to saving the family fortune and was successful. He served for a short time as Member of Parliament, where he tried to promote the cause for the Virginia Company. His efforts were in vain for the company lost their charter anyway. Nicholas is given credit for founding a Christian community called the English Protestant Nunnery at Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire, England. After Ferrar was ordained as a deacon, he retired and started his little community. Ferrar was given help and support with his semi- religious community by John Collet, as well as Colletÿs wife and fourteen children. They devoted themselves to a life of prayer, fasting and almsgiving (Matthew 6:2,5,16). The community was founded in 1626, when Nicholas was 34 years old. Banning together, they restored an abandoned church that was being used as a barn. Being of wealthy decent, Ferrar purchased the manor of Little Gidding, a village which had been discarded since the Black Death (a major outbreak of the bubonic plague in the 14th century), a few miles off the Great North Road, and probably recommended by John Williams, Bishop of Lincoln whose palace was in the nearby village of Buckden. About thirty people along with Mary Ferrar (Ferrarsÿ mother) moved into the manor house. Nicholas became spiritual leader of the community. The community was very strict under the supervision of Nicholas. They read daily offices of the Book of Common Prayer, including the recital of the complete Psalter. every day. Day and night there was at least one member of the community kneeling in prayer at the alter, that they were keeping the word, ÿPray without ceasingÿ. They taught the neighborhood children, and looked after the health and well being of the community. They fasted and in many ways embraced voluntary poverty so that they might have as much money as possible for the relief of the poor. They wrote books and stories dealing with various aspects of Christian faith and practice. The memory of the community survived to inspire and influence later undertakings of Christian communal living, and one of T.S. Eliotsÿ Four Quartets is called ÿLittle Gidding.ÿ Nicholas was a bookbinder and he taught the community the craft as well as gilding and the so-called pasting printing by means of a rolling press. The members of the community produced the remarkable ÿHarmoniesÿ of the scriptures, one of which was produced by Mary Collet for King Charles I.. Some of the bindings were in gold toothed leather, some were in velvet which had a considerable amount of gold tooling. Some of the embroidered bindings of this period have also been attributed to the so-called nuns of Little Gidding. The community attracted much attention and was visited by the king, Charles I. He was attracted by a gospel harmony they had produced. The king asked to borrow it only to return it a few months later in exchange for a promise of a new harmony to give his son, Charles, Prince of Wales. This the Ferrars did, and the superbly produced and bound manuscript passed through the royal collection, and is now on display at the British Library. Nicholas Ferrar, who was never married, died in 1637, and was buried outside the church in Little Gidding. Nicholasÿs brother John assumed the leadership of the community. John did his best to make the community thrive. He was visited by the king several times. At one time the king came for a visit with the Prince of Wales, he donated some money that he had won in a card game from the prince. The kings last visit was in secret and at night. He was fleeing from defeat from the battle of Naseby and was heading north to try to enlist support from the Scots. John brought him secretly to Little Gidding and got him away the next day. The community was now in much danger. The Presbyterian Puritans were now on the rise and the community was condemned with a series of pamphlets calling them an ÿ Arminian Nunneryÿ (Ariminius was a Dutch reformer and theologian who opposed the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and election) In 1646 the community was forcibly broken up by Parliamentary soldiers. Their brass baptismal font was damaged, cast into the pond and not recovered until 200 years later. The village remained in the Ferrar family but it was not until the 18th century that the church was restored by another Nicholas Ferrar. Ferrar restored the church, shortened the nave by about 8 feet and built the ÿdull facadeÿ that Eliot spoke of. In the mid 19th century, William Hodgkinson came along and restored the church more. He installed the armorial stain glass windows, (4 windows with the arms of Ferrar, Charles the 1st and Bishop Williams inserted). He then put in a rose window at the east end (this rose window was later replaced by a Palladian-style plain glass window). Hodgkinson recovered the brass font, restored it and reinstalled it in the church. An elaborate 18th century chandelier now hangs in the church, installed by Hodgkinson. from _ Little Gidding_ by T.S. Eliot If you came this way, Taking any route, starting from anywhere, At any time or at any season, It would always be the same: you would have to put off Sense and notion. You are not here to verify, Instruct yourself, or inform curiosity Or carry report. You are here to kneel Where prayer has been valid. And prayer is more Than an order of words, the conscious occupation Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying. And what the dead had no speech for, when living, They can tell you, being dead: the communication Of the dead is tongued with fire beyond the language of the living. Here, the intersection of the timeless moment Is England and nowhere. Never and always. Bibliography Etherington & Roberts. Dictionary--Ferrar, Nicholas - Bookbinding and the Conservation of Books A Dictionary of Descriptive Terminology. Ferrar, Nicholas ( 1592- 1637 ) Columbia Encyclopedia - Table Of Contents - Columbia Encyclopedia. F. Faber, Frederick William. Faber, Johannes. Fabian, Saint. Fabian Society. Fabius. Fabius, Laurent. fable. fabliau, plural... Christian Biographies Commemorated in November - FOR THE FEAST OF ALL SAINTS (1 NOV) FIRST READING: Ecclesiasticus 44:1-10,13-14 ("Let us now praise famous men...."; a commemoration of patriarchs,... A History Of The Church In England, J.R.H.Moorman, Morehouse Publishing copyright 1980 The Story Of Christianity, Justo L Gonzalez, Harper Collins Publishers copyright 1984 The Episcopal Church, David Locke Hippocrene Books, New York copyright 1991 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Nicholas Ferrar.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian History 102 Nicholas Ferrar Nicholas Ferrar was assumed to be born in 1592. I have found that his most probable birth date was in February of 1593. This is due to the usual calendar confusion: England was not at that time using the new calendar adopted in October 1582. It was 1593 according to our modern calendar, but at the time the new year in England began on the following March 25th. Nicholas Ferrar was one of the more interesting figures in English history. His family was quite wealthy and were heavily involved in the Virginia Company, which had a Royal Charter for the plantation of Virginia. People like Sir Walter Raleigh were often visitors to the family home in London. Ferrars' niece was named Virginia, the first known use of this name. Ferrar studied at Cambridge and would have gone further with his studies but the damp air of the fens was bad for his health and he traveled to Europe, spending time in the warmer climate of Italy. On his return to England he found his family had fared badly. His brother John had become over extended financially and the Virginia Company was in danger of loosing its charter. Nicholas dedicated himself to saving the family fortune and was successful. He served for a short time as Member of Parliament, where he tried to promote the cause for the Virginia Company. His efforts were in vain for the company lost their charter anyway. Nicholas is given credit for founding a Christian community called the English Protestant Nunnery at Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire, England. After Ferrar was ordained as a deacon, he retired and started his little community. Ferrar was given help and support with his semi-religious community by John Collet, as well as Collet's wife and fourteen children. They devoted themselves to a life of prayer, fasting and almsgiving (Matthew 6:2,5,16). The community was founded in 1626, when Nicholas was 34 years old. Banning together, they restored an abandoned church that was being used as a barn. Being of wealthy decent, Ferrar purchased the manor of Little Gidding, a village which had been discarded since the Black Death (a major outbreak of the bubonic plague in the 14th century), a few miles off the Great North Road, and probably recommended by John Williams, Bishop of Lincoln whose palace was in the nearby village of Buckden. About thirty people along with Mary Ferrar (Ferrars' mother) moved into the manor house. Nicholas became spiritual leader of the community. The community was very strict under the supervision of Nicholas. They read daily offices of the Book of Common Prayer, including the recital of the complete Psalter. every day. Day and night there was at least one member of the community kneeling in prayer at the alter, that they were keeping the word, "Pray without ceasing". They taught the neighborhood children, and looked after the health and well being of the community. They fasted and in many ways embraced voluntary poverty so that they might have as much money as possible for the relief of the poor. They wrote books and stories dealing with various aspects of Christian faith and practice. The memory of the community survived to inspire and influence later undertakings of Christian communal living, and one of T.S. Eliots' Four Quartets is called "Little Gidding." Nicholas was a bookbinder and he taught the community the craft as well as gilding and the so-called pasting printing by means of a rolling press. The members of the community produced the remarkable "Harmonies" of the scriptures, one of which was produced by Mary Collet for King Charles I.. Some of the bindings were in gold toothed leather, some were in velvet which had a considerable amount of gold tooling. Some of the embroidered bindings of this period have also been attributed to the so-called nuns of Little Gidding. The community attracted much attention and was visited by the king, Charles I. He was attracted by a gospel harmony they had produced. The king asked to borrow it only to return it a few months later in exchange for a promise of a new harmony to give his son, Charles, Prince of Wales. This the Ferrars did, and the superbly produced and bound manuscript passed through the royal collection, and is now on display at the British Library. Nicholas Ferrar, who was never married, died in 1637, and was buried outside the church in Little Gidding. Nicholas's brother John assumed the leadership of the community. John did his best to make the community thrive. He was visited by the king several times. At one time the king came for a visit with the Prince of Wales, he donated some money that he had won in a card game from the prince. The kings last visit was in secret and at night. He was fleeing from defeat from the battle of Naseby and was heading north to try to enlist support from the Scots. John brought him secretly to Little Gidding and got him away the next day. The community was now in much danger. The Presbyterian Puritans were now on the rise and the community was condemned with a series of pamphlets calling them an "Arminian Nunnery" (Ariminius was a Dutch reformer and theologian who opposed the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and election) In 1646 the community was forcibly broken up by Parliamentary soldiers. Their brass baptismal font was damaged, cast into the pond and not recovered until 200 years later. The village remained in the Ferrar family but it was not until the 18th century that the church was restored by another Nicholas Ferrar. Ferrar restored the church, shortened the nave by about 8 feet and built the "dull facade" that Eliot spoke of. In the mid 19th century, William Hodgkinson came along and restored the church more. He installed the armorial stain glass windows, (4 windows with the arms of Ferrar, Charles the 1st and Bishop Williams inserted). He then put in a rose window at the east end (this rose window was later replaced by a Palladian-style plain glass window). Hodgkinson recovered the brass font, restored it and reinstalled it in the church. An elaborate 18th century chandelier now hangs in the church, installed by Hodgkinson. from _Little Gidding_ by T.S. Eliot If you came this way, Taking any route, starting from anywhere, At any time or at any season, It would always be the same: you would have to put off Sense and notion. You are not here to verify, Instruct yourself, or inform curiosity Or carry report. You are here to kneel Where prayer has been valid. And prayer is more Than an order of words, the conscious occupation Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying. And what the dead had no speech for, when living, They can tell you, being dead: the communication Of the dead is tongued with fire beyond the language of the living. Here, the intersection of the timeless moment Is England and nowhere. Never and always. Bibliography Etherington & Roberts. Dictionary--Ferrar, Nicholas - Bookbinding and the Conservation of Books A Dictionary of Descriptive Terminology. Ferrar, Nicholas ( 1592-1637 ) Columbia Encyclopedia - Table Of Contents - Columbia Encyclopedia. F. Faber, Frederick William. Faber, Johannes. Fabian, Saint. Fabian Society. Fabius. Fabius, Laurent. fable. fabliau, plural... Christian Biographies Commemorated in November - FOR THE FEAST OF ALL SAINTS (1 NOV) FIRST READING: Ecclesiasticus 44:1-10,13-14 ("Let us now praise famous men...."; a commemoration of patriarchs,... A History Of The Church In England, J.R.H.Moorman, Morehouse Publishing copyright 1980 The Story Of Christianity, Justo L Gonzalez, Harper Collins Publishers copyright 1984 The Episcopal Church, David Locke Hippocrene Books, New York copyright 1991 4 4 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Night by Elie Wiesel.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Night by Elie Wiesel What was my reaction to Elie Wiesel's book "Night" ? The only way I can express my reaction is disbelief. I could not believe how much pain was inflicted on the Jews. I could not believe how the world stood by as this extermination happened. I especially could not believe how Elie Wiesel survived to tell this tragic story. I suppose I would have had to be a Jew during the time of the holocaust to know what actually went on. From what I have read, I can say that I am glad to have not even been alive during this time. It seemed horrible and unbearable. The fact that Elie Wiesel survived through all this terror is beyond my imagination. While reading the book I felt great pity on the Jews. I almost could not bear to finish reading the it. It told of a side to the holocaust that I never even knew existed. All the detailed descriptions of the beatings and circumstances they went through was unbelievable. This book was very informative. The way Wiesel remembered all the dates and other important events amazed me. He captured the true horror of the holocaust. Every page gave deeper and more horrifying details of this extermination of the Jews. In my opinion, it could not have been written any better. What was my reaction to this book ? Disbelief. I truly could not understand this extermination unless I was there. It showed me a new degree of inhumanity. Furthermore, even though I am not jewish, I have obtained a new hatred toward the nazis due to this book. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Night.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 November 11, 1996 NIGHT What was my reaction to Elie Wiesel's book "Night" ? The only way I can express my reaction is disbelief. I could not believe how much pain was inflicted on the Jews. I could not believe how the world stood by as this extermination happened. I especially could not believe how Elie Wiesel survived to tell this tragic story. I suppose I would have had to be a Jew during the time of the holocaust to know what actually went on. From what I have read, I can say that I am glad to have not even been alive during this time. It seemed horrible and unbearable. The fact that Elie Wiesel survived through all this terror is beyond my imagination. While reading the book I felt great pity on the Jews. I almost could not bear to finish reading the it. It told of a side to the holocaust that I never even knew existed. All the detailed descriptions of the beatings and circumstances they went through was unbelievable. This book was very informative. The way Wiesel remembered all the dates and other important events amazed me. He captured the true horror of the holocaust. Every page gave deeper and more horrifying details of this extermination of the Jews. In my opinion, it could not have been written any better. What was my reaction to this book ? Disbelief. I truly could not understand this extermination unless I was there. It showed me a new degree of inhumanity. 3 Furthermore, even though I am not jewish, I have obtained a new hatred toward the nazis due to this book. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Notre Dame 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Notre Dame Notre Dame is a cathedral. The word cathedral comes from the Latin word cathedra, which is the name that was given to the throne was called where the bishop sat in his church. The cathedral was the house of God and the seat of the bishop. The bishop is the powerfull leader of the church and the church rules the land. Cathedrals were a sign of both economic prosperity and faith. Building Notre Dame required a great deal of things, such as skilled builders, millions of tons of stone, many workers, powerful leadership, and above all else, lots of money. Most of the money, at first, came from came from the middle class people, but kings and rich merchants ended up spending the most on the project. The man in charge of building was called the master builder. The people under him were the master craftsmen, the manuel laborors, loaders, and piece workers. For these workers, a day of hard work was worth about 2 or 3 loaves of bread. The stone used to build Notre Dame was gotten by digging in the ground for it. In a location as close to where the cathedral was to be built as possible. The stone was pulled up by oxen who could transport approximately 8000 lbs. in a single load. The stones were held together by mortar, which was made by sand and water mixed with lime. Notre Dame is so tall, to make sure it wouldn't crumble, the builder had to use framework to support their creation called a flying buttress. The roofs were made from lead and gutters were placed to draw rain water from the walls, The spouts to these gutters were stone "Gargoyles" that were carved to look like monsters who spit water when it rained. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Notre dame.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOTRE DAME Notre Dame is a cathedral. The word cathedral comes from the Latin word cathedra, which is the name that was given to the throne was called where the bishop sat in his church. The cathedral was the house of God and the seat of the bishop. The bishop is the powerfull leader of the church and the church rules the land. Cathedrals were a sign of both economic prosperity and faith. Building Notre Dame required a great deal of things, such as skilled builders, millions of tons of stone, many workers, powerful leadership, and above all else, lots of money. Most of the money, at first, came from came from the middle class people, but kings and rich merchants ended up spending the most on the project. The man in charge of building was called the master builder. The people under him were the master craftsmen, the manuel laborors, loaders, and piece workers. For these workers, a day of hard work was worth about 2 or 3 loaves of bread. The stone used to build Notre Dame was gotten by digging in the ground for it. In a location as close to where the cathedral was to be built as possible. The stone was pulled up by oxen who could transport approximately 8000 lbs. in a single load. The stones were held together by mortar, which was made by sand and water mixed with lime. Notre Dame is so tall, to make sure it wouldn't crumble, the builder had to use framework to support their creation called a flying buttress. The roofs were made from lead and gutters were placed to draw rain water from the walls, The spouts to these gutters were stone "Gargoyles" that were carved to look like monsters who spit water when it rained. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Old Messages Brought To Life.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Old Messages Brought To Life Old Messages Brought to Life Today's world needs to be taught the old messages of life. We have so many different religions that preach the same things. All are of one or more supreme beings and their teachings. Across this world it is the same messages and yet we fight one another, because my god of love is better then your god of love. The basic human problems are even the same we all call these situations sin. Is it possible to change the world and it beliefs? One must start with their self and realize that the basic rules for life. Laws condition the manifest universe and life on earth. There are inviolable laws of life that govern all aspects of earthly life and determine the destiny of each individual. Understanding the first three or four help you to understand the rest. They cannot be ignored without inviting negative consequences. It is therefore important that one understands these laws and observes them. The whole universe is permeated with divine presence. Therefore one should deal with every object in it as if one is dealing with oneself or with "God". Everyone's god is omnipresent and omniscient in each religious person's eyes. Everything in this universe is sacred because it is filled with the presence of this Supreme Being. Everything in this universe is therefore a divine entity and should be treated as such. Those who seek harmony and peace in life understand this principle very well and treat every thing in the world with due respect and a sense of sacredness. There is an inherent balance in all creation. If you want peace all around you have to maintain this balance both within and without. Everything in this world is balanced. For every force here there is an opposite and balancing force. Pairs of opposites hold the world. You destroy one and you will destroy the other soon. The universe exists on the principle of abundance. It is by giving that you receive. This is the law of abundance, which stipulates that we cannot enjoy the riches of the universe unless we are willing to share them with others. Not all that accumulate wealth enjoy their lives. You can block the flow and you may accumulate wealth. But there is no guarantee that the wealth you amassed would bring you peace and harmony. There is no guarantee that you would enjoy the love and acceptance of others. All religions preach this law; you are the creator of your life and your reality. Your thoughts become your actions and your actions create the circumstances in your life. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in your life. Every thought that we send out into the universe comes back to us with accumulated energy of its own kind. When negative thoughts go out of our minds, they will come back to us with redoubled negative energy and give us lot of pain and unhappiness. Positive thoughts on the other hand bring in positive energy and energize us, establishing in the process peace and harmony in our consciousness. Our actions too yield the same results. Our positive actions bring in positive rewards and our negative actions bring negative rewards. The energy that we unleash either in the form of a thought or action always comes back to us with increased force. It is only if we are willing to learn from our faults and mistakes and change ourselves accordingly, we are truly benefited from our sufferings and find lasting solutions for it. Truth resolves all conflicts and establishes permanent peace and harmony in ones life. The old messages of life need to be brought back. Everything in this world is balanced when laws that condition the manifest universe are understood. Not all that accumulate wealth enjoy their lives. Your thoughts become your actions and your actions create the circumstances in your life. Our positive actions bring in positive rewards and our negative actions bring negative rewards. Truth resolves all conflicts and establishes permanent peace and harmony in ones life. Being sure of one's self opens many door in life's achievements. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Old Testament 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Old Testament The Old Testament is a compilation, and like every compilation it has a wide variety of contributors who, in turn, have their individual influence upon the final work. It is no surprise, then, that there exist certain parallels between the Enuma Elish, the cosmogony of the Babylonians, and the Book of Genesis, the first part of the Pentateuch section of the Bible. In fact, arguments may be made that other Near Eastern texts, particularly Sumerian, have had their influences in Biblical texts. The extent of this 'borrowing', as it were, is not limited to the Bible; the Enuma Elish has its own roots in Sumerian mythology, predating the Enuma Elish by nearly a thousand years. A superficial examination of this evidence would erroneously lead one to believe that the Bible is somewhat a collection of older mythology re-written specifically for the Semites. In fact, what develops is that the writers have addressed each myth as a separate issue, and what the writers say is that their God surpasses every other. Each myth or text that has a counterpart in the Bible only serves to further an important idea among the Hebrews: there is but one God, and He is omnipotent, omniscient, and other-worldly; He is not of this world, but outside it, apart from it. The idea of a monotheistic religion is first evinced in recorded history with Judaism, and it is vital to see that instead of being an example of plagiarism, the Book of Genesis is a meticulously composed document that will set apart the Hebrew God from the others before, and after. To get a clear picture of the way the Book of Genesis may have been formed (because we can only guess with some degree of certainty), we must place in somewhere in time, and then define the cultures in that time. The influences, possible and probable, must be illustrated, and then we may draw our conclusions. If we trace back to the first appearance of the Bible in written form, in its earliest translation, we arrive at 444 B.C.. Two texts, components of the Pentateuch referred to as 'J' and 'E' texts, can be traced to around 650 B.C. Note that 'J' refers to Yahweh (YHVH) texts, characterized by the use of the word 'Yahweh' or 'Lord' in accounts; 'E' refers to Elohist texts, which use, naturally, 'Elohim' in its references to God.1 But 650 B.C. isn't our oldest reference to the 'J' and 'E' texts; they can be traced, along with the other three strands of the Pentateuch, to at least 1000 B.C. Our first compilation of these strands existed in 650 B.C.. We must therefore begin our search further back in time. We can begin with the father of the Hebrew people, Abraham. We can deduce when he lived, and find that he lived around 1900 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia2. If we examine his world and its culture, we may find the reasons behind certain references in Genesis, and the mythologies they resemble. The First Babylonian Dynasty had begun around 1950 B.C. and would last well into the late 16th century B.C.. The Babylonians had just conquered a land previously under the control of the Assyrians, and before that, the Summering. Abraham had lived during a time of great prosperity and a remarkably advanced culture. He was initially believed to have come from the city of Ur, as given in the Bible as "...the Ur of Chaldees". Earlier translations read, however, simply "...Land of the Chaldees"; later, it was deduced that Abraham had come from a city called Haran3. In any case, he lived in a thriving and prosperous world. Homes were comfortable, even luxurious. Copies of hymns were found next to mathematical tablets detailing formulae for extracting square and cube roots.4 The level of sophistication 4000 years ago is remarkable. We can also deduce that it was a relatively stable and peaceful society; its art is characterized by the absence of any warlike activity, paintings or sculptures.5 We also have evidence of an Israelite tribe, the Benjamites, in Babylonian texts. The Benjamites were nomads on the frontier of its boundaries, and certainly came in contact with Babylonian ideas- culture, religion, ethics. The early tribes of Israel were nomadic, "taking with them the early traditions, and in varying latitudes have modified it"6 according to external influences. The message remained constant, but the context would subtly change. In addition to the Benjamites in Mesopotamia, there were tribes of Israel in Egypt during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom period7, which certainly exposed these people to Egyptian culture as well as Babylonian culture as a result of trade between the two kingdoms. Having placed Abraham and certain early Semites in this time, we can now examine the culture they would have known. The Babylonian Dynasty had as one of its first leaders a man known as Hammurabi. In addition to being the world's first known lawgiver, he installed a national god for his people named Marduk 8. Marduk's story is related in the Enuma Elish: It begins with two primordial creatures, Apsu and Tiamat. They have children, who are gods. These children became too noisy and disruptive to Apsu, who wished to kill them. One of these gods, Ea, kills Apsu first. Tiamat becomes enraged, and increasingly threatening towards Ea and the remaining gods for killing her mate. One by one, the gods seek to quiet Tiamat, but each fails. However, one god, Marduk, agrees to stop Tiamat, but only if he is granted sole dominion over all other gods. They agree, and Marduk battles Tiamat, killing her and creating the world from her corpse. In addition, Marduk slays one of the gods who allied himself with Tiamat, and from this dead god's blood, Marduk creates man. 9 On the surface, it looks and sounds nothing like Genesis. However, we can begin to draw our parallels as we go into more detail. For example, Babylonian poetry has no rhyme, but it has meter and rhythm, like Hebrew 10. Notice the similarity in the next two passages: "Half of her he set in place and formed the sky... as a roof. He fixed the crossbar... posted guards; He commanded them not to let her waters escape" 11 and "Then God said, 'Let there be a dome... to separate one body of water from the other.'" Genesis 1:6 "All the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened..." Genesis 7:11 Also compare the creation of days and the special significance conferred upon the seventh: "Thou shalt shine with horns to make six known days, on the seventh with... a tiara." 12 >From Genesis (1:31-2-1): "Evening came and morning followed- the sixth day... "So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested from all the work he had done in creation." We can summarize the similarities like so: each created the firmament, dry land, the celestial bodies, and light. Each makes man the crowning achievement. On the seventh day, God rests and sanctifies the day. In the seventh tablet of the Enuma Elish, the gods rest and celebrate. These similarities strongly suggest a common knowledge of the Enuma Elish among writers of the Book of Genesis (each section of Genesis is composed of four different sets of writers). In addition to Babylonian influence, look at the following taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which can be traced back to 3000 B.C.: "I am Re.. I am the great god who came into being by himself..."13 Compare that to the familiar "I am who am." These similarities are of secondary importance, however; we now begin to see the departures. For one, if Marduk is all-powerful, why does he do battle with Tiamat, when a word would suffice? For example: "Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. "Then God said, 'Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.' And so it happened..." Genesis 1:3, 1:6 God's word alone is sufficient to render unto the world any change He wishes. This is a radical innovation in a world where pantheistic religion more closely resembles a super-powered family that doesn't get along very well. The Egyptian god Re may have been self-created, but he is by no means all-powerful, and not at all the only of his kind. Marduk is a warrior who can defeat primordial serpents, but the Hebrew god has but to speak: "...and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast." Psalms, 33:9 The word of God is all-powerful.. And here we begin to see our greatest departures. We have a monotheistic religion, the first of its kind, created amidst a culture that, in the case of the Babylonians, has up to fifty gods!14 Not only is there but one god, but he is all-powerful, so much so that he does not find it necessary to wrestle with nature or defeat mighty primordial gods. He simply speaks and it is done. It is our first occurrence of divine will impose upon the world. Furthermore, it is a god without a precursor, without creation. He is something apart from this world. Tiamat and Apsu lived in a world already created (and by whom?); the Egyptian gods have a multitude of births of gods in their texts15. In fact, there was once a debate on the translation of a single verb in the Bible, "bara", meaning "to create". Later translations modify this to "bero", meaning "to create from nothing". When written in Hebrew, only careful scrutiny would distinguish the two. The distinction is important, however, because it changes the implications involved in creating. Does God create the world from something or nothing? In the following passage, "When God began to create heaven and earth- the earth being a desolate waste, with darkness upon the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the waters- God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light." it is inferred that God is creating with something. The next translation, "When God began to create the heaven and earth, the earth was a desolate waste and darkness was upon the abyss and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light..." implies that God began by creating a desolate waste, then creating light, then shaping the waste, and so forth. All this as a function of one verb16. As another departure, examination of creation stories by Summering and Babylonians show that they begin with subordinate clauses such as "when" or "On the day of."17 Genesis clearly diverges from this: "In the beginning" clearly sets apart the text from any other, making it the actual start of all time and space as we know it. It also puts the Hebrew god outside of time and space. There would be no point in arguing that the Old Testament was influenced by the contemporary cultures of its writers; the facts clearly point to innumerable external sources of inspiration. But while we can acknowledge these similarities, we must also acknowledge that the writers of the Book of Genesis are making a radical departure from the norm: they have created a monotheistic religion, and their god is all-powerful, beyond the scope of human comprehension. Typically, gods are represented as something akin to humans on a grander scale; the Hebrew god is simply not measured or scaled; He is an unknown quantity, set apart from the bounds of human knowledge. These similarities serve a function as a contrast to the differences between these religions. It would seem that the writers acknowledged these other religions, and addressed each one by creating a god that surpasses all others. The god that creates himself is one of many; the Hebrew god stands alone in his might. The god that created the world defeated another god, and formed the earth from the corpse; in Genesis, God speaks and his words transform into actions. God exists before the matter He shapes to His will. The writers have then, in fact, minimized the actions of all other gods in comparison to one all-powerful deity such as this. By drawing comparisons to other texts, the message can be lost in attempting to find the roots of certain ideas. But the origins of the stories are not nearly as important as the overall message being stated, and while the ideas they resemble may be old, the message is clear and unique: there is but one, and He is beyond all that is. His will alone suffices, and He predates even time itself. And that message has changed the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Old Testament.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Old Testament Old Testament The Old Testament is a compilation, and like every compilation it has a wide variety of contributors who, in turn, have their individual influence upon the final work. It is no surprise, then, that there exist certain parallels between the Enuma Elish, the cosmogony of the Babylonians, and the Book of Genesis, the first part of the Pentateuch section of the Bible. In fact, arguments may be made that other Near Eastern texts, particularly Sumerian, have had their influences in Biblical texts. The extent of this 'borrowing', as it were, is not limited to the Bible; the Enuma Elish has its own roots in Sumerian mythology, predating the Enuma Elish by nearly a thousand years. A superficial examination of this evidence would erroneously lead one to believe that the Bible is somewhat a collection of older mythology re-written specifically for the Semites. In fact, what develops is that the writers have addressed each myth as a separate issue, and what the writers say is that their God surpasses every other. Each myth or text that has a counterpart in the Bible only serves to further an important idea among the Hebrews: there is but one God, and He is omnipotent, omniscient, and other-worldly; He is not of this world, but outside it, apart from it. The idea of a monotheistic religion is first evinced in recorded history with Judaism, and it is vital to see that instead of being an example of plagiarism, the Book of Genesis is a meticulously composed document that will set apart the Hebrew God from the others before, and after. To get a clear picture of the way the Book of Genesis may have been formed (because we can only guess with some degree of certainty), we must place in somewhere in time, and then define the cultures in that time. The influences, possible and probable, must be illustrated, and then we may draw our conclusions. If we trace back to the first appearance of the Bible in written form, in its earliest translation, we arrive at 444 B.C.. Two texts, components of the Pentateuch referred to as 'J' and 'E' texts, can be traced to around 650 B.C. Note that 'J' refers to Yahweh (YHVH) texts, characterized by the use of the word 'Yahweh' or 'Lord' in accounts; 'E' refers to Elohist texts, which use, naturally, 'Elohim' in its references to God.1 But 650 B.C. isn't our oldest reference to the 'J' and 'E' texts; they can be traced, along with the other three strands of the Pentateuch, to at least 1000 B.C. Our first compilation of these strands existed in 650 B.C.. We must therefore begin our search further back in time. We can begin with the father of the Hebrew people, Abraham. We can deduce when he lived, and find that he lived around 1900 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia2. If we examine his world and its culture, we may find the reasons behind certain references in Genesis, and the mythologies they resemble. The First Babylonian Dynasty had begun around 1950 B.C. and would last well into the late 16th century B.C.. The Babylonians had just conquered a land previously under the control of the Assyrians, and before that, the Summering. Abraham had lived during a time of great prosperity and a remarkably advanced culture. He was initially believed to have come from the city of Ur, as given in the Bible as "...the Ur of Chaldees". Earlier translations read, however, simply "...Land of the Chaldees"; later, it was deduced that Abraham had come from a city called Haran3. In any case, he lived in a thriving and prosperous world. Homes were comfortable, even luxurious. Copies of hymns were found next to mathematical tablets detailing formulae for extracting square and cube roots.4 The level of sophistication 4000 years ago is remarkable. We can also deduce that it was a relatively stable and peaceful society; its art is characterized by the absence of any warlike activity, paintings or sculptures.5 We also have evidence of an Israelite tribe, the Benjamites, in Babylonian texts. The Benjamites were nomads on the frontier of its boundaries, and certainly came in contact with Babylonian ideas- culture, religion, ethics. The early tribes of Israel were nomadic, "taking with them the early traditions, and in varying latitudes have modified it"6 according to external influences. The message remained constant, but the context would subtly change. In addition to the Benjamites in Mesopotamia, there were tribes of Israel in Egypt during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom period7, which certainly exposed these people to Egyptian culture as well as Babylonian culture as a result of trade between the two kingdoms. Having placed Abraham and certain early Semites in this time, we can now examine the culture they would have known. The Babylonian Dynasty had as one of its first leaders a man known as Hammurabi. In addition to being the world's first known lawgiver, he installed a national god for his people named Marduk 8. Marduk's story is related in the Enuma Elish: It begins with two primordial creatures, Apsu and Tiamat. They have children, who are gods. These children became too noisy and disruptive to Apsu, who wished to kill them. One of these gods, Ea, kills Apsu first. Tiamat becomes enraged, and increasingly threatening towards Ea and the remaining gods for killing her mate. One by one, the gods seek to quiet Tiamat, but each fails. However, one god, Marduk, agrees to stop Tiamat, but only if he is granted sole dominion over all other gods. They agree, and Marduk battles Tiamat, killing her and creating the world from her corpse. In addition, Marduk slays one of the gods who allied himself with Tiamat, and from this dead god's blood, Marduk creates man. 9 On the surface, it looks and sounds nothing like Genesis. However, we can begin to draw our parallels as we go into more detail. For example, Babylonian poetry has no rhyme, but it has meter and rhythm, like Hebrew 10. Notice the similarity in the next two passages: "Half of her he set in place and formed the sky... as a roof. He fixed the crossbar... posted guards; He commanded them not to let her waters escape" 11 and "Then God said, 'Let there be a dome... to separate one body of water from the other.'" Genesis 1:6 "All the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened..." Genesis 7:11 Also compare the creation of days and the special significance conferred upon the seventh: "Thou shalt shine with horns to make six known days, on the seventh with... a tiara." 12 *censored*From Genesis (1:31-2-1): "Evening came and morning followed- the sixth day... "So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested from all the work he had done in creation." We can summarize the similarities like so: each created the firmament, dry land, the celestial bodies, and light. Each makes man the crowning achievement. On the seventh day, God rests and sanctifies the day. In the seventh tablet of the Enuma Elish, the gods rest and celebrate. These similarities strongly suggest a common knowledge of the Enuma Elish among writers of the Book of Genesis (each section of Genesis is composed of four different sets of writers). In addition to Babylonian influence, look at the following taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which can be traced back to 3000 B.C.: "I am Re.. I am the great god who came into being by himself..."13 Compare that to the familiar "I am who am." These similarities are of secondary importance, however; we now begin to see the departures. For one, if Marduk is all-powerful, why does he do battle with Tiamat, when a word would suffice? For example: "Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. "Then God said, 'Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.' And so it happened..." Genesis 1:3, 1:6 God's word alone is sufficient to render unto the world any change He wishes. This is a radical innovation in a world where pantheistic religion more closely resembles a super-powered family that doesn't get along very well. The Egyptian god Re may have been self-created, but he is by no means all-powerful, and not at all the only of his kind. Marduk is a warrior who can defeat primordial serpents, but the Hebrew god has but to speak: "...and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast." Psalms, 33:9 The word of God is all-powerful.. And here we begin to see our greatest departures. We have a monotheistic religion, the first of its kind, created amidst a culture that, in the case of the Babylonians, has up to fifty gods!14 Not only is there but one god, but he is all-powerful, so much so that he does not find it necessary to wrestle with nature or defeat mighty primordial gods. He simply speaks and it is done. It is our first occurrence of divine will impose upon the world. Furthermore, it is a god without a precursor, without creation. He is something apart from this world. Tiamat and Apsu lived in a world already created (and by whom?); the Egyptian gods have a multitude of births of gods in their texts15. In fact, there was once a debate on the translation of a single verb in the Bible, "bara", meaning "to create". Later translations modify this to "bero", meaning "to create from nothing". When written in Hebrew, only careful scrutiny would distinguish the two. The distinction is important, however, because it changes the implications involved in creating. Does God create the world from something or nothing? In the following passage, "When God began to create heaven and earth- the earth being a desolate waste, with darkness upon the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the waters- God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light." it is inferred that God is creating with something. The next translation, "When God began to create the heaven and earth, the earth was a desolate waste and darkness was upon the abyss and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light..." implies that God began by creating a desolate waste, then creating light, then shaping the waste, and so forth. All this as a function of one verb16. As another departure, examination of creation stories by Summering and Babylonians show that they begin with subordinate clauses such as "when" or "On the day of."17 Genesis clearly diverges from this: "In the beginning" clearly sets apart the text from any other, making it the actual start of all time and space as we know it. It also puts the Hebrew god outside of time and space. There would be no point in arguing that the Old Testament was influenced by the contemporary cultures of its writers; the facts clearly point to innumerable external sources of inspiration. But while we can acknowledge these similarities, we must also acknowledge that the writers of the Book of Genesis are making a radical departure from the norm: they have created a monotheistic religion, and their god is all-powerful, beyond the scope of human comprehension. Typically, gods are represented as something akin to humans on a grander scale; the Hebrew god is simply not measured or scaled; He is an unknown quantity, set apart from the bounds of human knowledge. These similarities serve a function as a contrast to the differences between these religions. It would seem that the writers acknowledged these other religions, and addressed each one by creating a god that surpasses all others. The god that creates himself is one of many; the Hebrew god stands alone in his might. The god that created the world defeated another god, and formed the earth from the corpse; in Genesis, God speaks and his words transform into actions. God exists before the matter He shapes to His will. The writers have then, in fact, minimized the actions of all other gods in comparison to one all-powerful deity such as this. By drawing comparisons to other texts, the message can be lost in attempting to find the roots of certain ideas. But the origins of the stories are not nearly as important as the overall message being stated, and while the ideas they resemble may be old, the message is clear and unique: there is but one, and He is beyond all that is. His will alone suffices, and He predates even time itself. And that message has changed the world. Word Count: 2122 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Omnipotence and St Thomas Aquinas.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Omnipotence and St. Thomas Aquinas Omnipotence literally means the ability to do all things, or to have absolute power. This quality seems to be generally accepted as an intrinsic characteristic of the Judaeo-Christian god, as it says in Luke I. 37, "...there is nothing that God cannot do.". Certain objections can be raised to attributing this characteristic to god however, in-so-far as this characteristic seems to conflict with other accepted attributes of god. In The Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas addresses some of these objections, the most telling of which can be restated as: (I) To sin is an action, however god is unable to sin. Therefore god cannot be omnipotent. (ii) The greatest act possible of god is his practice of "sparing and having mercy". There are actions judged to be much greater however, such as creating a world. Therefore god is not omnipotent. (iii) If god is omnipotent, then everything is possible and nothing is impossible. If this is true however, things which are necessary (things which cannot possibly not exist) are no longer so. This is impossible - therefore god cannot be omnipotent. Aquinas begins his rebuttals by defining what is encompassed by the characteristic of divine omnipotence. He explains that god is able to all things which are "possible absolutely", which he defines as all things which can be logically expressed without the predicate being in conflict with the subject - i.e. god is capable of all things which do not involve a contradiction in terms. This does not imply any defect in the power of god, Aquinas goes on to say, because impossible things by definition have "no aspect of possibility", moreover, it is absurd to expect divine omnipotence to encompass the logically impossible. (I) Aquinas answers the first objection as follows. He explains that "...to sin is to fall short of perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action..." which he attests is contrary to the meaning of divine omnipotence. (ii) In answering the second objection Aquinas points out, "It is not for one who is bound by the laws of a superior to forgive sins of his own free choice", and adds that divine mercy is indeed gods greatest act, since this mercy leads men into a participation with the infinite good. (iii) Aquinas answers objection (iii) in accord with his explanation of the meaning of god`s omnipotence (above) - God`s omnipotence does not alter the fact that something is impossible, and therefore does not invalidate the concept of logical necessity. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Ontological Argument.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ontological Argument Most people have not witnessed or experienced God and therefore are confused about its existence. In Western theology, three theories have emerged to demonstrate the existence of God. These theories are the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. St. Anselm of eleventh century, and Descartes of seventeenth century, have used the ontological argument for proving the existence of God. The God, for them, is supreme, "needing nothing outside himself, but needful for the being and well-being of all things." (Pg. 305). St Anselm's account of the ontological argument for the existence of God deals with the 'existence in the understanding' vs. 'existence in reality.' He defines God as the greatest conceivable or possible being. He adds that any person who hears this statement describing God understands what is meant. His argument is that if God did not exist, then a being greater than God would be possible. This being then would be greater than the greatest possible being, which is impossible. Therefore he proves that there is no being greater than God and hence God exists. His argument is also based on the premise that "the idea of an eternal being who either does not yet exist or no longer exists is self-contradictory, so that the very idea we have of such a being requires existence." (Pg. 307). In his Meditations, Decartes offers the following version of the ontological argument. He considers the idea of God, a supremely perfect being, just as real as the idea of the existence of any shape or a number. His understanding of God's existence is no less clear and distinct than his proofs for the existence of any shape or number. Therefore he adds, "although all that I concluded in the preceding Meditations were found to be false, the existence of God would pass with me as at least as certain as I have ever held the truths of mathematics." (Pg. 308). Initially, this might not be all clear, and may have some appearance of being a sophism. He argues that unlike other things he might persuade himself that existence can be separated from the essence of God, and hence that God can be thought of as not existing. He adds that 'when he thinks of it with more attention, he clearly sees that existence can no more be separated from the essence of God, than the fact that its three angles equal two right angles can be separated from the essence of a triangle, or that the idea of a mountain can be separated from the idea of a valley' (Pg. 308). Hence, it is just as much of a contradiction to think of God (that is, a supremely perfect being) lacking existence (that is, lacking perfection), as it is to think of a mountain without a valley. His theory is that he can't think of God without it existing and therefore it exists. Also he gives God all kinds of perfection and because existence is one of the perfection, "God necessarily exists." (Pg. 309). Kant's critique of Anselm's and Descartes' arguments state that existence is not a perfection because all perfections are qualities, and existence is not any kind of characteristic, quality, attribute, or property. When we say that something exists, Kant argued, we "add nothing to" our concept of that thing - we merely say that there is something similar to that concept. It follows that no matter how many characteristics of a thing we list; we will still not have answered the question whether there is something having all those characteristics. "Being is evidently not a real predicate, or a concept of something that can be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the admission of a thing, and of certain determinations in it." (Pg. 311). His argument is that it is all right to say that God has certain characteristics but it is another to say that such a God exists. Many contemporary philosophers agree with Kant's argument, but many others do not. Furthermore, contemporary logicians have developed versions of the ontological argument that can even dispense with the controversial notion of existence as a property. It is clear that, considered simply as a logical argument, the ontological argument does not have the power to convert nonbelievers into believers. Or if you are a believer, it is clear that an objection to the "proof" is not going to shake your faith in any way whatsoever. So the significance of the proof is ambiguous; as a logical exercise it is brilliant, as an expression of faith it may be edifying, but as an actual proof that God exists or as a means of converting atheists it seems to have no power at all. (Pg.313). I agree with Anselm's argument that in order for God to be the Supreme Being, the best, He must exist in both the understanding as well as in reality. Where did the world start? Where did everything start? If we believe that one thing came after another then there has to be a starting point. The only possible answer to this starting point is God. Thus, there must have been a creator, the God. From our experience we know that everything arises from something else, and therefore God started everything. The ontological argument does not clearly prove where God is to show how God started. What characteristics does God possess? Traditional theology has believed that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnibenevolent (all good), Omni-present (everywhere), eternal (with no beginning and no end), etc. In short, God is the greatest being and none greater is possible. These characteristics have left people to have faith in the existence of God. When people can not show cause and effect for certain happenings they attribute their cause to God. There must be God to keep order in the world or as some people say to keep the world going in utter disorder. Cosmological Argument The Cosmological Argument: The second "proof" of God's existence is a set of arguments that date back to the Aristotle's argument for God's existence. The basis of these arguments is the concept of intolerability, and the unthinkability of an infinite regress and the need for some ultimate explanation. Together, these arguments are called the cosmological argument, and their best-known formulation is by St. Thomas Aquinas, who put forward the first three of his "five ways" of proving God's existence. (Pg.313) The first part of the argument is based on the concept of motion. It starts with the idea that it is evident to our senses and certain that in the world there are things that are in motion. Now, motion can be also defined as the action that reduces something from potentiality to actuality. That is motion leads a thing from being able to go someplace to actually getting there. Next, it is safe to assume that nothing can be reduced from potentiality of actuality, except by something already in a state of actuality. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but can only be in different respects. For example what is 'actually hot' cannot at the same time be also 'potentially hot;' but it can be simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. Therefore, another must move whatever is being moved. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The second aspect of the cosmological argument for the existence of God comes from nature of efficient cause. Here, Aristotle defines efficient cause, as an event or an agent that brings something about. In our world of sensible things we also find that there is an order of efficient causes. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. (Pg.314). The third aspect of the cosmological argument for the existence of God is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs as follows. We find in nature things that are possible to be and also not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. Therefore, if everything can not be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary for other things to follow. So we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. (Pg.314) The cosmological argument, in all of these versions, is similar to the ontological argument as an attempt at "proof" and an expression of one's belief in God. As a logical argument, two modern objections seem to have considerable weight. First, even if the argument is formally valid, it proves only that there is some "first mover" or "first cause" or "necessary being." It does not prove that this being has all of the other attributes that allow us to recognize God. Furthermore, Aristotle, in his Physics, allows that there might be several prime movers, while Aquinas is clear that there can be only one. Nevertheless, one might accept the argument and believe only in a "first cause" and deny the existence of God. This leads us to the second objection, which would have been unthinkable to Aquinas (or Aristotle), but is generally accepted today. The idea of an "infinite regress," that the universe did not have a beginning but has always existed, seemed like an obvious absurdity until the last century. (Pg.315). In fact, Aquinas admits that there is no valid argument against the claim that God and universe existed for all eternity, but he has another argument to help him here. He says that the beginning of the universe required an act, which means that the universe could not have been the cause of itself. Therefore, he concludes, God must exist even if the regress argument by itself does not prove this. Humans like the idea of a creator because it gives them some security that there is some one out there watching out for them. They do not like to believe that everything is taking care of itself due to some laws of nature. Therefore humans like to believe in the cosmological argument that gives god the stature of first mover, the first cause. The natural scientific explanation wants to show that the world evolved from matter governed by certain scientific laws. These laws would also tend to show that the world could disappear just like it started. This thought is not comforting to most humans. Humans are also not content to accept that something occurs. They want to explore as to the reasons of its existence. If they are told that God exists, they want to find out why and where. They are not satisfied with the answer that the world came to existence by certain scientific reasons that are not fully explained. Humans are happier with a religious explanation because it rests in the idea of a Supreme Being that people are afraid of, and feel secure in, like a child is to a parent. Most humans are religious and generally speaking older people are more religious than younger people are. Why do people turn to religion? There are many different answers given to this question. Some do it for giving guidance to their lives. For others, it gives them hope, or gives them rationalization for the lack of justice in this world. Others turn to religion as a kind of irresponsible reaction to a world we cannot cope with. This reaction is similar to a child's unwillingness to give up an illusion of security that he or she should have outgrown in adolescence. Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud were critical of religion and believed it to be an obstacle to man's self-determination and self-realization. Their basic idea was that humans invented religion to escape their intolerable social conditions. I do not believe in their premise because religion gives humans an understanding of their purpose in this world. Religion keeps people sane and makes them believe in the order of things. The basis of Marx's religious criticism is that man makes religion; and that religion does not make man. It is the man that is the human world, a state, society. This state, this society, produces religion, which is an inverted world consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this upside-down world. It gives the world its logic, its spiritual guidance, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its general basis of consolation and justification. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly a struggle against the world whose spiritual aroma is religion. According to Marx, religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and protest against real suffering. (Pg.347). Marx advocated that the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. He was appalled at the masses flocking to religion. He said, "it is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms." Material force can only be overthrown by material force; but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses. Theory is capable of seizing the masses when it demonstrates ad hominem and it is demonstrate ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. (Pg.348). Marx's criticism of religion ends with the thought that man is the Supreme Being for man. This thought desires to overthrow all those conditions in which man is an "abased, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being - conditions which can hardly be better described than in the exclamation of the Frenchman on the occasion of a proposed tax upon dogs: Wretched dogs! They want to treat you like men!" (Pg.348). Friedrich Nietzsche was another critique of religion. He called the "Bible," the book that is perhaps the greatest audacity and "sin against the spirit" which literary Europe has on its conscience. (Pg.348). According to him the Christian conception of God - God as god of the sick, God as a spider, God as spirit - is one of the most corrupt conceptions of the divine ever attained on earth. Not surprisingly, Nietzsche saw the decline of Christianity and religion in general, with great enthusiasm. It is Nietzsche who popularized the old Lutheran phase, "God is dead," but with an anti-religious twist and a shout of delight that declared open war on all remaining forms of religious "weaknesses." (Pg.349). This call for "God is dead," was based on the belief that the Christian God had become unworthy of belief. Many philosophers and "free spirits" felt redemption in this event. Another person to attack religion was Sigmund Freud, who reduced the grand aspirations of religion to, mere illusions, but, even worse, the illusions of an insecure child who has never properly grown up. According to him, religious ideas are given out as teachings, are not precipitates of experience or end results of thinking; they are illusions, fulfillment's of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind. An illusion is not the same thing as an error; nor is it necessarily an error. What is characteristic of illusion is that they are derived from human wishes. In this respect they come near to psychiatric delusions. He called a belief an illusion when a wish-fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relations to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification. All three philosophers agree that the only proper concern of man is humanity. They believe in man and not God. These philosophers did not outright hate religion. Freud was fascinated by Jewish mysticism and Nietzsche offered extravagant praise of Buddhism. But they felt that the balance is very important. They argue that no one can deny that there have been thousands of atrocities - to both spirit and body - in the name of religion. I believe that religion has taught humans to behave like a man. The self-determination and self-realization of man is not hindered by religion. If people did not believe in God, there might be lessening of good deeds. For some, realization of god is like self-realization. Many peoples in the east believe in re-incarnation and believe that soul never dies. For them this gives continuity to life as a chain of things. These people want to believe in God and immerse themselves in God. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Oscar Romero.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oscar Romero Oscar Arnulfo Romero " Remembering a Hero " You can only describe him as a man of determination. Someone who demonstrates extraordinary courage in the face of injustice and inhumanity. He had a resolute intent to do what is right, true, and just, which made him the Archbishop that people remember and make movies about. Because of him, the world was informed about basic human rights and dignities and how this was being ignored in his country of El Salvador. He took it upon himself to use the church as a light of hope to the oppressed and a challenge to the oppressors. Oscar Romero was born in 1917 and taken away in 1980. He was appointed Archbishop in 1977. Before he served his term, the Church in Central America was being protested by two political ideals. One was those priests who wanted non-confrontation with the Church and the state. And those who thought the Church should have say in the government and what it was doing. Romero was chosen because he was thought to be a "middle man" whom all could agree with. Although, soon after being appointed Romero's close, personal friend Father Rutillo Grande was assassinated by the government's soldiers. Obviously, this had a significant and intense effect on his life, changing him from a moderate and equal lookout to a ferocious and impetuous activist against injustice. His dramatic and passionate change in view shows how if you put your mind behind what you believe you can touch people's lives and really get things done. As a gesture to his dead friend, Romero refused to appear in any public ceremonies with Army or Government personnel until he thought the true nature of his friend's murder was brought to public attention and desired social changes were noticeable. Never before had a church official, with such high rank, made such a statement. After he delt with the death of a close religious friend he experienced the loss of a close social friend, Lucia. These two knew each other for a long time, and had ancestral ties. The death of her truly meant certain death to a part of him. Both his religious and social walls had been knocked down by the government and he was becoming continually frustrated and fed-up at this point. When he was stripped in the village it is suitable to compare him to Jesus Christ. It is in the bible where too, Jesus is stripped of his clothing in public in order to embarrass and ridicule him in front of his followers and tyrants. They both fought for their beliefs and in the end won. Although, both lost their lives, we try to continually preach their messages and in doing are " living their memory." I think when he made the quote, " Peace is not the product of fear. Peace is not the silence of cemeteries. . ., " on January 8, 1978, he is proclaiming the real core of what his whole crusade against injustice is all about. He goes on to talk about how we must all give to the action of making peace in order for it to be peaceful for all. He talks about how peace is giving to one another and peace is dynamic. Which means peace is alive, peace is vigorous and it is inside all of us, we just need to give it to each other. Romero soon became the voice of El Salvador. His words and actions crossed international borders. But as he spoke it became harder for the government to terrorize and torture in the watchful eyes of the world. On March 24, 1980, in a small chapel as he was performing mass, Romero was struck from the back of the church by a gunshot straight to the chest, killing him instantly. This deeply saddened the peaceful activists in El Savador and people, still today, try to live on and bring his hopes to reality. His life was taken, but his voice cannot be silenced. Personal Paragraph I think it was a true tragedy that his life was taken but it certainly wasn't a wasted life. He brought such hope and help to his chaotic country. I think the biggest tribute to Archbishop Romero is to compare him to Jesus. They still live in our hearts, memories, and hopefully our actions. This, being my first time seeing the video, it shocked me that such a high religious person would take such an active stand on political situations, especially because this one was so violent. He only wanted basic truth, dignity, and human rights for everyone. This kind of makes me put all my " problems " into perspective. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Paganism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Paganism Paganism is an ancient type of religion which has quite an inauspicious reputation today. There are many types of paganism, most date back thousands of years, which include Wicca, Witchcraft, Paganism, and a few other lesser known and practiced variations. Yet all of these religions are similar and share common beliefs. Wicca is the most common of these, as it also demonstrates the shared belief of doing good that is common to most forms of paganism. Another common belief, is to gather in small groups, called covens, to practice pagan rites and ceremonies with others. There are many ancient beliefs, archaic rituals, and forgotten traditions that are practiced by pagans. Many of these are also the origins of widely practiced traditions in the Christian-dominated world of today. A defining characteristic of many pagan religions, especially Wicca, is the worship and closeness to nature. Pagans treat animals kindly and respect all things, living or nonliving, as though they were a person (Roy N. p.). They also share the worship of their nature gods, which increases their respect for all that is around them (Roy N. p.). Pagans are very sensitive people that also have a high regard for personal privacy (Roy N. p.). With this belief of privacy, many pagans have more time to keep in touch with their inner selves and with the nature around them. Wicca, a more popular pagan religion, focuses on the Earth and uses pure white magic to help others (Roy N. p.). In fact, the Wiccan creed is, "An it harm none, do as thou will," which agrees with the "good" philosophy (Beliefs N. p.). Altogether, pagans have a great deal of emphasis on the life and beauty of the nature that thrives around them and are radically different than the mythical rumors of witches that have been given to them over time. Another defining characteristic of many pagans is the dedication to knowledge and self exploration (Roy N. p.). In fact it has been said that, " Witchcraft is the oldest, most irrepressible religion in the world because it stimulates the intellect, promotes a simple, practical way of life, and most importantly, is emotionally satisfying" (Art N. p.). There is a set of beliefs, called the Laws of Magic that help illustrate the beliefs supported by Wicca and other pagan religions. Many of these laws are practical, yet they also relate to the more religious aspect of paganism. One of the most important laws, the Law of Knowledge, states that witches believe that all knowledge is power, no matter how big or small (Bonewits N. p.). A related law, the Law of Self- Knowledge, states that witches should truly know themselves, for this prevents doing harm to others, once the understanding of the harm is seen (Bonewits N. p.). There are many other laws, one such law explains that coincidence does not exist, but that everything is part of a larger plan (Bonewits N. p.). The Law of Similarity states that similar representations of things can be made to represent them, such as voodoo dolls (Bonewits N. p.). The Law of Personification states the important belief that anything, concrete or abstract, can be considered alive for whatever purpose (Bonewits N. p.). One commonly known law, The Law of Perversity, also called "Murphy's Law," states that if anything can go wrong, it will (Bonewits N. p.). As if a summary of all other beliefs, The Law of Unity says that everything is linked together to every other thing, in any space or time (Bonewits N. p.). So, as shown here, all pagans, whether Wiccan or not, follow the basic guidelines and beliefs that knowledge is power. To support this belief are many other more specific beliefs that help the individual learn and grow. Rituals and traditions also play a large role in Wiccan lives and activities. The most common of these includes the rituals associated with the new and full moons, as well as the 8 sabbats. The 8 sabbats are equally divided throughout the year, along with the seasons, and help attune the practicing Wiccans to the cycle of the year (Sabbats N. p.). The first of these sabbats is Yule, practiced around December 21; it represents the rebirth of the light and the awakening of new goals (Sabbats N. p.). Candlemas, celebrated on February 2, banishes winter and is the favored time for initiating new members into a coven of witches (Sabbats N. p.). It is also tradition at this time to light all the lamps in the house (Sabbats N. p.). Ostara, a familiar holiday, is usually around March 21 and symbolizes balance and equilibrium. At this time of peace, many pagans gather wildflowers in baskets and free themselves of their pasts (Sabbats N. p.). Beltane, similar to Mayday but held on April 30, honors the fertility of the earth and is the sacred time of marriage as well as the time for self-discovery, love, and union (Sabbats N. p.). Midsummer, held around June 21, is a time for triumph and light, when healing and love magic becomes suitable (Sabbats N. p.). Lammas, practiced on August 2, celebrates the harvest and the traditional time to teach others what has been learned (Sabbats N. p.). The Autumn Equinox, approximately September 21, is the time of balance and the time to gather dry plants and herbs (Sabbats N. p.). Samhain, commonly called Halloween, is held on October 31; it is when reincarnation is believed to take place (Sabbats N. p.). Samhain is also called "the Witches' New Year" (Sabbats N. p.). The 8 sabbats practiced by wiccans and other pagans are important for the transitions of the season, but are only a small sample of the many rituals and traditions of the pagan religions (Sabbats N. p.). Another interesting aspect of pagan rituals and traditions is the fact that many of the common holidays and traditions in today's culture possess ancient pagan roots. The Christian holiday of Christmas, for example, has its roots in the pagan festivals and customs of Yule (Sabbats N. p.). Bringing in a tree from the winter weather to house the winter spirits was a common practice (Sabbats N. p.). Pagans also would decorate the tree with a bell to indicate the spirits' presence, food to nourish the spirits, and a pentagram star on the top to symbolize the five elements of nature (Sabbats N. p.). In fact, the red and green colors of Christmas also come from a pagan tradition, that of the yule log being burned once annually (Sabbats N. p.). The Christian Easter is another common holiday that is derived from ancient pagan customs. Witches believed that the God and Goddess would spend the time of Ostara (Spring Equinox) playing with brightly colored eggs in the fields to represent childhood (Sabbats N. p.). The tradition of collecting flowers in baskets in springtime is also of pagan origin (Sabbats N. p.). For those who recognize Mayday, it was a pagan practice to weave a web of life around a Maypole with ribbons as well (Sabbats N. p.). Another, more commonly known, holiday with pagan beginnings is Halloween, or the Samhain sabbat. It was believed that spirits would leave the physical plane during this time (Sabbats N. p.). Another more recognizable trait of the holiday could be seen when one realizes that thousands of years ago, pagans used jack-o-lanterns and gourds to decorate for the season (Sabbats N. p.). So, by looking at the many practiced customs of the pagans that have been around for thousands of years, one can discern how some traditions have come into play in today's world. It is severely apparent that there are many erroneous rumors related to pagans and their rituals. Pagans have many rituals, but not one of these relates to Christianity or the belief of the devil deity (Art N. p.). Some of the more common rituals are initiation into a coven and handfasting, or marriage. The ritual of initiation is a sacred ceremony to bring in a new member of the coven (Hicks N. p.). The individual must be highly acquainted with all of the members of the coven for over one year before initiation is possible (Hicks N. p.). Another commonplace ritual is handfasting. Handfasting is a highly sacred rite that binds two very close people together, similar husband and wife; the ritual is symbolic of the union of the god and goddess (Hunter N. p.). All other pagan rituals are impartially as sacred and highly valued, as well as enjoyed. Despite all of the misleading rumors, there are no rituals depicting evil or anything to go against goodness belief that is practiced by wiccans or related pagan groups. Wicca and other similar pagan religions all reflect the mutual belief of doing good and harming none. This, however, has been overlooked by others for many centuries which has lead to inaccurate rumors. Aside from that however, pagans still enjoy a rich and culturally satisfying life that keeps in touch with their ancient beliefs. Along with this is their passionate practice of the many rituals, including the 8 seasonal sabbats, that help characterize the pagan doctrine. All of this and even more truth can be found about these lesser known and often misconceived religions classified as paganism. Works Cited Bonewits, P. E. I. The Laws of Magic. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/magic.laws.txt, 30 Nov. 1996. General Beliefs. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/wicca.gen_beliefs.txt, 15 Dec. 1996. Hicks, J. Brad. Ceremony of Initiation. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/initiation.ritual.txt, 15 Dec. 1996. Hunter, Ryan. Handfasting Ceremony. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/handfasting1.ritual.txt, 15 Dec. 1996. Roy, R. Thirteen Questions. Online. Necromnami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/13Questions.txt, 30 Nov. 1996. The Ancient Art. Online. Necronami Net. Available HTTP: http://www.necronami.com/d/paganism-celtic/craft.intro.txt, 30 Nov. 1996. The Sabbats. Online, Teleplex Communications, Inc. Available HTTP: http://www.teleplex.net/SCNPA/sabbat.html, 8 Dec. 1996. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Pauls Letter To The Galatians.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Paul's Letter To The Galatians A Humanities Essay That Teaches The Study of The Bible As A Historical Document PAUL'S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS: When Paul attended the Jerusalem Conference in 48 or 49, a decision was made that gentiles would be allowed to become Christians without becoming Jews first (ie. have a circumcision, and follow the Jewish Laws). Paul, being the one that defended the gentile's right to be Christians, became the apostle to the gentiles. Why would Paul, a Jew, want to be an apostle to gentiles? According to him, Jesus appeared to him in AD 32 or 36, and told him to preach the good news to the gentiles (Gal 1:16). Paul uses scripture to explain why gentiles should not be required to be circumcised, or obey Jewish Law; however, there are no direct quotes in scripture that say this. One would wonder why Paul, someone who grew-up in a "good" Jewish family, would not follow in the footsteps of Jewish Christian Missionaries, and require Christian converts to become Jews first. He certainly had to fight to have his belief accepted! In my opinion, Paul tried to follow the example of the original apostles (who knew Jesus) by "converting the multitudes." I think Paul understood human nature better than the other apostles preaching circumcision to the gentiles. Perhaps he thought that gentiles would accept Christianity more easily if it was natural to their lifestyle --I'm sure that the thought of circumcision, and strict dietary laws scared gentiles from Christianity! It seems that the "Judaziers" preached a God that was hard to please. Paul's major problem confronted in his letter to the Galatians is the preachings of the Judaziers. Apparently, men who preach circumcision and the Law had been trying to "pervert" the Galatians, and change their beliefs away from Paul's preachings (Gal 1:7). Paul is so angered that the Galatians are so easily convinced (Gal 1:6), that he actually wishes the Judaziers to mutilate themselves (Gal 5:12)! So, the letter to Galatians uses 4 specific tactics to make Galatians come back to the teachings according to Paul. Paul begins by defending his credibility as an apostle. He writes a brief autobiographical history, stressing that he once persecuted Christians, and then converted when Jesus appeared to him. Also, he tells the outcome of the Jerusalem Conference, probably to convince them that other apostles have accepted his theology. This part of the letter is a bit like a resume of qualifications. I could imagine that the Judiazers who came to Galatia after Paul, denounced him as an apostle: that he never met Jesus, and was not truly educated to be an apostle. Next, Paul writes that "obedience to the Law could not earn approval by God; approval is possible only through faith in Christ" (Perrin, pg. 184). Faith in the crucified Christ will bring righteousness, not the Law (Gal 2:21). Having circumcision will do nothing to make one better in the eyes of God. Then, Paul uses an allegory of The Two Covenants: Abraham's child of a slave woman represents Jerusalem living under the Law, and the child of the free woman represents Jerusalem being free! This tactic, along with Paul's use of familiar Jewish argument style, quoting scripture after scripture to prove a point (Gal 3), are common preaching styles; probably taught to him during whatever rabbinic training he got (perhaps when he spent time with Peter). Paul also tries to appeal to the Helenistic enthusiasm in Christianity in Gal 3:1-5. Although Paul makes some very convincing arguments in favor of his beliefs, I cannot agree with his interpretation of Christ Jesus Christianity. Compare these two quotes from New Testament Scripture (The first is by Paul in Galations. The second is a quote of Jesus in the Book of Matthew.): "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Gal 2:16) "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill .... Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.." (Matt 5: 17 & 19) Although I realize the Book of Matthew was written after Galatians, the preachings of Jesus were made before Matthew was even a Christian! Points to consider before accusing Paul of defying Jesus would be to find out if Paul had access to all the words of Jesus. The Quell was supposedly present during Paul's lifetime. It is also possible that Matthew added these words of Jesus in his book, but they may not have been true ... he has added other unproven events before. Weather Paul was aware of these words or not, he was obviously preaching a fundamentally different belief than Jesus was. Paul argues his position only up to Gal. 5:12, after that, he contradicts his preaching until 6:10, where he ends the letter. This area is full of rules/laws for the Galatians to live by. Of course, he justifies that Christians live by these laws because they "Walk in the Spirit of Christ." (Gal 5:16) If Christians are to "imitate" Jesus' actions & morals, then why should they decide to follow some, and not others? This is more evidence of Peter trying to create a "convenient" religion. The problem of acceptance of Jewish Law, I believe, is the fundamental split in Christianity. It can still be seen today: Catholicism represents Paul's view of Christianity, while Seventh Day Adventist Christians keep Jewish Law. However, if Paul had preached the Law, I don't believe that Christianity would even be present today (especially among the gentiles). He did much to advance Christianity; however, Gentile Christianity became a religion of Paul, rather than a religion of Jesus. Word Count: 1,018 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Pictures 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pictures The main conflict in the text is about having different religions. It's about how a little girl is having problems about understanding why she can't paint religious persons with dark skin. At school the teacher says that Amina can take the picture to show her mom. Amina doesn't understand why it can't hang on the wall together with the other childrens'. But the teacher gives another excuse and Amina "surrenders", and takes the picture home. But as her mother sees the picture she tears it apart, and tells Amina to never say anything to Amina's father and she tells Amina explicitly not to draw anymore pictures of the Prophet of Nazareth. It is obvious that Amina's mother is scared of how the father will react if he sees that her daughter has painted people from the Bible. Amina and her family are muslims, that's why her mother can't accept the drawing Amina brings home. The reason why she doesn't want the father to know is that he's the dominant one in the family. Maybe the mother is scared that he will punish Amina, or maybe even the mother, for not bringing up her daughter properly. Then Amina's mother teaches her to draw patterns from the Koran. Amina likes to draw the patterns and she is no more confused. Next day at school, they're all going to draw nice Christmas cards. Amina draws the patterns that her mother has just taught her. The teacher tells her to draw people instead, and she throws away the Christmas card with patterns on it. Amina refuses to draw people, and reminds the teacher of what she'd told Amina the other day. The teacher tries to behave nice and convinces Amina that she will put Amina's picture next to the others'. During the two discussions the teacher and Amina are having, the teacher is having a hard time justifying what she is actually doing. She gives no particular reason for telling Amina to take home the picture. Just as well as she gives no explanation for, why Amina can't draw patterns from the Koran. Instead she tries to flatter Amina by telling her that she is good at painting. Even more confused, Amina draws people instead. At school she's told to draw people from the Christian Bible and at home she's told that's wrong. At home her mom tells her to draw patterns from the Muslim Koran, but when she comes to school she is told to draw people, - no wonder she is confused! The ending is from the parents' point of view very contradictive ( I assume that the father has the same opinion as the mother). They're in the shop selling things for Christmas although they're Muslims. At the same time they forbid their daughter to paint things or people that have anything to do with Christmas. Meanwhile Amina's sitting in her room, trying to figure out why she had to throw the fine drawing of the Holy Family away. The other day, my daughter brought home a drawing she had made. It was a picture of Jesus. Now, everybody in this town know that I am definetely not a Christian. Nor is my daughter. That's why I don't understand that she has to draw these drawings at school. The local schools ought to have a little more respect for foreign culture and religion. I intend to bring up my daughter like girls are brought up in our culture. We don't have to bring her up like English children just because we live in England. It is about time that schools took care that all the children were treated so that it wouldn't interfere with their culture and belief. The children become confused and don't know what to believe. The things they're taught in school or the things they're taught at home. Since the number of foreign children are increasing I suggest that religion-classes are divided into two or three, - depending on the number of different religions. In that way the child would be much less confused. Yours Mr. Iqbal Translation More than 3000 schools all over the country have been invited to join a competition with the Earthworms for the Rainforest. The classes are going to try to get earthworms to convert the most garbage to compost, and the winner of The Golden Earthworm is rewarded with a trip up the Amazonas with a visit to the original inhabitants of the rainforest. A few days after this note was written in the paper, one could read the following object from an expert. It is the micro-organisms of the earth which produces compost, not the earthworms, and one cannot make the earth fertile by just adding earthworms. They simply die if there's not enough food for them. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Pictures.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pictures B: The main conflict in the text is about having different religions. It's about how a little girl is having problems about understanding why she can't paint religious persons with dark skin. At school the teacher says that Amina can take the picture to show her mom. Amina doesn't understand why it can't hang on the wall together with the other childrens'. But the teacher gives another excuse and Amina "surrenders", and takes the picture home. But as her mother sees the picture she tears it apart, and tells Amina to never say anything to Amina's father and she tells Amina explicitly not to draw anymore pictures of the Prophet of Nazareth. It is obvious that Amina's mother is scared of how the father will react if he sees that her daughter has painted people from the Bible. Amina and her family are muslims, that's why her mother can't accept the drawing Amina brings home. The reason why she doesn't want the father to know is that he's the dominant one in the family. Maybe the mother is scared that he will punish Amina, or maybe even the mother, for not bringing up her daughter properly. Then Amina's mother teaches her to draw patterns from the Koran. Amina likes to draw the patterns and she is no more confused. Next day at school, they're all going to draw nice Christmas cards. Amina draws the patterns that her mother has just taught her. The teacher tells her to draw people instead, and she throws away the Christmas card with patterns on it. Amina refuses to draw people, and reminds the teacher of what she'd told Amina the other day. The teacher tries to behave nice and convinces Amina that she will put Amina's picture next to the others'. During the two discussions the teacher and Amina are having, the teacher is having a hard time justifying what she is actually doing. She gives no particular reason for telling Amina to take home the picture. Just as well as she gives no explanation for, why Amina can't draw patterns from the Koran. Instead she tries to flatter Amina by telling her that she is good at painting. Even more confused, Amina draws people instead. At school she's told to draw people from the Christian Bible and at home she's told that's wrong. At home her mom tells her to draw patterns from the Muslim Koran, but when she comes to school she is told to draw people, - no wonder she is confused! The ending is from the parents' point of view very contradictive ( I assume that the father has the same opinion as the mother). They're in the shop selling things for Christmas although they're Muslims. At the same time they forbid their daughter to paint things or people that have anything to do with Christmas. Meanwhile Amina's sitting in her room, trying to figure out why she had to throw the fine drawing of the Holy Family away. C1: The other day, my daughter brought home a drawing she had made. It was a picture of Jesus. Now, everybody in this town know that I am definetely not a Christian. Nor is my daughter. That's why I don't understand that she has to draw these drawings at school. The local schools ought to have a little more respect for foreign culture and religion. I intend to bring up my daughter like girls are brought up in our culture. We don't have to bring her up like English children just because we live in England. It is about time that schools took care that all the children were treated so that it wouldn't interfere with their culture and belief. The children become confused and don't know what to believe. The things they're taught in school or the things they're taught at home. Since the number of foreign children are increasing I suggest that religion-classes are divided into two or three, - depending on the number of different religions. In that way the child would be much less confused. Yours Mr. Iqbal Translation More than 3000 schools all over the country have been invited to join a competition with the Earthworms for the Rainforest. The classes are going to try to get earthworms to convert the most garbage to compost, and the winner of The Golden Earthworm is rewarded with a trip up the Amazonas with a visit to the original inhabitants of the rainforest. A few days after this note was written in the paper, one could read the following object from an expert. It is the micro-organisms of the earth which produces compost, not the earthworms, and one cannot make the earth fertile by just adding earthworms. They simply die if there's not enough food for them. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Polisci.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Polisci The budget of the United States is a document that announces how much the government will collect in taxes and spend in revenues and how those expenditures will be allocated among various programs. The basic jist of it is how much money the government is going to spend and where it is going to spend it. There are three major areas the government spends this money: the country's defense, Medicare, and social security. These are called uncontrollable expenditures because they involve contracts already signed, payments like social security that are guaranteed by law, and interest on the national debt that must be paid if the government is to stay in business. The budget was started in 1921. At this time both the president and congress had pretty much any say in where the money was spent and how much. Much has changed since then. The Congressional budget Act of 1974 changed this somewhat. The president submits his budget in January. Then budget committees in both the house and senate study the presidents proposal and submit to its house what is called a total budget ceiling and a ceiling for each of several spending areas. By ceiling they mean the top amount they are going to spend on each category. In May the congress adopts these budget resolutions as targets or guides in deciding what to spend in each area. Then a new modified budget is supposed to "reconcile" the first bill with appropriate amounts to be spent. After the government tried this for a few years the budget was going up way to fast, now a lot of it had to do with wars in the last 30 years but something still needed to be done. We were spending billions over what we were bringing in. To fight this President Reagen used the first budget resolution in May 81 and ordered senate and house committees to reduce federal spending by about 39 billion in 1982. This didn't work very well because some wanted spending cut all together and others wanted cutting in certain areas more than others. (Based on who represented what part of the population.) Then in 1985 the Gramm-Rudman Balanced Budget Act changed the process again. This involved creating a plan whereby the budget would automatically be cut until there was no longer a deficit. Each year between 86 and 91 the deficit could not exceed a specified declining amount. Unfortunately no one liked the idea of automatic budget cuts and it did not pass. This leads us to taxing, and the only other way to make money, as a government is to tax the people of that government. This includes raising taxes on gas, alcohol, tobacco, and the overall tax rate. In the last 10 years our tax rate has grown from 28 % to an astonishing 39.6%. Every president since about the 30's has struggled with the budget and it is only going to get worse if we cannot find a better way to deal with it. Federal programs contain countless provisions that automatically cause spending to increase or decrease depending on economic conditions that cannot be foreseen. It has been estimated that a 1% increase in unemployment rate of the country cause the govt. To spend 7 billion more than it had planned due to welfare and unemployment benefits. So you see the budget is a complex and controversial part of our nations government that we will continue to struggle with and the truth is no one really has an straightforward answers so we just have to deal with it as it comes. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Prayer In School.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Prayer In School A very controversial widespread issue today is the right to have prayer in public schools. The proposed amendment reads: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience. The people's rights to pray and to recognize their belief, heritage or traditions on public property, shall not be infringed. The government shall not require any person to join in the prayer or religious activity, initiate or designate school prayers, discriminate against any religion, or deny equal access to benefit on account of religion. (AVSP)" This would permit but not mandate school prayer. I think that the government should be focused on the school's academics, not what religion they are to study. The proposed amendments would cause nothing but trouble considering that there would be many arguments on what beliefs should be taught. Religion is private and schools are public. Having any prayer in school goes against the basis in which our country was formed upon. America came into being because colonists wanted religious freedom. Our founding fathers carefully wrote the constitution to grant the freedom of separation of church and state. A prayer created and supported by a government violate the very essence of the spirit in which the US was formed. (Haas35) Therefore, having a prayer in school would be unconstitutional. "A radical school prayer amendment would attack the heart and soul of the bill of rights which safeguards the rights of the individual from tyranny of the individual." (Jasper96) Teachers are public employees, paid by the taxpayers. The time it takes to recite a prayer is an expenditure of tax dollars. (Haas36 ) This is a violation of the separation of church and state. This whole issue is a big waste of time because students do have the right to pray at school. No one can stop them from praying individually, silently, or personally. this right has never, and could never be outlawed. (AVSP ) The real motive is to install group prayer.(The Case Against School Prayer) I feel that the school day is not that long, and that if one feels obligated to express their beliefs in a group, there is plenty of time after school. There are so many things that could be argued in this amendment. If passed it would be a never ending war of religious beliefs. Oppressers to the amendment view that since education is mandatory, how can public schools impose one religious prayer on all students? (New American Coalition) If a religion was brought into the classroom, it would build walls for children who are not aware of religious differences. (Case Against School Prayer) Public school districts are made of many different types of people with many different religious beliefs. Students would not be forced to pray but the minority would feel singled out.( Jasper 108) Many religious people are against this proposed amendment. In reality, the only way to make people of different religious beliefs feel comfortable would be to make the prayers cross cultural. However, any watered down prayer would result in the deeply religious finding it meaningless, and an infringement on students who follow no religion. (Democratic Alliance for Action)) Even religious Christians oppose the amendment. They say that the bible warns against public prayer. "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners, but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray..."(Bible) In conclusion, this issue of school prayer could never be passes. It is unconstitutional and would deny the United States of America its most cherished characteristic, freedom. There are many ways that this problem can be solved for those who argue and worry about it. These people can either send their kids to a private school that will help them to learn their particular religious belief on an everyday basis, teach their children after school, or form prayer groups at their own private homes. 1. The Bible. Matthew 6:5-6. 2. Concentric. (1999). Religious Freedom Amendment. [World Wide Web] Available:http://www.concentric.net/Dannemyr/rfa.htm. 3. Democratic Alliance for Action. (1997). Bible Believers Should Oppose School Prayer. [World Wide Web] Available:http://www.daa.org/prayer.html. 4. Freethought. The Case Against School Prayer. (1999) [World Wide Web] Available:http://www.freethought.org/org/fff/pray.html. 5. Haas, Carol. Engle v. Vitale. New York: Enslow; 1994. 6. Jasper, Margeret C. Religion and the Law. New York: Oceana, 1998. 7. New America Coalition. school Prayer. [World Wide Web] Available:http://www.newamerica.org/prayer.html. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Prevent Coercive Prayer in Public Schools 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Prevent Coercive Prayer in Public Schools The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This amendment, commonly called the Establishment Clause, forms the foundation of the right of every American to practice their chosen religion freely and without the interference of the government. In 1947, the Supreme Court issued a statement emphasizing the separation of school and state based on this amendment. Students are entitled to the right to express their religious beliefs in school, but it is unconstitutional for the administration to endorse or discriminate against any religion. Due to this interpretation, the practice of coercive prayer is unconstitutional, and should be kept forever separated from this nation's schools. The purpose of public schools is to educate, not indoctrinate. Schoolchildren are a captive audience. How could a second-, fourth-, or even sixth-grader view the routine recital of prayers during the school day as a voluntary action? This invasive practice would create unnecessary divisions among children by making them unduly aware of their religious differences. Public schools are for everyone, whether they are Buddhist, Catholic, Muslim, or Taoist. The practice of organized prayer in schools invades the student's right to an education free of the discrimination which organized prayer would encourage. Many people mistake the religious indifference of public schools for hostility. Public schools must to be very careful to neither discriminate for nor against any single religion, and people often incorrectly perceive the schools' attitudes toward religion. The non-discrimination requirement may seem wrong to many, but when religion has a home in public schools, it singles out the students who disagree with the theology being taught. Prior to the Supreme Court's decisions against school prayer, it was standard practice to put the students who didn't agree with the theology being taught in places of detention during Bible readings and prayers. One argument in favor of the practice of school-organized prayer draws its basis from the belief that students must be taught morals in school, and that morals cannot be taught in the proper manner without the use of religion. Proponents of this viewpoint believe that an ethical code cannot exist without some higher power dictating it to mankind, because humans have not the self- control to follow such a code unless there is a deity to distribute rewards to the faithful and mete out punishments to the transgressors. There are several obvious fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that morals must be taught in public schools. Many people hold the belief that it is the duty of the students' parents, and not the responsibility of the school system, to teach the students matters of ethics. Another mistake is to assume that a moral law cannot be taught without the use of religion. There are many logical, non-religious reasons for following a moral code that is acceptable to this society. If one does not agree to follow the morals of the rest of the citizens of the U. S., one will quickly be incarcerated. The American people are already under the power of an entity which wields immense power and has the capacity to punish those who do not conform to society's ideals: the federal government. Often, debaters in favor of coercive prayer in school feel themselves compelled to quote statistics and percentages, a practice which is not usually useful to the debate in general because there is rarely any proof to link the rampant rise of "sin" with the practice of school-endorsed prayer. "Since the court outlawed prayer?divorce doubled, teenage pregnancy went up 200%, and teen suicide went up 300%? abortion increased 1000%. There is a strong correlation between the expulsion of prayer from our schools and the decline in morality." (Geisler) The question one must ask is, "What do these things have to do with the ban on coercive prayer?" The answer, of course, is, "Nothing." Anyone who is convinced that there is a cause and effect relationship between the ban on faculty endorsed prayer in school and an increase of activities considered by many to be immoral must either have far greater insight than the foremost rational thinkers of our time, or must consider the issue of whether or not coercive prayer is being utilized in school as a matter of great personal interest. The connection between the above practices and the ban of organized prayer is dubious at best. A third line of reasoning involves the fact that public schools in the United States were originally organized by early settlers to teach children to read and write with the intent to further the settlers' religion, and the fact that the established system worked well for almost two hundred years. The original intent of public schools is outdated now. During the early years of public schooling, everyone who attended school shared the same beliefs. Today, a myriad of different religious groups are represented in our nation's public schools, and it would be a grave injustice to cater to one, only to risk offending all those who have been excluded. Once an institution is outdated and no longer contributing to society, it must be modified or eliminated. Some argue that the First Amendment doesn't actually separate state and religion, but encourages religion, and, in fact, implies nothing in terms of separation of state and religion. "The second clause [of the first amendment] insists that the government should do nothing to discourage religion. But forbidding prayer in schools discourages religion" (Geisler) On the contrary, forbidding prayer in schools does not discourage religion, but does prevent offense and the alienation of students who have viewpoints which conflict with the established religion. Each student has the constitutional right to worship however the student wishes, even during school hours, so long as the student doesn't disturb classmates and prevent themselves and other students from completing their assigned work. Since the Supreme Court has specifically stated that any form of coercive prayer is a breach of the rights of the student, the solution seems to be obvious. The reason that many people who endorse coercive prayer have problems with the Supreme Court ban is not that citizens feel that their freedom of speech is under attack, but that their practice of forcing their viewpoints upon others who profess different beliefs has been outlawed. This practice itself is despicable in that, should the courts ever reverse their interpretation of the First Amendment, it would threaten the very diversity of beliefs which the United States of America has always maintained. Were Buddhist schoolchildren forced to listen to the Lord's Prayer every morning, the school would be undermining the children's parents' right to teach religion to their children as the parents see fit. If, during the act of coercive prayer, administrators isolated students who maintained beliefs different from those practiced by the majority from their classmates, the administration would be facilitating the opening of an emotional and social rift between the students of different religious sects. This obviously runs contrary to the purpose of public schools, whose function is not only to educate, but also to aid in social development. The First Amendment states very plainly that Congress is not allowed to make any law which involves the establishment of religion or interferes with the right of the citizens of this country to freely practice the religion of their choice. There is no question of ambiguity or vague wording in the First Amendment. After reviewing countless essays and manifestoes in favor of coercive prayer in public schools, there has yet to be an indisputable argument based entirely on established facts. The ranks of those who are in favor of the practice seem to be mostly comprised of conservatives who see the Supreme Court' s ban as a threat to their practice of evangelizing those of other religions in order to swell their own ranks. Even though this country is based upon the principle of majority rule, it is reassuring to see that the minority does have a chance for justice. Even though the Supreme Court has set a precedent, there will be many cases respecting coercive prayer brought before courts throughout the country for as long as this country stands. Thus the public is urged to militantly protect themselves from the act of organized school prayer. Keep coercive prayer out of our public schools forever! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Prevent Coercive Prayer in Public Schools.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Prevent Coercive Prayer in Public Schools The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This amendment, commonly called the Establishment Clause, forms the foundation of the right of every American to practice their chosen religion freely and without the interference of the government. In 1947, the Supreme Court issued a statement emphasizing the separation of school and state based on this amendment. Students are entitled to the right to express their religious beliefs in school, but it is unconstitutional for the administration to endorse or discriminate against any religion. Due to this interpretation, the practice of coercive prayer is unconstitutional, and should be kept forever separated from this nation¹s schools. The purpose of public schools is to educate, not indoctrinate. Schoolchildren are a captive audience. How could a second-, fourth-, or even sixth-grader view the routine recital of prayers during the school day as a voluntary action? This invasive practice would create unnecessary divisions among children by making them unduly aware of their religious differences. Public schools are for everyone, whether they are Buddhist, Catholic, Muslim, or Taoist. The practice of organized prayer in schools invades the student¹s right to an education free of the discrimination which organized prayer would encourage. Many people mistake the religious indifference of public schools for hostility. Public schools must to be very careful to neither discriminate for nor against any single religion, and people often incorrectly perceive the schools¹ attitudes toward religion. The non-discrimination requirement may seem wrong to many, but when religion has a home in public schools, it singles out the students who disagree with the theology being taught. Prior to the Supreme Court¹s decisions against school prayer, it was standard practice to put the students who didn¹t agree with the theology being taught in places of detention during Bible readings and prayers. One argument in favor of the practice of school-organized prayer draws its basis from the belief that students must be taught morals in school, and that morals cannot be taught in the proper manner without the use of religion. Proponents of this viewpoint believe that an ethical code cannot exist without some higher power dictating it to mankind, because humans have not the self-control to follow such a code unless there is a deity to distribute rewards to the faithful and mete out punishments to the transgressors. There are several obvious fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that morals must be taught in public schools. Many people hold the belief that it is the duty of the students¹ parents, and not the responsibility of the school system, to teach the students matters of ethics. Another mistake is to assume that a moral law cannot be taught without the use of religion. There are many logical, non-religious reasons for following a moral code that is acceptable to this society. If one does not agree to follow the morals of the rest of the citizens of the U. S., one will quickly be incarcerated. The American people are already under the power of an entity which wields immense power and has the capacity to punish those who do not conform to society¹s ideals: the federal government. Often, debaters in favor of coercive prayer in school feel themselves compelled to quote statistics and percentages, a practice which is not usually useful to the debate in general because there is rarely any proof to link the rampant rise of ³sin² with the practice of school-endorsed prayer. ³Since the court outlawed prayer?divorce doubled, teenage pregnancy went up 200%, and teen suicide went up 300%? abortion increased 1000%. There is a strong correlation between the expulsion of prayer from our schools and the decline in morality.² (Geisler) The question one must ask is, ²What do these things have to do with the ban on coercive prayer?² The answer, of course, is, ³Nothing.² Anyone who is convinced that there is a cause and effect relationship between the ban on faculty endorsed prayer in school and an increase of activities considered by many to be immoral must either have far greater insight than the foremost rational thinkers of our time, or must consider the issue of whether or not coercive prayer is being utilized in school as a matter of great personal interest. The connection between the above practices and the ban of organized prayer is dubious at best. A third line of reasoning involves the fact that public schools in the United States were originally organized by early settlers to teach children to read and write with the intent to further the settlers¹ religion, and the fact that the established system worked well for almost two hundred years. The original intent of public schools is outdated now. During the early years of public schooling, everyone who attended school shared the same beliefs. Today, a myriad of different religious groups are represented in our nation¹s public schools, and it would be a grave injustice to cater to one, only to risk offending all those who have been excluded. Once an institution is outdated and no longer contributing to society, it must be modified or eliminated. Some argue that the First Amendment doesn¹t actually separate state and religion, but encourages religion, and, in fact, implies nothing in terms of separation of state and religion. ³The second clause [of the first amendment] insists that the government should do nothing to discourage religion. But forbidding prayer in schools discourages religion² (Geisler) On the contrary, forbidding prayer in schools does not discourage religion, but does prevent offense and the alienation of students who have viewpoints which conflict with the established religion. Each student has the constitutional right to worship however the student wishes, even during school hours, so long as the student doesn¹t disturb classmates and prevent themselves and other students from completing their assigned work. Since the Supreme Court has specifically stated that any form of coercive prayer is a breach of the rights of the student, the solution seems to be obvious. The reason that many people who endorse coercive prayer have problems with the Supreme Court ban is not that citizens feel that their freedom of speech is under attack, but that their practice of forcing their viewpoints upon others who profess different beliefs has been outlawed. This practice itself is despicable in that, should the courts ever reverse their interpretation of the First Amendment, it would threaten the very diversity of beliefs which the United States of America has always maintained. Were Buddhist schoolchildren forced to listen to the Lord¹s Prayer every morning, the school would be undermining the children¹s parents¹ right to teach religion to their children as the parents see fit. If, during the act of coercive prayer, administrators isolated students who maintained beliefs different from those practiced by the majority from their classmates, the administration would be facilitating the opening of an emotional and social rift between the students of different religious sects. This obviously runs contrary to the purpose of public schools, whose function is not only to educate, but also to aid in social development. The First Amendment states very plainly that Congress is not allowed to make any law which involves the establishment of religion or interferes with the right of the citizens of this country to freely practice the religion of their choice. There is no question of ambiguity or vague wording in the First Amendment. After reviewing countless essays and manifestoes in favor of coercive prayer in public schools, there has yet to be an indisputable argument based entirely on established facts. The ranks of those who are in favor of the practice seem to be mostly comprised of conservatives who see the Supreme Court¹s ban as a threat to their practice of evangelizing those of other religions in order to swell their own ranks. Even though this country is based upon the principle of majority rule, it is reassuring to see that the minority does have a chance for justice. Even though the Supreme Court has set a precedent, there will be many cases respecting coercive prayer brought before courts throughout the country for as long as this country stands. Thus the public is urged to militantly protect themselves from the act of organized school prayer. Keep coercive prayer out of our public schools forever! f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Priesthood and Vocation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The position of priesthood in the church has been evident since the earliest existence of the church. Jewish priests first were established in the seventh century BC performing religious ceremonies. They were even more established around 950 BC due to the establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem. The major role of the traditional Jewish priest was to perform sacrificial rituals. According to the Bible, the Temple was built as a place for God to live with the people. It was the holiest building that existed, and needed to be kept holy by the priests. Their role of the priests was to perform animal sacrifices to God as an offering. The priests performed these sacrifices as specialists on behalf of a community or congregation in order to restore the holiness of the community and of the Temple. It was believed that if there was sin among the people then God would not come and be with them. After the Temple was destroyed during the war with Rome, these animal sacrifices were stopped, and there were no more active Jewish priests. The religious leadership in the synagogue was led by the rabbis. In the Protestant religion there exists a "priesthood of all believers"("Priesthood", 529). This meant that each member in the community serves as his or her own priest, with direct access to communication with God. Protestants believe that the role of the priest is an "officiating mediary"("Priesthood", 529), rather than a one who performs ritual sacrifices. This stems from the Protestant belief that Jesus Christ served as "the ultimate" sacrifice, and therefore there is no use in animal sacrifices. Protestants also do not call their religious leaders "priests" because the name itself implies that he is of a higher level than his fellow man or that he has more access to God than others. There exists two different forms of priesthood: hereditary and vocational priests. A hereditary priest is a limited position in that it can only be held by a person who a direct descendent of the tribe of Levi. This tribe is one of the original 12 tribes of Israel as set forth in Genesis 49. There exists among this tribe one High Priests who head of the other priests. He is the only priest who was allowed to view the holy Ark of the Covenant during the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem. These hereditary priests, unlike most priests in today's society, were allowed to marry in order to carry on the line of priesthood. The vocational priests are those which have been "called" to the ministry by God himself. A "calling" is an "impulse by God that attracts certain persons to a life of ministry"("Calling", 176). This area of priesthood is beneficial in that it has the "potential advantage of selectivity for devotional, intellectual, or moral qualities"("Priesthood", 530). The problem with hereditary priests was that there often existed priests which were not very holy men, but they were given the position due to their family name. Vocational priests are only men who became priests because the felt thats what God wanted them to do. There are certain requirements which must be kept by preists in order for them to be able to continue doing the work of God. One of these requirements is that he is of sound mind. "Apart from practical reasons of cumminity leadership, this requirement is frequetnly supported by a notion of perfection as appropriate to the sacrificial ritual. Just as a cacrificial animal is expected to be whole and without blemish, so should the sacrificer himself be. Traditional Roman Catholic custom has required in particular that the hands of a priest, which perform the sacrament, be without deformity"("Priesthood", 530) The tradition of celibacy is something that may be required, as the Roman Catholic church does, but it is not required by all denominations with priests. Some other interesting requirements of a priest is that he be a good speaker and good and pronunciation. This is essential for the prayers of the priest. Priests which were required to do animal needed to be trained as a veterinary surgeon. Lastly, priests must also have background in theology and history in order to also minister to the intellectual life of their congregation. As you can see there are many aspects of priesthood. They provided the church with the proper leadership and knowledge which is needed to be able to serve God in the proper manner. They have been previlant throughout religious history and they will surely continue to play a major role in modern religion today and in the future. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Priesthood.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Priesthood The position of priesthood in the church has been evident since the earliest existence of the church. Jewish priests first were established in the seventh century BC performing religious ceremonies. They were even more established around 950 BC due to the establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem. The major role of the traditional Jewish priest was to perform sacrificial rituals. According to the Bible, the Temple was built as a place for God to live with the people. It was the holiest building that existed, and needed to be kept holy by the priests. Their role of the priests was to perform animal sacrifices to God as an offering. The priests performed these sacrifices as specialists on behalf of a community or congregation in order to restore the holiness of the community and of the Temple. It was believed that if there was sin among the people then God would not come and be with them. After the Temple was destroyed during the war with Rome, these animal sacrifices were stopped, and there were no more active Jewish priests. The religious leadership in the synagogue was led by the rabbis. In the Protestant religion there exists a "priesthood of all believers"("Priesthood", 529). This meant that each member in the community serves as his or her own priest, with direct access to communication with God. Protestants believe that the role of the priest is an "officiating mediary"("Priesthood", 529), rather than a one who performs ritual sacrifices. This stems from the Protestant belief that Jesus Christ served as "the ultimate" sacrifice, and therefore there is no use in animal sacrifices. Protestants also do not call their religious leaders "priests" because the name itself implies that he is of a higher level than his fellow man or that he has more access to God than others. There exists two different forms of priesthood: hereditary and vocational priests. A hereditary priest is a limited position in that it can only be held by a person who a direct descendent of the tribe of Levi. This tribe is one of the original 12 tribes of Israel as set forth in Genesis 49. There exists among this tribe one High Priests who head of the other priests. He is the only priest who was allowed to view the holy Ark of the Covenant during the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem. These hereditary priests, unlike most priests in today's society, were allowed to marry in order to carry on the line of priesthood. The vocational priests are those which have been "called" to the ministry by God himself. A "calling" is an "impulse by God that attracts certain persons to a life of ministry"("Calling", 176). This area of priesthood is beneficial in that it has the "potential advantage of selectivity for devotional, intellectual, or moral qualities"("Priesthood", 530). The problem with hereditary priests was that there often existed priests which were not very holy men, but they were given the position due to their family name. Vocational priests are only men who became priests because the felt thats what God wanted them to do. There are certain requirements which must be kept by preists in order for them to be able to continue doing the work of God. One of these requirements is that he is of sound mind. "Apart from practical reasons of cumminity leadership, this requirement is frequetnly supported by a notion of perfection as appropriate to the sacrificial ritual. Just as a cacrificial animal is expected to be whole and without blemish, so should the sacrificer himself be. Traditional Roman Catholic custom has required in particular that the hands of a priest, which perform the sacrament, be without deformity"("Priesthood", 530) The tradition of celibacy is something that may be required, as the Roman Catholic church does, but it is not required by all denominations with priests. Some other interesting requirements of a priest is that he be a good speaker and good and pronunciation. This is essential for the prayers of the priest. Priests which were required to do animal needed to be trained as a veterinary surgeon. Lastly, priests must also have background in theology and history in order to also minister to the intellectual life of their congregation. As you can see there are many aspects of priesthood. They provided the church with the proper leadership and knowledge which is needed to be able to serve God in the proper manner. They have been previlant throughout religious history and they will surely continue to play a major role in modern religion today and in the future. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\rational choice approach to religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SO3017 RELIGION AND SOCIETY 'WHAT ARE THE MAIN STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE RATIONAL CHOICE APPROACH TO RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOUR?' BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) G. Becker, 1986, 'The economic approach to human behaviour', pp. 108-22 in J. Elster (ed.), Rational Choice. Oxford: Blackwell. 2) L. Iannaccone, 1990, 'Religious practice: a human capital approach', Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29: 297-314. 3) S. Bruce, 'Religion and rational choice: a critique of economic explanations of religious behaviour', Sociology of Religion, 54: 193-205. 4) H. Bredemeier, 1978, 'Exchange theory', pp. 420-56 in T. Bottomore and R. Nisbet (eds), A History of Sociological Thought. New York: Basic Books. 5) Lecture Notes. 6) J. Sloman, 1996, Economics. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. One of the pioneers of the rational choice theory has been Gary Becker. He states that this approach can be applied to all human behaviour, including religion. This approach has three assumptions. It assumes that people engage in maximising behaviour. When applying this approach to religion we are not concerned with money. We are concerned with the maximisation of personal benefits. When we make a decision we weigh up the costs and benefits and choose the option which offers the most benefit. Secondly, there are 'markets that with varying degrees of efficiency allow the actions of different participants to function together efficiently.' Thirdly, prices and other market functions can affect demand and supply, controlling desires and affecting the actions of consumers. Becker explains that price is not described in money terms but as a shadow price. For example, muslims cannot drink alcohol. This approach involves four theorems. Firstly, a rise in price reduces the quantity demanded. The example he gives is if people have to put more time and effort into having children then less people will do so. Secondly, a rise in price increases the quantity supplied, the example given is women in the labour market. Thirdly, competitive markets are more efficient then monopolistic markets and lead to the diversity of a product. Fourthly, a tax on the output of a market reduces that output eg the punishment of criminals is a tax on crime. Finke and Iannaccone have applied this theory to religious behaviour and understand that the high degree of religion in America is attributed to the existence of a free market and therefore competition and diversification in religion. Finke argues that in a free market start up costs are low and this leads to new ideas and more diversity and therefore more chance of everyone finding a religion they like. Also in a competitive free market earning a living acts as an incentive to clergy to work harder and try to tailor their religion to suit the demands of the consumer. He also suggests that state monopolies are less efficient in the absence of competition and believes that state churches would therefore allow high costs. Bruce highlights some weaknesses of this theory. He states that the early Christian church had very high startup costs eg persecution and this did not prevent the recruitment of new followers. On the other hand, according to the maximisation theory, the benefits must have outweighed the cost of the threat of persecution or no-one would have joined. Bruce criticises the theorem that inefficiency exists in the absence of competition by pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church is a state supported monopoly in many countries and a hegemony in others yet it has been very efficient. Also, Roman Catholic success is not a result of a free market as it has done well in Poland and the Republic of Ireland where there is almost no competition. Bruce also states that as people moved away from the national church and competition increased in the middle ages, people became more invloved in religion. This suggests that competition does lead to religion but the free market model does not explain the decline in involvement in religion from the start of the century. Maybe this decline can be best described by the sociological theory of secularisation. Perhaps people feel that the costs of religion and the restrictions it imposes on their lifestyles outweigh the benefits or that religion would not benefit them at all. Iannaccone believes that economics can explain known facts about individual decision making with regards to religious behaviour. He believes economics can explain facts about denominational mobility, typical age of converts, typical patterns of inter-religious marriage and participation levels found in different marriages. The majority of Americans remain in the churches they were raised in and return to them if they drift away. If they do move it is likely to be to a similar church. Iannaccone explains these facts with reference to investment ie people have already spent a great deal of time and effort in their religion and to move to a new religion requires new investment and initial investment is wasted. Bruce suggests an alternative explanation would be that beliefs 'sediment', effecting our response to alternatives. He explains that beliefs which seem more plausible to us are beliefs which accord with residues of earlier stages of belief. The human capital model predicts religious switching will occur early in the life cycle as people search for the best match between their skills and the context in which they produce religious commodities. Over time diminishing marginal utility will occur ie gains from further switching will dimiinish as the potential for improvement decreases and the years left during which they can capitalise on that improvement decrease. Bruce suggests that socialisation with like-minded believers and how much of a satisfactory explanation of the world and our place in it is given is likey to increase plausibility over time and that there is no need for reference to economics. Iannaccone states that households peactice their beliefs more efficiently when husband and wife belong to the same religion. He believes they benefit from economies of scale as they can take the same car to church and avoid disputes over whcih religion the children are to practice etc. He states this is why tend to marry within the same denomination. Bruce suggests that an alternative explanation would be that the church is a place where people with similar backgrounds and beliefs come together. He also argues that the strength of a persons belief is reinforced by social interaction. Therefore a husband and wife reinforce each others beliefs and encourage church attendance. Also Iannaccone shows a correlation between couples sharing the same faith and being more than averagelt involved in their religion but his data does not show which causes which. It also seems likely that people who are highly committed to their religion will want to marry someone of the same faith. Bruce argues that there is a degree of indeterminacy in the economc approach and gives the example of the low start-up costs controversy explained above. He states that there can not be any way of proving the utility maximisation theory false because utility is a matter of social construction which is interpreted in different ways by different people. What is a cost to one person could be a benefit to another. The only way to identify what are costs and what are benefits is to look at the choices themselves. It is these choices that we wish to explain so we seem to be going round in circles. Another weakness highlighted by Bruce is that economising requires the ability to choose between items that are comparable. he argues if religion is not comparable on some scale then how can we decide which choices will maximise our utility? He argues that religions cannot be alternatives to each other in the sense that material goods are as religions demand and mostly achieve the complete faith of their followers. With the exception of Buddhism and modern liberal protestantism the great religions claim unique salvational truth. Other religions cannot be regarded as alternatives. On the other hand you have to choose the religion in the first place. A second requirement of economising is pricing. This is a neautral way of comparing costs, this is absent from the application of the economic approach to religious behaviour. Costs differ between people. On the other hand Iannoccone does not talk of price in money terms but in shadow price. Bruce argues that time for exampple cannot be used as a shadow price as the cost of the time spent on one persons religion does not equal another persons. There are cultural constraints on supply ie norms. Demand can have an effect on supply such that popularity can influence the recruitment of candidates for the ministry. However there are cultural constraints on what churches can do to become more popular. They cannot change there religion to meet popularity. Religious failures can attribute their failings as the 'price' of ideological purity. On the other hand, churches can tailor their religion to meet demand in other ways eg the introduction of the nine o'clock service. There are also cultural constraints on consumers, that is there exist a number of norms that constrain religious choice. For example, in a racially divided society the introduction of new black churches does not effect the choice of white people as a result of the social 'norm' of racial segregation. But can this not be interpreted by the weighing up of the costs and benefits of breaking norms? Here the costs certainly outweigh the benefits. Elster (1986:17) believes rational choice theory fails because it cannot tell us what rationality requires. He believes rational choice theory depends on us knowing what the rational choice is. In this way the economic model is not a good model for making predictions concerning overall religious behaviour but it still provides a good explanation of religious behaviour. I believe the word in itself tells us what rationality requires. Rationality is an act of reasoning and this is a very personal thing. When making decisions we reason as to what would be the best course of action for us ie the choice which maximises our satisfaction. People tailor their religions to meet the demands of their unique lifestyles. This points to the obvious fact that there can be no one simple explanation for an individuals choice of religion as we are all so very diffeerent. Bruce argues that we cannot talk of religion as we do commodities. He states that people in the modern world are not consumerist and those who do change their religion hope for and normally form an enduring attachment closer to tradition than rationality. He argues that only in a thoroughly secular society would religion be a commodity f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Reasearch On Voodoo.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reasearch On Voodoo Voodoo and It's Misinterpretation in America Voodoo is a religion rich in heiratage and founded in faith and community. The religion has been villianized by western culture and has been wrongly protrayed as malignant and dangerous. The religion is not founded in any of the "black magics" or fear popularized by Hollywood films, but rather it is based on balance and tradition. The religion is not something which should be encountered with inhibition or fear induced from childhood horror stories, but embraced for it's strength and history. Voodoo (also known as Vodun, Vodou, Umbanda, Quimbanda, and Candomble) originated as an amalgam of African religions during the slave trade. As slaves were shipped from Africa to the Carribean and America, groups of slaves sharing a similier heretage were broken apart to prevent any since of community or bond between them. With no connection beyond the tortures of slavery, the slaves had little chance to establish any relationship to thier fellow captives. Hailing from lifestyles and cultures far removed from each other, the only opportunity for a common bond came from sharing their deep faiths. Though different religions, the intense faiths allowed an intellectual exchange and common bond. With several different religions present in any given group of slaves, the majority of slaves adapted by holding a service which accepted all lineages and respected all ancestreal lines of faith, both aspects being of primary concerns in African religions. These services were effective in blending the rites and practices of many religions into one combination religion. This adaption effectively created a new religion, Voodoo, which translates to "spirit" in several African languages. This new religion gave the slaves a since of alliance with their nieghboring slaves and, with that alliance, a since of community. This new found unity was viewed as a threat to the French and Brittish plantation owners of the newly settled colonies. As a means to quell the religious unity, the plantation owners forbid the practice of religion and punished slaves who attempted to pursue voodoo. Catholicism was presented as an alternative to the African-based but now independant and Carribean religion. Instead of accepting the Catholic religion, many slaves only incorperated it into the establishing Voodoo religion. Catholicism remains an important aspect of Voodoo, and many of it's methods and rituals are currently practiced as Voodoo (this is especially accurate in Santeria, a Cuban based Voodoo). The punishments of practicing voodoo forced voodoo to remaine secretive until slavery itself died out. Voodoo became a myth among plantation owners and only to the surface once slaves or former slaves acquired a means to own property through the revolution of 1804. This revolution was spurred by Voodoo priest and priestesses who had worked in secracy and organized the slaves into an army. When the slaves overcame there oppressors voodoo became a publically accepted religion in the Carribean. In the three centuries of religious oppression, Voodoo became a symbol of pride and independence for the slaves. Any pride in a slave is of course regarded as a threat to the slave owner. Rumors of human sacrifice and devil worship became prevalent in the social circles of plantation owners and slave traders. These statements had no validity, but traveled quickly throughout Europe and America. The practicers of Voodoo embraced this fear as means to frighten their former masters and gain some respect in a world where they were deprived of everything. Former slave owners quickly found themselves duped into the beliefs of Voodoo dolls and hexes. This early means of freedom through fear is a reason Voodoo is still treated as a sinister religion. It is not that the Voodoo practice was frightening, but that that image was adopted as a means to assure it's existance. No historical evidence of human sacrifice or affiliation with western principles of Satan has been discovered. Any affiliation with the occult has occured only recently with the "Gothic" movement in pop culture, and is not related with any orthadox Voodoo practices. Voodoo redeemed itself throughout the 1800's with peaceful practice throughout the Carribean and Southern points in America. In 1884 S. St.James wrote the book Haiti or the Black Republic. This book possessed graphically described accounts of canabalism, human sacrifice, and the structured teachings of "bad" or "black" magic. St. James sources were the testimonies of voodoo priests who were tortured into these false confessions given during the times of revolution. St. James also used the written statements from the deposed plantation masters as accurate accounts as to why voodoo practicers were being executed. Though exagerated, and in some instances simply imagined, the book was widely distributed and read. As the American film industry emerged in the 1930's, a wealth of horror stories pictured voodoo as a menacing culture. Voodoo, being practiced primarily by individuals without access to the American film society offered no resistance or information while these false protrayals were being made. It was not until the 1950's that any information from legitimate studies emerged. Primary religions involved in the African aspect of Voodoo are Macumba and Candomble of the Yoruba people of Nigeria, and several now extinct tribes from the Congos and Cameroon. These religions lay the ground work for the course of religious ceremonies and contain the origins for the dieties worshipped in modern voodoo. Voodoo's principle diety, Olorun (also known as Oloddumare) is the voodoo equivalent to the Christian God. Though the name can be trace to the Yoruba tribe, it is unknown if he is a rimnant of the Catholic involvement in voodoo. Obatala, is a composit of many tribes primary god. He is represented as the giver of life and creator of human kind. Obatala is subserviant to Olorun, but is said to have created the other, lesser Gods. For instance Eleggua, goddess of opportunity and Oya, goddess of fire and wind were both created by Obatala for humanity. In addition to containing the gods of many African cultures, voodoo also expresses the belief in minor spirits who watch or protect specific objects or occurances. Those who were created at the beginning of life are referred to as Rada, and are worshipped as members to the family of Gods. Individuals who lived great lives or led the voodoo followers are often praised and referred to as Petro. Many of the rulers who fought the slave traders in Africa and many of the priests who aided in the revolution have acquired this status. The voodoo culture has ordained the Catholic Saints in this way and acknowledge them as Petro. As Voodoo was founded in necessity, it is one of the more lineant religions in terms of tolerance of relationship with other religions. Voodoo's belief that all things connect to ones soul stresses the importance to not cause harm. Voodouers, (those who practice voodoo) believe every act can be enjoyed, if not for the act itself, then for the pride or satisfaction one can take in the results of the act. For that fact no act can be considered unselfish and therefore it is most important to accept and spread happiness for the majority of mankind. Voodoo makes certain not to condemn those of other faiths, and does not attempt to disprove or replace any. The relationship with Jesus, the primary aspect of western religions, varies with the denominations of Voodoo. Most Voodoo denominations acknowledge his devine stature as the son of God. Current Voodoo converts are encouraged to retain their prestablished religions and add Voodoo as a means to enhance ones spirituality. Voodoo does not see itself as the Sola Fida, rather as a corallary to the other religions. Those who practice voodoo are avid and devout in thier religion, only they view the afterlife as centering more on ones "inner light" than on ones external beliefs. The afterlife is believed to be one of learning and of understanding. Where the questions of the universe will finally rest. Voodoo also teaches that should one gain access here, their past life will not influence their Ti Bon Ange (little guardian angel) which is the human part of the soul.(The other part, Gros Bon Ange, big guardian angel, being one's conscience and what allows corporeal life) Voodoo contains distinct denominations, but the root faith is constant. The most wide spread voodoo is Yoruban, of orthadox voodoo. The seperations in voodoo varies in the importance of ceremony and the roles of thier clergy. Makaya and Kongo Rite voodoos follow the same structure, but are less rigiorus in ceremony and clergy do not possess such influence. Santeria is an offshoot of voodoo which has grown considerably in Cuba. The Santeria religion is structured tightly after Catholicism, while the objects of worship are the Dahomey, children of Obatala. They are worshipped in ways similier to the treatment of Catholic saints. The religion varies from traditional voodoo in the fact that it still remains secretive and prefers to remain seperated from outside religions. Santeria has no defined structures and the role of priests or priestesses are small if even there in Santeria communities. This is most likely due to the restriction of religious freedom in Cuba. Santeria has recently spread significantly in Miami and New York. Though attempting to remain separate, there exposure and positive influence have shed great positive light on Voodoo. The mystique of voodoo has remained though action to dispell the negative connotations has made great advancements. A common word association with voodoo yields; Haiti, voodoo dolls, zombies, and tools often associated with "black magic." Though orthadox voodoo does not practice the arts of voodoo dolls or envoking zombies, but the origins of both are quite intrigueing. Voodoo dolls were used as a mean of cursing or hexing an individual, most commonly a plantation owner. No current Shango or Mambo (priest or priestess) condones this act or grants it validity. It was never practiced religious and is primarily a folklore that has been abandoned by legitimate voodoo. No cases of violence have been linked to voodoo dolls. The term zombie means an individual who is resurrected after death by a voodoo priest or priestess. This resurrected individual will possess typical superhuman traits often associated with the undead in folklore (superhuman strength, resistance to injury). The zombie will be bound to his resurrectors will. In actuality, a zombie was a person gravely ill who was administered heavy narcotics as a means to keep them alive. In the poorly industrialized areas where voodoo emerged, medical utilities were scarce and of poor quality. Often, individuals revived were believed dead. Once "resurrected" by barely sublethal amounts of strong drugs, the individual would possess enormous strength and resistance to injury equivalent to that of a man on PCP. The individual would also be dependant on the priest to supply thier now life sustaining drug. This dependence is effectivly being "bound to a master's will." In extreme cases the "zombie" would go through physical effects of drug addiction which leaves the individual looking corpse like. Voodoo has been greatly misrepresented in American society. It is an honorable and thoughtful religion which should be commended for it's tenacity through history and it's involvement in the lives of so many. Voodoo is not the stuff myths and horror movies, rather it is a peaceful and loving religion which can benefit many more than only those devout to Obatala. It can be benefiscial to those who care about humanity f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Refutation to a Bias Suggestion 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Refutation to a Bias Suggestion "Some people suggest that the Bible, being a collection of texts written long ago by persons much different from ourselves, does not have much (or any) significance for modern people." The suggestion that the Bible is invalid simply due to its authors and era is absurd and bias. This statement is supported by God and all modern day believers. Almost any Christian you confront with this statement would most likely give you a blank stare. However, it is mainly non- Christians who would make such a slanted view of the Bible. I am an American. The authors of the Bible were not. Why should this influence my opinion in the least amount? Simply because the texts of the Bible are old does not void their validity. Although we may not share the same nationality with the authors of the Bible, we do share common beliefs and faiths. Taken from a different perspective, non-Christians do not share the same beliefs, obviously, or they would not make such statements. Another question one may ask themselves is exactly how different are the authors of the Biblical texts from ourselves. Is it their lifestyle or career that makes them so exotic in relation to us? Is it just because they spoke another language? They are children of God, just as we are. Science today is still discovering new evidence that proves the existence of a "mother of all humanity." We all share a common gene pool, we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Since the beginning of recorded history, religion has had a profound impact on the present society. Romans, Greeks, Hindus, and Catholics have all molded their societies and laws around religion. As far as impact goes, look at the Spanish Inquisition. It is difficult for one to refute that Catholicism had little or no impact on the Aztecs of modern day Mexico. Even our laws today reflect the ten commandments given to Moses by God himself. We are forbidden by present day law in the United States of America to either steal or murder. Religion has powerful influence concerning the outcome of a child. The values and beliefs of religions are impressed upon youths. Some may be different from others, but most parents bring up their children into the same faith as themselves. Concerning the teachings of Christianity, the Bible is probably the most commonly used tool. Therefore, children raised in Christian homes will most likely be taught the values and teachings of the Bible, influencing them dramatically. Christianity is the most commonly practiced religion in America. The Bible has the most copies in circulation than any other book in the world. As a summation, the Bible is abundant in availability, is commonly used to teach Christianity (the most common religion in America) and someone is trying to say that it is invalid? Looking at this statement with as little religious zeal as possible, I find it understandable for a non-Christian to think such thoughts. God gave us free will. We have the power to decide the outcome of many opportunities and possibilities. Therefore, one who decides not to accept God and Jesus might very well think that believers are the fools. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Refutation to a Bias suggestion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Refutation to a bias Suggestion "Some people suggest that the Bible, being a collection of texts written long ago by persons much different from ourselves, does not have much (or any) significance for modern people." The suggestion that the Bible is invalid simply due to its authors and era is absurd and bias. This statement is supported by God and all modern day believers. Almost any Christian you confront with this statement would most likely give you a blank stare. However, it is mainly non- Christians who would make such a slanted view of the Bible. I am an American. The authors of the Bible were not. Why should this influence my opinion in the least amount? Simply because the texts of the Bible are old does not void their validity. Although we may not share the same nationality with the authors of the Bible, we do share common beliefs and faiths. Taken from a different perspective, non-Christians do not share the same beliefs, obviously, or they would not make such statements. Another question one may ask themselves is exactly how different are the authors of the Biblical texts from ourselves. Is it their lifestyle or career that makes them so exotic in relation to us? Is it just because they spoke another language? They are children of God, just as we are. Science today is still discovering new evidence that proves the existence of a "mother of all humanity." We all share a common gene pool, we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Since the beginning of recorded history, religion has had a profound impact on the present society. Romans, Greeks, Hindus, and Catholics have all molded their societies and laws around religion. As far as impact goes, look at the Spanish Inquisition. It is difficult for one to refute that Catholicism had little or no impact on the Aztecs of modern day Mexico. Even our laws today reflect the ten commandments given to Moses by God himself. We are forbidden by present day law in the United States of America to either steal or murder. Religion has powerful influence concerning the outcome of a child. The values and beliefs of religions are impressed upon youths. Some may be different from others, but most parents bring up their children into the same faith as themselves. Concerning the teachings of Christianity, the Bible is probably the most commonly used tool. Therefore, children raised in Christian homes will most likely be taught the values and teachings of the Bible, influencing them dramatically. Christianity is the most commonly practiced religion in America. The Bible has the most copies in circulation than any other book in the world. As a summation, the Bible is abundant in availability, is commonly used to teach Christianity (the most common religion in America) and someone is trying to say that it is invalid? Looking at this statement with as little religious zeal as possible, I find it understandable for a non-Christian to think such thoughts. God gave us free will. We have the power to decide the outcome of many opportunities and possibilities. Therefore, one who decides not to accept God and Jesus might very well think that believers are the fools. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religio2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion, The State And Sovereignty The influence of religion on humankind can be traced back to the first records of history. Religion has served as a pillar of strength to some and binding chains to others. There are vast amounts of information and anthropological studies revealing the interaction of religion and humankind. However, for the purposes of this paper, the time periods of study will be broken up into three sections. Each section will give a general description of how religion affected the institution of the state and its Sovereignty in a Euro-centric perspective. The first period is the early period, which will encompass from Christianity and the Roman Empire to the Medieval times (approx. 311 to 1100 A.D.). The second period will include the Renaissance, the Reformation to the Treaty of Westphalia (1101 to 1648 A.D.). The third and increment of history will range from 1649 to 1945 A.D. The date 311 A.D. marks the issuing of the "Edict of Toleration" for Christians. This date is important because it symbolizes "national" acceptance of Christianity, and planted its roots as a political institution. Later the Roman Empire on the verge of internal collapse acknowledged the importance of Christianity and used it to hold together the remnants of it former self. This adoption of Christianity took form and eventually became the Catholic church. The church became intermingled with politics and became a strong entity. The policies delivered from the church had more authority than the local rulers and magistrates of the developing feudal system. For example, St. Augustine wrote about war and what justified its enactment against fellow men. This policy was followed and adhered to for hundreds of years after St. Augustine wrote it. Another example, is the use of the Bible as a guideline for establishing governing systems. Scripture portrayed God as choosing the king of the people. The pope, being God's "representative" was then given the authority to crown the king. This crowning process gave the pope large influence in the political arena. This ritual continued for a number of centuries. The Crusades, which occurred around 1100 A.D., played a crucial role in challenging the church's authority. The pope identifying the spread of Islam as evil requested all of Europe embark on a "Crusade" to defeat the infidels. As the battles were fought, great treasures were found in the form of books and knowledge. These books were crude translations of old Greek texts, containing information which would eventually produce the waning of Church authority in the future. The Renaissance marked the beginning of intellectual re-birth. Writers such as Dante, Machiavelli, Guiarccidini, Vitoria, etc., all attempting to reform and some even contest church dominance. Dante in his imaginative work "Inferno" writes of hell which he envision is the pope's final destination. Machiavelli takes a more direct role classifying the actions of a prince to be above morality and ultimately above the Church. He continues the affront by classifying a human character of "virtu" as being completely centered around man (humanism). The Raison D' Tat is supreme especially in terms of the church belligerence. In the middle of the Renaissance, the Church was dealt a deadly blow from which it would never recover. This assault came via Martin Luther. His work, "95 Thesis", marked the beginning of the Reformation. This movement split the church into Catholic and Protestant sects. It marked the beginning of a bloody period which virtually split Europe in half. Examples of the conflict raged between Protestants and Catholics from the great slaughter of Protestants in Paris 1572 A.D. (7000 dead) to the Thirty Years War. With the Church in disarray, freedom was given to the "state" to begin to develop. During this period of Renaissance the political identity was going through a tremendous transformation. This transformation took form in what is called Absolutism. "Princes" began to tolerate less and less manipulation from the church. The political entity in the form of monarchy began to wean itself from the Church for its legitimacy and looked toward its own power. Other writers began to rise and discuss issues of sovereignty and the state. Thomas Hobbes discusses the state and refers to it as "Leviathan" which is the concurring title of his work. Believing man to be evil, Hobbes fashions his description of the state as the mechanism to control and harness the capabilities of man. There can be no peace as long as there is not absolute surrender to reason. The state's interest is supreme, as well as, its authority. These ideas were written in direct opposition to the church and its history. Hobbes desired a complete refutation of the Church's influence in government. Hobbes portrays a state as sovereign. The sovereignty of the state is in direct relation to its longevity and basic existence. State sovereignty must be perpetual and supreme. The authority of this described state would over-shadow the authority of the church. Continuing historically, the development of the thirty years war was significant in its unique result. The treaty of Westphelia was the agreement which not only settled the war, but gave absolute authority to the sovereign of each individual state. This was accomplished by granting the sovereign the right to choose which religion he/she desired and that in turn transferred down to the people. Thus, once again the authority of the church was restricted, however this time by the emergence of an institution called the state. During this period states begin to develop colonies and exploration of the new world. The discoveries and travel further challenged church authority. An example of this is the well founded "scientific" fact that the earth was flat. After such journeys by Columbus and Magellan, the concept of church's monopoly on truth was attacked once again. The third period in history starts with the age of reason. Its intellectual basis of the time period is science and natural law. Empiricism plays a fundamental role in church legitimacy. Factual concrete proof of God and his work is not provided by science. States begin to mature politically as colonial powers. The Church or rather the concept of religion is still strong but begins a transformation during the Enlightenment. From Religion ideas of morality and natural law arise. Locke addresses the role of the government of a state. He portrays the ideas of a social contract between the people and its government. He continued by pointing out that the government has a commitment with the people it must with hold. Locke's writings also contained concepts concerning of natural rights which are inherent to human beings. This developed and identified that power now comes from the people. These people from which the government is derived and power (legitimacy) have rights and will be safe-guarded by the people. The French and American Revolutions harnessed the ideas which the enlightenment wrote and discussed. The French Revolution exemplified the early stages of nationalism. Nationalism derives from a grouping of people who share common cultural and social experiences. >From nationalism the concept of self-determination is derived. Phrases like," We the People. . ." began to show up in constitutions and declarations, which showed consensus among people with like-minded purposes. The inception of positive law was the last and final blow to the concept of religion. Positive law is fashioned and codified by man. The law has replaced the concept of morality. The framework which laws create make the state and its sovereign powers legitimate and legal. States no longer operate in terms of what is just but on whether the legality for the action or jurisdiction have application. The evolution of the state and its sovereignty is clear. The Church once being a dominant political factor has been reduced to a mere whisper of advice. The influence of religion in instituting or in the elective process of choosing a representative ruler has been severely minimized. Sovereignty and the institution of the State has surpassed predestination and Divine Right of Kings. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion "Religion" is a simple word that divides humanity in several groups. It is the claim of many influential Christian and Jewish theologians that the only genuine basis for morality is in religion(Nielsen 13). The morals and beliefs of children are greatly influenced by their home life. It is sad how children grow up, not able to research into their beliefs, but conform to the beliefs that have run in their families for generations. Not many children break away from the traditional religion in their family because it has been practiced and influenced for many years. If one should participate in breaking tradition, he could be challenged by the family to show reasoning behind the change(Kaplan 258). In doing this, society still will be diverse, but at least that is one more person trying to express an opinion. The Old Testament is an accurate and valid resource to use when trying to explain Christianity and faith. For example, it is amazing how one can justify his faith to a strong Catholic family whentrying to prove that salvation is a free gift and not a time card for "good works." There is much difference between the religion of Catholicism and non- denominational Christianity. Though both groups believe in one God, the same God, growing up in the midst of the bickering of the two groups can confuse a child and bring bitterness toward this God that Christians believe is all-loving. School is an area where temptations are thrown in people's faces each day. Many people are challenged each day in these situations; children may be challenged in their home or in school because of the issue of salvation and trying to maintain a strong-willed mind as a young Christian. Catholic children are taught their religion in CCD classes, and the result is the children learning to be good in order to go to heaven. Many of the the things they are taught come from the Old Testament. The Christian Bible includes the Old Testament unlike Judaism where their bible is the Old Testament. Children learn Christian virtues such as faith, obedience, piety, chastity, love, mercy, and humility(Garner 272). Catholic children are also taught that if they do sin, than they simply can go confess their sins to a priest and then they are forgiven. According to the Old Testament, salvation is free gift and forgiveness is given straight from God, not through some high standing official in the Church. Catholics are given a bad name, and their religion is considered to be hostile towards others and unethical at times(Hudnut 22). I am Catholic myself and may not believe in some of the teachings, but I do not feel that Catholics are really this way. This ongoing hostility between Protestants and Catholics can hamper a child's grasp of Christianity. A child is taught the Christian ways of "love thy neighbor" and then see the example of two Christian groups that cannot even get along . The Old Testament teachings show3 that there were no different sects under God, just His "chosen people." These Old Testament teachings are valuable in helping our youth of today understand this. What has happened to the religious thought of exploring the philosophical and scientific discussions of traditional concepts like sin, salvation, and the Gospel as one religion; Christianity(Hudnut 67)? f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\religion essay.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My Religion Essay In this essay I will be talking about what I think it means to be a catholic citizen in today's society. I think being a catholic citizen today means having to be very patient because there is more people now than there was one hundred years ago so there is more people that we have to take care of and help. And to help the people sometimes we need to be very patient to see what they need. We also have to be very accepting of everyone because everyone is different and special in their own way and if you don't accept people for who they are then you won't be obeying what God wanted and you won't have many friends. God wants us to be accepting of everyone because if we don't all get along then there will be war, which will cause poverty, death, hunger and more war. I think being a catholic citizen today also means being loyal to your friends, family, and of course, God. Another quality could be generosity, because if there was no generosity in anyone then other countries would be starving even more than they already are because we wouldn't want to do food banks or any fund raisers so we can give them food. Being non-judgmental would also be another good quality because if we judged everyone by what they looked like or acted like then they would try to change themselves. And if that happened they would be like everyone else and no one would be able to get to know their personalities and then no one would know the true happiness that person could bring to their lives. Kindness is also needed to be a catholic citizen in today's world because if no one was kind to one another then no one would want to go to church because they wouldn't be kind enough to pay respect to God. Another reason could be no one would be able to have someone to talk to because no one would be kind enough to listen. Some ways I have lived these qualities as a Gr. 8 student is by reading to our reading buddies and doing activities with them, doing things with the elderly people up at Chez Nous. Some more things are cleaning up garbage all around Moose Jaw, helping my dad fix computers for his computer business, helping classmates with homework and school, teaching kids how to play various sports and volunteering at the school. These are just some of the ways I have lived out these Christ-like qualities but I am going to end here or I will make my essay too long. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion Faith.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion/Faith Mike Johnson February 17,1997 English 101/ Hicks Over the last several decades America has been evolving towards many significant changes. One of these changes has posed a question, whether or not America has become secular. Although we may be uncertain of many of these changes and how they will affect our future, the answer to our secularity is quite obvious. America has indeed become secular. I think that in a society where being successful is everything, our religious beliefs tend to get lost in the "survival of the fittest" lifestyle that we lead everyday. Of course we all have certain standards in which we believe and live by. A good example of the standard behavior that makes us so secular is in Wil Herbergs essay This American Way Of Life. Herbergs says so well , "the American way of life is a symbol by which Americans define themselves and establish their unity." The author means to imply that unity is something we all strive for. To be American is to be part a huge family, no matter what gender, color, or background. We stick together. We fight together, we laugh together, we grieve together as Americans. Terms like democracy, individuality, self-reliance are all words we relate to as Americans. We teach our kids that we should be grateful everyday to be Americans. In this country we can choose our own destination. We can be whatever we want. I think that being a secular country brings us together and makes us stronger.We don't have questions we can't answer. We don't hear stories of people or things we can't prove exist. We know what we have overcome to be where we are today, and we know what we want to plan for our future. As quoted in Herbergs essay, "The things that make us proud to be Americans are of the soul and of the spirit." That quote said by Mr. Eisenhower exemplifies an American religion, or standard by which we look for guidance and reassurance.And it is not something we should be ashamed of. Our country has survived more that other countries can only dream of. So many have suffered for the well being of our country. It is what makes us America. To me it would seem that religion has become a thing of the past. It seems as though in the past more people than not saw their religion to be very important to them, it consumed their daily life.Now-a-days it seems that the religious way of life is left behind when mass lets out. So why are parents still insisting on that one hour mass every week? I think its because people are confusing religion with tradition. You aren't religious because you are born with Catholic parents. You can't be forced into religion. It takes a certain amount of faith to be religious. And then in turn your faith is the dedication that brings you to church each week or to saying grace before each meal. I don't believe that whether or not you're religious is a prerequisite to being a good person. Which raises a good question, "Do kids need religion?" In Anthony Brandts essay Do Kids Need Religion he quotes "Religious education raised the issue of honesty." How does religion relate to honesty, other that the honesty to ourselves whether or not we truly believe. I think that honesty relates more to the secularity of our society. I think that being American would raise an issue of honesty. Our ancestors were honest to themselves when they helped to create America. Later Brandt goes on to say " too it is impossible to predict with any confidence what affect religious education will have on children." Which is precisely my point. Why are we teaching them things that aren't sure will help them later on in life. We should be teaching them history so they will grow up knowing who they are, who their ancestors were and what we learned from them. Rather than teaching our kids to believe in one specific person(s) to believe with out question.In Brandts essay a mother says, "I think you can transmit values to your kids but belief is different." I think that religion is very much an individual thing while, secularity is a bond that helps our society strive for achievement. Brandt has a statement that is something I think most anyone can relate to, he says, "The longing for meaning is something we all share parent and child alike."I think that being a secular country gives us a sense of meaning. Instead of being separated into categories of who believes what and why, we stick together because we all share one thing in common we are all American. And I think that the pride we have in common is all we need. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion In American Life.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion In American Life Dave Ross SOCI 250/2 2/18/97 Computer Assignment #1 Religion used to be a very important component in an American's life. Protestantism was as American as Mom and apple pie. Families would don their "Sunday best" and go to church early on Sunday mornings. However, this situation has changed quite a bit. After reviewing the 1994 statistics I gathered from the Micase system and comparing them to the statistics received in class, I discovered a trend away from traditional religious beliefs and practices, and one toward atheism or alternative religious beliefs. After a resurgence in the 1970's and early 1980's, the Roman Catholic church began experiencing a slow, yet steady, decline in membership. As membership in the more orthodox Roman Catholic church decreased, membership in Protestant churches increased. In recent years, the Catholic Church has become politically active and more vociferous concerning its views on moral issues such as war, abortion, and euthanasia. It is my feeling that many Catholics are searching for sects that will allow them to retain their faith in Christ without a central body (i.e., the Vatican) speaking on behalf of them on issues that they are capable of rationalizing for themselves. Among Catholics and Protestants, there is a trend toward less rigid attendance of religious services. If we examine the figures from Stark and Glock's 1968 survey, 54% of Americans surveyed at the time attended church more often than once a month. This figure shrank to 40.7% in the 1994 survey. Though the Catholic church insists on weekly attendance of church, weekly attendance dropped from 52% in 1978 to 49% in 1986. Then, attendance plummeted, with only 28.3% of Catholics surveyed in 1994 claiming to have attended church in the last seven days. Even among those who remain with the traditional Christian sects, attendance is diminishing. Christianity used to be an integral part of most family and community customs and traditions in America. It seems that as Americans' lives become more complex, less time is available for formal religious commitments. Also, one may theorize that the exponential growth of technology and education has rendered traditional religious teachings, such as creationism, obsolete and people are leaving the Christian churches because their teachings do not agree with their personal beliefs. However, not everyone is leaving the Catholic church for Protestant denominations. In the last thirty years, the number of people claiming to have no religious affiliation have increased almost five-fold, with 2% of the people surveyed claiming no affiliation in 1967, and 9.2% claiming the same in 1994. Since the early 1980's, there has also been an increase in the number of people claiming "other" religious beliefs. This number jumped from 1% in the late 1970's to a constant 4% in the 1980's before dropping to 3.8% in 1994. Apparently, people feel that they aren't getting the guidance and support that they need from Christian churches, and are turning to other sources, either religious or humanistic, for them. Many alternative belief systems stress individual faith over adherence to dogma or excessive ritual. This may be attractive to Americans who are trying to make religion once again a part of their personal lives. The percentage of members of "other" religions who attend religious services several times a week is almost three times as high as their Catholic counterparts, and slightly higher than Protestants. 11.3% of members of alternative religions in 1994 claimed to attend several a week, compared to 4.7% for Catholics and 10.3% for Protestants. This is most likely due to these religions often being more intertwined with a persons daily life and routines. As an example, a Muslim must stop what they are doing to pray several times a day. This integration of prayer into everyday life reinforces the role of religion. Interestingly, one religion's membership has not changed much over the course of the last forty years. From 1957 through 1994, 2-3% of Americans surveyed claimed membership in the Jewish faith. This is not particularly surprising, as Jewish families tend to intermarry and spread the faith. To Jews, their religion is an important part of everyday family life. The loss of the religion could mean a disruption of family life as one knows it. In light of the small percentage of Americans claiming Jewish beliefs, the remaining Jews cling tightly to their beliefs and traditions in order to preserve them for future generations. The statistics presented show a trend away from Christian sects, most notably the Roman Catholic church, and an increase in the number of people who are claiming to have no religious affiliation or to be of other faiths. Of those that stay, the trend is toward less strict attendance of church services. As life becomes busier for Americans, they are distancing themselves from traditional faiths and finding faiths that suit their beliefs, ideals, and lifestyles. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion In Media.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion In Media There are presently 35 television stations owned and operated by religious organizations, but every television station features religious programming in one way or another (Postman, 116). Religious television program producers are driven by the desire to make money, and they find the best way to accomplish this is by scamming viewers and members. During this process, religion loses its authenticity. Religion is not being practiced on television, it is being mocked. Religion is no longer for worship, but for entertainment. Moneymaking scams are becoming very popular in recent years. One would like to believe some things in life are sacred. Religion is where billions of people invest their hopes, dreams, beliefs, and most importantly, money. The greedy, selfish, minds of our world see this not as a way to fix problems, but as a way to make money. "Television," Billy Graham has written, "is the most powerful tool of communication ever devised by man. Each of my prime time 'specials' is now carried by nearly 300 stations across the U.S. and Canada, so that in a single telecast I preach to millions more than Christ did in his lifetime." (Postman, 118). Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" sets forth the notion that religion is a bad thing, and that it only leads to problems. "But if you know about God, why don't you tell them?" asked the Savage indignantly. "Why don't you give them these books about God?" "For the same reason as we don't give them Othello: they're old; they're about God hundreds of years ago. Not about God now." "But God doesn't change." "Men do, though." "What difference does that make?" "All the difference in the world," said Mustapha Mond. (Huxley, 229) On these religious shows, people are shown with obvious handicaps such as paralyzed limbs, or walking handicaps. They join these religious clubs, or are shown on television speaking with these "electronic preachers" as they are called, and they let Jesus into their hearts. All of a sudden they are miraculously cured and can live their life in harmony. Still paying their monthly fees of course to stay this way. One of the most successful and popular religious programs and organizations is Pat Robertson's "700 Club" which you can belong to by paying fifteen dollars a month (of course you can watch at home for free assuming you have cable television) (Postman, 114). In one episode, a woman is shown filled with anxiety because she is forced to stay at home and staying at home makes her nervous. She begins to feel even her own children are trying to kill her. She is shown then searching television for an answer. She stumbles upon the "700 Club" and becomes interested in its message. She allows Jesus into her heart and is saved. She has now become two things, a television star, and closer to Jesus. "To the uninitiated, it is not entirely clear to which is the higher estate." (Postman, 115). Meanwhile, the untrained viewer sees this and becomes attracted. No one is saved, money is made by the producers, and wasted by the viewers. In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, there is no money. You are given privileges based on how you are born. There is also no religion. Without money or religion, all of these problems would have been avoided. Although the story of the suffering woman was no more than a well played act, this does happen in real life. However in the Brave New World society you are not given the chance to be sad. You are forced to be happy and are not given time or the will power to think on your own. As a child, you are conditioned to like certain things both awake and asleep. Love and emotion are outlawed in this society, both of which are associated strongly with religion. With contributions running in the millions, today's religious television shows have no problem competing with other more popular shows, as they believe they are relaying a more important message. It has been estimated that the total revenue brought in by "electronic churches" is well over $500 million annually (Postman, 120). There is one major problem with television as such a strong method of communication - it is all based on visualization. Religion is meant to be practiced in the mind and soul. This connection however, cannot be properly made through television. If a religious program were to be set up in a small shack with a candles and a wooden table, you would not watch it. This is because on the next channel there is a program with a huge, brightly lit room filled with beautiful flowers and clean-cut, happy looking people. This reaction is natural. Electronic preachers themselves know this, and use it to their advantage. But the question is, who would relay a stronger message. Well, verbally, neither. The words they speak are not what attract the viewer; the appearance is what attracts the viewer. Today on the "700 Club," Pat Robertson decided he would try to prove religion is the key to longer life and happiness. He persisted in stating facts about frequent churchgoers. For example, he stated that 46% of people who attend church on a weekly basis live 12% longer than one who does not. He continued to emphasize the 46%. This would be fine, except he is trying to get people to join his club. The problem with his club is that its primary focus is to attract more and more members. So once you join, you are no longer important. The important people are the ones who still haven't joined. With all the concentration on appearance, the show can tend to lack content. However, there is always the possibility that you will one day become the television star. For most, that alone is enough to stay. In order to join these clubs, and give up your hard earned dollars, you must believe in what you are investing in. In the book Faith On Earth, H. Richard Niebuhr defines belief as, "a state or habit of mind in which trust is placed in some person or thing." (Niebuhr, 31). He also defines it more strongly and more to the point as, "conviction of the truth or reality of a thing based on grounds insufficient for positive knowledge." (Niebuhr, 31). These people are made to believe. These shows give people what they want to see. They are subconsciously being forced into these groups. The case is the same in Brave New World. However, in that novel, you are being forced into society a certain way. For example, babies in the novel were being conditioned to dislike books and flowers by using electric shock and noise. Although unaware, they were being forced to dislike something. "Observe," said the Director triumphantly, "observe." Books and loud noises, flowers and electric shocks - already in the infant mind these couples were compromis- ingly linked; and after two hundred repetitions of the same or a similar lesson would be wedded indissolubly. What man has joined, nature is powerless to put asunder." (Huxley, 36) The cruel intentions this electronic religion is demonstrating is not "just another scam," but it can be classified as a mockery of religion itself. In Brave New World, religion is completely outlawed, and therefore for the author to prove his point even further, he pokes fun at our religion. For example, their God, or the person they worship is Henry Ford. They label him "Our Ford". "Our Ford himself did a great deal to shift the emphasis from truth and beauty to comfort and happiness." (Huxley, 226). In our time, their Ford was a carmaker. God is being mocked. Carmakers are not the smartest people on the planet, nor did they have anything to do with religion. This is an insult to our religion. In our current society, God also comes second hand to someone. Electronic preachers, although you do not think that way, are actually placed in front of God, since they are the ones who are "curing" you and caring for you and relaying God's message. By making religion entertaining, it can destroy its sacredness and purity. This can only be stopped by morals. As long as people are willing to run, view, or participate in these shows, they will not cease and no religious ethics will be practiced. God is only as real as we make him, and if this keeps up, we may no longer be praying to God himself, but to a television box, a stage with flowers and lights or even someday, a computer screen. With religion becoming more an attraction than a tradition, we may no longer have someone to turn to for help or something to pray for when we are weak. We cannot turn to the television set for answers. Religion is now being used to make money, mostly through scamming people. In the process it's authentic purity and spirituality is lost. But more importantly, is it destroying what religion we have left. Who knows what lies in the future of religion. Soon you may find yourself praying to your dog for answers. Now is the time, when a line must be drawn between the future and the past. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion In Our Lives.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion In Our Lives Religion seems to find its way into almost every aspect of our lives. In the United States, the political mainstream describes a "separation of church and state," in order to separate this profound force of religion from the public lives of its citizens. Thus, the freedom to worship any religion remains a private and personal issue. However, in this imperfect world, it becomes virtually impossible to achieve this kind of separation. Some subtle examples of this can be seen right here on campus. The intriguing yet simple New England architecture that we see all around us, is the result of the Old World Puritan religion. Also on campus, Rollins Chapel, supposedly a "universal place of worship", is structurally shaped like a cross, the symbol of the crucifixion of Jesus. Delving deep into these religious symbols, there exists a common thread uniting all religions. The aspect of community becomes the "heart and soul" of almost all religious groups around the world. It is this upon which George Weckman focuses his article. The author defines the characteristics of a community in a number of ways. For one, he claims that some sort of initiation or "entrance ritual" needs to occur in order to mark the acceptance of an individual into the community as a whole. In addition to these entrance rituals, the individual will, most likely, participate in other types of rituals throughout his life. This may include his eventual departure from the community, such as death. Secondly, the author emphasizes the fact that communities often possess clearly defined ritual activities that are unique to their own particular community. He goes on to say, "Gathering as a group for such rites is perhaps the most persistent aspect of religious community, and is arguably its reason for being." Thus, the author emphasizes the manner in which ritual activity and communal "togetherness" form the basis of community. I'd like to agree with Weckman's view, but I feel that it can go beyond its present position. Weckman gives the reader the impression that communities form only as a result of their union through religion. However, it is quite possible that religious communities are the "cause" and not the "effect" of religious experience. As is the case with many tribal religions, the community becomes the central force that "designs" the religion. Throughout Africa, many animistic religions have developed as a result of their immediate environment. Weckman touches upon this subject, "Where nature and its processes are the focal point of religious attention, the community is conceived and structured with reference to the natural world." (Weckman, 567) I disagree with his point here. The author fails to relate the cause of the naturalistic religion to the community itself. Arguably, it is the community that formulates the religion of the society. This, in turn, further emphasizes the importance of community structure. In addition, I'd also like to argue that sometimes the community actually becomes more important than the actual religion itself. For example, Reformed Judaism has become the opposite extreme of orthodoxy, where its members actually feel more connected to the community than to the beliefs of Judaism itself. From personal experience, I can honestly state that this is the belief of some individuals. Judaism is a very defined religion. In many extremely orthodox communities, such as the Hasidim, religious beliefs strictly define the person. In somewhat of a contrast, a Reformed Jew becomes more inclined to accept the beliefs of those around him. Although this may be an extreme generalization, I believe that the aspect of community may be more important and influential in many people's lives than the author suggests in the article. Finally, according to the author, a religious community often has defined status or social distinction, and these distinctions often manifest themselves in the way the people live their religious lives. Weckman makes the point very clear by stating: "Ones role in the family or ones lineage may also determine religious status, and one's political office or status as a leader in the society at large tends to take on religious significance." (Weckman, 567) I'd have to agree with Weckman's view here. A prime example of this would be the caste system in India. The status of every individual is validated by its role in the religious society. This is also the case with many Muslim governments. The actions of many of the "Muslim nations" are dictated greatly by the Islamic community. The most important point conveyed by Weckman is his reference to the " two groups" of religious communities. He refers to these two groups as natural and specific religious communities. He writes: "One of the clearest distinctions to be made among religious communities is that between groups specifically and self-consciously organized around religious beliefs and activities and those societies or Ônatural' groups wherein whatever is religious is part of the whole social structure. The distinction may also be made by noting that the specific religious groups are typically or theoretically voluntary, while one is born into the latter type of community, and there is no choice about joining it." (Weckman, 567) At first look, this distinction seems rather obvious. According to the previous statement by Weckman, one can assume that someone making a conscious decision about their religion is involved in a specific community. Together with natural communities consisting of individuals going "unconsciously" into their beliefs, we can observe the whole spectrum of religious community. However, Weckman goes beyond this simple defining statement to explain what it is that actually constitutes these two groups of communities. After further analysis, the distinction becomes less clear. The author states: "Even though one is born into such social structures, initiation into "real" participation in the community is one of the signs that the social unit is also a religious community." (Weckman, 568) Thus, the assumption derived from the initial statement is incorrect. This weakens Weckman's distinction between natural and specific communities. Now, all individuals must participate in some sort of acceptance behavior that brings them into the actual community. Specific communities therefore encompass all natural communities to a certain extent. This brings up an interesting point. According to Weckman's definition of a natural community, we can assume that the Hindu caste system must be defined as such. All Hindus are born " unconsciously" into an already defined caste that was willed to them from their previous life. However, the Hindu must also participate in a ritual that formally brings them into the community. As a consequence, I argue that we can look at the Hindu caste system as both a natural and specific community. The author also supports his idea of specific community by defining the six types of specific religious communities. These include: cult, sect, established sect, denomination, ecclesia, and universal church. (Weckman, 569) According to Weckman, these six types of communities were developed to indicate the manner in which the community is integrated and accepted into society as a whole. Weckman describes in detail the extent in which each type of community has integrated themselves into society. A cult is a type of community that is least involved and accepted into society. A cult is usually led by a charismatic individual who is usually very personal and emotional with his followers. (Weckman, 569) A classic example of a cult can be the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh. At the other end of the spectrum, the universal church displays characteristics of extreme integration and is often fully accepted within society. However, this notion of the "six types" of specific communities becomes less discernible with further examination. For example, the universal church, which can best be used to describe the Roman Catholic church, is not necessarily specific in the manner in which he defines it. Many people are "born" into the catholic faith, thus placing these people into a natural religious community. Many people describe themselves as being part of a community such as the catholic church, but just how specific is the universal church? Can a community this large actually function productively? Where then, do we draw the line? Weckman touches upon this point effectively. He states: "One of the characteristics of the specific religious community as compared with the natural religious community is its voluntary character. Yet this characteristic is almost completely absent in the ecclesia and universal church and is of little importance in the denomination and the established sect." (Weckman, 570) The author makes the distinction clear between what most people consider a "faith by choice" and a "faith by birth." People can be born into a religious community that does not fall into the six specific categories. Does this mean that this person is not associated with a specific community? Not necessarily. Therefore, I agree with Weckman's belief that a specific community is not always voluntary. In many cases, it is just the opposite. Community can come to mean a variety of different things to a variety of different people. Despite a few weaknesses, Weckman presents a clear and concise description of the dynamics and functionality of communal structure. His arguments are vivid and compelling. I believe Weckman encompasses the central idea of the influence of community with great vivacity, "Nevertheless, it is not too much to say that nearly all religious situations do have a communal dimension and that in many the community is the decisive factor." (Weckman, 566) Without a doubt, it is the community that forms the basis of religious life. When dealing with religious community, one can't help but realize how disparate many of them are. Nevertheless, community will persist as the basis and the foundation of all religious life throughout the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion in Public Schools 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion in Public Schools Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......Ó according to the First Amendment of the Constitution. This idea of freedom of religion has been stated very clearly, but it also raises questions about the meaning of religious freedom . Should religious expression be excluded from all government activities? Has separation of church and state been violated by the U.S. Treasury? For example, on the back of every U.S. coin are the words, ?In God We TrustÓ. And what about when they swear-in government offficials with a Bible? Why not use the Torah or the Koran? Is it separation of church and state when Congress opens each session with a Christian prayer? The following prayer was recited at the start of the November 30, 1994 session: We pray, O God, for the bread for the sustenance of our bodies and spiritual food for the nourishment of our souls. In a world where much seems to be discouraging and where problems appear at every corner, we pray that the human spirit will not be taught by cynicism or despair, but rejoice in the possibilities of every new day and accept all Your blessings with thanksgiving. Amen. For some people in the Congress this raises serious questions about when prayer is or is not appropriate. One of the Representatives from Oklahoma made this comment in the Congressional Digest on November 30, 1994: ? It was fine for Rev. James David Ford to offer this prayer, yet it is a prayer our children our not allowed to say in schoolÓ. Since no amendment has been made allowing or prohibiting prayer, many schools have gone ahead and recited verses from the bible and allowed prayer in class. Another area of controversy has been the presence of religious symbols on the school grounds. Schools such as the one in Livingston have gone to court over the wearing or carrying of objects such as the Sikh?s kirpans. All these examples point to the fact that there are severe disagreements on the subject of religion in the schools. Religion in public schools has been around many years. In fact, it started in the colonial period of United States history when the schools were thought to be an arm of the church; therefore, their curriculum contained religion. Of course, their schools didn?t have many or probably any Muslims or Jews, but how does that differ from a small country town in Oklahoma where the population is completely of the Christian faith? Does this mean that the school cannot practice the religion in which the complete population is Christian? Aren?t these students being denied their religious rights? These questions may be asked by many. Government has a lot to do with the debate. Many Supreme Court rulings have made laws allowing or prohibiting the act of praying in schools in the past eighty years. The first one was in 1914 when the ?Gary PlanÓ was inaugurated in Gary,Indiana.The document stated that with the consent of parents, students would be released from school to attend places to worship. That was followed in 1940 when the Gary Plan was extended to Champaign, Illinois. It was struck down by the Court in "McCollum v. Board of Education" in 1948. Another important decision was the Engel v. Vitale case in 1962 which said that it was unconsitutional for there to be recitation in public schools even though it was non-denominational. The Supreme Court has also ruled against posting the Ten Commandments in public school classroomsin 1978. Since the l980?s the Supreme Court has allowed religious groups to use university facilities for extracurricular meetings (1981) and in 1984 Congress enacted the Equal Access Act which means that religious groups as well as non-religious groups can have access to school premises during noninstructional time. The idea to add an amendment to the Constitution has brought a lot of attention to the issue of religion in school. The people in favor of the amendment probably don't like the way the Supreme Court ruled when it said in "Wallace v. Jaffree" that it was unconstitutional to provide for a minute of silence because it endorsed State prayer activities. There are two views about this controversy. Those who are for an amendment in the Constitution to allow prayer in schools believe that the majority of Americans want prayers in school. A Readers Digest from 1993 showed that in a poll, 75% of the United States strongly favored prayer in the public schools and wished to restore it. Meet the people I call the "Pro's". "Pros" feel that prayer in public schools will restore positive values in kids. In a world where Senator Jesse Helms states ?You can almost stand on the Capitol steps and throw a throw a rock into a neighborhood where you cannot walk at night,Ó there is the need to improve the nation?s values. These Pros feel that reciting prayers will help to restore respect for themselves and others. The Pros hope it will reduce the crime and instill morals that will improve their life. The other reason why the majority of the United States wants to regain the right to pray in schools because they feel that our founding fathers didn?t mean for such a strict separation of church and state. This meaning that they don?t think the writers of the Constitution intended for there to be a law against praying in public schools. All they were trying to do was keep all religions equal in the eyes of the government. The "Pros" would say that it is the government?s job to stay out of this area altogether and let the people decide what they want to do. There are many reasons why there should not be prayer in schools. The people that feel prayer is not necessary in schools are called ? ConsÓ. They feel that prayer shouldn?t be allowed in schools because religion doesn?t have a place in school. Freedom of religion covers the right to worship or not worship but it does not belong in schoool. It is not in the curriculum; therefore not required. Another objection to prayer in school is that there would be too many faiths to deal with and the generic or a universal 7 prayer might be meaningless. They also fear that a universal prayer would offend some people. On the other hand if the schools let the students meditate or pray it might lead to friction between students who want to pray and those who think it is a waste of time. Some parents fear that their child might get picked on for the way they worship or how they dress. The expression of religion might lead to more intolerance. These people agree religion in schools might lead to segregation and separation in schools. At one point before I researched this subject I believed that religion should be allowed in public school. But now I feel that it is not necessary and probably would be better off without it. The schools have enough problems to deal with. Besides, school isn?t a place of worship. It is a place of learning and I feel it should stay that way. I do feel that occasionally you should think of (in my case) God or who ever else you worship, but I don't think people need to go overboard and recite prayers as a class. Every Sunday I go to church for one hour. That amount of time and a prayer before dinner is enough to let my God know I love him. Maybe in different religions they feel differently, but whatever people think I agree that worship time is worship time, and school time is school time. You can bet that religion is going to open up a whole new can of problems,so let?s work with the cards we have now, before we deal some more. As we pass through the 104th Congress, House Speaker Newt Gengrich has set a goal of passing a constitutional amendment by the 4th of July that promises that children in our public schools will have a right to voluntary prayer. Let'?s see if he succeeds. David R. Glasgow Core 7-2 Mrs. Roland May 2, 1994 Bibliography Armstrong, James . "Freedom of Religion." World Book Encyclopedia,1991, Volume 4, p. 505. Ferguson, M.L. The American Principle of the Separation of Church and State. Waco,Texas, Baylor University Press, p.45. "Prayer In School-Still A Troubling Problem". U.S. News & World Report, Feb. 8 1975, p.101. Roth, Cecil. "Religion in Public Schools". Merit Student Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume15, p.146. "Should a School Prayer Constitutional Amendment be Approved by Congress?", Congressional Digest, January 1995, p. 18-20. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion in Public Schools.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion in Public Schools ? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......Ó according to the First Amendment of the Constitution. This idea of freedom of religion has been stated very clearly, but it also raises questions about the meaning of religious freedom . Should religious expression be excluded from all government activities? Has separation of church and state been violated by the U.S. Treasury? For example, on the back of every U.S. coin are the words, ?In God We TrustÓ. And what about when they swear-in government offficials with a Bible? Why not use the Torah or the Koran? Is it separation of church and state when Congress opens each session with a Christian prayer? The following prayer was recited at the start of the November 30, 1994 session: 2 We pray, O God, for the bread for the sustenance of our bodies and spiritual food for the nourishment of our souls. In a world where much seems to be discouraging and where problems appear at every corner, we pray that the human spirit will not be taught by cynicism or despair, but rejoice in the possibilities of every new day and accept all Your blessings with thanksgiving. Amen. For some people in the Congress this raises serious questions about when prayer is or is not appropriate. One of the Representatives from Oklahoma made this comment in the Congressional Digest on November 30, 1994: ? It was fine for Rev. James David Ford to offer this prayer, yet it is a prayer our children our not allowed to say in schoolÓ. Since no amendment has been made allowing or prohibiting prayer, many schools have gone ahead and recited verses from the bible and allowed prayer in class. Another area of controversy has been the presence of religious symbols on the school grounds. Schools such as the one in Livingston have gone to court over the wearing or carrying of objects such as the Sikh?s kirpans. All these examples point to the fact that there 3 are severe disagreements on the subject of religion in the schools. Religion in public schools has been around many years. In fact, it started in the colonial period of United States history when the schools were thought to be an arm of the church; therefore, their curriculum contained religion. Of course, their schools didn?t have many or probably any Muslims or Jews, but how does that differ from a small country town in Oklahoma where the population is completely of the Christian faith? Does this mean that the school cannot practice the religion in which the complete population is Christian? Aren?t these students being denied their religious rights? These questions may be asked by many. Government has a lot to do with the debate. Many Supreme Court rulings have made laws allowing or prohibiting the act of praying in schools in the past eighty years. The first one was in 1914 when the ?Gary PlanÓ was inaugurated in 4 Gary,Indiana.The document stated that with the consent of parents, students would be released from school to attend places to worship. That was followed in 1940 when the Gary Plan was extended to Champaign, Illinois. It was struck down by the Court in ?McCollum v. Board of EducationÓ in 1948. Another important decision was the Engel v. Vitale case in 1962 which said that it was unconsitutional for there to be recitation in public schools even though it was non-denominational. The Supreme Court has also ruled against posting the Ten Commandments in public school classroomsin 1978. Since the l980?s the Supreme Court has allowed religious groups to use university facilities for extracurricular meetings (1981) and in 1984 Congress enacted the Equal Access Act which means that religious groups as well as non-religious groups can have access to school premises during noninstructional time. The idea to add an amendment to the Constitution has brought a lot of attention to the issue of religion in school. The 5 people in favor of the amendment probably don?t like the way the Supreme Court ruled when it said in ?Wallace v. JaffreeÓ that it was unconstitutional to provide for a minute of silence because it endorsed State prayer activities. There are two views about this controversy. Those who are for an amendment in the Constitution to allow prayer in schools believe that the majority of Americans want prayers in school. A Readers Digest from 1993 showed that in a poll, 75% of the United States strongly favored prayer in the public schools and wished to restore it. Meet the people I call the ?Pro?sÓ. The ?ProsÓ feel that prayer in public schools will restore positive values in kids. In a world where Senator Jesse Helms states ?You can almost stand on the Capitol steps and throw a throw a rock into a neighborhood where you cannot walk at night,Ó there is the need to improve the nation?s values. These Pros feel that reciting prayers will help to restore respect for themselves and others. The Pros hope it will reduce the crime and instill morals that will improve their life. 6 The other reason why the majority of the United States wants to regain the right to pray in schools because they feel that our founding fathers didn?t mean for such a strict separation of church and state. This meaning that they don?t think the writers of the Constitution intended for there to be a law against praying in public schools. All they were trying to do was keep all religions equal in the eyes of the government. The ?ProsÓ would say that it is the government?s job to stay out of this area altogether and let the people decide what they want to do. There are many reasons why there should not be prayer in schools. The people that feel prayer is not necessary in schools are called ?ConsÓ. They feel that prayer shouldn?t be allowed in schools because religion doesn?t have a place in school. Freedom of religion covers the right to worship or not worship but it does not belong in schoool. It is not in the curriculum; therefore not required. Another objection to prayer in school is that there would be too many faiths to deal with and the generic or a universal 7 prayer might be meaningless. They also fear that a universal prayer would offend some people. On the other hand if the schools let the students meditate or pray it might lead to friction between students who want to pray and those who think it is a waste of time. Some parents fear that their child might get picked on for the way they worship or how they dress. The expression of religion might lead to more intolerance. These people agree religion in schools might lead to segregation and separation in schools. At one point before I researched this subject I believed that religion should be allowed in public school. But now I feel that it is not necessary and probably would be better off without it. The schools have enough problems to deal with. Besides, school isn?t a place of worship. It is a place of learning and I feel it should stay that way. I do feel that occasionally you should think of (in my case) God or who ever else you worship, 8 but I don?t think people need to go overboard and recite prayers as a class. Every Sunday I go to church for one hour. That amount of time and a prayer before dinner is enough to let my God know I love him. Maybe in different religions they feel differently, but whatever people think I agree that worship time is worship time, and school time is school time. You can bet that religion is going to open up a whole new can of problems,so let?s work with the cards we have now, before we deal some more. As we pass through the 104th Congress, House Speaker Newt Gengrich has set a goal of passing a constitutional amendment by the 4th of July that promises that children in our public schools will have a right to voluntary prayer. Let?s see if he succeeds. Religion in Public Schools David R. Glasgow Core 7-2 Mrs. Roland May 2, 1994 Bibliography Armstrong, James . ?Freedom of Religion.Ó World Book Encyclopedia,1991, Volume 4, p. 505. .Ferguson, M.L. The American Principle of the Separation of Church and State. Waco,Texas, Baylor University Press, p.45. ?Prayer In School-Still A Troubling ProblemÓ. U.S. News & World Report, Feb. 8 1975, p.101. Roth, Cecil. ?Religion in Public SchoolsÓ. Merit Student Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume15, p.146. ?Should a School Prayer Constitutional Amendment be Approved by Congress?Ó, Congressional Digest, January 1995, p. 18-20. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion Judaism or Judaisms.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion: Judaism or Judaisms? It has been argued that Judaism can be seen not only as a single religion, but as a group of similar religions. It has also been pointed-out that through all the trials and tribulations that Judaism has suffered through, that there have been common themes that have proven omni-pervasive. Any institution with roots as ancient and varied as the religion of the Jews is bound to have a few variations, especially when most of its history takes place in the political and theological hot spot of the Middle East. In this discussion, many facets of Judaism will be examined, primarily in the three temporal subdivisions labeled the Tribal / Pre-Monarchy Period, the Divided Monarchy, and the Hasmonean / Maccabean and Roman Era. Among all the time periods where the religion has been split, these three seem to be the most representative of the forces responsible. As for a common thread seen throughout all Judiasms, the area of focus here is the place associated with the religion : Jerusalem. This topic will be covered in detail first, and then the multiple Judaism arguments will be presented. In this way, it is possible to keep a common focus in mind when reading about all the other situations in which the religion has found itself. A brief conclusion follows the discussion. A Place to Call Home No other religion has ever been so attached to its birthplace as Judaism. Perhaps this is because Jews have been exiled and restricted from this place for most of their history. Jerusalem is not only home to Judaism, but to the Muslim and Christian religions as well. Historically this has made it quite a busy place for the various groups. Jerusalem is where the temple of the Jews once stood; the only place on the whole Earth where one could leave the confines of day to day life and get closer to God. In 586 BCE when the temple was destroyed, no Jew would have denied Jerusalem as being the geographic center of the religion. From that point on, the Jewish people have migrated around the world, but not one of them forgets the fact that Jerusalem is where it all began. It is truly a sacred place, and helps to define what Judaism means to many people; a common thread to run through all the various splinters of the religion and help hold them together. Even today, as the Jewish people have their precious Jerusalem back (through the help of other nations and their politics) there is great conflict and emotion surrounding it. Other nations and people in the area feel that they should be in control of the renowned city, and the Jews deny fervently any attempt to wrestle it from their occupation. It is true that there is no temple in Jeruslaem today, nor are all the Jews in the world rushing to get back there. But it is apparent that the city represents more to the religion of Judaism than a mere place to live and work. The city of Jerusalem is a spiritual epicenter, and throughout Judaism's long and varied history, this single fact has never changed. Tribal / Pre-Monarchy Judaism's roots lie far back in the beginnings of recorded history. The religion did not spring into existence exactly as it is known today, rather it was pushed and prodded by various environmental factors along the way. One of the first major influences on the religion was the Canaanite nation. Various theories exist as to how and when the people that would later be called Jews entered into this civilization. But regardless of how they ultimately got there, these pioneers of the new faith were subjected to many of the ideas and prejudices of the time. Any new society that finds itself in an existing social situation, can do no more than to try and integrate into that framework. And this is exactly what the Jews did. Early Judaism worshipped multiple gods. One of these gods was known as Ba'al, and was generally thought-of as a 'statue god' with certain limitations on his power. The other primary deity was called YHWH (or Yahweh) and enjoyed a much more mysterious and illusive reputation. He was very numinous, and one was to have great respect, but great fear for him at the same time. Ba'al was not ever really feared, as his cycles (metaphorically seen as the seasons) were fairly well known, and not at all fear-inducing. The fact that the early Jews and Canaanites had these two radically different representations of a deity active in their culture, basically assured that there would be splits in the faith. One group inevitably would focus on one of the gods, and another would focus on another. In this way, the single religion could support multiple types of worship, leading to multiple philosophies and patterns of behavior, which could then focus more and more on their respective niche, widening the gap into a clear cut distinction between religious groups. This early time period was generally quite temporary and non-centralized, stemming from the fact that technology was at a very low level, and people's lifespan was fairly short. These conditions led to a rapid rate of turnover in religious thought, and left many factions of people to their own devices. Widespread geographic distribution coupled with poor communication certainly did not help in holding the many faiths together. The Tribal Period in Jewish history is one of the more splintered eras in the religion, but since these people were all living in the area near Jerusalem, the common thread can be seen clearly through the other less-defined elements of the religion. Divided Monarchy By its very name, it is apparent that this period of history is host to a great deal of divergence in the Jewish religion. As Solomon was king, people began to grow more and more restless. Some objected to worshiping a human king, while others balked at the oppression of the poor that was going on. Political unrest in this period led to a decisive split in geographic territory, and thus a split in religious views. A group of people left the area of Judah and traveled North to found Israel, where they could be free to practice their own political flavors, and their own religious flavors as well. This sort of behavior has come to be seen as common of oppressed people, and the result is almost always a great deviation in the ways of the 'old world'. A perfect example of this comes when examining the point in American history where independence was declared from England. Now, mere centuries later, America is as different in its politics, religions, and social forces from England as one could imagine. This was most likely the result when Israel was founded, far back in Biblical history. Communication between the two cities was sparse. The priests and prophets were undoubtedly addressing items pertinent to one group, but not neccesarily the other. The influence of foreign traders to each of the two places, as well as the political attitudes of each all would have had enormous impact on a newly- spawned religion. Thus, it can easily be seen that the religion was split into (at least) two major divisions during this time period. Toward the end of the Divided Monarchy, it seems that the prophets began calling for major changes in the basic foundation of the early Jews' lives. The kings and priests had no major disputes with the status quo, but apparently the prophets were calling for a reorganization. This sort of 'turmoil within' can do nothing but further split people's faith. It was is if the question was posed : to follow the kings and the priests, who have guided us and kept us safe? or follow the far-seeing prophets, who are more like us and honestly have our best interests at heart? As the next major historical division occurred this sort of argument would continue, and thus the Jewish people were left to practice their religion in whatever way they felt best : multiple groups of people with varying faith in the many forms of Judaism as it existed toward the end of the Divided Monarchy. Hasmonean / Maccabean and Roman Era This time period in Jewish history is politically tumultuous, leading to high levels of splits and variations in the religion itself. One of the most disruptive types of all wars is a civil war. And this is exactly what occurs at the outset in the Jewish homeland of Jerusalem. The Jewish civil war was against the extreme Hellenizers (people who tended toward utter reason in their beliefs) and the moderate Hellenizers (people who can see things rationally, but believe there are more items to consider than this -- ex. the Maccabean family, who became the Hasmonean kings). So right away, it is apparent that the ideas that the Greeks introduced into Jewish culture have acted as time-bombs of social memes, and have created a major split in the religion. When the violence of the war has subsided, the moderate Hellenizers have won (" everything in moderation!") and rule for a short time, until the Roman empire attacks and throws even more kinks into the Jewish society. When the Romans take over, the Hasmonean kings are left in place as 'puppet kings,' which ultimately forces the general population to question their governing body. When the Romans destroy the temple in Jerusalem, it is made painfully clear that some changes are going to be made. Most obvious, the priests suddenly have no major role in the religion. Their primary purpose had been to tend to the sacrificing of animals, and since it is illegal to sacrifice an animal outside the temple, the priests were in an unsettling position. As can be seen in countless other examples, politics and religion are invariably tied, and people began practicing their own flavors of Judaism after their civilization had been so radically altered. At this point in history, there is really no solid rule to prevent such splits, and for a time a mixed form of Judaism with many varieties flourishes. No one was sure what to do once the heart of Judaism (the temple) had been destroyed, but it soon became apparent that an appealing option was arising. Two major social groups of the time period were vying for power. The first group, the Saducees were associated with the displaced Hasmonean kings. The second group, the Pharisees, had an idea that would help work around the tragic destruction of the temple. People were split, once again. They could stay with the traditional Saducees (who had the political power, believed in only written Torah, and did not subscribe to resurrection -- basically a conservative view), or they could side with the newcomers, the Pharisees (who had religious power, believed in both the written and the oral Torah, and believed in resurrection) and hope to preserve their Jewish heritage by worshiping outside of the temple, in their everyday life. It was not a hard decision, and the Pharisees eventually gained power, leading the Jewish religion into its next phase of Rabbinic Judaism. It is apparent that in each of the three time periods discussed above that many factions of the same religion were active. Competing philosophies, outside political forces, and geographic isolation are among the most obvious of the dividing forces. However many other influences `pound' each and every day on a given social institution, subtly forming it and changing it into something it was not. For this reason, the answer to the debate whether Judaism is a single, or multiple religion(s) is an obvious one, depending upon how you choose to look at it. Every religion has many pieces, but as long as there are a few constants (such as the birthplace, the language, literature, etc) it is possible to view the whole as a single force, and still acknowledge various religions f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\religion luther essay.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Danielle Bishop Sullivan Life of the Church, Period 6 February 18, 2004 A limited amount of men have changed and affected Church history like Martin Luther. He was born on November 10, 1483 in Eisleben in the Holy Roman Empire. He was born to Hans and Magarete Luther. Tragically two of his brothers died during the outbreaks of the plague. Hans wanted him to become a lawyer, but in great storm Martin begged to be saved and promised to become a monk. As a monk he brought out the ideas that had been in Europe for centuries, to a sudden blaze. Martin believed that he was returning Christianity back to its roots, but in reality pushed it into the modern era. In 1511, he received his doctorate in theology from the University of Wittenburg, but instead of studying other theologies he made his own. He made the 95 Theses which critiqued the selling of indulgences. In Rome, these theses were considered heretic and therefore his books were publicly burned in Rome. Martin became even more urged to reform the church now. In 1521, Martin met with the diet of the Holy Roman Empire at Worms. The Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, asked Martin to recant. He refused and was banned as an outlaw. In 1521, Martin was excommunicated from the church. He married and served as Dean of theology at Wittenburg. He died in Eisleben on February 18, 1546. Martin Luther was a very important man to church history. He brought about the ideals of freedom and liberty. He's a hero by creating two halves of the last millennium, Medievil and Modern. Luther was a courageous man for never giving up on his beliefs and facing the Catholic Church whether it brought about conflict or not. He's an influence to us and all and will never be forgotten in the church. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion Support and Education.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion Support and Education As it stands, we are the transition stage. We have no structure, there is no black and white, we live in a clouded time. All questions are being answered again, because the past is no longer the present. No person knows if our corrections are correct, but they do know it is what the majority wants. The question which is rarely looked at, and that will be looked at in this paper, is the effects which this transition is having on society. This paper is going to attempt to reveal the results, of the removal of religious education and support. The literature involved is going to display the direct, and indirect effects, of not being brought up to believe a certain religion, but to choose your own, no matter what it is. The past beliefs on religious support and education are displayed in the words of Aristotle; "Moral virtues come from habit... The habits we form from childhood make no small difference, but rather they make all the difference." 1 Our society has decided that the habits referred to by Aristotle, do not matter, when involving religion. Statistics tend to show a different result than what our present society feels. This paper is dealing with several different valid sources, which mesh together to make a collective statement. This statement is that the lack of religious support is one of the main reasons why society and its morals are decreasing. World Vision of Canada has published as of November 1993 statistics dealing with the attendance of church and youth, which states; Canada's church attendance, in all denominations has decreased by twenty-five percent in adults and fifteen percent in youth. In Britain Adult attendance is down ten percent and youth attendance is down nine percent. In France the adult attendance is down thirteen percent, statistics for youth where not available. Australia's adult attendance has decreased twenty-seven percent, and the youth attendance was not available. The most considerable changes have occurred in the United States were fourty-one percent of the adult attendance has decreased, and thirty-five percent of the youth attendance has decreased. 2 These statistics display the implications of the removal of religious education and support, on church attendance. Although this decline in church attendance is a direct result of the removal of religious support and education. It is not one of the more revealing consequences. A poll done by the Angus Reid Group shows that eighty-three percent of Canadians, find that their greatest joy in life was their family. 3 The distressing information found was, sixty-three percent of the people who stated family was their greatest joy, also felt Canadian families are in great distress. They pointed to the rate of divorce and instability of the family unit; financial difficulties; lack of values in society; violence and crime; and unemployment, as their feeling this way. 4 There are over 28 million people in Canada, and close to seven and one-half million families. However, there is no longer one typical family in Canada. The face and structure of the family unit has changed dramatically over the past number of years and the Traditional Nuclear Family is no longer the predominant family unit. Canada is now made up of what one writer has called, The Pluralistic Family. The stress being brought to bear on families and marriages today from all sides is horrendous. 5 It is not an overstatement to say that the survival of any society rests with the family. We are born into families. We are nurtured, protected and comforted by families. The design of God is for lifelong, committed marriage between a husband and wife. His intention is that children be born into the secure, loving environment of godly homes to be trained in His ways. 6 If the survival of society rests with the family, and the majority of families are not a typical one but many combinations, there are going to be direct visible results. One of these results is that the suicide rate of teenagers between the ages of fifteen to nineteen tripled between nineteen fifty-four, and nineteen seventy-two. From nineteen seventy-two until nineteen eighty-six the suicide rose one third. The one theme that runs through the accounts of suicide written by youth today, is the isolation from family and friends - from anyone who could serve as an anchor to reality, or simply listen well. 7 Not only is there a higher percentage, of teenagers taking their lives, society has also engaged, in an astonishing amount of abortions. The Family Research Council findings state that between sixty-seven to seventy-two abortions, are linked to illegitimacy. 8 Also girls who are born out-of- wedlock are much more likely to engage in premarital sex. Premarital sex is nine times more likely to engender abortion, and women who have never married are more than five times as likely to have abortions as their married counterparts. 9 Not only are we killing ourselves, and the ones which are not born yet, society is also showing their difficulty with keeping their marriages. According to the Family Research Council the national rate as of nineteen ninety-four stood at four point six percent. 10 With the realization that society rests on the stability of families, this divorce rate is very damaging to the upbringing of our children. The transition from religious based education, and support by the government, directly effect the increase in the problems stated previously. The literature does not state this is the only reason why our society is suffering. But- it states that the absence of religion in our society is a contributing factor. Because- religion promotes such values, as marriage and commitment, while disapproving of such things as suicide and abortion. BIBLIOGRAPHY Context. Mississauga, Ont: Marc Canada, 1993. FRC. (http://frc.org/townhall/frc/press/121995c.html). "Divorce Issues". 1995. FRC. (http://www.townhall.com/townhall/FRC/infocus/if95c4wl.html). "Abortion Statistics".1995. Korman, Sheila K and Leslie Gerald R. The Family In Social Context(Sixth Edition). Toronto, Ont: Oxford University Press, 1985. O' Bireck, Gary M. Not A Kid Anymore. Toronto, Ont: Nelson Canada, 1996. Waters, F. W. The Way In The Way Out. Toronto, Ont: Oxford University Press, 1967. ENDNOTES 1 Not A Kid Anymore. (Toronto; Nelson Canada, 1996) p.87. 2 Context. (Mississauga; Marc Canada, 1993) p. 32 3 Ibid. p. 47. 4 Ibid. p. 47. 5 Ibid. p. 52. 6 Ibid. p. 67. 7 Not A Kid Anymore. (Toronto; Nelson Canada, 1996) p.95. 8 Abortion Satistics. (http://www.townhall.com/townhall/frc/infocus/if95c4wl.html, 1995.) 9 Ibid. 10 Divorce Issues. (http://frc.org/townhall/frc/press/121995c.html, 1995.) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion Taoism and Buddism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Taoism is one of the two great philosophical and religious traditions that originated in China. The other religion native to China is Confucianism. Both Taoism and Confucianism began at about the same time, around the sixth century B.C.E. China's third great religion, Buddhism, came to China from India around the second century of the common era. Together, these three faiths have shaped Chinese life and thought for nearly twenty-five hundred years (Hartz 3). One dominate concept in Taoism and Buddhism is the belief in some form of reincarnation. The idea that life does not end when one dies is an integral part of these religions and the culture of the Chinese people. Reincarnation, life after death, beliefs are not standardized. Each religion has a different way of applying this concept to its beliefs. This paper will describe the reincarnation concepts as they apply to Taoism and Buddhism, and then provide a comparison of the two. Taoism The goal in Taoism is to achieve tao, to find the way. Tao is the ultimate reality, a presence that existed before the universe was formed and which continues to guide the world and everything in it. Tao is sometimes identified as the Mother, or the source of all things. That source is not a god or a supreme being, as Taoism is not monotheistic. The focus is not to worship one god, but instead on coming into harmony with tao (Hartz, 8). Tao is the essence of everything that is right, and complications exist only because people choose to complicate their own lives. Desire, ambition, fame, and selfishness are seen as 1 hindrances to a harmonious life. It is only when a person rids himself of all desires can tao be achieved. By shunning every earthly distraction, the Taoist is able to concentrate on life itself. The longer the person's life, the more saintly the person is presumed to have become. Eventually the hope is to become immortal, to achieve tao, to have reached the deeper life. This is the after life for a Taoist, to be in harmony with the universe, to have achieved tao (Head1, 65). To understand the relationship between life, and the Taoism concept of life and death, the origin of the word tao must be understood. The Chinese character for tao is a combination of two characters that represent the words head and foot. The character for foot represents the idea of a person's direction or path. The character for head represents the idea of conscious choice. The character for head also suggests a beginning, and foot, an ending. Thus the character for tao also conveys the continuing course of the universe, the circle of heaven and earth. Finally, the character for tao represents the Taoist idea that the eternal Tao is both moving and unmoving. The head in the character means the beginning, the source of all things, or Tao itself, which never moves or changes; the foot is the movement on the path (Harts 9). Taoism upholds the belief in the survival of the spirit after death. "To have attained the human form must be always a source of joy. And then to undergo countless transitions, with only the infinite to look forward to, what comparable bliss is that! Therefore it is that the truly wise rejoice in, that which can never be lost, but endures always" (Leek 190). Taoist believe birth is not a beginning, death is not an end. There is an existence without limit. There is 2 continuity without a starting point. Applying reincarnation theory to Taoism is the belief that the soul never dies, a person's soul is eternal. "You see death in contrast to life; and both are unreal - both are a changing and seeming. Your soul does not glide out of a familiar sea into an unfamiliar ocean. That which is real in you, your soul, can never pass away, and this fear is no part of her" (Head2 199). In the writings of The Tao Te King, tao is described as having existed before heaven and earth. Tao is formless, stands alone without change and reaches everywhere without harm. The Taoist is told to use the light that is inside to revert to the natural clearness of sight. By divesting oneself of all external distractions and desires, only then can one achieve tao. In ancient days a Taoist that had transcended birth and death, achieved tao, was said to have cut the Thread of Life (Kapleau 13). The soul, or spirit, is Taoism does not die at death. The soul is not reborn, it migrates to another life. This process, the Taoist version of reincarnation, is repeated until tao is achieved. The following translation from The Tao Te King best summarizes the the theory behind tao and how a Taoist can achieve Tao. The Great Way is very smooth, but the people love the by-paths. . . The wearing of gay embroidered robes, the carrying of sharp swords, fastidiousness in food and drink, superabundance of property and wealth: - this I call flaunting robbery; most assuredly it is not Tao. . . He who acts in accordance with Tao, becomes one with Tao. . . Being akin to Heaven, he possesses Tao. Possessed of Tao, he endures forever. . . Being great (Tao) passes on; passing on, it becomes remote; having become remote, it returns (Head3 109). 3 Buddhism The followers of the Buddha believe life goes on and on in many reincarnations or rebirths. The eternal hope for all followers of Buddha is that through reincarnation one comes back into successively better lives - until one achieves the goal of being free from pain and suffering and not having to come back again. This wheel of rebirth, known as samsara, goes on forever or until one achieves Nirvana. The Buddhist definition of Nirvana is "the highest state of spiritual bliss, as absolute immortality through absorption of the soul into itself, but preserving individuality" (Head1 57). Birth is not the beginning and death is not the end. This cycle of life has no beginning and can go on forever without an end. The ultimate goal for every Buddhist, Nirvana, represents total enlightenment and liberation. Only through achieving this goal is one liberated from the never ending round of birth, death, and rebirth (Head3 73). Transmigration, the Buddhist cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, involves not the reincarnation of a spirit but the rebirth of a consciousness containing the seeds of good and evil deeds. Buddhism's world of transmigration encompasses three stages. The first stage in concerned with desire, which goes against the teachings of Buddha, is the lowest form and involves a rebirth into any number of hells. The second stage is one in which animals dominate. But after many reincarnations in this stage the spirit becomes more and more human, until one attains a deep spiritual understanding. At this point in the second stage the Buddhist gradually begins to 4 abandon materialism and seek a contemplative life. The Buddhist in the third stage is ultimately able to put his ego to the side and become pure spirit, having no perception of the material world. This stage requires one to move from perception to non-perception. And so, through many stages of spiritual evolution and numerous reincarnations, the Buddhist reaches the state of Nirvana (Leek 171). The transition from one stage to another, or the progression within a stage is based on the actions of the Buddhist. All actions are simply the display of thought, the will of man. This will is caused by character, and character is manufactured from karma. Karma means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal or physical is regarded as karma. All good and bad actions constitute karma. As is the karma, so is the will of the man. A person's karma determines what he deserves and what goals can be achieved. The Buddhists past life actions determine present standing in life and current actions determine the next life, all is determined by the Buddhist's karma (Kapleau 20). Buddha developed a doctrine known as the Four Noble Truths based on his experience and inspiration about the nature of life. These truths are the basis for all schools of Buddhism. The fourth truth describes the way to overcome personal desire through the Eightfold Path. Buddha called his path the Middle Way, because it lies between a life of luxury and a life of poverty. Not everyone can reach the goal of Nirvana, but every Buddhist is at least on the path toward enlightenment. To achieve Nirvana the Buddhist must follow the steps of the Eightfold Path. 5 1. Right Knowledge is knowledge of what life is all about; knowledge of the Four Noble Truths is basic to any further growth as a Buddhist. 2. Right Aspiration means a clear devotion to being on the Path toward Enlightenment. 3. Right Speech involves both clarity of what is said and speaking kindly and without malice. 4. Right Behavior involves reflecting on one's behavior and the reasons for it. It also involves five basic laws of behavior for Buddhists: not to kill, steal, lie, drink intoxicants, or commit sexual offenses. 5. Right Livelihood involves choosing an occupation that keeps an individual on the Path; that is, a path that promotes life and well-being, rather than the accumulation of a lot of money. 6. Right Effort means training the will and curbing selfish passions and wants. It also means placing oneself along the Path toward Enlightenment. 7. Right Mindfulness implies continuing self-examination and awareness. 8. Right Concentration is the final goal to be absorbed into a state of Nirvana (Comptons). Compliance to the path does not guarantee reaching Nirvana, but it is the only path that leads to Nirvana. Only through following this path established by Buddha does a Buddhist have a chance to reach enlightenment, to free oneself from the continuous rounds of birth, death and rebirth, to have reached the ultimate goal - to be absorbed into a state of Nirvana. Comparison The goal in both Taoism and Buddhism is to reach the ultimate goal, to transcend life on earth as a physical being, to achieve harmony with nature and the universe. The ultimate goal for both religions is to achieve immortality. The Taoist called this ultimate goal Tao, while the Buddhist seek Nirvana. Whatever the name, the followers of these religions believe there is an existence beyond life which can be achieved provided the right path or behavior is followed. The path to Tao and Nirvana are similar, yet different. Both believe there is an inner light which guides a person in the right direction to the ultimate goal. Personal desires must be forsaken to enable the inner light to guide a person to achieve eternal bliss. "The teaching 6 regarding the inner light is just as prominent in the Taoist schools as it is among the practices of Buddhism" (Politella 36). The inner light concept is similar, but the actual path is the difference between Taoism and Buddhism. The path toward enlightenment for the Buddhist was defined by Buddha in his Eightfold Path. Only through following this path does the Buddhist reach Nirvana. The path to Tao is individual, it comes from within. No one can define a path for the Taoist, it must come from the inner light. "Tao means way, but in the original and succeeding manuscripts no direct path is explored or expounded. Desire, ambition, fame, and selfishness are seen as complications. That idea is consistent with Buddhist teachings; it is the personal life of each individual that gives Taoism its special form" (Leek 188). Taoism and Buddhism perceive life, death and rebirth as a continuous cycle. This cycle has no beginning and no end. The soul is eternal, yet the soul is not the object of reincarnation. Taoist believe the soul is not reborn, it "migrates to another life" (Head3 109). Buddhist also believe the soul is not reborn, but instead a "consciousness containing the seeds of good and evil deeds" is the object of rebirth (Leek 171). One major difference between Taoism and Buddhism is the concept of karma to the Buddhist. This idea that all actions are the display of thought, the will of man, is known as karma. Karma determines the Buddhist actions and position in life. A person's karma limits the goals which can be achieved. Karma determines where in the cycle of birth, death and rebirth the consciousness returns. This return can be in the form of an animal or human, and the 7 Buddhist must progress through a hierarchy to achieve Nirvana (Leek 171). The Taoist has no concept similar to karma, and no mention of the soul migrating to an animal form. The determining factor to one's life is contained in the individual behavior for the Taoist. By forsaking personal desires in life, by concentrating of the self, a longer life is prolonged. Eventually, by following the inner light, immortality can be achieved. The similarities between Taoism and Buddhism in the belief of life after death far outweigh the differences. Both religions believe the individual must focus on the self to achieve the ultimate goal. To focus on oneself, all desires and personal ambitions must be forsaken. One must focus on the self and the proper way of life to reach immortality. The cycle of life continues indefinitely until the Thread of Life is broken. Only through proper living, by following the correct path guided by the inner light, can one achieve the ultimate goal of Tao or Nirvana. By Rick Dempster 8 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion The State And Sovereignty.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion, The State And Sovereignty The influence of religion on humankind can be traced back to the first records of history. Religion has served as a pillar of strength to some and binding chains to others. There are vast amounts of information and anthropological studies revealing the interaction of religion and humankind. However, for the purposes of this paper, the time periods of study will be broken up into three sections. Each section will give a general description of how religion affected the institution of the state and its Sovereignty in a Euro-centric perspective. The first period is the early period, which will encompass from Christianity and the Roman Empire to the Medieval times (approx. 311 to 1100 A.D.). The second period will include the Renaissance, the Reformation to the Treaty of Westphalia (1101 to 1648 A.D.). The third and increment of history will range from 1649 to 1945 A.D. The date 311 A.D. marks the issuing of the "Edict of Toleration" for Christians. This date is important because it symbolizes "national" acceptance of Christianity, and planted its roots as a political institution. Later the Roman Empire on the verge of internal collapse acknowledged the importance of Christianity and used it to hold together the remnants of it former self. This adoption of Christianity took form and eventually became the Catholic church. The church became intermingled with politics and became a strong entity. The policies delivered from the church had more authority than the local rulers and magistrates of the developing feudal system. For example, St. Augustine wrote about war and what justified its enactment against fellow men. This policy was followed and adhered to for hundreds of years after St. Augustine wrote it. Another example, is the use of the Bible as a guideline for establishing governing systems. Scripture portrayed God as choosing the king of the people. The pope, being God's "representative" was then given the authority to crown the king. This crowning process gave the pope large influence in the political arena. This ritual continued for a number of centuries. The Crusades, which occurred around 1100 A.D., played a crucial role in challenging the church's authority. The pope identifying the spread of Islam as evil requested all of Europe embark on a "Crusade" to defeat the infidels. As the battles were fought, great treasures were found in the form of books and knowledge. These books were crude translations of old Greek texts, containing information which would eventually produce the waning of Church authority in the future. The Renaissance marked the beginning of intellectual re-birth. Writers such as Dante, Machiavelli, Guiarccidini, Vitoria, etc., all attempting to reform and some even contest church dominance. Dante in his imaginative work "Inferno" writes of hell which he envision is the pope's final destination. Machiavelli takes a more direct role classifying the actions of a prince to be above morality and ultimately above the Church. He continues the affront by classifying a human character of "virtu" as being completely centered around man (humanism). The Raison D' Tat is supreme especially in terms of the church belligerence. In the middle of the Renaissance, the Church was dealt a deadly blow from which it would never recover. This assault came via Martin Luther. His work, "95 Thesis", marked the beginning of the Reformation. This movement split the church into Catholic and Protestant sects. It marked the beginning of a bloody period which virtually split Europe in half. Examples of the conflict raged between Protestants and Catholics from the great slaughter of Protestants in Paris 1572 A.D. (7000 dead) to the Thirty Years War. With the Church in disarray, freedom was given to the "state" to begin to develop. During this period of Renaissance the political identity was going through a tremendous transformation. This transformation took form in what is called Absolutism. "Princes" began to tolerate less and less manipulation from the church. The political entity in the form of monarchy began to wean itself from the Church for its legitimacy and looked toward its own power. Other writers began to rise and discuss issues of sovereignty and the state. Thomas Hobbes discusses the state and refers to it as "Leviathan" which is the concurring title of his work. Believing man to be evil, Hobbes fashions his description of the state as the mechanism to control and harness the capabilities of man. There can be no peace as long as there is not absolute surrender to reason. The state's interest is supreme, as well as, its authority. These ideas were written in direct opposition to the church and its history. Hobbes desired a complete refutation of the Church's influence in government. Hobbes portrays a state as sovereign. The sovereignty of the state is in direct relation to its longevity and basic existence. State sovereignty must be perpetual and supreme. The authority of this described state would over-shadow the authority of the church. Continuing historically, the development of the thirty years war was significant in its unique result. The treaty of Westphelia was the agreement which not only settled the war, but gave absolute authority to the sovereign of each individual state. This was accomplished by granting the sovereign the right to choose which religion he/she desired and that in turn transferred down to the people. Thus, once again the authority of the church was restricted, however this time by the emergence of an institution called the state. During this period states begin to develop colonies and exploration of the new world. The discoveries and travel further challenged church authority. An example of this is the well founded "scientific" fact that the earth was flat. After such journeys by Columbus and Magellan, the concept of church's monopoly on truth was attacked once again. The third period in history starts with the age of reason. Its intellectual basis of the time period is science and natural law. Empiricism plays a fundamental role in church legitimacy. Factual concrete proof of God and his work is not provided by science. States begin to mature politically as colonial powers. The Church or rather the concept of religion is still strong but begins a transformation during the Enlightenment. From Religion ideas of morality and natural law arise. Locke addresses the role of the government of a state. He portrays the ideas of a social contract between the people and its government. He continued by pointing out that the government has a commitment with the people it must with hold. Locke's writings also contained concepts concerning of natural rights which are inherent to human beings. This developed and identified that power now comes from the people. These people from which the government is derived and power (legitimacy) have rights and will be safe-guarded by the people. The French and American Revolutions harnessed the ideas which the enlightenment wrote and discussed. The French Revolution exemplified the early stages of nationalism. Nationalism derives from a grouping of people who share common cultural and social experiences. >From nationalism the concept of self-determination is derived. Phrases like," We the People. . ." began to show up in constitutions and declarations, which showed consensus among people with like-minded purposes. The inception of positive law was the last and final blow to the concept of religion. Positive law is fashioned and codified by man. The law has replaced the concept of morality. The framework which laws create make the state and its sovereign powers legitimate and legal. States no longer operate in terms of what is just but on whether the legality for the action or jurisdiction have application. The evolution of the state and its sovereignty is clear. The Church once being a dominant political factor has been reduced to a mere whisper of advice. The influence of religion in instituting or in the elective process of choosing a representative ruler has been severely minimized. Sovereignty and the institution of the State has surpassed predestination and Divine Right of Kings. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religion, the State and Sovereignty.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion, the State and Sovereignty The influence of religion on humankind can be traced back to the first records of history. Religion has served as a pillar of strength to some and binding chains to others. There are vast amounts of information and anthropological studies revealing the interaction of religion and humankind. However, for the purposes of this paper, the time periods of study will be broken up into three sections. Each section will give a general description of how religion affected the institution of the state and its Sovereignty in a Euro-centric perspective. The first period is the early period, which will encompass from Christianity and the Roman Empire to the Medieval times (approx. 311 to 1100 A.D.). The second period will include the Renaissance, the Reformation to the Treaty of Westphalia (1101 to 1648 A.D.). The third and increment of history will range from 1649 to 1945 A.D. The date 311 A.D. marks the issuing of the "Edict of Toleration" for Christians. This date is important because it symbolizes "national" acceptance of Christianity, and planted its roots as a political institution. Later the Roman Empire on the verge of internal collapse acknowledged the importance of Christianity and used it to hold together the remnants of it former self. This adoption of Christianity took form and eventually became the Catholic church. The church became intermingled with politics and became a strong entity. The policies delivered from the church had more authority than the local rulers and magistrates of the developing feudal system. For example, St. Augustine wrote about war and what justified its enactment against fellow men. This policy was followed and adhered to for hundreds of years after St. Augustine wrote it. Another example, is the use of the Bible as a guideline for establishing governing systems. Scripture portrayed God as choosing the king of the people. The pope, being God's "representative" was then given the authority to crown the king. This crowning process gave the pope large influence in the political arena. This ritual continued for a number of centuries. The Crusades, which occurred around 1100 A.D., played a crucial role in challenging the church's authority. The pope identifying the spread of Islam as evil requested all of Europe embark on a "Crusade" to defeat the infidels. As the battles were fought, great treasures were found in the form of books and knowledge. These books were crude translations of old Greek texts, containing information which would eventually produce the waning of Church authority in the future. The Renaissance marked the beginning of intellectual re-birth. Writers such as Dante, Machiavelli, Guiarccidini, Vitoria, etc., all attempting to reform and some even contest church dominance. Dante in his imaginative work "Inferno" writes of hell which he envision is the pope's final destination. Machiavelli takes a more direct role classifying the actions of a prince to be above morality and ultimately above the Church. He continues the affront by classifying a human character of "virtu" as being completely centered around man (humanism). The Raison D' Tat is supreme especially in terms of the church belligerence. In the middle of the Renaissance, the Church was dealt a deadly blow from which it would never recover. This assault came via Martin Luther. His work, "95 Thesis", marked the beginning of the Reformation. This movement split the church into Catholic and Protestant sects. It marked the beginning of a bloody period which virtually split Europe in half. Examples of the conflict raged between Protestants and Catholics from the great slaughter of Protestants in Paris 1572 A.D. (7000 dead) to the Thirty Years War. With the Church in disarray, freedom was given to the "state" to begin to develop. During this period of Renaissance the political identity was going through a tremendous transformation. This transformation took form in what is called Absolutism. "Princes" began to tolerate less and less manipulation from the church. The political entity in the form of monarchy began to wean itself from the Church for its legitimacy and looked toward its own power. Other writers began to rise and discuss issues of sovereignty and the state. Thomas Hobbes discusses the state and refers to it as "Leviathan" which is the concurring title of his work. Believing man to be evil, Hobbes fashions his description of the state as the mechanism to control and harness the capabilities of man. There can be no peace as long as there is not absolute surrender to reason. The state's interest is supreme, as well as, its authority. These ideas were written in direct opposition to the church and its history. Hobbes desired a complete refutation of the Church's influence in government. Hobbes portrays a state as sovereign. The sovereignty of the state is in direct relation to its longevity and basic existence. State sovereignty must be perpetual and supreme. The authority of this described state would over-shadow the authority of the church. Continuing historically, the development of the thirty years war was significant in its unique result. The treaty of Westphelia was the agreement which not only settled the war, but gave absolute authority to the sovereign of each individual state. This was accomplished by granting the sovereign the right to choose which religion he/she desired and that in turn transferred down to the people. Thus, once again the authority of the church was restricted, however this time by the emergence of an institution called the state. During this period states begin to develop colonies and exploration of the new world. The discoveries and travel further challenged church authority. An example of this is the well founded "scientific" fact that the earth was flat. After such journeys by Columbus and Magellan, the concept of church's monopoly on truth was attacked once again. The third period in history starts with the age of reason. Its intellectual basis of the time period is science and natural law. Empiricism plays a fundamental role in church legitimacy. Factual concrete proof of God and his work is not provided by science. States begin to mature politically as colonial powers. The Church or rather the concept of religion is still strong but begins a transformation during the Enlightenment. From Religion ideas of morality and natural law arise. Locke addresses the role of the government of a state. He portrays the ideas of a social contract between the people and its government. He continued by pointing out that the government has a commitment with the people it must with hold. Locke's writings also contained concepts concerning of natural rights which are inherent to human beings. This developed and identified that power now comes from the people. These people from which the government is derived and power (legitimacy) have rights and will be safe-guarded by the people. The French and American Revolutions harnessed the ideas which the enlightenment wrote and discussed. The French Revolution exemplified the early stages of nationalism. Nationalism derives from a grouping of people who share common cultural and social experiences. >From nationalism the concept of self-determination is derived. Phrases like," We the People. . ." began to show up in constitutions and declarations, which showed consensus among people with like-minded purposes. The inception of positive law was the last and final blow to the concept of religion. Positive law is fashioned and codified by man. The law has replaced the concept of morality. The framework which laws create make the state and its sovereign powers legitimate and legal. States no longer operate in terms of what is just but on whether the legality for the action or jurisdiction have application. The evolution of the state and its sovereignty is clear. The Church once being a dominant political factor has been reduced to a mere whisper of advice. The influence of religion in instituting or in the elective process of choosing a representative ruler has been severely minimized. Sovereignty and the institution of the State has surpassed predestination and Divine Right of Kings. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\RELIGION5.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RELIGION Explain the four kinds of healing performed by Jesus. The four kinds or healing Jesus performed were physical healing, spiritual healing, resurrection, and moral healing. Physical healing was when Jesus healed people who suffered from physical illnesses. Examples of this kind of healing are blindness, uncontrollable bleeding, and leprosy. These kinds of healings were called miracles, exceptions to the normal course of ordinary events. Jesus made a special effort to reach out to lepers, people often neglected and scorned in his society. Through physical healings, Jesus demonstrated enormous power over nature and illness. The second kind of healing, spiritual healing was when Jesus healed people who had mental illness. These people are described to have an "unclean spirit." One of the most known spiritual healing is the healing of the man from Gerasa. There was a naked man that was very strong and attacked people without cause. He may have been possessed or psychotic, no one really knows, but they do know that Jesus healed this man. Resurrection was when Jesus brought people who had died back to life. Moral healing was when Jesus healed people's character. What are two reasons why the historical approach is valuable? There are two reasons why the historical approach of Jesus is valuable. First of all historical evidence shows us Jesus valued all people equally, rather they neither rich nor poor. Jesus didn't look at the person on the outside he looks at each person's heart with compassion and offered healing and goodness to all. Secondly it emphasizes that Jesus was valued was fully human, subject to the demands, temptations, and frustrations we all feel. There is a debate over many theories concerning historical Jesus between scholars but ultimately; our faith is Jesus does not rest on historical evidence. What does living in the kingdom mean? Living in the kingdom means living a life centered on love of God and love of others. The kingdom is a spiritual, interior quality of life in relation to God that is available now, here, in this life on earth. In this kingdom, people experience God as their common ruler, and treat others as fellow subjects of their heavenly king. The living Kingdom is the second dimension of the Kingdom. The living kingdom of God only occurs in an individual who recognizes God as a real king and experiences him or herself as a child in that kingdom. The easiest way to live in the kingdom is just by following the greatest two commandments; love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, living in the kingdom means loving God and serving others in loving ways. Why does our faith not rest on the historical approach? Our faith doesn't rest on the historical Jesus because our faith is based on events that cannot be proven. History doesn't tell that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. However, the historical account shows that Jesus was truly human, subject to the demands, temptations and frustrations we all feel. This only proves that Jesus was human and without the Jesus of Faith the Catholic Church would not exist. But as Catholic Christians, our faith includes the testimony of Church tradition, that is that Jesus is the Lord of humanity, the Son of God, who existed from the beginning of time, became human, died for our sins and rose again. These points cannot be proved historically. They are verified in the experience of Christians who open their hearts to Jesus' healing presence. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\ReligionFaith.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mike Johnson February 17,1997 English 101/ Hicks Religion/Faith Over the last several decades America has been evolving towards many significant changes. One of these changes has posed a question, whether or not America has become secular. Although we may be uncertain of many of these changes and how they will affect our future, the answer to our secularity is quite obvious. America has indeed become secular. I think that in a society where being successful is everything, our religious beliefs tend to get lost in the ³survival of the fittest² lifestyle that we lead everyday. Of course we all have certain standards in which we believe and live by. A good example of the standard behavior that makes us so secular is in Wil Herbergs essay This American Way Of Life. Herbergs says so well , ³the American way of life is a symbol by which Americans define themselves and establish their unity.² The author means to imply that unity is something we all strive for. To be American is to be part a huge family, no matter what gender, color, or background. We stick together. We fight together, we laugh together, we grieve together as Americans. Terms like democracy, individuality, self-reliance are all words we relate to as Americans. We teach our kids that we should be grateful everyday to be Americans. In this country we can choose our own destination. We can be whatever we want. I think that being a secular country brings us together and makes us stronger.We don¹t have questions we can¹t answer. We don¹t hear stories of people or things we can¹t prove exist. We know what we have overcome to be where we are today, and we know what we want to plan for our future. As quoted in Herbergs essay, ³The things that make us proud to be Americans are of the soul and of the spirit.² That quote said by Mr. Eisenhower exemplifies an American religion, or standard by which we look for guidance and reassurance.And it is not something we should be ashamed of. Our country has survived more that other countries can only dream of. So many have suffered for the well being of our country. It is what makes us America. To me it would seem that religion has become a thing of the past. It seems as though in the past more people than not saw their religion to be very important to them, it consumed their daily life.Now-a-days it seems that the religious way of life is left behind when mass lets out. So why are parents still insisting on that one hour mass every week? I think its because people are confusing religion with tradition. You aren¹t religious because you are born with Catholic parents. You can¹t be forced into religion. It takes a certain amount of faith to be religious. And then in turn your faith is the dedication that brings you to church each week or to saying grace before each meal. I don¹t believe that whether or not you¹re religious is a prerequisite to being a good person. Which raises a good question, ³Do kids need religion?² In Anthony Brandts essay Do Kids Need Religion he quotes ³Religious education raised the issue of honesty.² How does religion relate to honesty, other that the honesty to ourselves whether or not we truly believe. I think that honesty relates more to the secularity of our society. I think that being American would raise an issue of honesty. Our ancestors were honest to themselves when they helped to create America. Later Brandt goes on to say ³ too it is impossible to predict with any confidence what affect religious education will have on children.² Which is precisely my point. Why are we teaching them things that aren¹t sure will help them later on in life. We should be teaching them history so they will grow up knowing who they are, who their ancestors were and what we learned from them. Rather than teaching our kids to believe in one specific person(s) to believe with out question.In Brandts essay a mother says, ³I think you can transmit values to your kids but belief is different.² I think that religion is very much an individual thing while, secularity is a bond that helps our society strive for achievement. Brandt has a statement that is something I think most anyone can relate to, he says, ³The longing for meaning is something we all share parent and child alike.²I think that being a secular country gives us a sense of meaning. Instead of being separated into categories of who believes what and why, we stick together because we all share one thing in common we are all American. And I think that the pride we have in common is all we need. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religious Beliefs.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religious Beliefs Today's religious beliefs, governmental structures, laws and traditions of social behavior find their roots in the development of three main belief systems - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Although other religious movements have developed throughout the years, these three belief systems have had the most impact on civilizations of the West. To better understand this impact, it is important to trace the development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and review the relationships between them. While each belief system is unique, there are many similarities due to their common beginnings. The philosophies and traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam most prominently begin with the founder of the Hebrews known as Abraham ca 1800 BCE Historically, these teachings were also subscribed by nomadic tribes, which settled in present day Palestine, near Mt. Sinai. The people of these tribes did not label themselves as Hebrews, and referred to God as the god of Abraham. This came about as God promised Abraham a son, and in the course of the events doubting that is old wife could give him a son, he had Ishmael with his maid, Hagar, and then later God's prophecy would be fulfilled with the birth of Isaac, by his wife Sarha. Due to their belief system, the tribe proliferated the idea that Isaac and his descendants were chosen by God to carry forward Abraham's holy lineage. Isaac was the forefather of what was to become the 12 tribes of Israel, while Ishmael and his descendents were to constitute a different Semitic tribe and follow Arabic traditions. The term Judaism came about after the establishment of the state of Israel when the tribes divided into two, the northern and Judas kingdoms, ca 922-587 BCE The customs and belief systems of these nomadic tribes to be later identified as Arab tribes were very similar to the Hebrews'; however, the Arab tribes developed in some subtle ways. They remained nomadic, whereas the Hebrews tended to follow the teachings of the Holy Scriptures to the achievement of The Promised Land. As for the Arab nomadic tribes because of this development, a centralized governing agent who organized the religion did not develop as it did with the Hebrews. In approximately ca 1290-1250 BCE, Moses further supplemented both traditions with a covenant between God and his believers. Moses married Zipphora, from a different Semitic tribe, (Ishmael descendants?) as they referred to God as the God of Abrahim; this would indicate the strong similarity of beliefs and customs between the Hebrew and Arab tribes at that time. In approximately 600 CE, a somewhat modified revival of the beliefs and traditions of Abraham occurred, due to the persuasions of Mohammed. He disagreed with the commonly held belief that Isaac and his descendents were the chosen ones. He taught instead that Ishmael was the chosen one, and therefore, Ishmael's descendants, the Arabs, carried forth Abraham's holy lineage. Mohammed redefined the Arabic religious tradition on this point into the tradition of Islam. Islamic belief centered on "submission to the will of Allah by fulfilling the five duties know as the Pillars of Islam". Within the organized movement of Islam, ca 570-632 BCE, a written tradition, as well as a central controlling agent of the Arab tribes, developed through compilation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an, although in some ways similar to the teachings in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures, totally and distinctly separated the Islamic belief system as a new, and competing, tradition from that of Judaism. Another offspring of Judaism was Christianity. The belief that a Messiah would appear amongst the Jews by the end of the millennium came to life with the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem ca 29 B.C.E. Jesus was believed by many followers of Judaism to be the long-awaited Messiah, and served to divide Judaism once again. In contrast to Judaism, Christians believe that the appearance and teaching of Jesus represents a new covenant superseding the previous covenant between God and Moses. The Jews that chose to believe in this new covenant began the Christian movement. A focused Christian movement began based on the documentation of his teachings by men who lived during the two to three generations following Jesus' death. The written tradition was called the New Testament, and was considered an addition to the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. Developments of Christianity are chiefly attributed to Paul, for his contributions to the New Testament, and Peter, the leader of the Roman Church. The influence of the Christian belief system is great - the socio-economic traditions of the western world revolve around traditions derived from Christianity (Catholicism). Naturally, as both Christianity and Islam originated from Judaism, many of their teachings, beliefs and traditions are similar to Judaism. All three religions are similar in their description of the relationship with God and his followers, as the Holy Scriptures are part of the teachings of Christianity. There can be seen a great influence by the Tanakh and the Gospels in the Qur'an: "Praise be to God, the Lord of the universe, the merciful, the compassionate, the authority on judgment day".... He has created the heavens and the earths in accordance with the requirements of wisdom. Exalted is he above all that they associate with him." While women played a key role in all three of these religious systems, they have been historically mistreated and overshadowed by their male counterparts. In Hebrew society, women were excluded from the priesthood, for the exception of a few, who played an active role in the religious observances and politics of the times. For example, Deborah was responsible for claiming territory for her tribe due to the defeat of the Canaates in 1125 BCE Throughout the history of Christianity, women were also restrained from achieving equality amongst men, with few exceptions, such as St. Catherine of Siena, who lived between 1347-1380 BCE She became involved with Church policy at the highest level, thus, playing a very important role in Church politics. In Islamic society, women were important in the home and yet subordinate to men. They could neither claim nor inherit what their husbands won in the battlefield and had no right to divorce. "Baby girls were regarded with such disdain that in some instances they were buried alive at birth." Although Mohammed tried to improve their treatment, women enjoyed no equality with men. Despite any differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, one incredible belief has remained - the decreased value and respect of women. This belief regarding women is responsible for the current status of women in modern society. Despite advancements in knowledge and technology, women are not currently recognized as equal to men in western civilization. This is attributed to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, the New Testament, and the Qur'an, which reinforce the subordination of women to men. A very unfortunate impact of these belief systems is the substantiation of a discriminating god, which benefits and empowers only men. Just as there are similarities, there are many distinctions between the three belief systems. One of the main distinctions of Islam from Judaism and Christianity is the emphasis of Islam's last great prophet Mohammed - not acknowledged by either Judaism or Christianity. While both Islam and Christianity recognize Jesus as a prophet, Christianity further exalts Jesus as the Messiah. Judaism does not recognize Jesus as a significant person. Since the establishment of Catholicism and Islam, Jews have been a migrating minority and in spite of the many wars and battles fought amongst Catholics and Muslims during the Crusades, Jews seem to be a prime target of discrimination from both Catholics and Muslims of the times. The differences between Islam and Christianity flared during one period of history, primarily due to reasons of influence and power. The expansion of Islam looked with favor on commerce and developed trading routes, which extended from the Pacific to the Atlantic and from central Africa to Russia. The Islamic world brought expanded economic opportunities to Europe and also benefited Muslim culture in science, medicine and philosophy. This created a sense of competition between followers of Islam and the Christians, who had established huge followings and social-economic monopolies. Pope Urban II transformed the competition into hatred in 1095, who depicted Muslims as a wicked race, and so the Crusades began one of the bloodiest and destained conflicts to occur between followers of Christianity and Islam. Most of the disagreements within these three religions have been used to gain political power and the control of trading routes in the West. Manifestations of these disagreements are the great influence that Catholicism has had on Western Civilization regarding law and behavior, the current control of black gold in Saudi Arabia, and the entire issue of the state of Israel, which inevitably affects the world economically. Key figures were responsible for the development and proliferation of each of the religions herein discussed. Moses was a key individual in the development of the Jewish faith, Mohammed was the key proponent of the Islamic traditions, and Peter and Paul were the major figures that progressed Christianity. Although the key figures are different, it is noticeable that organization is the most important factor in the development of all of these movements. These three movements are also linked by a need to justify and resolve issues of morality, as well as to assert an identity with a God. The essential need to believe and describe in the existence of a higher force or Supreme Being has been present in all western civilizations from the time of Mesopotamia to this day. All three religions place importance on a grand occurrence - a representation of God will come and rescue them from the evils of society, leading them to eternal life. Believers of Judaism await the coming of the Messiah. Christians await the Second Coming of Christ, and followers of Islam await the return of Mohammed. The importance placed on a future occurrence is one of the strongest factors responsible for the continuance of these religions, as it reinforces the need to follow the customs, ethics, morals of the particular belief system, and helps to stimulate conversions to each of the belief systems. Another major difference is the competition of Islam and Christianity for converts, whereas Judaism carefully evaluates a family lineage as to establish the relation to Judaism or in cases of conversions one must adhere to a detailed set of covenants in order to be accepted. Islam and Christianity actively seek converts, whereas Judaism doesn't. The final outcome of all of these religious beliefs is continuance of the structures they prescribe, and their profound impact on the development of western civilization. Judaism currently manifests itself as the final achievement of the state of Israel, and the catalyst for the basis of the influential world religions of Islam and Christianity. Christianity influenced western culture through establishment and continuance of the Roman Catholic Church, its powerful infrastructures, which controlled the Roman Empire and to present-day influences of it are still strong. Islam created distinctive civilizations such as Damascus, Bhagdad, Cairo, Cordiva, and Delhi and has substantially impacted the people of Europe and Asia through their systems of trade and culture. Through their unique and combined interactions, the entire socio-political ideologies of western civilization have been affected. Importance should be placed on both the disagreements and agreements between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. As the current socio-economic status of western civilization, as well as eastern civilization, revolves around influences of the leaders that subscribe to one the above religions, it is extremely difficult to change outdated beliefs such as subordination of women and discrimination of humans due to their belief systems, specifically in current world events such as the situation of Israel in the Middle East and the wars taking place in former Yugoslavia. Judaism comprises less than two per cent of western society, and yet has contributed in field after field. They have ranked the contribution of their day as Marx, Freud, Einstein, and Fermi have within this century. Furthermore, Jewries have been outcast and prosecuted more than any other society from as early as history could be recorded and survived against all odds. The Irony of all is that most of the persecuting has been done from movements which prescribed to either Christianity or Islam which in essence would have not existed without Judaism? Bibliography: Civ. of the West, V I Brief Edition. Grieves, R., R. Zaller, J.T. Roberts. (Harper Collins, 1994). Pg. 19. B. Ness, Class notes, Oct. 05, 1994. B. Ness, Class notes, Oct. 05, 1994. B. Ness, Class notes, Sep. 29, 1994. B. Ness, Class notes, Dec. 06, 1994. B. Ness, Class notes, Dec. 03, 1994. Civ. of the West, V I Brief Edition. Grieves, R., R. Zaller, J.T. Roberts. (Harper Collins, 1994). Pg. 90. Civ. of the West, V I Brief Edition. Grieves, R., R. Zaller, J.T. Roberts. (Harper Collins, 1994). Pg 90-91. B Ness, Class handout, Qu'ran, Mecca Chapters, Nov. 22, 1994. B. Ness, Class handout, Nevi'im, Judges, Deborah, Oct. 04, 1994. Classics of Western Thought, Vol. II, Donald S. Gochberg. (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1988). Pg. 128. .Civ. of the West, V I Brief Edition. Grieves, R., R. Zaller, J.T. Roberts. (Harper Collins, 1994). Pg 119. .Civ. of the West, V I Brief Edition. Grieves, R., R. Zaller, J.T. Roberts. (Harper Collins, 1994). Pg. 114. .Civ. of the West, V I Brief Edition. Grieves, R., R. Zaller, J.T. Roberts. (Harper Collins, 1994). Pg. 155-156. .Civ. of the West, V I Brief Edition. Grieves, R., R. Zaller, J.T. Roberts. (Harper Collins, 1994). Pg. 179. .Civ. of the West, V I Brief Edition. Grieves, R., R. Zaller, J.T. Roberts. (Harper Collins, 1994). Pg. 91. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religious Dialogue.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What is religion? According to an Oxford dictionary, religion is the belief in the existence of a supernatural ruling power, the creator and controller of the universe, who has given to man a spirtual nature which continues to exist after the death of the body. Religion appears to be a simple idea on the surface, but in reality it is a very complex system of ideas that many base their lives upon. There are many religions in the world. Christianity seems to be the one religion believed widely in the modern world. However, this is not the case in a group of five people in a World Religion class. These five people share common knowledge on several aspects of religion, yet they have some major conflicts. The focus of this paper is to explore the ideas and beliefs of the group, analyze the importance of religions dialogue, and to discuss the challenge of religious pluralism in the contemporary world. The first group member states her firm Christian views. Melissa recognizes all the religions of the world, but she holds Christanity to be the only true religion. To her, Christianity is the only way one person can attain salvation. All other religions are false and those who do not follow Christanity are misguided and will not attain salvation. It is only through Jesus Christ's death on the cross that one can repent, be forgiven, and attain salvation. Melissa feels that others who are non-Christians believe that their religion is true. Afterall everyone is brought up to believe in the faith or religion they are taught. If this was not the case, no one would have any beliefs. Although their religions are not true religions Melissa respects their views of being true. Quite similar to Melissa's opinion, Jason feels that there is only one true religion in the world, which is Christianity. However, he recognizes that there are many other religions in the world in which their followers believe are true. He does not believe that one should criticize others for their beliefs, and that they should respect each person's beliefs even if they are different from his. For Jason, Christianity is the true religion. It is the only religion that he believes has the right answers for life, and the correct way to salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. So his position is that there is only one true religion in the world, but that there are other religions in the world that people follow and their followers hold their religion to be true. Jason feels that other religions of the world are important and are held true by their followers. If this were not so, then why would anyone follow a religion that they did not believe was true. Michele believes Christianity is the one true religion. However, she recognizes that other religions exist, and they are held true by their respective adherents. She does not believe that non-Christian religions are right, but she respects other people's rights to choose whatever faith they want to follow. Michele has been raised a Roman Catholic and is checking out other Christian religions to see what they offer. She still believes that Christianity is the one true religion, but she is curious to learn more about the other Christian denominations. Lori believes that since there are so many diverse religions today that it is impossible to say that only one religion is correct. Lori feels that if she said there was only one true religion she would be forcing her religion onto others. For her, religion is an opinion. If you were to ask almost anyone which religion was the one true religion of the world, they would say their religion. She also feels that there are so many unanswered questions in every religion therefore, she can not justify saying there is only one that is right. She does believe that there is only one true God. Overall, she believes in one true God, while recognizing the fact that there are other religions besides the one of which she is a part. Finally, Tony expresses his views which are quite different from the rest of the group members. A few years ago Tony was a Christian and believed that the god he worshiped was the one and only true god. He not only had a strong faith in his relgious beliefs, but also felt that all the other religions in the world were false, and that the followers of these teachings were misfortunately misguided. He was going to heaven because he was right and they (those of other faiths) were wrong and unfortunately going to hell. In the past few years Tony questined his Christian faith and the holy writings upon which they were based. Now he is an agnostic. Although Tony does not believe or have evidence that there is any true religion or religions, he now gives equal credibility to all religions to which previously he had not. He has concluded that those persons of the various religions show just as much fervor in their faith as do their religious counterparts of opposing faiths. It is apparent that there are many persons and just as may religious perspectives. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a true religion and a false religion(s), but that religion is an entirely subjective experience whose truth is decided by its value to its adherents. Further discussion on other aspects of religion took place as well. For example, the topic of the Christian Bible posed conflict among two of the group members. Jason boldly stated his opinion of the Bible. He believes every word in the Bible to be true. He thinks that everything in life should be based on how the Bible tells you to live. He feels that the Bible is the true word of God. He also feels that the Bible has told the past and fortells the future as well. According to the Bible, Israel is God's chosen nation and that any country that goes against this nation, they will be punished by God. He relates this to the recent incident of Israel's Prime Minister being assassinated. He believes that if this was a direct act of a certain nation, then there will be other events to follow. However, Tony has different beliefs which controdict Jason's completely. Tony has no belief in Christianity, therefore, he has no belief in the Bible. He feels there is no way the Bible can be the word of God because there is no proof and there is no foundation. Tony also questions the presence of a heaven and hell. For Tony, Christianity is nothing but brainwashing. He thinks one's beliefs are determined by the way one is raised. If one is brought up a certain way, then he will only believe a certain way. The group came to a meeting point from this statement. We all agreed that one's religion is his or her own personal belief built from the foundation of one's upbringing. The group also discussed how we as a society are supposed to handle the problems that religious pluralism causes. There is no greater enemy to humankind than fear. It is undoubtedly the germ of hatred, contempt, disdain, resentment, disapproval and therefore all forms of discrimiantion. When we are unable to understand or encounter the unfamiliar, we fear. The only way to understand amd become familiar with the source of our fears is through exposure. This is imperative to mutual understanding in any matter. This is especially true in religion, where those of the various faiths are adamant in the belief of the superiority of their relgious faith. An invaluable means of coming to terms with those of differing faiths is the process of dialogue. The importance of interreligious dialogue cannot be understated. In our discussion group of five members (consisting of four Christians and one agnostic), the majority is of the opinion that their religion is the only one true religion in the world. This majority simply beleives that those of other faiths are misfortunately misguided. Nonetheless, there is unanimous agreement that there is considerable importance in intereligious dialouge amongst the religions of the world. This dialogue will bring understanding and hopefully promote tolerance and acceptance of those beliefs not similar to one's own. The idea is not to bring about conformity, but to exploit the benefits of religious diversity. Our group agrees on how the challenge of religious pluralism is to be met in contemporary world. The most important tool to help deal with religious pluralism is dialogue. People of different religions need to communicate and listen to each other. Because of all the diversity in the world, we feel people need to be open-minded and non-judgemental of other people's views, especially if their views do not necessarily agree with someone else's views. We think trying to understand different religions takes compassion and understanding. Often, people fear the "unknown." So, another way to meet the challenge of religious pluralism is through education. People can learn about different religions and respect the diversity that exists. Further, to help understand a different religion, our group thinks that going to check out different religion services will give people personal experience of that different faith. People do not have to feel they have to accept the other religion, but going to visit another service will broaden their horizons. We believe that if society can respect the religious diversity in the world, the challenge of relgious pluralism can be met. W.C. Smith says it best, "Unless men can learn to understand and to be loyal to each other across religious frontiers, unless we can build a world in which people profoundly of different faiths can live together and work together, then the prospects for our planets future are not bright" ("The Christian in a Religiously Plural World" 11). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religious Fanaticism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religious Fanaticism In Moliere's comedy Tartuffe, The play centers on the family of Orgon, a wealthy and impressionable man, his central target of ridicule is Orgon. Orgon is Moliere's character of how man can be so blind in his devotion to a belief that he cannot make a good judgement as to the sincerity of others who would use that belief to deceive him. This play fits into the concept of comedy because all of the elements of comedy are present. It happens that the title character is the villain rather than the hero and some of the elements have been tampered with. In Tartuffe, we have the classic comic scenario of two lovers, Valere and Marianne, trying to get together but being thwarted. However, instead of the villain, Tartuffe is not the one who is antagonizing them, it is Orgon who gets in the way. Orgon tries to flatter Tartuffe by offering Marianne to be his wife. Before it is all over, Orgon ends up giving the deed to all his land to the deceitful Tartuffe. The other comic elements such as the unmasking of the villain and the happy ending are also present in Tartuffe. It is in the duality of Orgon, who is a believing and devoted subject, and Tartuffe, the manipulating hypocrite. Moliere takes his shot at the extremes of enthusiastic belief. Tartuffe plays the role of a man whose greedy actions are cloaked by a mask of overwhelming piety, modesty and religious passion. Orgon is the head of a household who has taken Tartuffe in, and given him shelter and food. Everyone in the family, except Orogon's mother, knows that Tartuffe is a fake. In this play Moliere uses Cleante to emphasize pious qualities, Cleante spoke with wisdom common sense and moderation. All of Orgon's relatives try to warn him of Tartuffe's gluttony and the false nature of his pious proclamations. When Dorine tries to tell Orgon about how sick Elmire is, all Orgon can say is "Ah and Tartuffe?" He is only concerned with the well being of Tartuffe. When she tries to explain that Tartuffe has no concern for Elmire's health, and that he is only concerned with eating food, all he can say is "Poor fellow!" Orgon is so caught up in his own perception of Tartuffe as a saint, and all that Tartuffe does. It is as if Tartuffe can do no wrong. When Orgon's son Damis tells his father what he has overheard and that Tartuffe was making advances toward Elmire. Orgon is so upset with Damis, that he disowns his son, and exiles his son from the house and the property. Because of this passion Orgon is stupid and blind to all that is going on around him. Despite the protestations of his sensible brother-in-law Cleante and his son Damis, Orgon determines that his daughter Mariane, who is in love with a young man named Valere, shall marry Tartuffe. When Orgon's wife Elmire seeks out Tartuffe to beg him to refuse Mariane's hand, he attempts to seduce her. It is at this point that Elmire decides that the truth can only be exposed through lies. And she wants to prove to her husband what Tartuffe is really like. Only when his wife Elmire convinces him to hide under the table and hear Tartuffe's advances towards her, does the reality finally confront Orgon's idealism and Tartuffe is unmasked. Orgon's eyes are opened, a little too late. For he has already assigned all he owns to Tartuffe. When Tartuffe realizes his hypocrisy has been discovered, he promptly turns the family out of the house. Then by reporting to the authorities that Orgon possesses a strongbox containing the papers of an exiled friend, Tartuffe tries to have his former host arrested. Elmire, feels that the people will be outraged by what has happened to them and their family, and they will bring justice to Tartuffe. But by order of the King, the arresting officer apprehends Tartuffe instead, and the imposter is hauled off to prison for his treacherous behavior toward his well meaning if too believing host. The play ends as Damis is reconciled with his father and the wedding of Marianne and Valere is announced. It is my belief that Moliere was a moderate and against excess and obsession in all things. In Tartuffe, he has used Orgon as an example of how the obsessive need to believe can cause man to be taken in by those who would cloak themselves in, and manipulate with, those beliefs. The play is comic because Moliere shows how silly and foolish Orgon looks, when his sincere belief is contrasted with the truth, which is seen by all but his blind self. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In this paper I will describe the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This Act was used to contradict the decision of the court case of Employment Division v. Smith, which allowed the government to forbid any religious act without giving a reason. The RFRA brought back the requirement that the government provide an adequate reason to forbid any religious act. The government once again had to show that the act was of compelling interest against the state. In 1993 one of the most important acts that has gone thorough Congress was passed (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). This was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). This act was passed to answer the 1990 court case Employment Division v. Smith (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Employment Division v. Smith was a court case in which the issue was whether "Sacramental use of peyote by members of the Native American Church was protected under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which provides that 'Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion'."(Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). According to Justice Scalia, "if prohibiting the exercise of religion was merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment was not offended." (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Thus, "...the government no longer had to justify most burdens on religious exercise. The free exercise clause offered protection only if a particular religious practice was singled out for discriminatory treatment. In short, free exercise was a sub category of equal protection. This placed religious rights in an inferior position to other First Amendment rights such as freedom of speech and press." (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). This court case caused a series of court cases about religious freedoms (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). Congress enacted the RFRA to contradict the negative affect that court cases had recently had on religious freedoms(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). The RFRA is what it states it is in the title, a restoration act(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). Congress decided that in Employment Division v. Smith, "the supreme court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion and the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA) In other words, the government did not have to have a reason to impose laws against a religious act. Thus the purpose of this act was "to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened."(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA) The other purpose of this act was to "Provide a claim of defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by the government."(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA) "The government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden is a result of a general or neutral law."(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA)The only exception to this rule is, "if the government can demonstrate the following three things , that there is a compelling state interest, that a particular law, rule, decision or action actually furthers that compelling state interest, if there is a compelling state interest and this action furthers it, then the government must use the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Notice that the burden is on the government; the government cannot simply state that it has a compelling interest but it must also demonstrate each of the three requirements above. This section also states that this Act provides a cause of action or a defense for any person whose religious exercise has been burdened, and provides for legal fees. It is important to note that the term, "person," can refer to corporate bodies as well -- such as church or religious organizations."(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA) Section five of the RFRA included an important definition. This section defined "government" to include any "federal, state or local branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official or other person acting under color of law."(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA) So now any part of the government had to provide the three requirements that are defined above to issue laws against a religious practice. No longer could the government just do what they wanted to do, they had to prove that the religious act is a compelling state interest. The RFRA was supported by many people. RFRA is enthusiastically supported by more than fifty religious and civil liberties groups in the political and theological fields. Never has a broader coalition been assembled to support Congressional legislation. This was no ordinary coalition. It included the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Association of Evangelicals; People for the American Way, and Concerned Women for America; the American Muslim Council, and the American Jewish Congress; the Traditional Values Coalition, and B'nai Brith of the Anti-Defamation League. In the opinion of the Reverend Oliver Thomas, Chairman of Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, and former General Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, this was the most diverse coalition of religious and civil liberties. All of these organizations have been willing to lay aside their deep ideological differences in order to unite behind a principle -- religious liberty for all Americans.(Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA) The lead Senate sponsors were Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch. (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA) Among the House sponsors were Newt Gingrich and Barny Frank. (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA) This act was enacted for one main reason. The religious freedom of the country was being threatened by the Employment Division v. Smith case because this case took away the qualification that you prove that the law against the religious act be of compelling interest to the state. The RFRA was issued to reinstate the qualifications for laws against religious freedoms. The change this Act has brought is already significant. During the three years prior to RFRA -- between the time that the Smith decision was handed down (1990) and RFRA was enacted (1993) -- there have been approximately 60 cases which have relied on the Smith decision. All of them were decided against the free exercise or First amendment claims. From the time RFRA was enacted in late 1993 until May 1995, there have been over 87 court cases that have made reference to it. Although some courts have found a sufficient compelling governmental interest to warrant restriction of religious freedom, many courts have supported the free exercise rights -- some courts have found that the governmental interest was insufficient to warrant the burden on religion; others found that the government had not used the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA) "The Religious Freedoms Restoration Act is the most significant legislation effecting religion in the history of the republic because it provides strong protection for religious liberty for all Americans, conservatives and liberals alike."(Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA) This Act also effects many people. The first way it can effect a person is as a citizen. Simply put, you should know your rights whether you practice a religion or not. "Apathy or indifference to the freedoms we have will always lead to erosion of those freedoms".(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) Our rights don't come free, they require constant vigilance. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights begins by listing freedom of religion before speech and press. We should all carefully consider if the emphasis our founding fathers put on the free exercise of religion is outdated or just as needed today.(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) The second way that the act can effect a person is as a legislator. Lawmakers have a special privilege and responsibility to be aware and sensitive to the religious practices of others and the impact legislative language can have on such practices. This especially applies to minority religions, whose religious rights are so often ignored in the introduction of bills. Understanding is the key to drafting good language. "Taking the time to understand the needs of others in the religious community will not only protect a particular religious practice, it really benefits us all."(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) The third type of person effected is the churchgoer. If those who practice religion don't defend their freedom, who will? "The diversity of the 68 plus organization that supported RFRA through Congress should encourage all churchgoers to be active in their support and knowledge of this law."(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act wasn't just thought up and enacted by lawyers and politicians. It is a fine example of lawmaking in the best sense of the word. Many of those who worked long hours on RFRA's passage into law were motivated by their devotion to their church and considered this act vital to their own religious freedom as well as of those around them. It was for most an unselfish labor of love.(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) The fourth type of people the RFRA has an impact on is Doctors and Nurses. Most physicians, nurses, health care providers and hospital administrators today are aware of advance directives, refusal of blood transfusions, diet restrictions, and the refusal of medical treatment in general. Often religious practices underlie these individual decisions and approaches to health care. Whenever a religious practice conflicts with the convictions of those involved in the health care profession, RFRA should be consulted, respected and understood to help accurately weigh the rights of each individual. The last person that the act effects is the Attorneys and Judges. Ignorance of the law by those who practice law or make legal decisions can be devastating to a sense of justice and individual rights. RFRA's wording in law is specific and exact and intended to raise a clear and high standard for the freedom of religious practice. It deserves careful thought as to its meaning and application. The Religious Freedom Restoration act is a document that has helped to undo the damage that the Employment Division v. Smith did to our freedoms as a country. In less than four years over 60 court cases were used against the people because of the decision of the courts in the Employment Division v. Smith case, but sense the RFRA was put into action over 80 cases have come up regarding it, and most of these cases have been ruled in favor of the people. This act just brought back some of the freedoms that our fore fathers guaranteed us, by reinstating the right to have a reason to take away our religious freedoms. Now the government needs to find a reasonable reason of importance to the state to stop any religious practice. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religious Meaning of the Birthright Story 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religious Meaning of the Birthright Story Genesis Ch 25:27-34 As the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man who lived in the open; whereas Jacob was a simple man, who kept to his tents. Isaac preferred Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah preferred Jacob. Once, when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the open, famished. He said to Jacob, "Let me gulp down some of that red stuff; I'm starving." (That is why he was called Edom.) But Jacob replied, "First give me your birthright in exchange for it." "Look," Esau said, "I'm on the point of dying, what good will any birthright do me?" But Jacob insisted, "Swear to me first!" So he sold Jacob his birthright under oath. Jacob then gave him some bread and the lentil stew; and Esau cared little for his birthright. This Old Testament story holds significant meaning for all of us. There is the obvious conflict within the family of two brothers who are very different personality types, parents who show partiality toward each of their favorite sons and the way that God allows events to happen as He relates to each of the characters involved. Exploring both the surface story and the deeper implications it has as it relates to our own lives, we can hopefully derive some deeper meaning which God working through the author intends. On the surface, we see a story of rivalry that is typical even in modern times, yet we can also look to some valuable truths that are revealed about how God sees our personal motives and actions through the characters of Jacob and Esau. Gaining an understanding of the characters, their motives and the overall big picture of God's plan, we can better find some spiritual lessons of our own life. Jacob was the third link in God's plan of the patriarchs. In Gn 25:23, the Lord tells Jacob's mother, Rebekah, that she has twins. The Lord tells her that the younger one will overtake the second. The favoritism of the children shows weakness on the part of the parents that can contribute in a large part to the discord between Jacob and Esau. It is no surprise that when parents are in conflict, the entire peace of the family is in jeopardy. Jacob's name means "Grabber." Possibly this shows how he and Esau were in competition from the start. This seems appropriate for two brothers in a small family and their sibling rivalry is understandable in light of the benefits derived from being born first. Jacob's personality was so different from Esau's that they seem like natural opposites who would likely be in constant competition even if they weren't in the same family. Jacob is a thoughtful homebody who carefully schemes to get what he wants, while his older brother Esau is know to be a practical man of action, a hunter who provided the family with food and thought more of the present than the future. Esau was loved and praised for his ability to bring dinner home often. Maybe he did not think beyond the daily routine and the thanks he received from his father. Because Esau was hungry, he wasn't willing to think about anything else but fulfilling his immediate need, even if it meant changing the events of his future. The here and now was much more important to him. He saw only the small window of the present and lacked the focus and energy to see the big picture. Jacob knew this about his brother and probably looked for the opportunity to catch him at a weak moment. When the time came, Jacob used his brother's weakness for immediate gratification to grab for himself something which would secure his own future. Here we see the significance of his name. Jacob accomplished many great things in his life. He was the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, the third patriarch, hard-working, and died very wealthy. Unfortunately, Jacob relied on his own instincts when trouble came his way, rather than going to God. He also had a large attachment to material possessions as evidenced by the amount of property he owned and gave to his sons. Jacob married Leah and Rachel. Soon after growing up, he went to live with his Uncle Laban. He immediately fell in love with Laban's daughter, Rachel. He worked seven years to have her. The next morning, after the wedding, Jacob awoke to find not Rachel, but her older sister Leah next to him. He was outraged, but Laban consented to let him marry Rachel at the end of the week if he promised to work seven more years. This shows how Jacob lived up to his name, "Grabber." Once he had his mind fixed on something, whether it be his brother's birthright, the love of his life, or most importantly, God, he grabbed hold and would not let go. If only we could have the same zeal he had, maybe then there wouldn't be some many people in the world content with second best. If a kid does not make the basketball team at school, he should not go home discouraged, he should be out practicing every single day so that when the next chance comes around he will not only be on the team, but the best on the team. What have we done today to make ourselves the very best at whatever we do grabbing hold of our future? Esau was the classic dumb jock. He was excellent in hunting and is known for his skill in archery. Unfortunately, he did not necessarily think through every decision. He traded the head of the clan, and twice his brother's share of property for a single meal. The meal wasn't even the hearty stew he expected. It was a piece of bread and a bowl of lentils that gave him about ten minutes pleasure. The most amazing thing that Esau was able to do was to forgive after being angry and holding a grudge. It is fine to be angry. Our Lord Jesus got very angry in the Temple. But, anger does not have to constitute sin. Esau forgave Jacob when he returned from Laban, and even threw his arms around him and kissed him. This is the attitude God wants us to have toward those to whom we have a grudge. Life is too short to have grudges. How many times have we missed out on fantastic friendships because we refused to speak or deal with that person. If we can change, can't others as well? God allows certain things to happen for different reasons, but we still have free will. Our God is so loving that he lets us learn the hard way. We are responsible for the choices we make and we are held accountable for them. The last word on Esau is that we must consider the consequences of our actions before we act on them. The old saying, "look before you leap" is a lesson that Esau just never seemed to quite grasp. The entire birthright story and the lives of Jacob and Esau can hold many life lessons for us. We have learned that deception merits nothing but pain and that decisions should be thought through before acted upon. Our security does not lie in the accumulation of goods. I believe that the Jewish people especially appreciated this story because it showed ordinary people doing extraordinary things with God's assistance. St. Paul refers to this story in Hebrews 12:16 "Watch out that no one becomes involved in sexual sin or becomes careless about God as Esau did: he traded his rights as the oldest son for a single meal. And afterwards, when he wanted those rights back again, it was too late, even though he wept bitter tears of repentance. So remember, and be careful." "Lord God, your chosen people have left us some important life lessons. These lessons do not have to be learned the hard way, because we have the examples of those who have gone before us. Let us learn from their experience and use it to make a difference in our own lives. We ask this in Jesus' name, Amen." f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Religious Meaning of the Birthright Story.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religious Meaning of the Birthright Story Genesis Ch 25:27-34 As the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man who lived in the open; whereas Jacob was a simple man, who kept to his tents. Isaac preferred Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah preferred Jacob. Once, when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the open, famished. He said to Jacob, "Let me gulp down some of that red stuff; I'm starving." (That is why he was called Edom.) But Jacob replied, "First give me your birthright in exchange for it." "Look," Esau said, "I'm on the point of dying, what good will any birthright do me?" But Jacob insisted, "Swear to me first!" So he sold Jacob his birthright under oath. Jacob then gave him some bread and the lentil stew; and Esau cared little for his birthright. This Old Testament story holds significant meaning for all of us. There is the obvious conflict within the family of two brothers who are very different personality types, parents who show partiality toward each of their favorite sons and the way that God allows events to happen as He relates to each of the characters involved. Exploring both the surface story and the deeper implications it has as it relates to our own lives, we can hopefully derive some deeper meaning which God working through the author intends. On the surface, we see a story of rivalry that is typical even in modern times, yet we can also look to some valuable truths that are revealed about how God sees our personal motives and actions through the characters of Jacob and Esau. Gaining an understanding of the characters, their motives and the overall big picture of God's plan, we can better find some spiritual lessons of our own life. Jacob was the third link in God's plan of the patriarchs. In Gn 25:23, the Lord tells Jacob's mother, Rebekah, that she has twins. The Lord tells her that the younger one will overtake the second. The favoritism of the children shows weakness on the part of the parents that can contribute in a large part to the discord between Jacob and Esau. It is no surprise that when parents are in conflict, the entire peace of the family is in jeopardy. Jacob's name means "Grabber." Possibly this shows how he and Esau were in competition from the start. This seems appropriate for two brothers in a small family and their sibling rivalry is understandable in light of the benefits derived from being born first. Jacob's personality was so different from Esau's that they seem like natural opposites who would likely be in constant competition even if they weren't in the same family. Jacob is a thoughtful homebody who carefully schemes to get what he wants, while his older brother Esau is know to be a practical man of action, a hunter who provided the family with food and thought more of the present than the future. Esau was loved and praised for his ability to bring dinner home often. Maybe he did not think beyond the daily routine and the thanks he received from his father. Because Esau was hungry, he wasn't willing to think about anything else but fulfilling his immediate need, even if it meant changing the events of his future. The here and now was much more important to him. He saw only the small window of the present and lacked the focus and energy to see the big picture. Jacob knew this about his brother and probably looked for the opportunity to catch him at a weak moment. When the time came, Jacob used his brother's weakness for immediate gratification to grab for himself something which would secure his own future. Here we see the significance of his name. Jacob accomplished many great things in his life. He was the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, the third patriarch, hard-working, and died very wealthy. Unfortunately, Jacob relied on his own instincts when trouble came his way, rather than going to God. He also had a large attachment to material possessions as evidenced by the amount of property he owned and gave to his sons. Jacob married Leah and Rachel. Soon after growing up, he went to live with his Uncle Laban. He immediately fell in love with Laban's daughter, Rachel. He worked seven years to have her. The next morning, after the wedding, Jacob awoke to find not Rachel, but her older sister Leah next to him. He was outraged, but Laban consented to let him marry Rachel at the end of the week if he promised to work seven more years. This shows how Jacob lived up to his name, "Grabber." Once he had his mind fixed on something, whether it be his brother's birthright, the love of his life, or most importantly, God, he grabbed hold and would not let go. If only we could have the same zeal he had, maybe then there wouldn't be some many people in the world content with second best. If a kid does not make the basketball team at school, he should not go home discouraged, he should be out practicing every single day so that when the next chance comes around he will not only be on the team, but the best on the team. What have we done today to make ourselves the very best at whatever we do grabbing hold of our future? Esau was the classic dumb jock. He was excellent in hunting and is known for his skill in archery. Unfortunately, he did not necessarily think through every decision. He traded the head of the clan, and twice his brother's share of property for a single meal. The meal wasn't even the hearty stew he expected. It was a piece of bread and a bowl of lentils that gave him about ten minutes pleasure. The most amazing thing that Esau was able to do was to forgive after being angry and holding a grudge. It is fine to be angry. Our Lord Jesus got very angry in the Temple. But, anger does not have to constitute sin. Esau forgave Jacob when he returned from Laban, and even threw his arms around him and kissed him. This is the attitude God wants us to have toward those to whom we have a grudge. Life is too short to have grudges. How many times have we missed out on fantastic friendships because we refused to speak or deal with that person. If we can change, can't others as well? God allows certain things to happen for different reasons, but we still have free will. Our God is so loving that he lets us learn the hard way. We are responsible for the choices we make and we are held accountable for them. The last word on Esau is that we must consider the consequences of our actions before we act on them. The old saying, "look before you leap" is a lesson that Esau just never seemed to quite grasp. The entire birthright story and the lives of Jacob and Esau can hold many life lessons for us. We have learned that deception merits nothing but pain and that decisions should be thought through before acted upon. Our security does not lie in the accumulation of goods. I believe that the Jewish people especially appreciated this story because it showed ordinary people doing extraordinary things with God's assistance. St. Paul refers to this story in Hebrews 12:16 "Watch out that no one becomes involved in sexual sin or becomes careless about God as Esau did: he traded his rights as the oldest son for a single meal. And afterwards, when he wanted those rights back again, it was too late, even though he wept bitter tears of repentance. So remember, and be careful." "Lord God, your chosen people have left us some important life lessons. These lessons do not have to be learned the hard way, because we have the examples of those who have gone before us. Let us learn from their experience and use it to make a difference in our own lives. We ask this in Jesus' name, Amen." f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Responsibility of sharing Godgiven light.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Responsibility of sharing God-given light Romans 3:1-24: Responsibility of sharing God-given light. The law requires perfect righteousness. All people on the same level Righteousness in man. Having knowledge without knowing God is not worth while . Paul states that setting aside one's Body is of no use: chapter 3:1-4. Paul asks what kind of advantage do the Jews have. God gave them many promises of responsibilities. The prophet Abraham was called for the special task of doing God's work. His children and their children found special with God because God loved Abraham. To these people God showed special blessings. God has given these people gifts and talents so they in turn can influence other people to turn to God. However because they were so pompous and disobedient they did not do God's work. God however was very patient with them for many generations. During the years of captivity , God revealed to Daniel that he would wait another 490 years for his chosen people to start. Obeying him even in our lives today we can see that God has given us his words to spread to other people, but we are still refusing to do so. If we continue to disobey God, he will eventually choose someone else to do his work. The Bible says that if God does not find any human beings to do his work, he will stones to preach his word. 9-18, says all people are in sin. There are no two ways to salvation. Even though people do not know the way to true peace, God's peace is still with us. 19-Within the law, all people become guilty and no one is less guilty than another person. 20-God wrote the law; this law can not justify people who are willingly breaking the law. The law would require that everyone be perfect, just as Jesus was perfect. Sometimes people think that if Christ could erase our past then we would be as perfect as he is. But no one on this earth could ever be as perfect as Christ was. Romans 12: 2-3, says that any thing that is not of faith is sin. Paul was a very good man, yet he counted everything he has as nothing in order that he might live for Jesus Christ. 21- In the judgement day, the law will determine what grace the sinner will receive without living by the law. However, people will have to go to Jesus Christ who is the head in order to find grace. 22- All men are on an equal level. We need to thank God he is so willing to save each person just like another person. The way of salvation is giving and receiving. . Giving on God's part and receiving on man's part. Because we are so proud, we resent the fact that we have to depend on Go, but we have no choice. The only thing we can do is to go to Christ, or which we have to pay no money. The prophet rejoiced in the Lord because God has given him salvation and righteousness as if he was cloth in them. We can not do this for ourselves, we need to trust God to do this for us. Sometimes we hear people talk as if the owe their righteousness to themselves, but it is because of these very thoughts that we will all need to call upon God for grace and forgiveness. Verse 24, says that all people have sinned and come short of God's glory. All men stand on the same level and God often gives mercy to anyone who will come and partake of God's mercy and grace is welcome to do so. In doing so we are justified in Christ. Barrett,The Epistle Of Paul to the Romans Page 131. We have found the round of the christian's freedom from sin in the sense that we are no longer under the control of the law. Paul had already proven that because of the law that all people struggling, and especially their struggling for life and god, into sin. If then the law makes up for grace, sin will inevitably be eliminated. This is Paul's argument; but it could turned into the rhetorical of the diatribe, continues to meet the possible purpose. We have come to find out that it is the law that helps motivate us to do what is right and if we do away with it and we do away with morality. The more sin abounds, the more grace abounds; life under grace attracts the multiplication of sin. Should we sin then because we are not under the control of the law, but the control of grace? let's not misinterprete our christian freedom. It is not a fact that christian, free though they are from the law as a means of being saved. 1Cor.9v21 "Do you not know that when you offer yourself to someone as slave, to obey him then you are slave of him whom you obey? This is a general principle from which no men can exempt. Behind it possibly lists the doctrine whereby all men are subject to be taken into slavery in order to assure a pace in heaven. Paul introduced this additional matter because it is vital to show that obedience has quality for grace and faith. In saying this, we, christians have already indulged to the method of Paul's general principle. Whether we be sinners,the slavery to us will end in death, or obedience, slavery to us will end in righteousness. Paul believes that all people will be slaves, and obedient, to a kind master or a bad one. Freedom will not be possible. However, there is no question which side the readers of the epistle have taken. "Thank be to God: you were indeed slaves of sin (John 8.34; Romans 3.19) but from the heart you gave your obedience to that christian doctrine to which as slave you were handed over. As Christians, we are not from the (Ribose) masters of tradition; we are made by the word of God, and remained committed to it. In reality, being a christian helps set us free from slavery. "We were liberated from sin, we were made slaves to righteousness. Righteousness is very vital to the christian. The only righteousness Jesus has given up is his own, and that in order he may be in commitment to God's righteousness, purity that is greater than human righteousness. 19. As it is stated in Paul's apologetic parenthesis. I am given all this in a human illustration (3.5; 1 Cor.9.8;Gal.3.15) because your understanding is only human. Paul's usage of term flesh relates to our human nature, which can not understand deep truth unless it is in the form of human comparison. We as the members of the church are again the power. I we are in service to be wicked or unjust, the consequence will make us wicked and unjust. If we are in service to (God's) righteousness, the consequence will make us holy; observed as sacred. The problem with iniquity implies the ability to choose from right and wrong. 1Thess. 4.3-7. Submission to the righteousness of God is not itself an issue of ethics, but rather an ethical purity. As christians, it is impossible to settle between sin and righteousness. A man can not serve two masters. "But now you have been freed from sin and have become slave to God. Accordingly your fruit proves to be sanctified (v.19), and ultimate result will be eternal life. If we remain faithful and obedient to God's promises and commandments, we will be sanctified for the eternal life with him on heaven. Bible Studies On The Book Of Romans, Chap.4 Beginning with the 19th verse. "Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the people may become guilty before God." The first part of the lesson, focused on the truth that God makes no distinction of people. Labors alone are taken into consideration in the judgement while it is still a fact to recognize a tree by its fruits, it is also a fact that we are not to judge other people. God alone is judge. He looks upon our sincerity, the good will of our hearts while people can judge only from what we have even though it may not be honest; for that while the works of people look kind of good to their friends, to God who sees what man can not see, they are known to be spoiled. Again: the righteous will survive by faith. How much of our lives should be perfect? Every bit of it; for the righteous will survive by faith. Nothing that we can do can be right by the law only. By hope alone can a man or any act of his be perfect . The law judges a person by his work, and the law is so inconceivably great that no people act can rise to its majesty. There must otherwise be a mediator through whom justification will come. A heart unrenowned is desperately tempted. Only evil can come from a wicked heart. To bring good things, there must be a good heart, and only a kind person can have a gook heart. However, like all people sinned, as a result of their sins all the good things of humanity are worthless. The law itself is the quality of good perfect righteousness, but Christ is the truth, the path and the life. And the grace is to give the present of God's righteousness through faith. "For all sinned and come short of the glory of God." It is comprehensible that no act of ours can be justified for the bad of our past. But it is a fact that we can not be justified in any present act any more than we can make the past perfect to make perfect the imperfect things or acts of the past. In conclusion, then what can we say of all the things we have learned? If God is for us, who is not for us. The question is not whether we choose to be with God, but whether he chooses to be with us. If he is, we may subject to all kinds of pains and sufferings; but none can ever threatened our salvation. Because of Jesus Christ, we have been proven that God is for us, and it is to him that we need to hold tight when the time comes to part, as a security that God will give us the strength. October 1st, 1998 Word Count: 1769 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Return of the Jedi.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cale Scheinbaum Jim Monsonis Society and Religion 19 November 1996 The Return of the Jedi So far this semester, we have studied several different sociological theories of religion. These theories are built on both the known history of religions in the world and the cultures in which they originated, as well as, appropriately enough, theoretical suggestions of how those religions, and indeed any religion at all, will survive in the future. The theory I find the most true is Stark and Bainbridge's in The Future of Religion, although I like some elements from others, like Berger's concepts of reification and secularization. George Lucas's Star Wars trilogy, apart from being incredibly entertaining and extremely well-made, gives us a complete portrait of a society (The Empire) and a religion (Jediism, for lack of a better term). Although the movies are mostly devoted to the growth of the characters, throughout the trilogy we see the society change in a drastic manner. This paper will examine the history of Jediism, the current (as of the end of the last movie) status of the religion, and offer some suggestions as to what we can expect from Jediism in the future. I. The Religion To examine the future of religion as it relates to society, one must first have an idea of the tenets and beliefs on which the religion is based. Jediism is based solely on belief in the "force", a "Universal energy field that surrounds us and permeates us". (O. Kenobi, SW) Stark and Bainbridge make the point that any religion based on magic or magic-like rituals is fated to die out unless the magic can work constantly and consistently. This, they argue, is why many religions change from promising magic, which is quite verifiable (Did he, in fact, levitate?) to promising compensators, a sort of unverifiable magic. A good example of this is the Christian Heaven. Stark and Bainbridge take it as a given, however, that magic, or abilities that parallel magic, do not, in fact, exist. This makes an attempt to theorize about the future of Jediism more difficult, since the religion is based, in part, on the belief that oneness with the "force" has the ability to confer extraordinary powers to individuals-- a belief than is vindicated numerous times throughout the series. The internal organization of the religion is, apparently, entirely nonexistant. There is no leader, nor is there any defined structure. Much like classical Taoism, various masters exist, and students and supplicants must seek out a master on their own in order to learn. There is no hierarchy to advance in, other than the ability to eventually hone one's faith to a degree that one can take on one's own students. The test of this is whether the student becomes attached to the "dark side" of the "force", as did Obi-Wan Kenobi's first pupil, Anakin Skywalker, later known as Darth Vader. The beliefs of Jediism, again, can be compared to classical Taoism. The "true" Jedi believes in calm, and strives to maintain calm at all times. He can experience emotions, but he does not let his emotions control him. He is at one with his environment at all times. He is fully aware of the existance of all those around him, and holds free will as one of his highest ideals. He is not violent, but, if necessary, can fight extremely well and end conflicts rather quickly. His ultimate goal is universal peace. Jediism is unique, however, in that along with it developed a mirror religion, one that I will call, for lack of a better term, Dark Jediism. The tenets of Dark Jediism are all based on personal desires. To the Dark Jedi, other people are nothing but pawns with which to attain more personal power or resources. Peace is the defense of weaklings who don't know how to fulfill their desires. The ultimate goal of the Dark Jedi is to have complete and total control over the universe. This state, with the two sides of the "force" existant and constantly at war, might be compared to a somewhat reified form of Zoroastrianism, in which the two universal natures (Good and Evil) not only existed, but were constantly being supported and battled over by their adherents. II. The Society According to the many of the theories which we have read this semester, a religion's success is directly related to whether or not it is at odds with the society in which it exists. If this is the case, Jediism is heading toward a major revival. In order to fully comprehend the future of Jediism, we must look at the society in which it exists-- the Galactic Empire. Before the Emperor took power, the galactic government was one of peaceful coexistence. All planets gave each of the other planets the right to live as they pleased. The galaxy was governed by a representative from each planet that met together and formed a legislative and executive body. This was the Old Republic, and it was very sympathetic to Jediism. Obi-Wan Kenobi tells us that during the Old Republic, there were many Jedi Masters, and they travelled the galaxy righting wrongs and spreading Jediism. It began to decay, however, when one of the senators, Palpatine, covertly converted to Dark Jediism and began using his powers and his influence to slowly take over more and more of the system, until he had amassed enough power to dissolve the Republic and declare himself Emperor, in a situation similiar to that of Julius Caesar. As Emperor, Palpatine began a totalitarian regime, enslaving non-humans, and persecuting and then assassinating all of the Jedi Masters he could find. He did this with the help of Darth Vader, one of Obi-Wan Kenobi's pupils who turned to the Dark Side of the force. Palpatine also trained several of his subordinates in Dark Jediism, in order to enforce his political agenda in the same way that the Jedi Masters had enforced that of the Old Republic. The society as it stands at the start of the movies is a classic totalitarian regime with a large black market, an underground rebellion movement, powerful crime lords, and spies for all sides everywhere. III. The Present As it stands at the end of the movies, the Emperor has been killed, Darth Vader has rejoined the Jedi Masters, Leia is organizing the New Republic, and Luke goes out into the galaxy to spread Jediism. What can we expect from the future? First of all, Jediism is a religion that does not do a lot of legislating of moralities. Apart from basic liberties (Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) Jediism mostly stays out of people's private lives. As the New Republic grows, though, Jediism will start assuming a more secular role, perhaps eventually slipping into an almost judicial branch of the galactic government. When this happens, other small sects will start to spring up. (In the Star Wars novels, one or two sects of Jediism are "discovered".) Perhaps a cult of Dark Jediism will begin in the same manner as Jediism did during the time of the Empire. The one opposing force to the secularization of Jediism will be, I predict, the Jedi Masters themselves. The drive to secularize will come mostly from the government, which will be in awe of the magic-like abilities of the Jedi Masters. The Masters, however, will realize that any form of secularization precludes understanding of the force, and will resist this. In the end, some of the younger Jedi will go into direct serrvice for the government. When this happens, they will begin to lean toward the dark side of the force, since any government is necessarily a compromise between limiting the personal freedoms that Jediism demands and removing personal freedoms in order to create order and to continue to reify the current regime. This being the case, the Masters will most probably go into temporary exile, allowing the young Jedi to rise in the government and social order, taking more and more power for themselves. In this light, the beginning of the movies seems perfectly fitting. This exact same process that I just described would have occured about 20 years ago, leaving the government ripe for takeover by Emperor Palpatine. In the end, I predict that Jediism will follow Stark and Bainbridge's model, first rising, then secularizing, then falling, then being rediscovered, then rising again. Dark Jediism, the counterpart, will also continue in the same cycle, though on a lesser scale, since it does not recruit anywhere near as effectively or as zealously as regular Jediism does. Though the Star Wars series is a filmmaking accomplishment of extraordinary magnitude, it also deserves much credit, I think, as a sociologically correct study of the interaction of a society and a religion on a galactic level. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Rigious Freedom Restoration Act.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rigious Freedom Restoration Act In this paper I will describe the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This Act was used to contradict the decision of the court case of Employment Division v. Smith, which allowed the government to forbid any religious act without giving a reason. The RFRA brought back the requirement that the government provide an adequate reason to forbid any religious act. The government once again had to show that the act was of compelling interest against the state. In 1993 one of the most important acts that has gone thorough Congress was passed (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). This was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). This act was passed to answer the 1990 court case Employment Division v. Smith (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Employment Division v. Smith was a court case in which the issue was whether "Sacramental use of peyote by members of the Native American Church was protected under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which provides that 'Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion'."(Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). According to Justice Scalia, "if prohibiting the exercise of religion was merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment was not offended." (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Thus, "...the government no longer had to justify most burdens on religious exercise. The free exercise clause offered protection only if a particular religious practice was singled out for discriminatory treatment. In short, free exercise was a sub category of equal protection. This placed religious rights in an inferior position to other First Amendment rights such as freedom of speech and press." (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). This court case caused a series of court cases about religious freedoms (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). Congress enacted the RFRA to contradict the negative affect that court cases had recently had on religious freedoms(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). The RFRA is what it states it is in the title, a restoration act(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). Congress decided that in Employment Division v. Smith, "the supreme court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion and the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA) In other words, the government did not have to have a reason to impose laws against a religious act. Thus the purpose of this act was "to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened."(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA) The other purpose of this act was to "Provide a claim of defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by the government." (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA) "The government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden is a result of a general or neutral law."(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA)The only exception to this rule is, "if the government can demonstrate the following three things , that there is a compelling state interest, that a particular law, rule, decision or action actually furthers that compelling state interest, if there is a compelling state interest and this action furthers it, then the government must use the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Notice that the burden is on the government; the government cannot simply state that it has a compelling interest but it must also demonstrate each of the three requirements above. This section also states that this Act provides a cause of action or a defense for any person whose religious exercise has been burdened, and provides for legal fees. It is important to note that the term, "person," can refer to corporate bodies as well -- such as church or religious organizations."(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA) Section five of the RFRA included an important definition. This section defined "government" to include any "federal, state or local branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official or other person acting under color of law."(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA) So now any part of the government had to provide the three requirements that are defined above to issue laws against a religious practice. No longer could the government just do what they wanted to do, they had to prove that the religious act is a compelling state interest. The RFRA was supported by many people. RFRA is enthusiastically supported by more than fifty religious and civil liberties groups in the political and theological fields. Never has a broader coalition been assembled to support Congressional legislation. This was no ordinary coalition. It included the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Association of Evangelicals; People for the American Way, and Concerned Women for America; the American Muslim Council, and the American Jewish Congress; the Traditional Values Coalition, and B'nai Brith of the Anti-Defamation League. In the opinion of the Reverend Oliver Thomas, Chairman of Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, and former General Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, this was the most diverse coalition of religious and civil liberties. All of these organizations have been willing to lay aside their deep ideological differences in order to unite behind a principle -- religious liberty for all Americans.(Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA) The lead Senate sponsors were Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch. (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA) Among the House sponsors were Newt Gingrich and Barny Frank. (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA) This act was enacted for one main reason. The religious freedom of the country was being threatened by the Employment Division v. Smith case because this case took away the qualification that you prove that the law against the religious act be of compelling interest to the state. The RFRA was issued to reinstate the qualifications for laws against religious freedoms. The change this Act has brought is already significant. During the three years prior to RFRA -- between the time that the Smith decision was handed down (1990) and RFRA was enacted (1993) -- there have been approximately 60 cases which have relied on the Smith decision. All of them were decided against the free exercise or First amendment claims. From the time RFRA was enacted in late 1993 until May 1995, there have been over 87 court cases that have made reference to it. Although some courts have found a sufficient compelling governmental interest to warrant restriction of religious freedom, many courts have supported the free exercise rights -- some courts have found that the governmental interest was insufficient to warrant the burden on religion; others found that the government had not used the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA) "The Religious Freedoms Restoration Act is the most significant legislation effecting religion in the history of the republic because it provides strong protection for religious liberty for all Americans, conservatives and liberals alike."(Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA) This Act also effects many people. The first way it can effect a person is as a citizen. Simply put, you should know your rights whether you practice a religion or not. "Apathy or indifference to the freedoms we have will always lead to erosion of those freedoms".(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) Our rights don't come free, they require constant vigilance. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights begins by listing freedom of religion before speech and press. We should all carefully consider if the emphasis our founding fathers put on the free exercise of religion is outdated or just as needed today.(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) The second way that the act can effect a person is as a legislator. Lawmakers have a special privilege and responsibility to be aware and sensitive to the religious practices of others and the impact legislative language can have on such practices. This especially applies to minority religions, whose religious rights are so often ignored in the introduction of bills. Understanding is the key to drafting good language. "Taking the time to understand the needs of others in the religious community will not only protect a particular religious practice, it really benefits us all."(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) The third type of person effected is the churchgoer. If those who practice religion don't defend their freedom, who will? "The diversity of the 68 plus organization that supported RFRA through Congress should encourage all churchgoers to be active in their support and knowledge of this law."(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act wasn't just thought up and enacted by lawyers and politicians. It is a fine example of lawmaking in the best sense of the word. Many of those who worked long hours on RFRA's passage into law were motivated by their devotion to their church and considered this act vital to their own religious freedom as well as of those around them. It was for most an unselfish labor of love.(What Does It Mean To Me?, Map of the RFRA) The fourth type of people the RFRA has an impact on is Doctors and Nurses. Most physicians, nurses, health care providers and hospital administrators today are aware of advance directives, refusal of blood transfusions, diet restrictions, and the refusal of medical treatment in general. Often religious practices underlie these individual decisions and approaches to health care. Whenever a religious practice conflicts with the convictions of those involved in the health care profession, RFRA should be consulted, respected and understood to help accurately weigh the rights of each individual. The last person that the act effects is the Attorneys and Judges. Ignorance of the law by those who practice law or make legal decisions can be devastating to a sense of justice and individual rights. RFRA's wording in law is specific and exact and intended to raise a clear and high standard for the freedom of religious practice. It deserves careful thought as to its meaning and application. The Religious Freedom Restoration act is a document that has helped to undo the damage that the Employment Division v. Smith did to our freedoms as a country. In less than four years over 60 court cases were used against the people because of the decision of the courts in the Employment Division v. Smith case, but sense the RFRA was put into action over 80 cases have come up regarding it, and most of these cases have been ruled in favor of the people. This act just brought back some of the freedoms that our fore fathers guaranteed us, by reinstating the right to have a reason to take away our religious freedoms. Now the government needs to find a reasonable reason of importance to the state to stop any religious practice. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults A. What is it? R.C.I.A - This is the norm of Christian Initiation in the church. B. Why was it re-introduced? It was reintroduced to revive the rich ancient liturgical heritage of the church. c. How does it differ from infant Baptism? Infant Baptism can be done anything during the year while adult initiation is done at Earth. The elect are baptised, confirmed & celebrate their first communication. The rite of baptism includes a special litany, the blessing of water, baptism, a white garment, and the presentation of a candle lit from the Pascal candle. d. Why is it usually celebrated at Easter? It is usually celebrated at Easter because the phase of the process of initiation concludes at the Easter Vigil liturgy. e. Why are the rituals in this form of the Sacrament? These rites all point to the early church's practice. This is a joyous ritual in the church's life for both the new Christians and the entire community. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults R.C.I.A. A. What is it? R.C.I.A - This is the norm of Christian Initiation in the church. B. Why was it re-introduced? It was reintroduced to revive the rich ancient liturgical heritage of the church. c. How does it differ from infant Baptism? Infant Baptism can be done anything during the year while adult initiation is done at Earth. The elect are baptised, confirmed & celebrate their first communication. The rite of baptism includes a special litany, the blessing of water, baptism, a white garment, and the presentation of a candle lit from the Pascal candle. d. Why is it usually celebrated at Easter? It is usually celebrated at Easter because the phase of the process of initiation concludes at the Easter Vigil liturgy. e. Why are the rituals in this form of the Sacrament? These rites all point to the early church's practice. This is a joyous ritual in the church's life for both the new Christians and the entire community. This is the best essay. A f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Rites of Passage 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rites of Passage When an individual experiences movement, or a change from an affixed position in society to another position, that individual can easily describe their change as a passage into a new realm of living. A new realm of living is the way in which the individual and society views, acknowledges, and proceeds with their life. Their changes are monumental not only for the individual, but for his/her society as well. Many changes take place during the span of a persons life. They become rites of passage and rituals of initiation-which are more than just simple changes. A plethora of come with these rites and are found in all corners of the globe. Going on vision quests, by the plains Indians of North America, to circumcision by certain Australian cultures, rites of passage present a vast table of religious comparisons(Eliade, p. 287-88). This essay will examine two rites of initiation, by comparing and contrasting their importance to each culture, and discussing how that importance affects that particular individual as well as their society. Finally, the essay will explore possible reasons as to why these initiation rites hold a deep meaning in their respective societies. The Kurnai of Australia have an initiation rite for the sons of married men in their perspective villages. Within a section by A. W. Howitt, in Eliade's book, From Primitives to Zen: A thematic Sourcebook of the History of Religions , a ceremony known as the "Showing the Grandfather" is described(Eliade, p. 288) In this initiation the Kurnai have a formal way of bringing a man's son into the highest, and most secret realm of their religion. By incorporating the use of the father and son relationship, this particular ritual involves the revelation of the central meaning, or "mystery" of their religion. The men and women are separated. Secrecy is one the most important traditions in this initiation. The initiation is not revealed to the women, or anyone else not of their society. The sons, or "novices" as Howitt calls them, are taught the proper religious traditions that they need to know for the ceremony, and for the rest of their lives, as this initiation will conclude their step into religious righteousness, and manhood. This all takes place the day before the ceremony, while other men, who have already been through the ceremony, prepare by hunting for food and arranging a site, not too far from the village, where the initiation will take place. The next morning, a new day at hand, the novices are taken to the site at which time the ceremony commences. Howitt continues in writing of his recollection of the ritual by inferring that after many ritual movements (gestures of offering towards their god, etc.) and instrumental songs such as the "Tundun", "the Kurnai have two bull-roarers, a larger one called Tundun, or Ô the man', and a smaller one called ÔRukat-Tundun,' the woman, or wife of Tundun." . After this the novices' are instructed of the importance of the secrecy factor, and the laws by which they can be punished if they reveal anything to their mothers, sisters, or anyone other than the men of that society. Howitt even points out horror stories that are told to the novices about the punishment of man, a burning world, because he revealed the ceremony to women back in the village after being initiated. He writes that these stories exist in the Kurnai to scare the novices into not telling anyone the ritual. The ceremony even used to have a part where the men took spears, cocked them back over their shoulders, and pointed them at the Novices. Such a hostile act was used to instill the feeling they would have if they ever revealed the secrets of the initiation, not to mention a cold rush of intense fear. From there the ritual is ended and the novices play the Tundun. Unlike the secret nature of the Kurnai ceremony the Shashoni's of Central-Western Wyoming offer a more open and artistic ceremony for their initiations. During puberty, the boys, by their own motives, participate in the traditional "Sun Dance", as pointed out in a section by Ake Hultkrantz in Byron Earhart's book Religious Traditions of the World, the boys...participate in the Sun Dance, usually on their own initiative. However their motives today are mainly social: to show other youths their strength and endurance and of course to impress the girls. In a way their present participation in the Sun Dance takes place of the vision quest as a mark of the attainment of adulthood(Earhart, p. 306). The girls also have rites of initiation. One that is much more involved and detailed, and has many more "taboos" associated with them. For example, if a girl is in her menstrual cycle, she is considered to have evil spirits around her, and she must be separated from the rest of the tribe so as to not have the spirits cause trouble for others(Earhart, p. 307) The age at which girls begin to menstruate is the first sign that initiation must take place. "She abstains from eating meat but may eat roots and drink water. After a few days or maybe a week, the girl appears again, shrouded in new cloths and painted"(Earhart, p.307). The Shashoni boys (out of choice) learn the positives of boasting. Although they don't necessarily depend on the Sun Dance as the deciding factor for passing into manhood, it gives them a chance to be in a position of authority, or power which often is needed in adulthood. The more enduring, and well-executed dance, the more attractive they look. It could lead to higher respect, or, in the near future, a good wife It benefits not only the individual boy however, but the entire pack of boys dancing as well. It makes them a strong force of men, not boys who hold no authority. The competition makes the ceremony that much more important. But that is not where it stops; the ritual benefits the rest of the tribe as well. The boys move from childhood to manhood, and in doing so take on the positions, and responsibilities of the elderly, which might not be able to take on those responsibilities in the near future. The Kurnai see their ritual as something that should not be passed onto anyone other than the men of that particular clan, or tribe. Such secrecy adds a rather interesting dimension to the rite. It obviously governs much of the behavior of the men, in that they learn the meaning of sacredness. Without it they could not affix any importance to the changes necessary for moving into manhood. The religious nature of manhood would be lost. As for the rest of the tribe, the women, and young girls, considerable changes take place in their view of the men. There is a new group of men, with the knowledge of their sacred ritual, and they are ready to carry on the tradition. The women can confide in the new initiates that there are men and not boys being the fathers of the future initiates. Overall, both initiation rites become a cycle of incorporation into adult life. The importance of examining these two rites leads us to a better understanding of them. The ceremonies act as a turning point in the lives of the initiates, and the rest of the people in each society. The cycle gives the Kurnai a reason to allow the fresh initiates to initiate others in the future. It gives the sense of how sacred manhood is. The Sun Dance allows the young boys a chance to see how to take on the responsibilities of adulthood. It too, like the Kurnai's initiation, gives the boys a sense of how sacred, or important adulthood is. Moreover, it gives both societies a reason to move into adulthood. Both ceremonies have their perspective level of importance, but more importantly they both work well in giving meaning to each societies incorporation rites. In conclusion, A.W. Howitt points out in sections of Eliade's, Primitives to Zen, that initiations represent the discovery of the sacred(Eliade, p.287). This might mean that sacred initiations embody what a specific society comprehends as the proper way to practice religion or possibly the proper way to live. Such statements could easily tie into what modern society might see as sacred. We don't question the small things we do when we change, whether we enter a new business, or graduate from college, or maybe convert from one religion to another, we just do it. Those small things are what come with taking on that responsibility, or that move from one position to another. The ceremony of the Kurnai and Shashoni give them the right to enter into a new realm living. Such ceremonies are what drive the Kurnai and the Shashoni to believe that they are entering adulthood the correct way. Their rituals are what they know as the correct way of moving into that next stage. If there were no ceremonies to address the movement from one realm to the next, then there might not be an affixed hype surrounding the passage from childhood to adulthood. It would occur naturally and that would be that. Initiations are what societies accept, and understand as what will carry them into their culture, their understanding of religion, and into their lives. Works Cited 1. Earhart, H. Byron, ed., Religious Traditions of the World: A Journey through Africa, North America, Mesoamerica, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, China, and Japan. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993., xx 306-316 2. Extracts from Eliade, ed., From Primitives to Zen: A thematic Sourcebook of the History of Religions. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1967.), xx 142-45 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Rites of Passage.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rites of Passage When an individual experiences movement, or a change from an affixed position in society to another position, that individual can easily describe their change as a passage into a new realm of living. A new realm of living is the way in which the individual and society views, acknowledges, and proceeds with their life. Their changes are monumental not only for the individual, but for his/her society as well. Many changes take place during the span of a persons life. They become rites of passage and rituals of initiation-which are more than just simple changes. A plethora of come with these rites and are found in all corners of the globe. Going on vision quests, by the plains Indians of North America, to circumcision by certain Australian cultures, rites of passage present a vast table of religious comparisons(Eliade, p. 287-88). This essay will examine two rites of initiation, by comparing and contrasting their importance to each culture, and discussing how that importance affects that particular individual as well as their society. Finally, the essay will explore possible reasons as to why these initiation rites hold a deep meaning in their respective societies. The Kurnai of Australia have an initiation rite for the sons of married men in their perspective villages. Within a section by A. W. Howitt, in Eliade?s book, From Primitives to Zen: A thematic Sourcebook of the History of Religions , a ceremony known as the ?Showing the GrandfatherÓ is described(Eliade, p. 288) In this initiation the Kurnai have a formal way of bringing a man?s son into the highest, and most secret realm of their religion. By incorporating the use of the father and son relationship, this particular ritual involves the revelation of the central meaning, or ?mysteryÓ of their religion. The men and women are separated. Secrecy is one the most important traditions in this initiation. The initiation is not revealed to the women, or anyone else not of their society. The sons, or ?novicesÓ as Howitt calls them, are taught the proper religious traditions that they need to know for the ceremony, and for the rest of their lives, as this initiation will conclude their step into religious righteousness, and manhood. This all takes place the day before the ceremony, while other men, who have already been through the ceremony, prepare by hunting for food and arranging a site, not too far from the village, where the initiation will take place. The next morning, a new day at hand, the novices are taken to the site at which time the ceremony commences. Howitt continues in writing of his recollection of the ritual by inferring that after many ritual movements (gestures of offering towards their god, etc.) and instrumental songs such as the ?TundunÓ, ?the Kurnai have two bull-roarers, a larger one called Tundun, or Ôthe man?, and a smaller one called ÔRukat-Tundun,? the woman, or wife of Tundun.Ó. After this the novices? are instructed of the importance of the secrecy factor, and the laws by which they can be punished if they reveal anything to their mothers, sisters, or anyone other than the men of that society. Howitt even points out horror stories that are told to the novices about the punishment of man, a burning world, because he revealed the ceremony to women back in the village after being initiated. He writes that these stories exist in the Kurnai to scare the novices into not telling anyone the ritual. The ceremony even used to have a part where the men took spears, cocked them back over their shoulders, and pointed them at the Novices. Such a hostile act was used to instill the feeling they would have if they ever revealed the secrets of the initiation, not to mention a cold rush of intense fear. From there the ritual is ended and the novices play the Tundun. Unlike the secret nature of the Kurnai ceremony the Shashoni?s of Central-Western Wyoming offer a more open and artistic ceremony for their initiations. During puberty, the boys, by their own motives, participate in the traditional ?Sun DanceÓ, as pointed out in a section by Ake Hultkrantz in Byron Earhart?s book Religious Traditions of the World, the boys...participate in the Sun Dance, usually on their own initiative. However their motives today are mainly social: to show other youths their strength and endurance and of course to impress the girls. In a way their present participation in the Sun Dance takes place of the vision quest as a mark of the attainment of adulthood(Earhart, p. 306). The girls also have rites of initiation. One that is much more involved and detailed, and has many more ?taboosÓ associated with them. For example, if a girl is in her menstrual cycle, she is considered to have evil spirits around her, and she must be separated from the rest of the tribe so as to not have the spirits cause trouble for others(Earhart, p. 307) The age at which girls begin to menstruate is the first sign that initiation must take place. ?She abstains from eating meat but may eat roots and drink water. After a few days or maybe a week, the girl appears again, shrouded in new cloths and paintedÓ(Earhart, p.307). The Shashoni boys (out of choice) learn the positives of boasting. Although they don?t necessarily depend on the Sun Dance as the deciding factor for passing into manhood, it gives them a chance to be in a position of authority, or power which often is needed in adulthood. The more enduring, and well-executed dance, the more attractive they look. It could lead to higher respect, or, in the near future, a good wife It benefits not only the individual boy however, but the entire pack of boys dancing as well. It makes them a strong force of men, not boys who hold no authority. The competition makes the ceremony that much more important. But that is not where it stops; the ritual benefits the rest of the tribe as well. The boys move from childhood to manhood, and in doing so take on the positions, and responsibilities of the elderly, which might not be able to take on those responsibilities in the near future. The Kurnai see their ritual as something that should not be passed onto anyone other than the men of that particular clan, or tribe. Such secrecy adds a rather interesting dimension to the rite. It obviously governs much of the behavior of the men, in that they learn the meaning of sacredness. Without it they could not affix any importance to the changes necessary for moving into manhood. The religious nature of manhood would be lost. As for the rest of the tribe, the women, and young girls, considerable changes take place in their view of the men. There is a new group of men, with the knowledge of their sacred ritual, and they are ready to carry on the tradition. The women can confide in the new initiates that there are men and not boys being the fathers of the future initiates. Overall, both initiation rites become a cycle of incorporation into adult life. The importance of examining these two rites leads us to a better understanding of them. The ceremonies act as a turning point in the lives of the initiates, and the rest of the people in each society. The cycle gives the Kurnai a reason to allow the fresh initiates to initiate others in the future. It gives the sense of how sacred manhood is. The Sun Dance allows the young boys a chance to see how to take on the responsibilities of adulthood. It too, like the Kurnai?s initiation, gives the boys a sense of how sacred, or important adulthood is. Moreover, it gives both societies a reason to move into adulthood. Both ceremonies have their perspective level of importance, but more importantly they both work well in giving meaning to each societies incorporation rites. In conclusion, A.W. Howitt points out in sections of Eliade?s, Primitives to Zen, that initiations represent the discovery of the sacred(Eliade, p.287). This might mean that sacred initiations embody what a specific society comprehends as the proper way to practice religion or possibly the proper way to live. Such statements could easily tie into what modern society might see as sacred. We don?t question the small things we do when we change, whether we enter a new business, or graduate from college, or maybe convert from one religion to another, we just do it. Those small things are what come with taking on that responsibility, or that move from one position to another. The ceremony of the Kurnai and Shashoni give them the right to enter into a new realm living. Such ceremonies are what drive the Kurnai and the Shashoni to believe that they are entering adulthood the correct way. Their rituals are what they know as the correct way of moving into that next stage. If there were no ceremonies to address the movement from one realm to the next, then there might not be an affixed hype surrounding the passage from childhood to adulthood. It would occur naturally and that would be that. Initiations are what societies accept, and understand as what will carry them into their culture, their understanding of religion, and into their lives. Works Cited 1. Earhart, H. Byron, ed., Religious Traditions of the World: A Journey through Africa, North America, Mesoamerica, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, China, and Japan. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993., xx 306-316 2. Extracts from Eliade, ed., From Primitives to Zen: A thematic Sourcebook of the History of Religions. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1967.), xx 142-45 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Roe V Wade.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Roe V. Wade January 23, 2000 marked the twenty-seventh anniversary of the Roe v. Wade case. It all started out in a small town in Texas where a woman under the alias Jane Roe filed a case in district court for a woman's right to choose abortion. At this time law in Texas prohibited abortion. Eventually the case moved to Supreme Court. The attorneys for Roe argued that the law was unfair and unjust. They said that the unborn fetus id not a real person. They pointed out that a women should have the right to control their own life and body. They said it was a right of privacy and if women fell that it's the right choice to abort a baby they should be allowed to make it. They also said that women should be able to abort a baby if the birth of the baby would endanger the life of the mother or the baby, they should have a right to abort it. They also argued that women have fundamental right to abortion. The case, which was filed in District Court, was filed against Dallas District attorney Wade. Wade strongly opposed abortion he believed abortion was murder. Wade made the point that Fetus is human being and has right to life under the law. He also argues that the fetus is life upon conception. He said that abortion hurts women not only physically but psychologically. Abortion can result pain, discomfort, and unstable metal conditions. According to the fourteenth amendment a person has an undeniable right to freedom. They stated that the fetus has a right to freedom guaranteed by this amendment. After hearing both sides of this case the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jane Roe. They stated that women have a fundamental right to abortion. They also stated that the fetus wasn't a life until the first trimester of pregnancy. Due to this case and the ruling of it all states have legalized abortion. This case has greatly influenced the world today. The changed of the world due to this case are numerous. You here the mention of abortion daily whether it's in daily conversation, political races, the Catholic Church and many other places. This topic is very much argued. Some people take the side of Jane roe and yet other believed in the side of Wade. This topic is also argued in different religions. The Catholic Church believes that abortion is murder and no person born or unborn should be unwillingly killed. Murder is against the Ten Commandments and a serious crime. They believe that abortion is wrong and just as bad as murder. Many Catholic protest abortion by holding protests outside of abortion clinics. Many events in world history are related to this case such as abortion clinic bombings. People believed that abortion was so wrong that they decided to bomb the clinic which they were preformed at which I believe is a bad judgement. Even though that abortion is wrong and it is unrightfully killing unborn babies. Bombing these clinic are also unrightfully taking away lives from people. There are many ways to show your belief in Pro-life. You can join profile groups, send out awareness flier to people, and hold protests and sit-ins at abortion clinics. These are one of the many peaceful ways that you can show your support for Pro-file in not violent way. A Follow up on the World After The Legalization of Abortion In an interview on 8/10/95 with WBAP radio in Dallas, McCorvey announced, "I'm pro-life. I think I've always been pro-life, I just didn't know it" (Reaves, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 8/11/95). McCorvey, claimed before Roe that she had been raped, was 21 and pregnant when approached by attorney Sarah Weddington about suing for the right to have an abortion. McCorvey never had an abortion, because the decision came too late. She carried the baby to term and gave her up for adoption. McCorvey later admitted that she had not been raped (ibid., 8/11). ABC's "World News Tonight" and "Nightline" featured exclusive interviews with McCorvey, in which she renounced her role in the abortion advocacy movement and declared that "abortion is wrong." McCorvey spent time assisted the pro-abortion movement after the case by was treated poorly by pro-abortion leaders and haunted by simple things like empty swings in a playground." McCorvey: "They were swinging back and forth but they were all empty. And I just totally lost it, and I thought 'Oh my God. are empty because there's no children, because they've all been aborted'" ("World News Tonight," 8/10/95). From Norma McCorvey: "Abortion has been founded on lies and deception from the very beginning. All I did was lie about how I got pregnant. I was having an affair. It all started out as a little lie. I said what I needed to say. But, my little lie grew and grew and became more horrible with each telling. Sarah and Linda's (the pro-abortion attorneys in Roe) eyes seemed blinded to my obvious inability to tell the same story twice. It was good for the cause. It read well in the newspapers. With the help of willing media the credibility of well-known columnists, the lie became known as the truth these past 25 years." "I did not go to the Supreme Court on behalf of a class of women. I wasn't pursuing any legal remedy to my unwanted pregnancy. I did not go to the federal courts for relief. I went to Sarah Weddington asking her if she knew how I could obtain an abortion. She and Linda Coffey said they didn't know where to get one. They lied to me just like I lied to them. Sarah already had an abortion. She knew where to get one. Sarah and Linda were just looking for somebody, anybody, to further their own agenda. I was their willing dupe. For this, I will forever be ashamed." f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Romero.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Romero In the movie Romero, Archbishop Romero changes very much in his understanding of love and in his understanding of true conscience. At first Romero is just a priest who isn't really concerned about the poor and how they are being oppressed, but when Romero is chosen to be the new Archbishop his friend, who is assassinated, I think has a slight impact on him. But I think when his friend is assassinated is when he really starts to realize what is happening to the country of El Salvador and how the government doesn't want anyone to speak out about this. So, now Romero is starting to action against the government and tries to speak out against them. Here we see Archbishop Romero's true conscience and love grow for the people around him because we see him taking more action against the government. I think that Archbishop Romero defines love as helping others who are in need and others who need his help whatever it may be. We see Romero do this when he starts to lead the revolt in trying to tell the El Salvadoran Government to stop oppressing the poor and treat everyone as human beings. I think Romero has to make a very big decision considering, the gorillas were sending out flyers that said "Be a Patriot, Kill a Priest". The decision that Romero had to make was whether or not to help the poor or just be a puppet for the cardinals that selected him to be a puppet in the beginning. I think the thing that made Romero choose to help out the poor was the love he had for them. I also believe that it was the right (moral) thing to do whether he would have done what he did or not. It wasn't right for the rich to richer and the poor to just keep getting poorer. Romero made a really important decision when he decided to help out the poor because he now became an enemy against the government. Romero grew immensely throughout the entire movie, his love for the people and his conscience (soul, ego) grew as well. Our notes tell us that love requires work it is not just a feeling you have. Romero did a lot work to find his love; he also made a lot of sacrifices. Some of the sacrifices that Romero made were, going into the church when it was taken over by the military Romero still went in knowing that he may be killed, but I think the biggest sacrifice that Romero gave his people was that he gave up his life so that maybe someday they could be free. This resembles Jesus very much, because Jesus gave up his life so that all of our sins would be taken away. Romero is a very brave man for doing this, I don't know many people who would give their lives up so others could be free this is a very non-selfish act. In my opinion there should be more people like this on the earth because there are so many problems that the world has to deal with in this day of age. I think that Oscar Anglo Romero y Glades was a great man for dieing for something that he truly believed in. Romero may have hesitated for a while on what to do, but in the long run what he did to help out the country of El Salvador was a major impact for the government to change. I wish there were more people like Romero in the world today, because there are not a lot of people that would still die for what they believe in like he did. I agree with all of Romero's decisions except one, the one I do not agree with is, how he waited so long to do anything about the countries condition. I hope the people who oppressed the poor and were killing the priests get what they deserve on their judgment day, because what they were doing is totally wrong according to moral standards. In my opinion, the idea of liberation theology is not right. I believe that God, treats every person the same, unless like in the El Salvadorans case you are being oppressed by the government for no reason then I believe that God may side with poor in demanding social justice, because they are being treated unfairly. I also believe that people who pray to God all the time, and not just in times of trouble, will be favored more by God because they have faith in God all the time. Many people pray to God when they are in times of need, and ask for his help during this time. Then when things maybe going well for him he won't pray to God like he did when he was in trouble. But then when things aren't going well he will turn back to God for help. I believe that God doesn't favor these people, but the ones that pray on a regular basis. I admit that I don't pray all of the time and when I am in times of trouble I pray to God for help, I wish that I would pray on a regular basis but I don't know why I don't. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Saint Augustine.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saint Augustine Saint Augustine was born on 354 CE in Tagaste, Africa. His given name was Aurelius Augustinus. His father was Patricius, a pagan who was baptized Christian before he died, and his mother was Monica, a baptized Christian with an influential role in the life of her son. Augustine is regarded as one of the most intelligent Christian theologians and bishops of all time. His works and actions have left a major imprint on the Church and its doctrine. As a boy, Augustine was not baptized and grew up in the Roman Empire. He studied under the local schoolmasters in Tagaste until he turned fifteen and moved to continue his studies in Madaurus. From Madaurus, he moved to Carthage for advanced studies in rhetoric and law. It was in Carthage that he took a concubine and later had a son named Adeodatus from her. It was in this period of his life that embraced Manichaeism, which is a belief that one god is responsible for all good and another responsible for all evil. Augustine's belief in Manichaeism prompted Monica, his mother, not to allow his entrance into the family's house. Even with her actions, she continued praying and hoping that Augustine would find the Lord. After he ended his studies in Carthage, he became a teacher and was constantly on the move throughout Northern Africa. Augustine stopped teaching and moved to Milan where he gained the position of Public Orator. In Milan, Augustine met Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan. Augustine grew to love Ambrose's allegorical interpretations of the Bible and this led to his appreciation and new understanding of the Scripture. He also studied and learned to appreciate Plato's works and started linking a lot of his works into the meaning and messages in the Bible. Augustine's family, including his mother, joined him in Milan. Her constant prayers for his conversion to Christianity and the strict ethical demands of Ambrose made Augustine's appreciation of Plato's work grew deeper. It made him no choice, but to convert to Christianity. On Easter Sunday of 387 CE in Milan, Augustine along with his son and his friend, Alypius, were baptized by Ambrose. After Augustine's mother passed away, he traveled throughout the Roman Empire. He wrote many of his books on theology along the way. He had no aspirations of priesthood, but through a mere chance visit at Hippo in Africa; the bishop Valerius needed a parish priest. Augustine appeared to be the best candidate, and in 391 CE, he was ordained. Augustine's model for his ministry was St. Paul and he found St. Paul as a mentor. In Hippo, he set up a monastery for the sake of training new priests. With Augustine's many contributions to Hippo, Bishop Valerius requested Augustine to become his Co-adjutire. A year later, Valerius passed away and Augustine became the Bishop of Hippo. While Augustine was bishop, he wrote some of his greatest works, which still survive today. The first of these is Confessions, where he thanked God for changing him, and he also revealed how he struggled with himself, his sexual nature, self-will and his pride. He presented his positions on incarnation and the Trinity. Confessions were both his biography and also his presentation of his ideas. This book was written with the hope that others will experience conversion to Christianity and how he, Augustine, felt on his way towards conversion. City of God is another great work of Augustine which he showed that Rome fell because it was a "City of Earth" and not because of Christianity and he Christians. The City of God emerged from God's love while Rome, the "City of Earth" emerged from the love of self. This was the dominant theme in the story. Augustine also critiqued Greco-Roman culture drawing from the greatest historians and writers of the period. He pointed out the degradation of Roman standards of conduct, life patterns or style and sexual behaviors. Contrasting the Roman side, Augustine depicted Christianity with vigor, health and cleanliness. He wrote many more books, but these two were some of his best. Outside writing books, Augustine also involved himself in controversies in the Church. As said before, Manichaeism was the belief that one God made good and another evil. Augustine, after following this sect a while back, denounced it because of the polytheistic belief, and also giving human features to God. He resolved the controversy by debating the Manichaen Bishop Fortunatus. Augustine easily defeated him in the debate, and thus, he discredited Manichaean religion. Another controversy, that Augustine was involved in, was Donatism. Donatastics believed that Catholics blemished priesthood and that there were no true sacraments. This divided the African church into groups of warring factions. Augustine fought the Donatists by saying that the sacraments depended on the Lord, not the giver. He showed that the Church is the union of all people into Christ. He defined free will, Christian sacraments, and original sin. His argument with the Donatists clarified Christian doctrines for further generations to come. Pelagianism was the final controversy that Augustine handled. They believed that God's grace is not needed for salvation, but only good works. Augustine fought this controversy by explaining that grace was necessary for salvation because without it, people would be even more sinful. The leader of Pelagianism, Pelagius, never met with Augustine, but as a result of this controversy, "God's saving grace" was clearly understood through Augustine's arguments. On August 28, 430 CE in Hippo, Augustine died. He is regarded as one of the greatest and intelligent saints of the Church. He clarified Church doctrines, established monasteries for new priests, educated many into the meaning of Christianity and made Christianity humanistic which is nurtured by God's love and grace. Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Possidius. The Life of Saint Augustine. Villanova: Augustinian Press, 1988. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Saint Bernadette Soubirous.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saint Bernadette Soubirous The Soubirous family lived in the far north of the little town of Lourdes, in the Lapaca district. A large stream flowed there, and on this stream there were seven mills; one of them known as the Boly Mill, and this had been the residence of the Soubirous. Francois Soubirous leased the mill from relatives of his wife, Louise. In many ways, it was the trade of the miller that had brought the couple together. They had married on the parish church on 9th January 1843. By 1855, the family income had decreased drastically - trade was not good at the mill, and the Soubirous were not the best of business people; often filled with pity for the poor of the local people, they would tell their customers to pay when they were able to, and they never refused credit. And of course there was the family to raise, which further drained their resources. No longer being able to pay for the rent of the mill, the Soubirous were forced to quit their dwellings, give up the millers trade and take on whatever work they could find for themselves. Francois Soubirous recalled that another relative owned a building in the Rue des Petits Fossés - this building was the former Lourdes jail. The old jail was locally known as "the Cachot". The Soubirous were allowed to remain there rent-free. Each evening, the family gathered around the old fireplace for family prayers. This concluded with the recitation of the Rosary - often led by one of the Soubirous girls, Bernadette. BERNADETTE The marriage of Francois Soubirous and Louise Casterot produced six children. The eldest of these was Bernadette. She was born on 7th January 1844, and was baptized the next day by Abbé Forgues in the old parish church, being given the name of Marie Bernarde. Because of her small stature, she was always referred to by the diminutive form of the name, Bernadette. Six months later, Louise was expecting a child; because of this, Bernadette was entrusted to the care of a woman in near-by Bartres, Marie Aravant, who had just lost a baby boy. She stayed there for 15 months. From her birth, Bernadette was a weak child, suffering even then from the asthma which would cause her so much suffering that later, in the convent, she would beg the nurses to tear open her chest so that she might breathe. Because of her delicate constitution, her parents would attempt to give her little bits of food not available to the other children, such as white bread instead of black. Invariably, the young girl would share these treats with her siblings - often missing out herself on the luxurious feast. When she was ten, Bernadette was again separated from her beloved family; the winter of 1855 was exceptionally cold and there was little work for the poor miller. Louise's sister, Bernarde, offered to take Bernadette for a while to relieve the pressure on the family and to minimize the effects of the cold on Bernadette health. She stayed with her aunt Bernarde for seven months, until the weather improved sufficiently and there was more work available for Francois, enabling him to feed his family properly. Bernadette left Lourdes one more time - in the summer of 1857, she returned to stay with Marie Aravant for a few months, working as a shepherdess. There was a great affection between the two. Bernadette celebrated her fourteenth birthday in Bartres, but there still had been no mention of her making her first Holy Communion; Marie Aravant tried to teach Bernadette about the Faith - but described her as being thick-headed. Marie asked the priest for advice - he said Bernadette should return to Lourdes to begin her Catechism classes. And so, in the early days of 1858, Bernadette returned to the Rue des Petits Fossés. On the 11th of February 1858 Bernadette together with her sister and a friend were sent in search of firewood; their search took them along woodland paths past the savvy mill and the canal and down to the bank of the river Gave, opposite the Grotto of Massabielle. While the two other girls hurriedly crossed the stream Bernadette hesitated, fearful of the cold water and her mother's warnings about her asthma. Suddenly there was a sound of wind and looking up Bernadette saw, in a niche high up in the rock, the figure of a lady dressed in white and holding a rosary. The Lady, as Bernadette later called her, appeared to Bernadette a total of eighteen times. On the 18th of February the Lady said: "Will you do me the favor of coming here fortnight?" The Lady added "I do not promise to make you in this world, but in the next." During those fifteen days the Lady said to Bernadette: "You will pray for the sinners, you will kiss the ground for sinners", "Penance, Penance, Penance!" "Go and tell the priests to have a chapel built here" "Go and drink at the fountain and wash yourself in it" "I wish the people to come here in procession". On the 25th of March the Lady said: "I am the Immaculate Conception", or in the patois in which she spoke to Bernadette, "Que soy era Immaculada Concepioouo". The last apparition took place on Friday, 16th July, 1858, and on certain subsequent days - to the number of 18 times in all - in the Grotto of Massabielle, near the town of Lourdes; that this apparition bears every mark of truth that the faithful are justified in believing it as certain. Bernadette herself joined the Sister of Nevers in 1866 as Sister Marie-Bernard. She spent nearly 13 years in Nevers which were years of trial and much suffering. In November 1878 Bernadette to the infirmary at the convent worn out by asthma as tuberculosis had now invaded her lungs. She died on 16th April 1876, at the age of 35. Her last words were: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me ... poor sinner ... poor sinner". Pope Pius XI canonized her in 1933 and her incorrupt body lies at Nevers. Her feast day is 18th February. Even during the apparitions cures were reported at the Grotto and they have continued ever since. Many have been declared miraculous but the greatest miracles at Lourdes have been conversion of sinners and the strength and joy in their faith, which so many pilgrims have received. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Saint Bernadette.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saint Bernadette Soubirous. The Soubirous family lived in the far north of the little town of Lourdes, in the Lapaca district. A large stream flowed there, and on this stream there were seven mills; one of them known as the Boly Mill, and this had been the residence of the Soubirous. Francois Soubirous leased the mill from relatives of his wife, Louise. In many ways, it was the trade of the miller that had brought the couple together. They had married on the parish church on 9th January 1843. By 1855, the family income had decreased drastically - trade was not good at the mill, and the Soubirous were not the best of business people; often filled with pity for the poor of the local people, they would tell their customers to pay when they were able to, and they never refused credit. And of course there was the family to raise, which further drained their resources. No longer being able to pay for the rent of the mill, the Soubirous were forced to quit their dwellings, give up the millers trade and take on whatever work they could find for themselves. Francois Soubirous recalled that another relative owned a building in the Rue des Petits Fossés - this building was the former Lourdes jail. The old jail was locally known as "the Cachot". The Soubirous were allowed to remain there rent-free. Each evening, the family gathered around the old fireplace for family prayers. This concluded with the recitation of the Rosary - often led by one of the Soubirous girls, Bernadette. BERNADETTE The marriage of Francois Soubirous and Louise Casterot produced six children. The eldest of these was Bernadette. She was born on 7th January 1844, and was baptized the next day by Abbé Forgues in the old parish church, being given the name of Marie Bernarde. Because of her small stature, she was always referred to by the diminutive form of the name, Bernadette. Six months later, Louise was expecting a child; because of this, Bernadette was entrusted to the care of a woman in near-by Bartres, Marie Aravant, who had just lost a baby boy. She stayed there for 15 months. From her birth, Bernadette was a weak child, suffering even then from the asthma which would cause her so much suffering that later, in the convent, she would beg the nurses to tear open her chest so that she might breathe. Because of her delicate constitution, her parents would attempt to give her little bits of food not available to the other children, such as white bread instead of black. Invariably, the young girl would share these treats with her siblings - often missing out herself on the luxurious feast. When she was ten, Bernadette was again separated from her beloved family; the winter of 1855 was exceptionally cold and there was little work for the poor miller. Louise's sister, Bernarde, offered to take Bernadette for a while to relieve the pressure on the family and to minimize the effects of the cold on Bernadette health. She stayed with her aunt Bernarde for seven months, until the weather improved sufficiently and there was more work available for Francois, enabling him to feed his family properly. Bernadette left Lourdes one more time - in the summer of 1857, she returned to stay with Marie Aravant for a few months, working as a shepherdess. There was a great affection between the two. Bernadette celebrated her fourteenth birthday in Bartres, but there still had been no mention of her making her first Holy Communion; Marie Aravant tried to teach Bernadette about the Faith - but described her as being thick-headed. Marie asked the priest for advice - he said Bernadette should return to Lourdes to begin her Catechism classes. And so, in the early days of 1858, Bernadette returned to the Rue des Petits Fossés. On the 11th of February 1858 Bernadette together with her sister and a friend were sent in search of firewood; their search took them along woodland paths past the savvy mill and the canal and down to the bank of the river Gave, opposite the Grotto of Massabielle. While the two other girls hurriedly crossed the stream Bernadette hesitated, fearful of the cold water and her mother's warnings about her asthma. Suddenly there was a sound of wind and looking up Bernadette saw, in a niche high up in the rock, the figure of a lady dressed in white and holding a rosary. The Lady, as Bernadette later called her, appeared to Bernadette a total of eighteen times. On the 18th of February the Lady said: "Will you do me the favor of coming here fortnight?" The Lady added "I do not promise to make you in this world, but in the next." During those fifteen days the Lady said to Bernadette: "You will pray for the sinners, you will kiss the ground for sinners", "Penance, Penance, Penance!" "Go and tell the priests to have a chapel built here" "Go and drink at the fountain and wash yourself in it" "I wish the people to come here in procession". On the 25th of March the Lady said: "I am the Immaculate Conception", or in the patois in which she spoke to Bernadette, "Que soy era Immaculada Concepioouo". The last apparition took place on Friday, 16th July, 1858, and on certain subsequent days - to the number of 18 times in all - in the Grotto of Massabielle, near the town of Lourdes; that this apparition bears every mark of truth that the faithful are justified in believing it as certain. Bernadette herself joined the Sister of Nevers in 1866 as Sister Marie-Bernard. She spent nearly 13 years in Nevers which were years of trial and much suffering. In November 1878 Bernadette to the infirmary at the convent worn out by asthma as tuberculosis had now invaded her lungs. She died on 16th April 1876, at the age of 35. Her last words were: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me ... poor sinner ... poor sinner". Pope Pius XI canonized her in 1933 and her incorrupt body lies at Nevers. Her feast day is 18th February. Even during the apparitions cures were reported at the Grotto and they have continued ever since. Many have been declared miraculous but the greatest miracles at Lourdes have been conversion of sinners and the strength and joy in their faith, which so many pilgrims have received. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Saint Edmund.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saint Edmund (written From His View Point) Hi. My name is Edmund,now called Saint Edmund, the mart- yer. I was born in Surrey in 841. My mother was thought to have been royalty and my father died at a young age in was. When I was fourteen, I became the youngest King of the Anglo-Saxton Kingdom of East Anglia. When I first met King Offa, he was taken by my devout faith,sincerity, and virtues. He had no heirs and so he adopted me. Soon after, he died and I became king. The people of my kingdom thought I was sent from God because of Christianity. They thought I had come to rescue His faithful people and save them from poverty and dispair. I was marked from the start to become king and destined for sainthood. Because I sailed by boat to my new kingdom, the people thought I had come from a mysterious land of myth. I was their hero and savior. My reign as king saw a massive invasion of the Vikings, which I fought valiantly. The end was near, but I was not afraid. I beleived God was with me. My troops were defeated and I was taken prisioner by the Vikings, but I still did not lose my faith. On November 20, 870, the Danish leader,Ingwar, ordered his men to tie me to a tree and torture me, to denounce my God and my faith. They first stripped me of my royality. Surrounded by several groups of cheering, ugly men, they shot at me with arrows, whipped, and clubbed me. I did not waiver, but became stronger in my beleif in God and salvation. I would make the ultimate sacrifice for my God, a sacrifice of love and life, and so I prayed. The Danes soon tired of my undying faith and courage,and beheaded me. My body was to be tossed into the underbrush to be forgotten, but my head they continued to abuse because I would not say the words they wanted to hear. Originally, I was buried in Hoxne, but in 1055 my relics were moved to what is now called Bury Saint Edmunds. My shrine has become a famous pilgrimage site. The monks declared me a martyer. My feast day,November twentyith, became a Holy Day of Obligation. Here is one of many poems written about me by Lydagate: Hail, King of Angels, Soldier of the King of Angels. O, Edmund, flower of martyers. Like to the rose and the the lily. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Saint Francis of Assissi.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saint Francis of Assissi 1. Birth Saint Francis was born Giovanni Bernadone in either 1181 or 1182 in the Italian hill town of Assisi. His parents, Pietro and Pica, were members of the rather well-to-do merchant class of the town. Pioetro Bernadone was away in France when his son was born. On his return, he had the boy's name changed from Giovanni to Franceso ("The Little Frenchman"-perhaps a tribute to France, a country he loved and from which his wife's family came). Saint Francis of Assisi, was born in 1182, more probably in the latter year. His mother's family, which was not without distinction, may originally have hailed from Provence. His father, Pietro di Bernardone, was a prosperous cloth merchant and one of the influential business men of Assisi. A merchant in those days was a far different individual from the modern shop keeper; forced by circumstances to be both daring and prudent, he constantly embarked upon the most hazardous undertakings and his career was likely to be a succession of ups and downs. Moreover, business activities, which today tend more and more to assert their independence of any ethical code, were then strictly subordinated to accepted moral standards, as is clearly shown in the writings of Leo Battista Alberti, a century and a half later, or in the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas. Bernardone was not in Assisi when his son was born. At first the child was called John but upon his father's return he was christened Francis, in memory of France, whence Pietro di Bernardone had just returned. More than any other character in history, St. Francis in after life retained the qualities most characteristic of childhood, so that it is not difficult to imagine him as he must have appeared during his early years, with his combination of vivacity, petulance and charm. Childhood At the proper time young Francesco Benardone was sent to clergy of San Giorgio, his parish church, to learn his letters and the ciphering necessary for a merchant. He sat on a bench with the better-class boys, chorusing sacred Latin. He was not a brilliant student. The three extant scraps of his writing betray a clumsy fist and abound in sad solecisms. In later years he avoided holding a pen; he preferred to dictate, and to sign his pronouncements with a cross or tau, a semisacred symbol. However, he learned enough Latin for his purposes, for school routine and for the comprehension of the ritual. Francesco also had the education of the home and shop. He could admire his father, honest and worthy, but an austere man, taking up where he laid not down, reaping where he had not shown. Drama also rendered his secret dream, the realization of the chivalrous life. The exploits of Charlemagne's paladins and the Knights of the Round Table were already familiar throughout Italy, and code of knightly behavior was known and honored, if little practiced. Francis's imagination disported itself in the enchanted world of knighthood; and all his life he used the language of chivalry and appealed to its ideals. After Francis had attained manhood and developed his native discernment, he devoted himself to the profession of his father, who was a merchant. Yet this he did in his own way. Merry and generous by nature, ever ready for jest and song, he roamed the town of Assisi day and night with his comrades and was most prodigal in his spending-to such and extent that he used all the money allowed him and all his earnings for banquets and festivities. For this reason his parents frequently remonstrated with him, pointing out that he was living in such style with his friends that he no longer seemed to be their son, but the son a great prince. Yet as his parents were wealthy and loved their son tenderly, they allowed him to have his own way rather that disturb him. Educational Backround The official Life of Saint Francis, written by Saint Bonaventure, the Minister General of the Franciscan Order, after the chapter of 1266 at which it was decided that such a life was needed, because of the proliferation of apochryphal and spurious lives, records that Francis was sent to school to the priests of Saint George's, also in Assisi. But he seems to have learned little from them except enough Latin to read with difficulty and write great labour. In later life, the clerky Brother Leo usually acted as his secretary; although an example of his signature survives, he preferred to make his mark with a Greek cross, the letter tau, the cross used by the crusaders. However, somewhere - probably in the first instance from his father and his father's business acquaintances - he learned enough French to be able to converse in that language, and earn himself the nickname il Francesco, 'the Frenchman', although whether it was given to him by his father, as pious legend has always maintained, or by the wits of Assisi, is uncertain. Whoever gave it to him, it was the obvious name for a boy wearing French cloth, talking with French visitors, and singing French tunes, the songs of troubadours and jongleurs. John Bernardone became ' Francis' early in life, and has remained Francis throughout the years since. Which dialect of French he spoke is unknown. Because he was called 'the Frenchman' and called his language 'French', it is usually assumed that his dialect was that of the north and the Ile de France, not the langue d'oc of county of Toulouse, which further west towards Navarre shaded into early Spanish. But although he once himself proposed to go to Paris, most of the traces of 'French' influence in his life seem to relate to southern France, and there are no proofs that Pietro Bernardone's travels in search of business took him further north than the great fairs at Toulouse, Lyons, and Montpellier. The Question remains open. Francis's everyday language must have been the current Umbrain dialect: not yet Italian, but a mingling of late Latin and dialect words from which Italian was rapidly emerging. He died just thirty-nine years before the birth of Dante, the first and greatest of the Italian vernacular poets. Religious Affliation and Experiences In the chapel of Our Lady of the Angels, Francis was kneeling at the foot of the crucifix, he was completely drawn out of himself and lost all consciousness except of God. From the cross Christ spoke to him. "Francis," the Voice came, "do you not see that My house is being destroyed? Go therefore and repair it." He took Christ's words in the most literal sense. He could see that the neglected chapel was badly in need of restoration, so he accepted the task laid upon him as being simply that of bringing stones and mortar and setting to work. Not for an instant did he imagine that the commision could be wider than that. Indeed, though the field of his labor was soon to widen to enclose the last limits of the earth, he never ceased to believe, as in the case of the lepers, that the local obligation was also his. He never ceased to be greatly concerned about the rebuilding and care of dilapidated churches. Professional life There is no doubt that Francis and his brothers did preach peace in Assisi in autumn, but whether in fact he played the leading role ascribed to him reconciling the factions is undemonstrable. If the claim also sometimes made is true, that it was from this time that he penitents of Assisi began to call themselves the frates minores, it is unlikely that Francis arbitrated effectually in the quarrel. At Assisi in 1202, frates minores would not have been taken to mean 'the lesser', that is, more humble, 'brothers', but 'brothers of the minores'; it would have bben a political label, as suggestive of commitment as 'the Workers' party' of 'the workers' brotherhood' might be today. Francis had fought with the minores in 1202 and he was committed to poverty; but he had not damned the rich for their wealth, as Joachim of Flora had done, and it is unlikely that he would have begun his mission to the world by deliberately alienating a significant faction in his native city. Major Goals About the spring of the year 1206, Francis was freed from everything tying him to what theologians called 'the world', Francis was poised to begin his life's work at last. There was one difficulty, however. He still did not know what that work was. Even though he was freed from the world, he was still totally dependant on it for food, drink and clothing. He took a job as a dishwasher in a monastery - probably a subpriory of the Benedictines of Mount Subasio - but he felt that he was being badly treated there, and left, crossing the mountain to the village of Gubbio, where an old friend took pity on him, giving him food and clothing. While Francis was working on the restoration of Saint Damian's, Francis also continued his attempts to help the lepers, who at this time were still outlawed and and counted dead by most of the world. Since the first crusade, their numbers had vastly increased, though whether their disease was true leprosy or not is a matter of dispute. To rebuild Saint Domian's, he begged stones - and, of coarse, food - from his father's friends in Assisi. Their pity must have been hard for Pietro Bernardone to bear as anything he had yet endured on Francis's account. Major issues and concerns During the Middle Ages, a number of movements were based on the ideal of poverty. What made the movement led by Saint Francis different was his attractive personality and passionate dedication to the message he preached. One of the most popular of saints, he combined austerity with poetic gentleness. Francis popularized the custom of the Christmas crib. Besides the three branches of the order that he established, many other religious societies bear his name. One of the major issues that Francis took an interest in the most was, preaching the necessity of the poor, a simple life-style based on the ideals of the Gospels. Francis overflowed with a spirit of love not only for men who suffered but also for dumb animals, reptiles, birds, and any other creature with and without consciousness. Above all, he loved little lambs with a special affection and love, fot they showed forth the humility of our Lord Jesus Christ, since the Scriptures used the image of a lamb in describing him. Major life events When Blessed Francis, accompanied by Blessed Peter of Cattaneo, who had been a doctor of law, crossed the sea, he left behind two vicars, Brother Matthew of Nario and Brother Gregory of Naples. He instituted Matthew as vicar of St. Mary of Portiuncula; he was to remain there and accept postulants into the Order, while Gregory toured Italy to console the bretthren. Accourding to the first Rule, the fairs were to fast on the fourth and sixth day of the week. There might be some plausibility in the suggestion that the Roman authorities, while lacking idealism thenselves, shrewdly understood how to utilize the idealism of others, were it not that they would have been imbecile in their policy had they failed to see that enthusiasm, to be useful at all, must be maintained. This actually means that it must be constantly renewed. Therefore it is absurd to suppose that they would have wished to modify the Franciscan idealism in such a way as to destroy or even diminish it. Theirs was the extremely delicate task of directing it so as to preserve it from dissipating its energies and to help it to keep the enthusiasm bright and fresh. What was this person most known for? Saint Francis of Assisi was most known for all of his preaching. Francis began as a poet and ended as one, though during the years of his active life he appears to have been too busy living poetry to have felt much inclination to write it. Of Francis's own style of preaching we can say that it was altogether unstudied. He never prepared anything but, depending upon the inspiration of the moment, addressed himself with burning intensity to those before him. His whole body seemed to preach, and his gestures were vivacious and, perhaps, violent. Had it not been for his crystalline sincerity he might have struck people as absurd. Probably, too, it was not only in the famous sermon he was soon to deliver before the Pope and the cardinals this his feet danced while he spoke. His great dark eyes, full of fire and tenderness, seemed to look each person present through and through. He had a voice so resonant that it was startling, coming from so frail a man. It was fortunate that he had that asset of the orator, for his physical presence was not at all impressive, and what slight advantages he might have had in this respect were thrown away because of his appearing in a coarse habit patched with material still coarser, sack-cloth that did not even match in color. Detail the search for truth One day Francis, who had begun to walk about the house learning on a stick, thought the time had come for him to go and breathe the country air; he opened the door and went out , undoubtedly on to the road from Spello and Foligno, which was nearest to his house and most convenient for him, being almost level. The road runs along the side of Subasio: on the left rise the curves of the broad mountain shoulder, here green with woods and there showing the bare rocks: on the right the ground slopes away gently, clothed in the uniform soft pallor of the olive. Before him, where the plain stretches away to Foligno, green and fertile, cypresses and oaks strike a livelier not of colour. Of all the landscapes round Assisi it is the sweetest and most attractive. Francis, who had not looked at this view for a long time, sought anxiously for his usual sensations at the sight of it. But the mountains and the slopes, the plain and cypresses and olives, had nothing more to say to him; they were strange, inanimate objects. What resistance was met? The claims of his commune has already drawn Francis towards the profession of arms, but it was not enough to satisfy him. The disputes of a handful of paltry merchants and insignificant nobles over a house of the ownership of a mill, the petty wars of raids and rapine under the very city walls, made no appeal to him, after his short unlucky experience. Of the disputes between Church and Empire he understood but little: he had a respect for ecclesiastical censure, for he had experienced in his own city its blighting effect on his religious life. He sought for far-away adventure, a mighty war, without scruples of conscience, with much glory and the crown of nobility at the end of it. How did he/she affect the world around them? All of the places that Francis visited, for example, Italy, according to the historical records, were many; and as these appear in casual references, they can be only a part of the total. If we were to include the popular legends, the number would be infinite. Terni, Perugia, ubbio, Citta` di Castello, Cortona, Arezzo, Siena, Florence, Bologna, Ancona, Osimo, Ascoli: these are too some of the places that Saint Francis visited. It is at once observable that they are all in a definite and rather circumscribed district. The Saint's appearances in the more remote and diverse parts of the country, such as Rome, Florence, Bologna, and Alexandria, were, in proportion, few and far between; and one gets the impression ( borne out by the definite or circumstantial evidence of the records ) that these were but occasional visits. The other places, on the contrary, appear to represent his usual and appointed circuit. If you take a map of Italy and draw a circle with Assisi as its center, with a diameter of a little less than two hundred kilometers, you will include them all, from Borgo San Sepolcro to Ascoli Piceno, Rieti, and Toscanella, the extremist points being roughly equidistant from Assisi. Find a quote made by the person that most identifies the individual and his/her work. Why did you choose this quote? Saint Francis took a child that had just been born and said, "There have been born today in this street two children, one of whom will be one of the best men in the world. The other will be the worst." That "worst" has been taken to apply to the man who succeeded Francis as the ruler of the Franciscan Order, Brother Elias. Yet, apart from the question as to whether Elias was as bad as all that, there is a reason to believe that he was not born in Assisi at all, but nearby; and nobody knows the exact date of his birth. I chose this particular quote because it talks about the everyday occurrence of children being born each and every day. Some of those children are among those best men or women in the world and some are unfortunate to have the opportunity to even be born. Those children who are born with a disorder, from their mother's wrong doing while carrying her child. Your reflection should include: How did he/she express genuine love and concern for people in the climate of their world? Francis was one that should have been included among the Fathers, for he puts then into shame. He came at the end of the long process of discovery. With him, the wheel has turned full circle: we are back again in the gold- illuminated days of the apostles and of the early catacombs, the days when to be a Christian was to be carefree, before the heretics and arisen and the disputatious theologians has assumed the role of lawgivers. Francis threw learning away and the world sighed with relief, for learning was already weighing heavily in the cloisters, and the librarians, as usual, were wondering whether they would be able to keep count of the books. "What have I to do with books?" Francis said. "O my brethren, all we need to do is pray." As all of the people of the Church read of the Church Fathers, we are all made aware of immense strains, heroic efforts, terrible responsibilities. The Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were shoring up the ruins of Rome with their naked shoulders. They fought prodigiously, with superlative cunning, against the barbarians and the Emperors and all the tribes of wanton and evil people in the world. How did he/she bring to real life what is right, and what is good? Saint Francis, the true disciple of Christ, while he was living in this miserable life, tried to follow in the path of Christ with all his strength, for Christ was the perfect master. So it often happened that as he healed a body, God also healed the soul, for the same thing often happened to Christ. So Francis did not only serve the lepers willingly, but also ordered his brethren as they went about the world to serve the needs of lepers for the love of Christ, who reputed a poor leper himself. Saint Francis was staying in a place near to where some of the brothers of the order were serving a leper hospital. One of the lepers was testy, unruly, and also so obstinate that everyone believed. This leper had abused and cursed whoever waited on him and, what was worse, he bitterly blasphemed and cursed Christ and his Holy Mother. No one wanted to take care, or even be near him. Although the brothers were willing to put up with the leper's many abuses in order to grow in the virtue of patience, but their consciences would not ever tolerate his blasphemies about Christ and his Mother. So the brothers were quite prepared to abandon him, but they thought that before doing this they should consult Saint Francis, who at the time was staying nearby. When the brothers told Francis about this perverse leper, Francis went to see him. Finding the leper, Francis greeted him warmly: "God grant you peace, my dearest brother." The leper then replied with a grumble, "What peace can I find from God, who has taken away my peace and every worldly good and left me cancerous and stinking?" Saint Francis then answered him, "My son, be patient! God often inflicts us with a weakness of the body for the good of our souls. There is a great merit in bearing illness with patience." The sick man retorted, "How can I endure the continual pain both day and night with any sense of peace? Not only am I sick, but the brothers who were sent to help me will not do it, as the ought." Saint Francis, divinely inspired to understand that this leper was possessed by an evil spirit, prayed most devoutly for this man before God. After he had prayed, he returned again to speak to the leper: "My son, I will take care of you, since the others do not want to." "I'll willingly have you. What can you do though that the others have not done?" "What do you want me to do?" "I want you to wash me, for I stink so bad that I cannot stand myself." Saint Francis immediately went and heated water, which he scented with herbs. Then he undressed the man and washed him with his own hands, while another brother poured the water. Through divine power, wherever Saint Francis touched him with his hands, the leprosy disappeared and the flesh grew immediately healthy. And as his body healed, his soul also healed along with his body. When the leper saw his body heal, he began to weep bitterly because of his sorrow for his sins and great compunction that he felt. As his body was cleansed from the leprosy by the bathing, so his soul was cleansing power of his tears and his sorrow. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Saint Stanislaus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saint Stanislaus St. Stanislas Kostka Born at Rostkovo near Prasnysz, Poland, about October 28, 1550; died at Rome during the night of 14-15 August, 1568. He entered the Society of Jesus at Rome, October 28, 1567, and is said to have foretold his death a few days before it occurred. His father, John Kostka, was a senator of the Kingdom of Poland and Lord of Zakroczym; his mother was Margaret de Drobniy Kryska, the sister and niece of the Dukes Palatine of Masovia and the aunt of the celebrated Chancellor of Poland, Felix Kryski. The marriage was blessed with seven children, of whom Stanislas was the second. His older brother Paul survived him long enough to be present at the celebration of the beatification of Stanislas in 1605. The thought of joining the Society of Jesus had already entered the mind of the saintly young man. It was six months, however, before he ventured to speak of this to the superiors of the Society. At Vienna they hesitated to receive him, fearing the tempest that would probably be raised by his father against the Society, which had just quieted a storm that had broken out on account of other admissions to the Company. Stanislas quickly grasped the situation and formed the plan of applying to the general of the Society at Rome. The distance was five hundred leagues, which had to be made on foot, without equipment, or guide, or any other resources but the precarious charity that might be received on the road. The prospective dangers and humiliations of such a journey, however, did not alarm his courage. On the morning of the day on which he was to carry out his project he called his servant to him early and told him to notify his brother Paul and his tutor in the course of the morning that he would not be back that day to dinner. Then he started, taking the first opportunity to exchange the dress of gentleman for that of a mendicant, which was the only way to escape the curiosity of those he might meet. By nightfall Paul and the tutor comprehended that Stanislas had turned from them as he had threatened. They were seized with a fierce anger, and as the day was ended the fugitive had gained twenty-four hours over them. They started to follow him, but were not able to overtake him; either their exhausted horses refused to go farther, or a wheel of their carriage would break, or, as the tutor frankly declared, they had mistaken the route, having left the city by a different road from the one which Stanislas had taken. It is noticeable that in his testimony Paul gives no explanation of his ill-luck. Stanislas stayed for a month at Dillingen, where the provincial of that time, the Blessed Peter Canisius, put the young aspirant's vocation to the test by employing him in the boarding-school. Subsequently he went on to Rome, where he arrived October 25, 1567. As he was greatly exhausted by the journey, the general of the order, St. Francis Borgia, would not permit him to enter the novitiate of Saint Andrew until several days later. During the ten remaining months of his life, according the testimony of the master of novices, Father Giulio Fazio, he was a model and mirror of religious perfection. Notwithstanding his very delicate constitution he did not spare himself the slightest penance. He had such a burning fever his chest that he was often obliged to apply cold compresses. On the eve of the feast of St. Lawrence, Stanislas felt a mortal weakness made worse by a high fever, and clearly saw that his last hour had come. He wrote a letter to the Blessed Virgin begging her to call him to the skies there to celebrate with her the glorious anniversary of her Assumption. His confidence in the Blessed Virgin, which had already brought him many signal favours, was this time again rewarded; on August15, towards four in the morning, while he was wrapt in pious utterances to God, to the saints, and to the Virgin Mary, his beautiful soul passed to its Creator. His face shone with the most serene light. The entire city proclaimed him a saint and people hastened from all parts to venerate his remains and to obtain, if possible, some relics . He was canonized on December31, 1726. St. Stanislasis one of the popular saints of Poland and many religious institutions have chosen him as the protector of their novitiates. The representations of him in art are very varied; he is sometimes depicted receiving Holy Communion from the hands of angels; sometimes receiving the Infant Jesus from the hands of the Virgin; or he is shown in the midst of a battle putting to flight the enemies of his country. At times he is depicted near a fountain putting a wet linen cloth on his breast. He is invoked for palpitations of the heart and for dangerous cases of illness. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Saints.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saints How did the work of the saints affect the people of the time? The work of the saints affected the people of that time in incredible ways and in some instances there work is still affecting us now. In the following essay there will be various Saints listed with there accomplishments and brief description of there past. One of the more popular Saints of our time, was Saint Nicholas, who became a Christian prelate that lived in the late 4th century. Patron saint of Russia, traditionally associated with Christmas celebrations. He was a native of Patara, formerly a city in the Asia Minor. Nicholas entered the nearby monastery of Sion and afterward became archbishop of the metropolitan church in Myra, Lycia. He is said to have been imprisoned during the persecutions of Emperor Diocletian and to have attended the first Council of Nicaea. At the end of the 11th century some Italian merchants transported his remains from Myra to Bari, Italy, where his tomb is now a shrine. Nicholas is the patron saint of children, scholars, virgins, sailors, and merchants, and in the Middle Ages he was regarded by thieves as their patron saint as well. Legend tells of his hidden gifts to the three daughters of a poor man who was unable to give them dowries, was about to abandon them to prostitution. From this tale has grown the custom of secret gifts on the Eve of Saint Nicholas. Because of the close proximity of dates, Christmas and Saint Nicholas's Day(Dec.6) are now celebrated simultaneously in many countries. Santa Claus is physically known as being overweight, jolly, and being bearded has the exact physical, and the same personality as Saint Nicholas. It is thought that this figure that is loved by almost every little child in the world is derived from Saint Nicholas. Saint Anselm was another great Saint who's work revolutionized philosophy as we know it. Out of his life work he is known best for his argument of God's existence. Anselm was born in Aosta. In 1060 he joined the Benedictine monastery at Bec, in Normandy. Anselm was elected abbot of Bec. During these years he acquired a reputation for learning and devotion. He composed the Monologium in which reflecting the influence of St. Augustine he spoke of God as the highest being and investigated God's attributes. Encouraged by its reception, in 1078 he continued his project of faith seeking understanding, completing the Proslogium, the second chapter of which presents the original statement of what in the 18th century became known as the ontological argument. Anselm argued that even those who doubt the existence of God would have to have some understanding of what they were doubting. Namely, they would understand God to be a being than which nothing greater can be thought. Given that it is greater to exist outside the mind rather than just in the mind, a doubter who denied God's existence would be making a contradiction because he or she would be saying that it is possible to think of something greater than a being than which nothing greater can be thought. For that reason, by definition God exists necessarily. Later philosophers Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant challenged his argument. Many following philosophers, René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, and some contemporary philosophers have offered similar arguments to Anselm's. Anselm gave to the world almost a definition that there is a God, and revolutionized the way people looked at God. His argument is still very debated at this time in many churches. One of the greatest 'inventions' of all time was invented by a Spanish theologian, and archbishop called Saint Isidore of Seville (560-636). The one man who introduced the world to Encyclopedia's and Reference books. His most significant work was Etymologiae, a remarkably comprehensive early encyclopedia. He was born in Seville and was educated at a monastery. As archbishop, Isidore helped unify the Spanish church by converting the Visigoths, who had completed the conquest of Spain in the 5th century, to orthodox Christianity from Arianism one of the most divisive heresies in the history of the church. He also presided over a number of important church councils. Most notable among these was the fourth national Council of Toledo (633), which decreed the union of church and state, the establishment of cathedral schools in every diocese, and the standardizaton of liturgical practice. Among Isidore's writings is the Etymologiae, in which he attempted to compile all secular and religious knowledge. Divided into 20 sections, it contains information that Isidore drew from the works of other writers and Latin authorities. The Etymologiae was a favorite textbook for students during the Middle Ages, and it remained for centuries a standard reference book. Isidore's other works include treatises on theology, Scripture, linguistics, science, and history. His Sententiarum Libri Tres (Three Books of Sentences) was the first manual of Christian doctrine and ethics in the Latin church. Isidore is the forefather of all modern reference and text books. His contributions added so much to the education to that time at also to ours. Sometimes called the Angelic Doctor and the Prince of Scholastics, Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) an Italian philosopher and theologian, whose works have made him the most important figure in Scholastic philosophy and one of the leading Roman Catholic theologians. Aquinas was born of a noble family in Roccasecca, near Aquino, and was educated at the Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino and at the University of Naples. He joined the Dominican order while still an undergraduate in 1243, the year of his father's death. His mother, opposed to Thomas's affiliation with a mendicant order, confined him to the family castle for more than a year in a vain attempt to make him abandon his chosen course. She released him in 1245, and Aquinas then journeyed to Paris to continue his studies. He studied under the German Scholastic philosopher Albertus Magnus, following him to Cologne in 1248. Because Aquinas was heavyset and taciturn, his fellow novices called him Dumb Ox, but Albertus Magnus is said to have predicted that 'this ox will one day fill the world with his bellowing.' Aquinas was ordained a priest about 1250, and he began to teach at the University of Paris in 1252. His first writings, primarily summaries and amplifications of his lectures, appeared two years later. His first major work was Scripta Super Libros Sententiarum (Writings on the Books of the Sentences, 1256?), which consisted of commentaries on an influential work concerning the sacraments of the church, known as the Sententiarum Libri Quatuor (Four Books of Sentences), by the Italian theologian Peter Lombard. In 1256 Aquinas was awarded a doctorate in theology and appointed professor of philosophy at the University of Paris. Pope Alexander IV (reigned 1254-61) summoned him to Rome in 1259, where he acted as adviser and lecturer to the papal court. Returning to Paris in 1268, Aquinas immediately became involved in a controversy with the French philosopher Siger de Brabant and other followers of the Islamic philosopher Averroës. Before the time of Aquinas, Western thought had been dominated by the philosophy of St. Augustine, the Western church's great Father and Doctor of the 4th and 5th centuries, who taught that in the search for truth people must depend upon sense experience. Early in the 13th century the major works of Aristotle were made available in a Latin translation, accompanied by the commentaries of Averroës and other Islamic scholars. The vigor, clarity, and authority of Aristotle's teachings restored confidence in empirical knowledge and gave rise to a school of philosophers known as Averroists. Under the leadership of Siger de Brabant, the Averroists asserted that philosophy was independent of revelation. Averroism threatened the integrity and supremacy of Roman Catholic doctrine and filled orthodox thinkers with alarm. To ignore Aristotle, as interpreted by the Averroists, was impossible, to condemn his teachings was ineffective. He had to be reckoned with. Albertus Magnus and other scholars had attempted to deal with Averroism, but with little success. Aquinas succeeded. Reconciling the Augustinian emphasis upon the human spiritual principle with the Averroist claim of autonomy for knowledge derived from the senses, Aquinas insisted that the truths of faith and those of sense experience, as presented by Aristotle, are fully compatible and complementary. Some truths, such as that of the mystery of the incarnation, can be known only through revelation, and others, such as that of the composition of material things, only through experience, still others, such as that of the existence of God, are known through both equally. All knowledge, Aquinas held, originates in sensation, but sense data can be made intelligible only by the action of the intellect, which elevates thought toward the apprehension of such immaterial realities as the human soul, the angels, and God. To reach understanding of the highest truths, those with which religion is concerned, the aid of revelation is needed. Aquinas's moderate realism placed the universals firmly in the mi! nd, in opposition to extreme realism, which posited their independence of human thought. He admitted a foundation for universals in existing things, however, in opposition to nominalism and conceptualism. More successfully than any other theologian or philosopher, Aquinas organized the knowledge of his time in the service of his faith. In his effort to reconcile faith with intellect, he created a philosophical synthesis of the works and teachings of Aristotle and other classic sages, of Augustine and other church fathers, of Averroes, Avicenna, and other Islamic scholars, of Jewish thinkers such as Maimonides and Solomon ben Yehuda ibn Gabirol, and of his predecessors in the Scholastic tradition. This synthesis he brought into line with the Bible and Roman Catholic doctrine. Aquinas's accomplishment was immense, his work marks one of the few great culminations in the history of philosophy. After Aquinas, Western philosophers could choose only between humbly following him and striking off in some altogether different direction. In the centuries immediately following his death, the dominant tendency, even among Roman Catholic thinkers, was to adopt the second alternative. Interest in Thomist philosophy began to revive, however, toward the end of the 19th century. In the encyclical Aeterni Patris (Of the Eternal Father, 1879), Pope Leo XIII recommended that St. Thomas's philosophy be made the basis of instruction in all Roman Catholic schools. Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Humani Generis (Of the Human Race, 1950), affirmed that the Thomist philosophy is the surest guide to Roman Catholic doctrine and discouraged all departures from it. Thomism remains a leading school of contemporary thought. Among the thinkers, Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catho! lic alike, who have operated within the Thomist framework have been the French philosophers Jacques Maritain and Étienne Gilson. St. Thomas was an extremely prolific author, and about 80 works are ascribed to him. The two most important are Summa Contra Gentiles (1261-64; trans. On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, 1956), a closely reasoned treatise intended to persuade intellectual Muslims of the truth of Christianity, and Summa Theologica (Summary Treatise of Theology, 1265-73), in three parts (on God, the moral life of man, and Christ), of which the last was left unfinished. Summa Theologica has been republished frequently in Latin and vernacular editions. In the thousands of years that Saints have been affecting our lives with there countless theories, and inventions nobody has ever thought about the heartache, and time it took to produce these discoveries. In the three Saints that are listed there is a common thing between them (which is most likely common with most Saints), they had to work hard for there Recognition in Saint-hood. For example in the case of Saint Isidore, he worked and contributed immensely in the church as an Archbishop and theologian for many years. In this case Isidore did not just write the Etymologiae, he also firmly contributed to the church also. As you can clearly see in the essay, the work of these particular Saints affected the people of there time tremendous ways. Also if the Saints wouldn't of contributed to the world with there outstanding work are modern world would of been altered in tremendous ways. Word Count: 2019 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Satanism Is it really a threat to you .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Most religions like Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam have well defined meanings on exception is Satanism. Most people have their own definition for Satanism. Some people feel that non-Christian religions and all Christian denominations other than their own are forms of Satanism. This would imply that all Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and Jews. In fact at least 75% of the world's population would be Satanists. Others feel that all religions other than Judaism or Christianity are inspired by Satan and thus are forms of Satanism. This would still leave the vast majority of people in the world being Satanists. Large numbers of people feel that a wide variety of unrelated, benign religions (such as Santeria and other Caribbean religions, Druidism, New Age, Wicca, ect.) are forms of Satanism. Such definitions create great confusion. The following are recommended terms and descriptions for four essentially unrelated religions that have been called Satanism. The first is Religious Satanism, This faith includes the recognition of Satan either as a deity or as a principle. Three main denominations exist: the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, and the Church of Satanic Liberation. Other short lived Satanic groups currently exist and have existed in the recent past. According to Statistic Canada, the 1991 census found 335 Canadians who identified themselves as Satanists. The actual Number is probably significantly larger. A United States Department of the Army pamphlet #165-13 "RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES OF CERTAIN SELECTED GROUPS - A HANDBOOK FOR CHAPLAINS" (1978 - April) estimated that there were 10 to 20 thousand members of the Church of Satan in the United States. Accurate data is impossible to estimate, since the largest group (The Church of Satan) does not release its membership totals. It is important to realize that the Satan they recognize has few if any point s of similarity with the Christian concept of Satan. The Satanists' concept of Satan is pre-Christian, and derived from the Pagan image of power, virility, sexuality and sensuality. To most Satanists, Satan is a force of nature, not a living quasi-deity. Their Satan has nothing to do with Hell, demons, pitchforks or profound evil. The image of Satanism spawned by Christianity is called Gothic Satanism. It is an imaginary and profoundly evil religion that was invented during the late Middle Ages. Concepts included ritual killing of children, selling their soul to the devil, breaking crucifixes, conducting black masses, ect. It has never existed in the past, and does not exist today, except in the imagination of the public. Another form of Satanism is Teen Satanism: A syncretistic religion which is a blend of Religious Satanism, Gothic Satanism, ceremonial magick, and any other useful sources of ritual that they can find. It is practiced by rebellious teenagers or young adults - typically for a short interval. They probably number in the tens or hundreds of thousands at any one time in North America. An exact estimate is impossible to obtain, since they are totally devoid of any central organization. They occasionally engage in minor criminal activities such as vandalizing cemeteries and graffiti involving Satanic symbols. In rare instances, a few have been known to sacrifice animals. Other types of Satanism: Occasionally, serial murderers will claim to be Satanists in order to justify their horrendous activities. Police investigation reveals that they know little about the religion. A small percentage of child molesters will abuse children in a Satanic setting as a means of controlling the victims. The molesters are not actual Satanists; they are simply using the facade of Satanism to further their criminal acts. Some heavy metal rock bands pretend to be associated with Satanism. Their main reason is to gain notoriety in order to sell more records. These tree forms of quasi-Satanic groups will not be dealt with any further in this report Modern Satanism is generally (though mistakenly) regarded as a creation of Aleister Crowley (1875 - 1947). Aleister was in fact a very prominent ceremonial magician who based his rituals largely upon Judeo-Christian principles. He was raised in a Plymouth Brethren family, but developed an early dislike of organized Christianity. After university, he joined the Order of the Golden Dawn, which practiced magick (ceremonial magic) based on: The Kaballah (or Cabbalahl), a Jewish mystical tradition, Rosicrucianism (a mystical blend of alchemy, Hinduism, and Judaism), Free masonry ( a men's fraternal organization), and Theosophy (a Gnostic tradition believing in a common thread that links all religions). He was later kicked out of the Golden Dawn and later joined the Ordo Templi Orients (OTO) , which blended ceremonial magick, sex magick, and Freemasonry. Crowley reveled in notoriety, billing himself as the Wickedest Man in the World and the Great Beast 666 of Revelation. He is alleged in to have committed at least one animal sacrifice, experimented with many illegal drugs and engaged in countless sexual orgies. It is not known how much of this actually happened, and how much is imaginary and created to satisfy his insatiable desire for publicity. His prime aim was to contact his Holy Guardian Angel Aiwaz. He did not consider himself a Satanist. He was a prolific writer on magick. Many Satanists have incorporated portions of his books into their own rituals. Many authors and TV personalities have stated that Crowley was the first Satanist, even though evidence points to the contrary. Modern Satanism really begins with Anton Szandor La Vey (1930 - ??). On Walpurgisnacht, April 30 1966 (I Anno Satanas) he created of the Church of Satan. Anton drew on his previous experience as a lion tamer and side show barker, and on his readings into psychology, magick, ect., and wrote the Satanic Bible in 1969. This was followed by The Compleat Witch (1970) (later republished as The Satanic Witch) and The Satanic Rituals (1972). These are essentially the only available books which accurately describe Satanism. There have been enormous numbers of books about Satanism written by Fundamentalist or other Evangelical Christians. However, they are usually filled with misinformation derived from the Witch burning times in Europe (circa 1450 - 1792) rather than from any present or past reality. In 1975, one of La Vey's followers, Michael Aquino left the Church after a disagreement, and organized the Temple of Set. This form of religious Satanism recognize a pre-Satanic deity, the Egyptian god Set as an entity which stands separate apart from the forces of the natural universe. He was typically portrayed as a man witch the head of an animal (perhaps a hyena). Set was copied by the Chaldeans who called him Had or Hadit; this later became Shaitan, and still later the Satan of Christianity. At the core of the Church of Satan are the nine Satanic Statements, written by Anton La Vey. In abridged form they state that Satan represents: 1. indulgence, not abstinence 2. vital existence, not spiritual pipe dreams, 3. undefiled wisdom, not hypocritical self-deceit 4. kindness to those deserving of it, not love wasted on ingrates 5. vengeance, not turning the other cheek 6 responsibility to the responsible, instead for concern for psychic vampires 8. gratification of all of ones desires 9. the best friend tat the Christian Church has had has he has kept it in business for centuries The Temple of Set is based on its own 21 Satanic points, which have much in common with the Satanic Church, but many differences too. I) Respect not pity or weakness, for they are a disease which makes the strong sick. II) Test always your strength, for therein lies success. III) Seek happiness in victory - but never in peace. IV) Enjoy a short rest, better than a long. V) Come as a reaper, for thus will sow. VI)Never love anything so much you cannot see it die. VII) Build not upon sand but upon rock, and build not for today or yesterday but for all time. VIII) Strive ever for more, for conquest is never done. IX) Die rather Submit. X) Forge not works of are but swords of death, for therein lies great art. XI) Learn to raise yourself above yourself so you can triumph over all. XII) The blood of the living makes good fertilizer for the seeds of the new. XIII) He who stands atop the highest pyramid of skulls can see the furthest. XIV) Discard not love but treat it as an impostor, but ever be just. XV) All that is great is built upon sorrow. XVI) Strive not only forwards, but upwards for greatness lies in the highest. XVII) Come as a fresh strong wind that breaks yet also creates. XVIII) Let love of life be a goal but let your highest goal be greatness. XIX) Nothing is beautiful except man: but most beautiful of all is woman. XX) Reject all illusion and lies, for they hinder the strong. XXI) What does not kill makes stronger. More of El Vey's theology contains the following concepts: Heaven and Hell do not exist, Satan is unrelated to the modern concept of the Christian devil. They look upon him as a god who represents the carnal, earthy, and mundane aspects of life, Satan is not a being, it is a force of nature, Ritual killing is not allowed, blood drawn from a victim is useless, victims are killed symbolically not actually; human life is held in sacred regard. The highest of all Satanic holidays is the birthday of the Satanist, Walpurgustnacht (April 30). Holidays of less importance are Halloween (October 31), Solstices of June and December, and Equinoxes in March and September. Local groups of Satanists are usually called grottos or temples, They correspond to Christian congregations and Wiccan covens. Their rituals do not include Black Mass (a parody of Roman Catholic sirvices) actually there are few, if any elements which ridicule or invert the beliefs or practices of Christianity or of any other religion. As you may see, society and the Christian Church have made many believe in the misconception that all Satanists are evil and the Satanic Church is a vile organization bent on destroying Christianity and perverting the world, when actually it is just a religion that, to a point practices religious toleration, and doesn't present a threat to you or anyone else. By doing this report, I would like to state that in no way do I condone Satanism, nor am I a member of the Church of Satan. I just wanted to point out some misconceptions that many have about Satanism, and I hope I didn't offend anyone by doing this report. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Satanism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Satanism Welcome to the hidden world of Satanism, where evil is embraced, not feared. According to a 1989 "Seventeen" survey, Satanism is believing that Judeo-Christian religions suppress man's natural urge to seek out pleasure. Followers follow the devil and turn toward evil for pleasure. Teenagers are affected greatly by Satanism. There are many methods used to lure young people into joining satanic groups. The first initial approach is inviting a young person to a meeting on a certain topic, appealing to the their curiosity. The goal of this is to psychologically manipulate the teen during the meeting. Another approach is to have a party which offers alcohol or drugs with the same goal as the meeting. This method seems to promise the unrestricted fulfillments and desires. Blackmail and the promising of supernatural powers could also be used to lure teens into Satanism. Every group uses a different method, but most of them seem to work. There are several factors that put teenagers at risk for Satanism. These include low self-esteem, alienation from peer groups, and curiosity about sex and drugs. Some people even think that poor parenting at an early age can cause the child as a teen to become involved in Satanism. The first problem is emotional withdrawal from parents. The second reason is being exposed to violence or being the victim of a violent act. Since Satanism uses forms of violence, such teenagers do not find it repulsive . The third parent-child interaction that involves risk is the parents demanding strict religious observance while not following the rules themselves. Here are some of the questions that teens can ask themselves to see if they are becoming involed in Satanism. The more that are answered yes the more that teen is at risk. 1. My parents often ignore me. 2. I want to experiment with drugs, but I am afraid of being caught. 3. I was physically or sexually abused as a child. 4. I have been robbed or beaten up. 5. It is not unusual to see violence in my neighborhood. 6. My parents make me go to church. 7. Adults so not seem to understand my taste in music. 8. My parents have given me too many rules. 9. I don't feel good enough about myself to ask a special boy/girl on a date. 10. I enjoy playing Dungeons and Dragons or similar board games. 11. A lot of emphasis is placed on religion in our house, but my parents don't practice what they preach. 12. I feel good when I can do something outrageous that disturbs adults. For some Satanism is nothing more than a game, for others it's a way of life, but for most it's their worst nightmare come true. No one knows how many Satanists there are out there cutting off heads or sacrificing infants, that is why its so hard to tell if you are becoming lured into it, so remember to take precautions and be careful with what you get into. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\School Prayer.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ School Prayer School Prayer By Danielle Clark Block 1 Speech 105 I. Intro- Contrary to the claims, students have the Constitutional right to pray in school, either individually or in informal groups so long as the prayer is not organized by the school. But if the students only knew what they were really doing by praying in school. II. First of all they are going against the Bible. As to quote, Matthew 6:5-6: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray..." So as you can see those who pray in places such as the cafeteria, middle of the hall or things of that nature is actually going against the bible. Now I am not saying that a person should not pray in schools, but they should do it just as the Bible says in a personal place. If a student can't find a personal place, and have an undesirable need to pray, they need to not make a big deal out of it. Praying as put in the Bible is a personal experience between that person and God. Not an event to be proclaimed up and down the hallway. III. Another problem there is with praying in schools is the fact that there are some students who don't believe in God. The purpose of a democracy is to have the majority decide but yet always respect the rights of the minority. Some administrators, teachers, parents, and most importantly, kids, just feel uncomfortable when it comes to religion. Several factors could be attributed to this problem, from too many religions and religious theories to religious pressure to lack thereof. But whatever the reason some people feel offended by seeing these students pray. They think that their rights are being infringed upon. Well in example, if a shirt some student is wearing offends a person they tell someone about being offended. Someone else is also offended and so they tell someone. These 2 people influenced by what they have heard tell more people. This chain reaction continues until that kind of shirt is not allowed in schools, in example Marilynn Manson shirts. The minority there is the students wanting to wear the shirts; the majority is the people offended by it. The majority spoke and the minority is told to fallow. But now it is the minority being offended no one cares to do anything about it. IV. The last problem I have are the advocates of school prayer say that without it there is moral decline, blaming the absence of school prayer for everything from low SAT scores to teenage pregnancy. But it just won't work. In fact, legislated school prayer would make things worse. For a school to require students to recite, for example, a Christian prayer would give Christianity a special status, implying that other religions are somehow inferior. One religion would be pitted against another, conflicts would arise, and intolerance would grow. The only palatable compromise in a directed public school prayer would be a watered-down prayer that would be meaningless to the deeply religious and an infringement on those who follow no religion. Some of our senators are trying to pass an amendment in have school prayer required. But the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." If we were to have this school wide required prayer we would be in essance establishing a religion. And even though what they are trying to pass is a constitutional amendment it goes against on of the main things our forefathers came here for. The First Amendment is one of the finest laws man has ever written. For over two hundred years, it continues to mean exactly what it was originally intended to mean: Religion and other fundamental rights should remain beyond the reach of majorities and governments, and certainly not subjected to the political whims of Congress. Biblyography "FAQ." Prayer in Schools. http://www.atheists.org/schoolhouse/faqs.prayer.html. Downloaded December 16, 1999 "Maryland teen walks out of Graduation over Prayer." Prayer in schools. http://www.freedomforum.org/religion/1999/5/28mdgradprayer.asp Downloaded December 16, 1999 "Smudge Report." Bible verse. http://www.smudgereport.com/longstories/prayer.html Downloaded December 16, 1999 "Bible Belivers should oppose school prayer." School Prayer. http://users.cnmnetwork.com/lotl2k/prayer.html Downloaded December 16, 1999 "The Bible and Public Prayer." Public Prayer. http://www.religioustolerance.org/prayer.htm. Downloaded December 16, 1999 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Schwa 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Schwa Schwa's past is slightly blurred, but it is generally held that the religion has its roots in ancient Egypt. A small breakaway group are believed to have gathered regularly to exchange news and, on occasion, personal accounts of landings by what they called `star-creatures'. These beings were identical to the Egyptian gods, and their belief was that these beings came to their land, from their home amongst the stars, disguised as animals with which they were familiar (the jackal, the cat etc). Some hieroglyphics have been uncovered by archaeologists which, according to Schwa followers, are the original inscriptions of members of the ancient religion, but have been wrongly interpreted by `UFO fanatics' as proof that aliens built the pyramids. This leads non-believers to give little weight to what was "actually a true and proper religion". Since those primitive days the religion has developed enormously, but the biggest and most important advancements have only come in the past decade. Previously, followers had only gathered in what could be described as `sects' in many different countries, with the highest concentration being in North America. It wasn't until 1986 that Jeff Krantz, a 19 year old art student at the University of Michigan, started came to be known as `The Union', a wave of change that would sweep across the world over a period of two years, and would result in united international Schwa religion. "I had just been transferred from (the University of) Wisconsin in the earlier part of that year," Krantz says. "I had attended regular meetings with about half a dozen other believers. We met one night each week to talk about stuff related to our belief - that the Earth, and everything on it, was created by extraterrestrial beings. I guess you could say they're on the same level as the gods of other religions, but we believe that our creators are actual living, breathing beings, not spirits; an analogy would be our superiority over creatures which we created through gene technology, DNA splicing or whatever. "At one of these meetings we decided that we should have some sort of symbol that we could make into stickers. Each of us could then stick them on books or wherever, just to get people thinking about what they could mean, and also to bring the group together under an identifiable symbol - kind of like a flag." The task fell to Adrian Blackwell, another art student whom Krantz saw often outside of these meetings. "The idea for the sticker kind of came to me when I was on acid," Blackwell recalls, smiling. "Actually, I saw these two symbols at the same time, almost; an alien head and a starfish. The starfish didn't really do anything for me, so I drew the other one and the other guys loved it." A copy of the design is on the cover page. "Yeah, the design was great," says Krantz, "but I thought it needed some sort of name. That Saturday night I went to a party. I got smashed, and then this name sort of appeared in my head : `Schwaerozni'. I knew it couldn't have been an accident. Anyway, when I went to write it under the design before we sent it to have the stickers made, I could only fit in `Schwa'. The name stuck." After his move to Wisconsin, Krantz stayed in touch with his fellow believers in Michigan. He began working part time at a hardware store for a few months. His last day at the store was the turning point for the religion. "I used to steal solvent from the store, take it to my dorm and sniff it," he laughs. "Pretty pathetic, really. Finally my boss caught on to what I was doing, and he called me into his office. He gave me a big lecture about the stupidity of sniffing solvent, the fact that he could have had me charged with shoplifting, don't ruin your life, blah blah blah. Then he gave me my last paycheck - minus the cost of a can of solvent. That night I was pretty pissed off, and I sniffed a little more than usual. I was climbing onto the roof to see if I could fly when I thought of this brilliant joke. I thought it was so funny that I forgot all about flying and just went back to my room to write it down before I forgot about it. Later on I told it to the other guys over. Although it had nothing to do with Schwa, they all said that something about it reminded them of it." "We all thought the joke was kind of spooky, yeah," Blackwell says. "But the weirdest thing was the dream I had that night. I saw an alien being come out of a craft, approach me, and touch my forehead. Then I saw a page from the phone book, zooming in on the University of Wisconsin's listing. Then Jeff's full name appeared. After that, a map of North America appeared. It slowly zoomed in on Wisconsin, showing more and more detail, until the whole of my vision was filled with the University campus. An arrow flashed, pointing at the dormitories. Then I woke up. "The next day we had a meeting. Each of us was exited. We just looked around at each other, and we knew. Each of us had had the same dream. We knew that it was really a carrier for that message. We had to tell everyone we knew the joke. It was a pretty good one, the type you'd tell friends anyway, and it wasn't dirty so you could tell anyone. But no-one seemed to report any strange dreams afterwards, or even act strange. So, we just decided that the dream only came to believers." "They were right about that," says Krantz, raising his eyes to heaven. "The Uni hated me! Or at least, whoever sorted the mail did. I got a little over two thousand letters over the next year - hundreds from Americans only in the first couple of months, then from all over the world as the joke spread." Followers now hold this joke as a sacred message from their creators, and since others did not notice anything unusual about it, it has been almost impossible to trace. However, by freak coincidence, a researcher into conspiracy theories, Garo Yellin, was looking at a relative's photos from a trip to Germany in 1990 when he noticed a message scrawled on the Berlin Wall in the background of one picture. The thing that really grabbed his attention was a crude drawing of an alien head, much like the Schwa symbol. He enlarged the picture to see the message written next to the head. It was, as far as he could see, this: "Venn ist das nurnstuck git und slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!" Translation attempts have been made, but apparently this is in a code known only to Schwa followers, in order to protect the joke. "Every letter I got said the same sort of thing," Krantz continues. "These people had the same beliefs I did, and the dream had revealed my identity to them. They looked to me now as a leader. I had been chosen to lead my fellow believers in one united faith, which for obvious reasons, I decided to call Schwa. They were of all ages and denominations, but since we are all of lowly status under our creators - and our lives are momentary compared to theirs - they had no problems with me leading them." The main concern of the religion is to worship their alien creators in readiness for the coming day of judgment. "Who knows when they will come?" says Krantz. "All I know is that when they do, they will be performing a little . . . weeding, shall we say? They're going to polish off their creation. All things you or I consider bad or annoying or dangerous will be made likable, or even eradicated. And we, sentient beings that we are, will be judged - not by the righteousness of our actions, but by our worship of them. Then, all those who did not follow them will be removed from the Earth and from our memories - we will feel no loss or sadness - and we will be left only with happy and peaceful thoughts, and in a Utopian world. "Some, knowing the origins of Schwa, say it is a cult based on intoxication. Well, it is in a way, but their is a deeper purpose for this. When intoxicated by some form of drug, we are still awake, but there is a subtle link with the subconscious. We are more receptive to the messages our creators wish to plant in our minds. Hallucinations are not caused by the intoxication directly, but by them, trying to reach us. However," he laughs, "if you fall over or try to fly, that's the drug talking!" Their only festival is held each year on June 12, the date of the incident in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. "That day," says Krantz, "a mist of some sort caused masses of people to hallucinate simultaneously. They say they saw a UFO land, and aliens coming out of the craft. This hallucination was a warning from our creators of the coming day of judgment." In celebration of this, followers meet secretly, take drugs, and chant the following : "Oona Schwa gallumbits dangk!" Once again, this seems to be in some sort of code. The only intelligible translation yet given seems to be a joke on the part of the translator : "Schwa for tuna-safe dolphin meat!" But the true meaning of this, like their sacred joke, they keep secret. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Schwa.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Schwa's past is slightly blurred, but it is generally held that the religion has its roots in ancient Egypt. A small breakaway group are believed to have gathered regularly to exchange news and, on occasion, personal accounts of landings by what they called `star- creatures'. These beings were identical to the Egyptian gods, and their belief was that these beings came to their land, from their home amongst the stars, disguised as animals with which they were familiar (the jackal, the cat etc). Some hieroglyphics have been uncovered by archaeologists which, according to Schwa followers, are the original inscriptions of members of the ancient religion, but have been wrongly interpreted by `UFO fanatics' as proof that aliens built the pyramids. This leads non-believers to give little weight to what was "actually a true and proper religion". Since those primitive days the religion has developed enormously, but the biggest and most important advancements have only come in the past decade. Previously, followers had only gathered in what could be described as `sects' in many different countries, with the highest concentration being in North America. It wasn't until 1986 that Jeff Krantz, a 19 year old art student at the University of Michigan, started came to be known as `The Union', a wave of change that would sweep across the world over a period of two years, and would result in united international Schwa religion. "I had just been transferred from (the University of) Wisconsin in the earlier part of that year," Krantz says. "I had attended regular meetings with about half a dozen other believers. We met one night each week to talk about stuff related to our belief - that the Earth, and everything on it, was created by extraterrestrial beings. I guess you could say they're on the same level as the gods of other religions, but we believe that our creators are actual living, breathing beings, not spirits; an analogy would be our superiority over creatures which we created through gene technology, DNA splicing or whatever. "At one of these meetings we decided that we should have some sort of symbol that we could make into stickers. Each of us could then stick them on books or wherever, just to get people thinking about what they could mean, and also to bring the group together under an identifiable symbol - kind of like a flag." The task fell to Adrian Blackwell, another art student whom Krantz saw often outside of these meetings. "The idea for the sticker kind of came to me when I was on acid," Blackwell recalls, smiling. "Actually, I saw these two symbols at the same time, almost; an alien head and a starfish. The starfish didn't really do anything for me, so I drew the other one and the other guys loved it." A copy of the design is on the cover page. "Yeah, the design was great," says Krantz, "but I thought it needed some sort of name. That Saturday night I went to a party. I got smashed, and then this name sort of appeared in my head : `Schwaerozni'. I knew it couldn't have been an accident. Anyway, when I went to write it under the design before we sent it to have the stickers made, I could only fit in `Schwa'. The name stuck." After his move to Wisconsin, Krantz stayed in touch with his fellow believers in Michigan. He began working part time at a hardware store for a few months. His last day at the store was the turning point for the religion. "I used to steal solvent from the store, take it to my dorm and sniff it," he laughs. "Pretty pathetic, really. Finally my boss caught on to what I was doing, and he called me into his office. He gave me a big lecture about the stupidity of sniffing solvent, the fact that he could have had me charged with shoplifting, don't ruin your life, blah blah blah. Then he gave me my last paycheck - minus the cost of a can of solvent. That night I was pretty pissed off, and I sniffed a little more than usual. I was climbing onto the roof to see if I could fly when I thought of this brilliant joke. I thought it was so funny that I forgot all about flying and just went back to my room to write it down before I forgot about it. Later on I told it to the other guys over. Although it had nothing to do with Schwa, they all said that something about it reminded them of it." "We all thought the joke was kind of spooky, yeah," Blackwell says. "But the weirdest thing was the dream I had that night. I saw an alien being come out of a craft, approach me, and touch my forehead. Then I saw a page from the phone book, zooming in on the University of Wisconsin's listing. Then Jeff's full name appeared. After that, a map of North America appeared. It slowly zoomed in on Wisconsin, showing more and more detail, until the whole of my vision was filled with the University campus. An arrow flashed, pointing at the dormitories. Then I woke up. "The next day we had a meeting. Each of us was exited. We just looked around at each other, and we knew. Each of us had had the same dream. We knew that it was really a carrier for that message. We had to tell everyone we knew the joke. It was a pretty good one, the type you'd tell friends anyway, and it wasn't dirty so you could tell anyone. But no-one seemed to report any strange dreams afterwards, or even act strange. So, we just decided that the dream only came to believers." "They were right about that," says Krantz, raising his eyes to heaven. "The Uni hated me! Or at least, whoever sorted the mail did. I got a little over two thousand letters over the next year - hundreds from Americans only in the first couple of months, then from all over the world as the joke spread." Followers now hold this joke as a sacred message from their creators, and since others did not notice anything unusual about it, it has been almost impossible to trace. However, by freak coincidence, a researcher into conspiracy theories, Garo Yellin, was looking at a relative's photos from a trip to Germany in 1990 when he noticed a message scrawled on the Berlin Wall in the background of one picture. The thing that really grabbed his attention was a crude drawing of an alien head, much like the Schwa symbol. He enlarged the picture to see the message written next to the head. It was, as far as he could see, this: "Venn ist das nurnstuck git und slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!" Translation attempts have been made, but apparently this is in a code known only to Schwa followers, in order to protect the joke. "Every letter I got said the same sort of thing," Krantz continues. "These people had the same beliefs I did, and the dream had revealed my identity to them. They looked to me now as a leader. I had been chosen to lead my fellow believers in one united faith, which for obvious reasons, I decided to call Schwa. They were of all ages and denominations, but since we are all of lowly status under our creators - and our lives are momentary compared to theirs - they had no problems with me leading them." The main concern of the religion is to worship their alien creators in readiness for the coming day of judgment. "Who knows when they will come?" says Krantz. "All I know is that when they do, they will be performing a little . . . weeding, shall we say? They're going to polish off their creation. All things you or I consider bad or annoying or dangerous will be made likable, or even eradicated. And we, sentient beings that we are, will be judged - not by the righteousness of our actions, but by our worship of them. Then, all those who did not follow them will be removed from the Earth and from our memories - we will feel no loss or sadness - and we will be left only with happy and peaceful thoughts, and in a Utopian world. "Some, knowing the origins of Schwa, say it is a cult based on intoxication. Well, it is in a way, but their is a deeper purpose for this. When intoxicated by some form of drug, we are still awake, but there is a subtle link with the subconscious. We are more receptive to the messages our creators wish to plant in our minds. Hallucinations are not caused by the intoxication directly, but by them, trying to reach us. However," he laughs, "if you fall over or try to fly, that's the drug talking!" Their only festival is held each year on June 12, the date of the incident in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. "That day," says Krantz, "a mist of some sort caused masses of people to hallucinate simultaneously. They say they saw a UFO land, and aliens coming out of the craft. This hallucination was a warning from our creators of the coming day of judgment." In celebration of this, followers meet secretly, take drugs, and chant the following : "Oona Schwa gallumbits dangk!" Once again, this seems to be in some sort of code. The only intelligible translation yet given seems to be a joke on the part of the translator : "Schwa for tuna-safe dolphin meat!" But the true meaning of this, like their sacred joke, they keep secret. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Science and God.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Science and God "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth..." (Genesis 1:1), the words that start it all if you are a Catholic. Children are brought up to believe that God took seven days out of his schedule to create the earth and all that is in and on it from a "formless wasteland" (Genesis 1:2). He gave man his shape and the keys to paradise and life rolls on from there. They know history of man through the Bible, and if it is not in the Bible, it did not happen. Die hard followers the Bible know little outside of the Good Book and thusly show their Those who took on the ideals of the enlightenment or raised with little to no theological beliefs have questioned the existence of God and the Bible. They have chosen to have the power of science be their creator and savior. No mythical oracles, no prophets, just the theories of motion, space, and relativity to guide them in their lives, and the gap has never been filled. To them, all of the questions can be answered with one answer: E=MC2. Since the first questions of the validity of the Bible arose with people like Aristotle, Plato, and Moses Maimonides. In fact, Maimonides said, "conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either from a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible," (Schroeder, 1997). What he means is that science cannot answer everything with science or the Bible; there must be some happy medium where the two can play off each other. The belief in religion and the understanding of science do not have to conflict and contradict each other; they can work together in helping people fully understand the universe, the world, life and death, and most importantly themselves. The universe that surrounds us had no origin in the Bible, it is just there and only the creation of the earth is discussed. Scientists have calculated the power of the big bang to be 10120 in strength. "If the energy of the big bang were different by one part of 10120 there would be no life anywhere in the universe. The universe is tuned for life from its inception," (Schroeder, 1997). This statement is relaying messages of the two schools of thought at once. The religion translation of this statement is that something that precise could only have been made by some divine creator. The Scientific translation is none at all; this is one of the many answers that science has not been able to provide. This is where many scientists have conceded to believing in some sort of Supreme Being. There is no way that the universe could have been that lucky to create the elements needed to spring forth life. "The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls-eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side," (Schroeder, 1997). In addition, what caused the big bang to occur? Are we the left over of some other universe? On that same note, are we the result of some sort of big bounce from a previous universe that collapsed? This too has no answer to why the universe exists or why it gave such a perfect formula for life. The inception of the world also leaves some gray areas in both the religious and scientific areas. First in the religious argument: that "if the laws of nature are not fixed, if they are being tampered with in some miraculous way, then science is useless. The consistency of nature is a basic tenet of all scientific inquiry," (Schroeder, 1997). The man made science works on a set of rules and theories that must be true to be called as such. They must work every time in order to create validity and the same affects everywhere. What ever goes up must come down. Water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Gasoline is flammable and combustible. All of these are constants no matter where we are in the universe. If the right variables are present then the event will occur. It becomes a scientific impossibility to turn water into wine, walk on water, or create man from mud. The religious point of view is not far off from the science. "Genesis agrees: when life first appears on the third day, the word creation does not appear (in the text). We are merely told "The earth brought forth" life. Earth had within it the necessary properties for life to flourish," (Schroeder, 1997). The book of Genesis is not clear on how God created life; people are just to assume that He created it out of thin air by his divine power. Miracles happen when God makes the impossible a reality where the rules of nature no longer apply, and He can do what He wishes like a painter on a canvas. The parts of the Bible that deal specifically with miracles explain them explicitly. Jesus walking on the water to show Peter and Paul his majesty; Jesus changing water into wine at the wedding in Cana; helping the blind see again; all are scientific impossibilities, but the Bible says it is true because Jesus is the son of God. Divinity in the eyes of all Christians has the upper hand. Science and evolution dominate the mind of the scientifically enlightened. Sociologists (behavioral scientists) describe religion as merely the answers to where do we come from (birth), and where do we go when we die? Two very important questions in every person's life, but only one school of thought has an answer for both. Religion talks of the "miracle of birth" as being something given to a woman for being faithful to God. When we die, we are judged on how we lived our lives on earth. If in the eye's of God we led a good life we ascend into the divine paradise also know as heaven; if not we ascend into the netherworld also know as Hades or Hell. It is very cut and dry on the death issue. Skeptics of the Bible, not necessarily the scientifically enlightened, argue that the entire idea of heaven and hell and being good on earth to avoid damnation is just a scare tactic put on by the church to keep people in line and/or get money from them to save their souls. Either way they see post-mortem judgment as a farce by the church to control us so we fear God. Science has only answered one of the questions definitively, the birth issue. We are products of the combining of make and female chromosomes that come together in the form of semen from males and the female egg during sexual relations. This definition is about as cut and dry as the religious point of view in the subject. The scientific death explanation is about as cold as the birth one, but still does not give an answer to the afterlife. Death as seen as the body simply shutting down the heart, brain, and other vital organs stop functioning, thus having no energy left to operate and live. It does not tell where you go when you die if you go anywhere at all. God intentionally keeps that a secret from mortal men so that fear and obedience can be instilled. Science cannot explain the afterlife with a theory or a rule that has to follow an equation or variable. It is just out of the field of study for science. People of the past have ascribed either to a scientific answer or to a theological belief to answer the questions they have. People pray to God for a cure to their disease, others visit a doctor or pharmacist. Nowadays people have become more liberal with their beliefs and where they look for answers. Priests go to the drugstore and scientists have been attending Sunday mass. The blending of the religions does not close doors and minds; it opens the mind to new interpretations of science and the Bible just the same. Harmony is being found, and questions that are more personal are being answered. It is truly something everyone can agree on. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Scientology.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Scientology Scientology is a fairly new religion. Founded in the twentieth-century by a man by the name of L. Ron Hubbard. He began his studies long ago and wrote a book in 1950 called Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. He claimed that this book was one of the first tools used to solve the problems of the mind. This book focused on irrational mind, war, crime, and insanity. Mr. Hubbard designed this book so that anyone can use it to improve oneself. He did not stop at Dianetics, however, he felt that there were still some issues that had to be addressed. He was now going to try to figure out the nature of the human being, what makes up our "being." Mr. Hubbard combined religion, philosophy, and his theory of dianetics and came up with Scientology. Mr. Hubbard had a unique life. He was born in Tilden, Nebraska, the son of a naval commander Harry Ross Hubbard and Ledora May Hubbard. L. Ron Hubbard was born on March 13, 1911. When he was about two his family moved to Montana where he learned to be a rough western cowboy. His mother was thoroughly educated woman. She taught him how to read and write at an early age. L. Ron Hubbard was said to have an avid interest in life at an early age. When his father's naval career required that they move away from Montana, his mother was responsible to teach him the schooling he missed. When Ron was twelve the family moved to Seattle, Washington. Ron got the liberty to be associated with many different types of people such as the Blackfoot Indians, Beijing magician, Chinese magicians, and studying Buddhists. He enrolled at George Washington University, his father put him into mathematics and engineering. Now he learned how to take the scientific approach to solving problems. He became more and more interested in the way the mind works. He would ask the professors at George Washington University and they could not give him an answer, so he came up with the idea that the western culture did not understand a thing about the mind. He believed that it was his duty to explore the mind and to tell the western world how it works. This is when he came up with dianetics and then eventually the religion of scientology. Scientology consists of eight dynamics. With these dynamics, a person realizes that his life extends beyond himself. The first dynamic is "self." This teaches you to survive as an individual. Taking care of such things as mental and physical health. It does not include other people, it is the urge to survive as an individual. The second is "creativity." Creativity is making anything for the future. Creating a family, and raising children to the best of your ability. This dynamic also means that sex is simply a mechanism to procreate. The third is "group survival." This is the drive to survive in a group. This can be any group, community, friends, a company, a state, or a race. The size of the group does not matter, it is merely to survive as a group. The fourth is "species." This one is the dynamic of the species of mankind. Being American would fit into the third dynamic because it is a nation. The fourth deals with every man, woman, and child in the world. The fifth dynamic is "life forms." According to Scientology there are two parts to the mind, the analytical mind and the reactive mind. The analytical mind has standard memory banks which record memory as a series of mental images. It records standard factual data, however, it does not account for any type of emotional or physical pain. The reactive mind kicks in during moments of painful moments. It also records data with mental images though in a different way. The reactive mind is selective about what it records. It only takes in pain or the emotional part of any given situation. Mr. Hubbard believes that if you can reduce the use of the reactive mind, you will be able to solve situations more effectively. If you solve a problem without letting your emotions get in the way the solution will be more objective than subjective, and being objective will give you better results. There are three parts to the human body: the mind, the body, and the thetan. The term soul has taken on so many meanings that Mr. Hubbard has created a word which defines his meaning of the word soul. Thetan. Thetan comes from the Greek letter theta, q, the symbol for thought or life. The thetan is the person himself. It is the identity, and spiritual being of the human. One does not have thetan he is thetan. The next part is the mind which consists of mental pictures. It is used to think, solve problems, and remember things. The last part is the body. The body is merely the physical composition. It is used to perform daily tasks such as move around, eat, and sleep. The mass majority of religions are seeking for spiritual freedom, where material limitations are no longer a problem. Although they are constantly wondering just how to reach such a state. Life is so difficult, people have so many tough problems facing them within society. As opposed to most religions which search for spiritual freedom, Scientology claims that humans are a spiritual being. and that being a spiritual being, you have abilities beyond environmental boundaries. Scientology teaches people that they are capable of solving any and every problem that they face. It teaches people that their capabilities are so much more than they ever thought. It tries to illuminate self doubt, insecurities, and despair. I do not like to debate religion. It is pointless to debate because no mater what you say or how good your point is, the other person will not change their beliefs. Just like your beliefs, their mind is already made up on the way they think "it" is. Steve Martian did a stand up about beliefs. He said 'I believe women should stand on a pedestal just high enough that you can see up their skirt.' You can believe in anything, it would be ridiculous for someone to try to talk Mr. Martian out of that belief. In learning about religions, there are many ideas that I agree with. It is the same with Scientology. The religion offers a lot about dealing with the suffering of man kind. I like religions that deal with life here on earth and teaches people how to become better people. Improving conditions here on earth is the foremost important thing to fix. Scientology seems to address this issue with full force. It uses modern technology, and knowledge of how human relations to improve the quality of life of people who chose to follow Scientology. In the description of L. Ron Hubbard, I was disgusted. They made it sound like he was this extremely smart guy. When he started studying the mind and the way it works, he noticed that the western society knew nothing about it. He sounded pompous when he said "it was very obvious that I was dealing with and living in a culture which knew less about the mind than the lowest primitive tribe I had ever come in contact with..." I did not like this at all. He sounds like a very arrogant man. Arrogant in a cocky way. In doing research I noticed that all of his followers seem to have the same attitude. I find that it is funny that they are so dedicated to following a man who was born in the twentieth-century. He is an ordinary man who happened to be exceptionally smart. He is a business man who is good at persuading people and wants to make money. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Separation Of Church and State.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Separation Of Church and State Presently in America there are serious concern about issues dealing with the church and the state. The main issue is the separation of church and state within the United States, dealing with predominantly with the First Amendment and how Americans respond to this amendment. Throughout history, there have been many court cases dealing with the separation of church and state. The Engel vs. Vitale court case also deals with the First Amendment and, the on, that I will address the case of Engel versus Vitale. The First Amendment is of a great importance to the American people because it describes there freedom that they have. The court case of Engel versus Vitale went all the way to the Supreme Court whose verdict came to be an overruling of the district court. This case dealt with the public school district of New Hyde Park, New York. The problem in this case was that school officials were allowing a school prayer at the beginning of the day. A main political issue within public schools involves the First Amendment, how the school system enforces certain things and how schools can get around the separation between church and state. The First Amendment is being violated by allowing public officials(teachers) to direct prayer in schools. The reason that this is a violation is because prayer, bible readings and moments of silence are prohibited in public school systems. The First Amendment has many different interpretations that people are attaching to it. People took this amendment to mean that the government was not intended to be banned from assisting religion or was intended to be erased from public or government officials. The Supreme Court case off 1962, Engel versus Vitale, was a case about whether prayer should or should not be allowed in public schools. The argument is drawn from the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. The Board of Directors of the school district of New Hyde, New York held firm to the prayer they wanted to say at the beginning of school which follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country(370 U.S. Sec. 421)." This brief prayer is known as the Regent Prayer. Ten pupils of the public school asked if this prayer was against their beliefs, and those that their parents instilled in them. Their parents felt the prayer was a violation of the First Amendment statement "Congress shall make no law respecting on establishment of religion." The courts of appeal ordered that New York had a right to say the Regent Prayer because it did not compel students to join in on the prayer, and because the prayer was completely optional. This ruling was protected by the rights of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments. The parents of those pupils believe that the Regent Prayer is a violation of the establishment clause. This prayer is seen by government officials as trying to further religious beliefs. The Regent Prayer is viewed by the parents as breaching the constitutional will of separation of church and state. The state is bringing up the point that what is happening now is miner compared to what happen 200 years ago. In every court hearing and every Senate or House meeting there seems to be a small prayer said. The state is trying to compare a teacher saying a short nondenominational prayer to the prayer that courts and government meetings have. Parents are saying that everyone in the presence of prayer is a captive audience. "Church and religion shall live both and upon that freedom. There cannot be freedom of religion, safeguard by the state, and intervention by the church or its agencies in the state's domain or dependency on its largesse(370 U.S. sec. 421)." Mr. Justice Stewart overturned the ruling of the previous court which let the public schools in New York continue to say this brief prayer. He thought the district courts had made a wrong decision. The court is stating that a teacher cannot promote the saying of a prayer, but anyone wanting to pray in a public school has a right to do so. The government today cannot force a group of Americans to take part in any subject dealing with religion. Examples of this are the Star-Spangled Banner, pledge of allegiance, and prayer. The ruling of the Supreme Court was fair because it followed what the constitution said, despite the fact that the Regent Prayer is completely optional for the students to say or not. But the point being made is that school is a public place. These students should not have to be subjected to anything dealing with religion. That is why there are Catholic and other religious schools for students to go and learn about religion. Government officials are supposed to be impartial to religion or, rather, the public is not supposed to know where officials stand on this issue. Teachers are government officials because they are paid on a public payroll by the taxpayers of America(370 U.S. Sec. 421). Catholics were outraged about the Supreme Court ruling and Congress considered a constitutional amendment on the prayer "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg they blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country(Whitfield 132)." They thought this decision was a slap in the face to the history of United States. William Buckley Jr. added that the First Amendment "was not designed to secularize American life. Within a year a 8-1 majority vote of the Supreme Court the reading of bibles in public schools was outlawed. This was done because the United States has a wide span of religious denominations. Not everyone attending school believes in God. Why should these people have to listen to what the bible has to say or preach? Along with the law against reading bibles in schools also banned is the saying of prayers before people sit down to eat. In the City of London, religion is also an important issue. A member of Parliament was refused a seat because he insisted on taking the oath on the Old Testament instead of the New testament(Whitfield 133). The separation of church and state has been a debated topic in the public school realm, as the court case of Engel and Vitale has already presented. Even back when James Madison was president, he had to deal with the problems of church and state. He had to veto a land grant where Congress surveyed the land for a Federal Building and mistakenly gave it to a Baptist Church. President Madison was afraid that the people would think that the government was giving Federal funded property to a church. In the Everson Case in 1947, Justice Hugo L. Black held for the majority that "neither a state nor the Federal Government... can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another... No tray in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions(Whitfield 139)." Today's Supreme Courts they differ from what Justice Black discusses in stating that Congress must remain neutral on matters of religion. These representatives have to refrain from exercising their freedom of speech in dealing with religion, since they are interacting with Congress. Examples of this are witnesses swearing on the bible, the President taking an oath, and the National Anthem having the word 'God' in it, although it does not depict a certain denomination. With certain laws being strict, some schools are trying to present courses of study to the government by omitting or mentioning God or religion. The government discerned, however, that the school districts were trying to achieve a religious purpose in the course and put a end to it. President Regan protested that "the good Lord who has given our country so much should never have been expelled from our nation's classrooms(Whitfield 141)." If one was asked to identify an issue of great importance, religion prevails. Yet, a group that is more diverse than churches in all denominations and varieties of religions would have to be the public school system. That is why there should be a separation of church and state. The United States has an overlap of these two groups, but there is just one belief among the public school system and the churches. There is too much diversification between the people of the church and people of the state(Hughson 23). That is why the United States permits private schools of a religious distinction, so that religious followers can learn about their own religion in schools. WORD CITED Bodehamer, David j., and James W. Ely Jr., eds. The Bill of Rights in Modern America: After 200 years. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. Bork, Robert. "What to do about the First Amendment." Commentary 99(F1995): 23-29. Dawson, Joseph Martin. Americas Way in Church, State, and Society. New York: MacMillian, 1953. Engel v. Vitale. 370 U.S. 421. (1962). Hughson, Thomas. "From James Madison to William lee Miller: John Courtney Murray Baptist theory of the First Amendment." Journal of Church and State 37(W1995): 15-37. Whitfield, Stephen. "Separation Anxiety(From Founders to Fundamentalist)." Judaism 43(S1995) 131-145. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Seperation of Church and State.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Presently in America there are serious concern about issues dealing with the church and the state. The main issue is the separation of church and state within the United States, dealing with predominantly with the First Amendment and how Americans respond to this amendment. Throughout history, there have been many court cases dealing with the separation of church and state. The Engel vs. Vitale court case also deals with the First Amendment and, the on, that I will address the case of Engel versus Vitale. The First Amendment is of a great importance to the American people because it describes there freedom that they have. The court case of Engel versus Vitale went all the way to the Supreme Court whose verdict came to be an overruling of the district court. This case dealt with the public school district of New Hyde Park, New York. The problem in this case was that school officials were allowing a school prayer at the beginning of the day. A main political issue within public schools involves the First Amendment, how the school system enforces certain things and how schools can get around the separation between church and state. The First Amendment is being violated by allowing public officials(teachers) to direct prayer in schools. The reason that this is a violation is because prayer, bible readings and moments of silence are prohibited in public school systems. The First Amendment has many different interpretations that people are attaching to it. People took this amendment to mean that the government was not intended to be banned from assisting religion or was intended to be erased from public or government officials. The Supreme Court case off 1962, Engel versus Vitale, was a case about whether prayer should or should not be allowed in public schools. The argument is drawn from the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. The Board of Directors of the school district of New Hyde, New York held firm to the prayer they wanted to say at the beginning of school which follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country(370 U.S. Sec. 421)." This brief prayer is known as the Regent Prayer. Ten pupils of the public school asked if this prayer was against their beliefs, and those that their parents instilled in them. Their parents felt the prayer was a violation of the First Amendment statement "Congress shall make no law respecting on establishment of religion." The courts of appeal ordered that New York had a right to say the Regent Prayer because it did not compel students to join in on the prayer, and because the prayer was completely optional. This ruling was protected by the rights of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments. The parents of those pupils believe that the Regent Prayer is a violation of the establishment clause. This prayer is seen by government officials as trying to further religious beliefs. The Regent Prayer is viewed by the parents as breaching the constitutional will of separation of church and state. The state is bringing up the point that what is happening now is miner compared to what happen 200 years ago. In every court hearing and every Senate or House meeting there seems to be a small prayer said. The state is trying to compare a teacher saying a short nondenominational prayer to the prayer that courts and government meetings have. Parents are saying that everyone in the presence of prayer is a captive audience. "Church and religion shall live both and upon that freedom. There cannot be freedom of religion, safeguard by the state, and intervention by the church or its agencies in the state's domain or dependency on its largesse(370 U.S. sec. 421)." Mr. Justice Stewart overturned the ruling of the previous court which let the public schools in New York continue to say this brief prayer. He thought the district courts had made a wrong decision. The court is stating that a teacher cannot promote the saying of a prayer, but anyone wanting to pray in a public school has a right to do so. The government today cannot force a group of Americans to take part in any subject dealing with religion. Examples of this are the Star-Spangled Banner, pledge of allegiance, and prayer. The ruling of the Supreme Court was fair because it followed what the constitution said, despite the fact that the Regent Prayer is completely optional for the students to say or not. But the point being made is that school is a public place. These students should not have to be subjected to anything dealing with religion. That is why there are Catholic and other religious schools for students to go and learn about religion. Government officials are supposed to be impartial to religion or, rather, the public is not supposed to know where officials stand on this issue. Teachers are government officials because they are paid on a public payroll by the taxpayers of America(370 U.S. Sec. 421). Catholics were outraged about the Supreme Court ruling and Congress considered a constitutional amendment on the prayer "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg they blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country(Whitfield 132)." They thought this decision was a slap in the face to the history of United States. William Buckley Jr. added that the First Amendment "was not designed to secularize American life. Within a year a 8-1 majority vote of the Supreme Court the reading of bibles in public schools was outlawed. This was done because the United States has a wide span of religious denominations. Not everyone attending school believes in God. Why should these people have to listen to what the bible has to say or preach? Along with the law against reading bibles in schools also banned is the saying of prayers before people sit down to eat. In the City of London, religion is also an important issue. A member of Parliament was refused a seat because he insisted on taking the oath on the Old Testament instead of the New testament(Whitfield 133). The separation of church and state has been a debated topic in the public school realm, as the court case of Engel and Vitale has already presented. Even back when James Madison was president, he had to deal with the problems of church and state. He had to veto a land grant where Congress surveyed the land for a Federal Building and mistakenly gave it to a Baptist Church. President Madison was afraid that the people would think that the government was giving Federal funded property to a church. In the Everson Case in 1947, Justice Hugo L. Black held for the majority that "neither a state nor the Federal Government... can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another... No tray in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions(Whitfield 139)." Today's Supreme Courts they differ from what Justice Black discusses in stating that Congress must remain neutral on matters of religion. These representatives have to refrain from exercising their freedom of speech in dealing with religion, since they are interacting with Congress. Examples of this are witnesses swearing on the bible, the President taking an oath, and the National Anthem having the word 'God' in it, although it does not depict a certain denomination. With certain laws being strict, some schools are trying to present courses of study to the government by omitting or mentioning God or religion. The government discerned, however, that the school districts were trying to achieve a religious purpose in the course and put a end to it. President Regan protested that "the good Lord who has given our country so much should never have been expelled from our nation's classrooms(Whitfield 141)." If one was asked to identify an issue of great importance, religion prevails. Yet, a group that is more diverse than churches in all denominations and varieties of religions would have to be the public school system. That is why there should be a separation of church and state. The United States has an overlap of these two groups, but there is just one belief among the public school system and the churches. There is too much diversification between the people of the church and people of the state(Hughson 23). That is why the United States permits private schools of a religious distinction, so that religious followers can learn about their own religion in schools. WORD CITED Bodehamer, David j., and James W. Ely Jr., eds. The Bill of Rights in Modern America: After 200 years. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. Bork, Robert. "What to do about the First Amendment." Commentary 99(F1995): 23-29. Dawson, Joseph Martin. Americas Way in Church, State, and Society. New York: MacMillian, 1953. Engel v. Vitale. 370 U.S. 421. (1962). Hughson, Thomas. "From James Madison to William lee Miller: John Courtney Murray Baptist theory of the First Amendment." Journal of Church and State 37(W1995): 15-37. Whitfield, Stephen. "Separation Anxiety(From Founders to Fundamentalist)." Judaism 43(S1995) 131-145. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Shintoism 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Shintoism The Shinto religion was started in the Tokugawa period (1600-1868) of Japanese history. The Tokugawa "Enlightenment" inspired a group of people who studied kokugaku, which roughly translated means "nativism," "Japanese Studies," or "Native Studies." Kokugaku's intent was to recover "Japanese character" to what it was before the early influences of foreigners, especially the Chinese. Some of these influences include Confucianism (Chinese), Taoism (Chinese), Buddhism (Indian and Chinese), and Christianity (Western European). The kokugakushu ("nativist") focused most of their efforts on recovering the Shinto religion, the native Japanese religion, from fragments of texts and popular religious practices. However, Shintoism is probably not a native religion of Japan (since the Japanese were not the original "natives" of Japan). There really is no one thing that can be called "Shinto," The name itself is a bit misleading because it is made up of two Chinese words meaning "the way of the gods"(Shen : " spiritual power, divinity"; Tao : "the way or path"). The word for this in Japanese is kannagara : "the way of the kami ." Many things can be said about Shinto. First, it was a tribal religion, not a state one. However, even when the tribes were organized into coherent states, they still retained their Shinto beliefs. Second, all Shinto cults believe in Kami ("the divine") Individual clans worshipped a single Kami which was regarded as the principal ancestor of the clan. As the clan spread, it still worshipped it's Kami, but when one clan conquered another clan-the defeated clan had to worship the Kami of the victorious clan. What the Kami consist of is hard to define. Kami refers to the gods of Heaven, Earth, and the Underworld. But Kami also are all those things that have divinity in them to some degree. Third, all Shinto involve some sort of shrine worship, the most important was the Izumo Shrine on the coast of the Japan Sea. Originally, these shrines were himorogi (unpolluted land surrounded by trees) or iwasaka (unpolluted land surrounded by stones). Shinto shrines are usually single rooms raised off the ground, with religious objects placed inside, and on the outside there was a torii (wash-basin). The torii was used for the misorgi, which is washing the hands and sometimes the face before entering the shrine. Someone worships a shrine by "attending" it, or devoting oneself to the object that is being worshipped, and by giving offerings to it: the offerings can be anything from vegetables to great riches. Almost nothing at all is known about early Shinto because nothing was written about it. Early Shinto may just be a name given to a large number of unrelated local religions that combined with the the centralized states. The two texts of Shintoism, the Kojiki (The records of Ancient matters) and the Nihongi (Chronicles of Japan), were written down around 700 A.D., two centuries after Japan had declared Buddhism the state religion. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the Japanese government campaigned to make Shinto the national religion. However many people were unhappy with Shintoism. During that time Christianity arrived in Japan. Between 1868 and 1873 Christianity was severely attacked as the government shut out foreigners and their ideas. Many active Christians were killed. In 1912 the Japanese got religious freedom. In 1990 the number of followers for religions in Japan are :Shintoists - 112,200,000, Buddhists - 93,400,000, Christians - 1,422,000, and others - 11,412,000. Therefore, about 120 million people adhere to 2 or more religions at the same time. Works Cited "Shinto" http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/Shinto.html. Online. 5 June 1995. Hishida, Miki. "Religions in Japan." 15 Dec 1995. Online posting: http://naio1.kcc.hawaii.edu/miki/JReligions.html. Internet. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Shintoism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Shintoism The Shinto religion was started in the Tokugawa period (1600-1868) of Japanese history. The Tokugawa Enlightenment inspired a group of people who studied kokugaku, which roughly translated means nativism, Japanese Studies, or Native Studies. Kokugakus intent was to recover Japanese character to what it was before the early influences of foreigners, especially the Chinese. Some of these influences include Confucianism (Chinese), Taoism (Chinese), Buddhism (Indian and Chinese), and Christianity (Western European). The kokugakushu (nativist) focused most of their efforts on recovering the Shinto religion, the native Japanese religion, from fragments of texts and popular religious practices. However, Shintoism is probably not a native religion of Japan (since the Japanese were not the original natives of Japan). There really is no one thing that can be called Shinto, The name itself is a bit misleading because it is made up of two Chinese words meaning the way of the gods(Shen : spiritual power, divinity; Tao : the way or path). The word for this in Japanese is kannagara : "the way of the kami ." Many things can be said about Shinto. First, it was a tribal religion, not a state one. However, even when the tribes were organized into coherent states, they still retained their Shinto beliefs. Second, all Shinto cults believe in Kami (the divine) Individual clans worshipped a single Kami which was regarded as the principal ancestor of the clan. As the clan spread, it still worshipped its Kami, but when one clan conquered another clan-the defeated clan had to worship the Kami of the victorious clan. What the Kami consist of is hard to define. Kami refers to the gods of Heaven, Earth, and the Underworld. But Kami also are all those things that have divinity in them to some degree. Third, all Shinto involve some sort of shrine worship, the most important was the Izumo Shrine on the coast of the Japan Sea. Originally, these shrines were himorogi (unpolluted land surrounded by trees) or iwasaka (unpolluted land surrounded by stones). Shinto shrines are usually single rooms raised off the ground, with religious objects placed inside, and on the outside there was a torii (wash-basin). The torii was used for the misorgi, which is washing the hands and sometimes the face before entering the shrine. Someone worships a shrine by attending it, or devoting oneself to the object that is being worshipped, and by giving offerings to it: the offerings can be anything from vegetables to great riches. Almost nothing at all is known about early Shinto because nothing was written about it. Early Shinto may just be a name given to a large number of unrelated local religions that combined with the the centralized states. The two texts of Shintoism, the Kojiki (The records of Ancient matters) and the Nihongi (Chronicles of Japan), were written down around 700 A.D., two centuries after Japan had declared Buddhism the state religion. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the Japanese government campaigned to make Shinto the national religion. However many people were unhappy with Shintoism. During that time Christianity arrived in Japan. Between 1868 and 1873 Christianity was severely attacked as the government shut out foreigners and their ideas. Many active Christians were killed. In 1912 the Japanese got religious freedom. In 1990 the number of followers for religions in Japan are :Shintoists -112,200,000, Buddhists - 93,400,000, Christians - 1,422,000, and others - 11,412,000. Therefore, about 120 million people adhere to 2 or more religions at the same time. Works Cited Shinto http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/Shinto.html. Online. 5 June 1995. Hishida, Miki. Religions in Japan. 15 Dec 1995. Online posting: http://naio1.kcc.hawaii.edu/miki/JReligions.html. Internet. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Siddartha Guatama In Modern Day North America.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For over 2000 years Buddhism has existed as an organized religion. By religion we mean that it has a concept of the profane, the sacred, and approaches to the sacred. It has been established in India, China, Japan and other eastern cultures for almost 2000 years and has gained a strong foothold in North America and Europe in the past few centuries. However, one might ask; what fate would Buddhism face had Siddartha Guatama been born in modern times; or more specifically in modern day North America? Would his new found enlightenment be accepted now as it was thousands of years ago? Would it be shunned by society as another "cult" movement? What conflicts or similarities would it find with modern science; physics in particular? The answers to these questions are the aim of this paper, as well as a deeper understanding of modern Buddhism. Although I will stick with traditional ideas raised by Buddhism, one detail in the story of Siddartha Guatama must be addressed in order for it to be relevant to the main question being asked: What obstacles would Siddartha Guatama face had he been born in modern day North America. Primarily, it must be recognized that rather than being born into the Hindu religion (which in itself is mystical), Siddartha would have most likely been born into a Christian family. This in itself presents the first obstacle, that being that Christianity is a strictly monotheistic and non-mystical faith. Hence from the outset, although in the traditional story Siddartha faced a conflict with his father (Ludwig 137), in the North American scenario the conflict would have been heightened by the fact that his search for enlightenment was not even closely similar to the Christian faith. As with science, changes in religious thought are often met with strong opposition. It is interesting to note though, that many parallels can be found between modern physics and Eastern Mysticism. As Fritjof Capra writes: The changes, brought about by modern physics . . . all seem to lead towards a view of the world which is very similar to the views held in Eastern Mysticism. The concepts of modern physics often show surprising parallels to the ideas expressed in the religious philosophies of the Far East. (17-18) Thus by examining some of the obstacles imposed by typical western thought on modern physicists attempting to develop new theories, we can apply the same conclusions to the situation that would be faced by Siddartha Guatama in modern day North America. Traditionally, western thought can be summed up by French philosopher RenJ Descartes' famous saying, "Cogito ergo sum" or "I think therefor I exist". That is, typically, western man has always equated identity with his mind, instead of his whole organism (Capra 23). This same line of thought can be found in traditional Newtonian Mechanics in which the observer of an event is never taken into account when describing the event. Rather, all things are said to occur at an "absolute time" in space, never taking into account the observer's position or speed relative to the event or the rest of the Universe. However, in the beginning of the 20th century, new developments in physics began to shake the framework of the scientific world. Due mostly to work by Albert Einstein, but also Ernest Rutherford and others, the scientific view of the universe took a drastic turn. These scientists recognized flaws in the classical Newtonian view of the universe. The recognition of these flaws led to the development of the Quantum Theory of Matter as well as Einstein's Relativity Theory. These theories, as well as the discoveries that they led to, incorporated the entire universe as being comprised of energy, and that particles, time, and space, are just different representations of this energy. Naturally this faced strict opposition. So much so that in spite of it's ground-breaking nature as well as the fact that it had been proven, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity failed to earn him the Nobel Prize. Even to this day many find it difficult to comprehend these more abstract theories. Both concepts - that of empty space and that of solid material bodies (Newtonian Mechanics) - are deeply ingrained in our habits of thought, so it is extremely difficult for us to imagine a physical reality where they do not apply (Capra 64). Thus, by applying the obstacles faced by modern physicists, it easy to see how a more close-minded western way of thought would be skeptical of Siddartha's new philosophy. Rather than accept, or even recognize, the more abstract theory of reality that Siddartha would be presenting, western society would rather push it off to the side and stick with it's more concrete concept; that being Christianity. However, as with modern physics, this opposition would not be out of stubbornness but simply out of a lack of the ability to grasp the concepts that Siddartha would be trying to portray. By hypothesizing what would happen had Buddhism been formed in 20th century North America rather than 5th century BCE India, we would be putting Buddhism into a category of Fringe religions. By Fringe religions we mean: all those groups not accorded full social respectability nor recognized as being of equal status with those religious groups in which most important societal spokespersons participate and with which they identify (Shupe 7). Since Buddhism, had it been formed by Siddartha in 20th century North America, would be viewed as a Fringe religion at first, we can also apply western societies reaction towards actual Fringe religions to the thesis. It is not a far leap of imagination to move from the observation that a fringe religious group is "odd" to a sense that its religious challenge really possess a serious potential threat to one's way of life and valued social relations (Shupe 27). It is this common misconception, imposed upon virtually all new religions, that would prove to be the main obstacle in the formation of Buddhism. Currently such religious movements as the Jehovah's Witness, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, and the Black Muslims - established and relevant as they are - face this type of obstacle (Shupe 7). Be it through negative exposure by the media or trouble with the law (one is reminded of Waco Texas) these new Fringe religious face a constant barrage of opposition. The opposition can often get so trumped up, especially by the media, that the religion will often be dismissed as a cult. the media picked up on the term (cult) undoubtedly because of it's vaguely exotic, unsavory connotation . . . in the 1970's, many "cults" included Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses . . . and Zen Buddhists . . . irrespective of their differing affinities to Judeo-Christian tradition (Shupe 8). With such a backlash against new religions, it is amazing that Buddhism was even able to get a foothold in North America, despite being a established religion for over 2 millenniums. Despite having these obstacle to overcome, Siddartha's new found religion would not have to fight on it's own. As stated earlier, there are many parallels that can be drawn between Buddhism and modern physics. As a matter of fact, Siddartha Guatama stated over 2000 years ago what has only come into realization by physicists today: He proclaimed it as shiki soku zeku and ku soku zeshiki1. Ku, literally "emptiness" or "void," does not mean "nothingness" but "equality." Shiki soku zeku indicates the idea that all things . . . originate from the same foundation . . . Similarly, ku soku zeshiki means that all things . . . are produced by ku, and therefore ku is identical with shiki (Niwano 207). It is through this main parallel that it is likely that scientists, physicists in particular, would embrace this new concept of reality. Through personal experience it is my interest in modern physics that piqued my interest in Eastern Mysticism. Therefor through the western ideal of attaining as much knowledge of the universe as possible (read: space exploration, particle accelerators, etc) it is quite possible that Buddhism, had it been formed in 20th century North America, could become a mainstream religion after surviving the initial onslaught of opposition. Thus, had Siddartha Guatama been born in modern day North America, there would be a number of obstacles for him to face in the founding of Buddhism. He would have to overcome the problems of being born into a Christian family/society; a society not used to such abstract ideas of reality, the close-minded nature of western thought, and the problems posed by a media that likes to jump on anything new and unusual and tear it to shreds. However, if it were to overcome these obstacles it is quite probable that it would become a deeply rooted religion in North America due to the likely support it would gain from the scientific community. Bibliography Capra, Fritjof. The Tao Of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Berkley: Shamhala Publications, 1975 Ludwig, Theodore M. The Sacred Paths: Understanding the Religions of the World. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996 Niwano, NikkyÇ. Buddhism For Today: A Modern Interpretation of the Threefold Lotus Sutra. New York: WeatherHill, 1980 Richardson, Allen E. East Comes West: Asian Religions and Cultures in North America. New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1985 Shupe Anson D. Six Perspectives On New Religions: A Case Study Approach. New York:: f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Siddhartha Gautama.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Siddhartha Gautama Siddhartha Gautama was born about 563 BC in what is now modern Nepal. His father, Suddhodana, was the ruler of the Sakya people and Siddhartha grew up living the extravagant life on a young prince. According to custom, he married at the young age of sixteen to a girl named Yasodhara. His father had ordered that he live a life of total seclusion, but one day Siddhartha ventured out into the world and was confronted with the reality of the inevitable suffering of life. The next day, at the age of twenty-nine, he left his kingdom and new-born son to lead an modest life and determine a way to relieve universal suffering. For six years, Siddhartha meditated under a bodhi tree. But he was never fully satisfied. One day he was offered a bowl of rice from a young girl and he accepted it. In that moment, he realized that physical hardships were not the means to freedom. From then on, he encouraged people not to use extremes in their life. He called this The Middle Way. That night Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree, and meditated till dawn. He cleared his mind of all worldly things and claimed to get enlightenment at the age of thirty-five, thus earning the title Buddha, or "Enlightened One." For the remainder of his eighty years, the Buddha preached the dharma in an effort to help other people reach enlightenment. When Siddhartha is a Brahmin, he believes in the existence of many gods, and performs sacrifices to them. After a while he realizes this is meaningless and decides to leave his family and community and become a Samana. As a Samana, he tries to destroy himself in may ways. He feels if he kills himself, with its passions and emotions, he will find the great secret. Siddhartha doesn't spend much time as Buddha, although he has an important revelation. He discovers he can't find peace by learning from a master. He finds the only way to have peace with the world is by finding it for himself. When Siddhartha leaves Buddha, he is enthralled with the world. He starts paying more attention to the world because he knows he must get experience for himself. As he walks he comes upon a town. He stays and becomes a merchant. At first he looks at his actions as a game. After a while he becomes more serious. He starts drinking and gambling and becomes lazy. Siddhartha sees this and decides to leave the town.He wanders through a forest and comes upon a river. Just as he's about to kill himself he hears Om. Siddhartha decides there is much to live for. He looks a this experience as a rebirth, and starts a new life. Siddhartha stays by the river and looks for a ferryman he met years ago who's name was Vasudeua. Vasudeua had found peace with himself, and Siddhartha stays with him. He comes to peace with the world and learns he must love everything, because everything has good in it. He also sees the difference between past, present, and future is just a myth. In his hometown, Siddhartha's social status was very high. He was popular, and lived by everyone, but he decided that he could not stay. When he was with the Samanas, this social status sunk to an all time low. He was considered a beggar. When Siddhartha visited the Buddha, his social status was changing. Siddhartha is involved with Brahmin rituals in his hometown. He lives with his family and is in good health. He eats well, has good hygiene, and wears decent clothes. But when the Samanas come to his village, he decides to leave his family for life in the forest. He travels with the Samanas in the Forrest. He often meditates. He doesn't eat good or clean himself, and only wears a loin cloth. He leaves the Samanas by hypnotizing the leader and convinces him to let him go. Siddhartha goes to see Buddha. HE soon leaves Buddha and travels on his own as an independent Samana. Eventually he becomes weary of his lifestyle and decides to live in a village. There he finds Kamala, a beautiful prostitute. He works hard to get clothes, shoes, and money for Kamala. Joining Kamaswami, a merchant. Siddhartha becomes rich. This gets him nice clothes, shoes, tasteful meals, and good hygiene. After a while he becomes tired of his life in the village and leaves. He tries to commit suicide, but then decides not to kill himself. He falls asleep and sleeps for a long, long time. When he wakes up he decides he wants to be a ferryman and join Vasudeva. Siddhartha lives in Vasudeva's hut with him and occasionally talks with him. Siddhartha now wears few clothing, eats small meals, and keeps poor hygiene. Soon, he has to take care of his son, this takes time. Siddhartha eventually completely takes over Vasudeva's business Siddhartha was unhappy following Hinduism. He says, that since Atman created the other gods, then he is the only true god, and the others are temporary. Siddhartha's discontent with Hinduism grows strong enough to drive him from home. Siddhartha's experience with the Buddha shows his growing doubt of teachings. He sees Nirvana in Buddha, but knows in his heart that teachings cannot bring it. After leaving Buddha Siddhartha becomes depressed and decides to leave virtue for vices. After living with Samsara for may years, Siddhartha becomes depressed. He realizes that the beautiful bird that once sang in his soul has become silent. When he reaches the river he sits above it, and hears of his soul the holy Om, this is proof that the bird exists. The river teaches him more than any human teacher could have, like the fact that time is an illusion. Siddhartha finally finds peace in this. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Significance of Ritual in North American Indian Religion 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Significance of Ritual in North American Indian Religion Submitted by: Dan Xxxxxxxx, November 12, 1996 Submitted to: Dr. John X. Xxxxxxx RELST 110.6.01 When scholars study religion, the tendency exists to focus on the mythological aspects of the religion in an attempt to understand the major underlying concepts present. However, an equally rewarding study often can be accomplished through the careful analysis of the religion's ritual aspects. This is especially true when studying North American Indian religions where there is an abundance of elaborate rituals that play a significant role in their culture. By closely examining the details and symbolism of ritual movements, we can gather some basic understanding of what is seen to be of value in a certain theology. While most Native American rituals tend to be mono-cultural, there are a few rituals that frequently appear in many different regions and tribes across North America. Two of these widespread rituals are the ritual of the "sacred pipe," and sweat lodge ceremonials. The sacred pipe ritual is loaded with symbolic meaning, and offers a generous insight into Native American belief systems. This essay will first look at the dynamics of the sacred pipe ritual and offer some explanation into its religious significance, then draw some parallels to the more common sweat lodge ceremony. If a recurring spiritual theme appears in separate rituals, it can be considered evidence of a consistent, structured belief system. The use of smoking pipes in Native American cultures is a popular and very ancient practice. Direct predecessors of the modern pipe appear 1,500 years ago, and other less relevant pipes can be found as far back as 2,500 years ago. The distinguishing characteristic of the sacred pipe is that the bowl is separable from the long stem, and the two parts are kept apart except during ritual use. The pipe is seen as a holy object and is treated with much respect. This type of ceremonial pipe was used by tribes ranging from the Rocky Mountain range to the Atlantic, and from the Gulf of Mexico to James Bay. It did not penetrate into Pacific coast or Southwest cultures, where tubular pipes were preferred. Inter-tribal trading helped the practice of this particular ritual spread rapidly, because in order for peaceful trade relations to take place some form of ritual had to be observed. Respect for the sacred pipe ritual, as well as a gift exchange, was central to peaceful trade in North American culture. The whole sacred pipe ritual revolves around the pipe itself, and as the pipe passes around the circle, so passes the center of attention. Fundamental to the spiritual understanding of the ritual is the pairing of female and male powers which when combined, results in creation. The pipe itself consists of two parts; the bowl which is symbolically female, and the stem which is male. The pipe is potent only when the two components are fitted together, and for this reason it is only joined at the beginning of the ceremony, and its separation indicates the end of the ritual. With only a few exceptions, the pipe bowl is made of stone or clay, because the Earth and all things Earthen are also seen to be of a female nature. Similarly, the stem is usually wooden, made from trees that were procreated by the joining of the male Sky and the female Earth. The pipe stem can be decorated with a striped design symbolic of the trachea, and eagle feathers may be hung from the stem to further symbolize the sending of the smoke, songs, and chants to sacred ancestral and nature spirits. During the course of the ceremony, the pipe is seen as the center of the cosmos, and all directions radiating out from this center each have their own symbolic significance. East traditionally represents birth or beginning, originally taking this meaning from the rising of the sun. The significance of the direction west also is derived from the sun, this time the path the sun follows represents the path of life. The interpretation of these two directions seldom varies from tribe to tribe, since the sun is always of great spiritual importance to primitive cultures. Most commonly the direction south is seen as representing growth and nurturing, which implies a female gender. The primary smoker in the ceremony offers smoke in all directions by pointing the stem of the pipe towards each spiritual recipient, which can be done either before or after lighting the pipe. In addition to the four horizontal directions, smoke is also offered in an upward direction which represents the male spirits of the Sky, the Sun, the West Wind, and the Thunder Beings. The smoke is also offered in a downward direction, and the bowl of the pipe is touched to the ground. This is appropriate since the bowl of the pipe is seen as female and as having come from the earth. Direction is not the only concept of spirituality at work in the sacred pipe ritual however. There are four 'spheres of being' that center around the pipe, the first one containing the concept of self which refers to the person holding the pipe. The next sphere is comprised of one's family, clan, and nation. Further out from the center is the sphere of animal relations which contains "those who walk the earth in the four directions, those who fly in the sky above, and those who crawl through the earth below or swim in the sea." The furthest sphere contains the most powerful spirits which are the four directions and winds, the sky, and the earth and sea. The bowl of the pipe is a sacrificial vessel in which the sacred plants are burnt as an offering. The plant mixture is made up primarily of tobacco, with some other additives such as bearberry leaves, sumac leaves, and the inner bark of red willow. This tobacco mixture is added pinch by pinch, and each pinch is explicitly dedicated to the sacred directions as well as the animals and spirits to which it is being offered. This initial smoke offering is done by the primary smoker who is the leader of the ceremonies. He directs the smoke by pointing the stem of the pipe in the direction of the spiritual recipient. Subsequent smokers may offer the smoke with their mouths as well as by raising the pipe skyward, touching it to the ground, and turning the pipe in a circle. The nature of the sacred pipe ritual is surprisingly consistent throughout many Native American cultures, and this can probably be attributed to the trade relationships between tribes. Even though the language and specific culture may vary, the common factor present throughout is the great importance placed on the sun, the earth, and all of nature in general. This would help explain how cultures with little or no common linguistic ground could so easily adopt rituals from each other as well as maintain the basic ritual of the sacred pipe. The sweat lodge ritual was even more widespread across North America than the sacred pipe ritual. For years, most Europeans misinterpreted the sweat lodge ceremony as a hygienic practice, rather than as a powerful religious ritual involving direct communication with the spirits. The sweat lodge ritual is similar to the sacred pipe ritual in respect to the great spiritual importance given to physical directions, and to the masculine Sun and feminine Earth. The sweat lodge is a dome-shaped structure, and every part has a symbolic significance. The number of poles that are used to form the dome is always a multiple of four, which is derived from the four horizontal directions. There is a low entrance facing the East, the direction of the rising sun, which is symbolic of the beginning of life and understanding. In the center a round pit is dug, and the earth that is removed is used to build an altar east of the sweat lodge. A fire, symbolic of the Sun, is built between the altar and the sweat lodge, and is used to heat the rocks that are needed for the sweat lodge. The sweat lodge is then covered in such a way that the interior is completely devoid of light. The participants sit on evergreen branches or sage laid on the Earth. If enough people are participating, four of them are delegated as gatekeepers of the Four Directions. The pit is symbolically the womb of the Earth, and in the very center of the pit the red-hot rocks are placed. Even though rocks are from the Earth and traditionally a female symbol, in this ritual they are thought of as the Grandfathers. This is easily explained by the fact that they store the energy from the fire, which is a very masculine symbol representing the Sun. The rocks are then sprayed with water, which is traditionally a female life-giving element of nature. The coupling of the male energy and the female water results in the spiritual regeneration of the participants. When the ritual is complete, the participants crawl from the symbolic womb, and consider each other to be 'reborn' individuals who have been spiritually cleansed. In these two ancient Native American rituals there is evidence of recurring spiritual symbolism which suggests that there was a structured, consistent belief system. For this reason, these two ceremonies make fairly good examples of how knowledge of a culture's religious aspect can be gained through the analysis of not only its myths and legends, but also of its rituals. In both rituals there is evidence of great respect for nature, and the tendency to give natural objects and forces a specific gender. Much significance is placed on directions, especially east and west which is obviously derived from the path of the sun. Also important are the upward and downward directions representing the male sky and the female earth, and the joining of the two to give life. The simple fact that these symbols are so widespread and evident in separate rituals suggests that the North American Indians had a strong religious foundation long before Europeans arrived and attempted to 'teach' them religion. WORKS CITED LIST Brown, Joseph Van Epes. The Sacred Pipe: Black Elk's Account of the Seven Rites of the Oglala Sioux. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1953. Coorigan, Samuel W, ed. Readings in Aboriginal Studies Brandon, Manitoba: Bearpaw Publishing, 1995. Hultkrantz, Ake. Belief and Worship in Native North America. Ed. Christopher Vecsey. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1981. Robicsek, Francis. The Smoking Gods: Tobacco in Maya Art, History, and Religion. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1978. Steinmetz, Fr. Paul B., S.J. "The Sacred Pipe in American Indian Religions." American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 8(3): 27-80, 1984. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Significance of Ritual in North American Indian Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Significance of Ritual in North American Indian Religion Submitted by: Dan Xxxxxxxx, November 12, 1996 Submitted to: Dr. John X. Xxxxxxx RELST 110.6.01 When scholars study religion, the tendency exists to focus on the mythological aspects of the religion in an attempt to understand the major underlying concepts present. However, an equally rewarding study often can be accomplished through the careful analysis of the religion's ritual aspects. This is especially true when studying North American Indian religions where there is an abundance of elaborate rituals that play a significant role in their culture. By closely examining the details and symbolism of ritual movements, we can gather some basic understanding of what is seen to be of value in a certain theology. While most Native American rituals tend to be mono-cultural, there are a few rituals that frequently appear in many different regions and tribes across North America. Two of these widespread rituals are the ritual of the "sacred pipe," and sweat lodge ceremonials. The sacred pipe ritual is loaded with symbolic meaning, and offers a generous insight into Native American belief systems. This essay will first look at the dynamics of the sacred pipe ritual and offer some explanation into its religious significance, then draw some parallels to the more common sweat lodge ceremony. If a recurring spiritual theme appears in separate rituals, it can be considered evidence of a consistent, structured belief system. The use of smoking pipes in Native American cultures is a popular and very ancient practice. Direct predecessors of the modern pipe appear 1,500 years ago, and other less relevant pipes can be found as far back as 2,500 years ago. The distinguishing characteristic of the sacred pipe is that the bowl is separable from the long stem, and the two parts are kept apart except during ritual use. The pipe is seen as a holy object and is treated with much respect. This type of ceremonial pipe was used by tribes ranging from the Rocky Mountain range to the Atlantic, and from the Gulf of Mexico to James Bay. It did not penetrate into Pacific coast or Southwest cultures, where tubular pipes were preferred. Inter-tribal trading helped the practice of this particular ritual spread rapidly, because in order for peaceful trade relations to take place some form of ritual had to be observed. Respect for the sacred pipe ritual, as well as a gift exchange, was central to peaceful trade in North American culture. The whole sacred pipe ritual revolves around the pipe itself, and as the pipe passes around the circle, so passes the center of attention. Fundamental to the spiritual understanding of the ritual is the pairing of female and male powers which when combined, results in creation. The pipe itself consists of two parts; the bowl which is symbolically female, and the stem which is male. The pipe is potent only when the two components are fitted together, and for this reason it is only joined at the beginning of the ceremony, and its separation indicates the end of the ritual. With only a few exceptions, the pipe bowl is made of stone or clay, because the Earth and all things Earthen are also seen to be of a female nature. Similarly, the stem is usually wooden, made from trees that were procreated by the joining of the male Sky and the female Earth. The pipe stem can be decorated with a striped design symbolic of the trachea, and eagle feathers may be hung from the stem to further symbolize the sending of the smoke, songs, and chants to sacred ancestral and nature spirits. During the course of the ceremony, the pipe is seen as the center of the cosmos, and all directions radiating out from this center each have their own symbolic significance. East traditionally represents birth or beginning, originally taking this meaning from the rising of the sun. The significance of the direction west also is derived from the sun, this time the path the sun follows represents the path of life. The interpretation of these two directions seldom varies from tribe to tribe, since the sun is always of great spiritual importance to primitive cultures. Most commonly the direction south is seen as representing growth and nurturing, which implies a female gender. The primary smoker in the ceremony offers smoke in all directions by pointing the stem of the pipe towards each spiritual recipient, which can be done either before or after lighting the pipe. In addition to the four horizontal directions, smoke is also offered in an upward direction which represents the male spirits of the Sky, the Sun, the West Wind, and the Thunder Beings. The smoke is also offered in a downward direction, and the bowl of the pipe is touched to the ground. This is appropriate since the bowl of the pipe is seen as female and as having come from the earth. Direction is not the only concept of spirituality at work in the sacred pipe ritual however. There are four 'spheres of being' that center around the pipe, the first one containing the concept of self which refers to the person holding the pipe. The next sphere is comprised of one's family, clan, and nation. Further out from the center is the sphere of animal relations which contains "those who walk the earth in the four directions, those who fly in the sky above, and those who crawl through the earth below or swim in the sea." The furthest sphere contains the most powerful spirits which are the four directions and winds, the sky, and the earth and sea. The bowl of the pipe is a sacrificial vessel in which the sacred plants are burnt as an offering. The plant mixture is made up primarily of tobacco, with some other additives such as bearberry leaves, sumac leaves, and the inner bark of red willow. This tobacco mixture is added pinch by pinch, and each pinch is explicitly dedicated to the sacred directions as well as the animals and spirits to which it is being offered. This initial smoke offering is done by the primary smoker who is the leader of the ceremonies. He directs the smoke by pointing the stem of the pipe in the direction of the spiritual recipient. Subsequent smokers may offer the smoke with their mouths as well as by raising the pipe skyward, touching it to the ground, and turning the pipe in a circle. The nature of the sacred pipe ritual is surprisingly consistent throughout many Native American cultures, and this can probably be attributed to the trade relationships between tribes. Even though the language and specific culture may vary, the common factor present throughout is the great importance placed on the sun, the earth, and all of nature in general. This would help explain how cultures with little or no common linguistic ground could so easily adopt rituals from each other as well as maintain the basic ritual of the sacred pipe. The sweat lodge ritual was even more widespread across North America than the sacred pipe ritual. For years, most Europeans misinterpreted the sweat lodge ceremony as a hygienic practice, rather than as a powerful religious ritual involving direct communication with the spirits. The sweat lodge ritual is similar to the sacred pipe ritual in respect to the great spiritual importance given to physical directions, and to the masculine Sun and feminine Earth. The sweat lodge is a dome-shaped structure, and every part has a symbolic significance. The number of poles that are used to form the dome is always a multiple of four, which is derived from the four horizontal directions. There is a low entrance facing the East, the direction of the rising sun, which is symbolic of the beginning of life and understanding. In the center a round pit is dug, and the earth that is removed is used to build an altar east of the sweat lodge. A fire, symbolic of the Sun, is built between the altar and the sweat lodge, and is used to heat the rocks that are needed for the sweat lodge. The sweat lodge is then covered in such a way that the interior is completely devoid of light. The participants sit on evergreen branches or sage laid on the Earth. If enough people are participating, four of them are delegated as gatekeepers of the Four Directions. The pit is symbolically the womb of the Earth, and in the very center of the pit the red-hot rocks are placed. Even though rocks are from the Earth and traditionally a female symbol, in this ritual they are thought of as the Grandfathers. This is easily explained by the fact that they store the energy from the fire, which is a very masculine symbol representing the Sun. The rocks are then sprayed with water, which is traditionally a female life-giving element of nature. The coupling of the male energy and the female water results in the spiritual regeneration of the participants. When the ritual is complete, the participants crawl from the symbolic womb, and consider each other to be 'reborn' individuals who have been spiritually cleansed. In these two ancient Native American rituals there is evidence of recurring spiritual symbolism which suggests that there was a structured, consistent belief system. For this reason, these two ceremonies make fairly good examples of how knowledge of a culture's religious aspect can be gained through the analysis of not only its myths and legends, but also of its rituals. In both rituals there is evidence of great respect for nature, and the tendency to give natural objects and forces a specific gender. Much significance is placed on directions, especially east and west which is obviously derived from the path of the sun. Also important are the upward and downward directions representing the male sky and the female earth, and the joining of the two to give life. The simple fact that these symbols are so widespread and evident in separate rituals suggests that the North American Indians had a strong religious foundation long before Europeans arrived and attempted to 'teach' them religion. WORKS CITED LIST Brown, Joseph Van Epes. The Sacred Pipe: Black Elk's Account of the Seven Rites of the Oglala Sioux. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1953. Coorigan, Samuel W, ed. Readings in Aboriginal Studies Brandon, Manitoba: Bearpaw Publishing, 1995. Hultkrantz, Ake. Belief and Worship in Native North America. Ed. Christopher Vecsey. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1981. Robicsek, Francis. The Smoking Gods: Tobacco in Maya Art, History, and Religion. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1978. Steinmetz, Fr. Paul B., S.J. "The Sacred Pipe in American Indian Religions." American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 8(3): 27-80, 1984. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Similarities between WW1 and The destruction of the Second Te.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The enemy trapped the Jews in the city by building a wall around it. Foodstuffs could not be brought in: starvation and crowded conditions gave rise to disease, and epidemics spread among the populace. But surprisingly the Jews held on. Then the enemy massed troops outside the wall and brought out the latest in weaponry. They attacked, using fire to spread destruction. The Jews repelled the enemy a number of times. So savage was the resistance that the campaign to destroy the Jewish population took much longer and cost more troops than anticipated. Street by street the fighting raged with hand-to-hand combat between the heavily armed troops and the haggard defenders. Some Jews tried to escape through the sewers, but they were flushed out by fire. At the end the Jews had taken a heavy toll on their enemy but the city lay in smoking ruins. The remaining Jewish survivors were rounded up to be used as slave laborers or to be killed. What episode in Jewish history is depicted in this scenario? Most people would say this was the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis in 1943. But in fact it was the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in the year 70 The destruction of the Second temple and the attack on the Warsaw Ghetto, although separated by nearly two thousand years have and eerie sameness. The Germans sealed off the Warsaw's Jewish population with and eight-foot brick concrete wall. The Romans built a high earthen barricade around Jerusalem to make certain the Jews could not escape. Germans shot, on the spot Jews discovered outside the Warsaw Ghetto. The Romans crucified the Jews they found, placing crosses atop the hill to terrorize those watching from inside the city: as many as 500 were crucified in 1 day. The Germans tried to starve the Polish Jews into submission reducing their rations at first to 800 calories a day and later cutting off all food to the ghetto. The Romans used the tactic of siege to bring starvation in Jerusalem. In both episodes the actual fighting was in some ways similar. "Since the ghetto was impenetrable in frontal attack, General Stroop's forces set fire to the buildings with incendiary bombs and flame throwers" Titus's Roman legions used flaming torches of wood to set fire to the Temple and other buildings in the final battle. "Through the roar of the flames as they [the Romans] swept relentlessly on could be heard the groans of the falling... the entire city seemed to be on fire. The Nazis not only killed but plundered Jews if their possessions; the Romans "were so avaricious that they pushed on climbing over the piles or corpses for many valuables were found in the passages and all scruples were silenced by the prospect of gain. "The Romans took so much gold from the Jews that it's price fell by half in Syria. The nazis used Jews for slave labor the Romans sent thousands of Jewish captives to work on projects on Egypt. The Nazis made grisly sport with their victims and conducted fiendish medical experiments before killing the Jews. Titus had thousands of Jewish captives killed in gladiatorial contests and staged fights between them and wild beasts to celebrate his victory and, on one occasion this brother's birthday and Vespasian the Roman Emperor had non swimmers shackled with their hands and feet behind them and thrown into the deepest parts of the Dead Sea to test the theory that no one could sink in the heavily salted water. There was one difference between the two events. Three years after destroying Jerusalem, the Romans put down the final Jewish revolt of the war by capturing Massada. Three years after the Holocaust ended the State of Israel was reborn. The destruction of the Second Temple serves with the Holocaust as a frame the Jewish experience in the world. For instance just as no other people in the modern era has suffered a devastation comparable to that of the Jews during the Holocaust the attack on Jerusalem was unparalleled in the ancient world. "No destruction ever wrought by G-D or man approached the wholesale carnage of this war" said Josephus. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Slavery In The East.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Slavery In The East The debate over the economic advantages of slavery in the South has raged ever since the first slaves began working in the cotton fields of the Southern States. Initially, the wealth of the New World was in the form of raw materials and agricultural goods such as cotton, sugar, and tobacco. Slavery, without a doubt, had its profitable aspects prior to the Civil War. However, this postulation began to change as abolitionists claimed the land of the Southern Plantations was overworked and the potential income of slaves was lower than that of white people who had a vested interest in the productivity and success of the South. The concept of slavery had been brought over to America by the ideals of British Mercantilism which called for strict regulation of the state and its people for the good of the national economy. In the early 1700's, Frenchman Colbert stated that, "no commerce in the world produces as many advantages as that of the slave trade"(Williams, 144). The inhumane practice of slavery began in the American colonies in 1619. Although Africans first came to the New World around 1501, the early colonists did not think to use them as slave labor. Instead, they imported poor, white indentured servants from Europe to clear forests and cultivate fields. It was the English colonists that incited the idea of using Black slaves. They could be caught easily because of their color and they could be bought and kept until they died. "Negroes, from a pagan land and without exposure to the ethical ideals of Christianity, could be handled with more rigid methods of discipline and could be morally and spiritually degraded for the sake of stability on the plantation," wrote historians John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss Jr. in "From Slavery to Freedom" (22). Where America failed in Mercantilism was in not providing enough slaves to generate a sufficient profit margin and by becoming a divided nation over the issue of slavery. Southern slaves were viewed in economic terms of labor to capital. While the ownership of slaves was a source of pride in plantation owners, this interdependence of slave on master and master to slave created a vicious cycle of rashness that caused slave owners to often become irrational. In the south, slaveholdings varied according to size, location, and crops produced. Slavery in cities differed substantially from that in the countryside. Masters exhibited varying temperaments and used diverse methods to run their farms and plantations. Slaves served as skilled craftsmen, preachers, nurses, drivers, and mill workers, as well as field hands and house servants. Despite these variations, southern slavery displayed some distinctive features. Unlike slavery in the rest of the New World, which depended on the continued importation of Africans, that in the southern United States was self-sustaining: during the half century after the end of legal importation in 1808, the slave population more than tripled. One consequence of this natural population growth was an equal ratio of males to females that - in contrast to the male preponderance in slave societies heavily dependent on imports from Africa - facilitated the formation of strong families. Another was the emergence of a slave population that, despite its distinctive cultural norms, was increasingly American in birth and character. Slaves adopted the religion of their masters, for example, but adapted it to their own particular needs. In short, Africans became African-Americans. The shift in control of prosperity is illustrated in the words of the Mississippi proposal of succession from the Union. Southern politicians and plantation owners knew their prosperity was in the hands of slaves and that the economics of the South depended on the production of the slaves. The Mississippi's secession convention stated: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery... A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union (Journal of State Convention, 86). One of the earliest proponents of the theory that the South was suffering economically from slavery was Cassius Marcellus Clay. The main assertion of Clay was that slavery was an inefficient form of economic organization. According to Fogel and Engerman, Clay asserted, "It was inefficient because slavery 'impoverishes the soil,' because, in comparison with whites, slaves were 'not so skilful, so energetic, and above all, have not the stimulus of self-interest'" (160). Clay continued to assert that slaves consume more and produce less than free men. Two proponents of Clay's theory were Hinton Rowan Helper and Frederick Law Olmstead who appeared to produce evidence in the 1850 census that supported the claims of Clay. To prove his point, Hinton Helper compared the growth of three pairs of states between 1790 and 1850. In a comparison of the states of New York and Virginia throughout the years, the growth of New York had doubled in population, exported 30 times that of what Virginia had, and held 8 times her manufacturing output (162). The contrasts between states that were aggregate and free verses with slaves was not as startling but still showed a disproportionate amount of economic growth, with the South lagging behind. Unfortunately, Helper's statistics were flawed in several areas. Helper assumed that the South had better resources than the North, when in actuality, the reverse was true. The North excelled greatly in natural resources and minerals while the South struggled to economically stay in line with the North in as far as land values and marketability of goods. Also, the North generally had better soil than the South, which had repeated trouble with erosion and climatic factors destroying topsoil and crops. Fredrick Olmsted took the microeconomic answer to the problem of slavery. Olmsted asserted that the "majority of those who sell the cotton crop" were "poorer than the majority of our day-labourers at the North" (171). His chief complaint with slavery was that the quantity produced by slaves, be it cotton or tobacco or any marketable good, was drastically inferior. Olmsted asserted that it took two times as many slaves as Northern labourers to accomplish a task (172). "Low-quality labor, poor use of resources, and indifferent management all combined, said Olmsted, to make southern agriculture far less efficient than northern agriculture" (172). Olmsted asserted that psychologically, slaves preformed poorly under conditions of fear of punishment and free men, without this fear, would certainly be more productive in defending their reputation and standing with pride with their employer. The low productivity of slaves could be explained by the conditions in which they were forced to live and work in. Inadequate care, incentives and training left the slaves without proper preparation for their role on the plantation (Genovese, 46). A cyclical effect of malnutrition and disease was apparent on many plantations. Since malnutrition ......................................... References Cairnes, John Elliot. Slave Power. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Franklin, John. From Slavery to Freedom. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. Genovese, Eugene D. The Political Economy of Slavery. New York: Pantheon Books, 1965. Gray, Lewis Cecil. History of agriculture in the southern United States to 1860 . Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1958. Hopkins, James F. A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky. Louisville: University of Kentucky Press, 1998. Journal of the State Convention. "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union." Jackson, MS: E. Barksdale, State Printer, 1861. Owsley, Frank. King Cotton Diplomacy: Foreign relations of the Confederate States of America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Smith and Marx.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Smith and Marx A.Smith& K.Marx -The role of individual- The task of political economy, Marx argued, was to understand all the presumptions within productive and social relations which made social life in a given form possible at a particular time.(Peterson,17). In some nations, as Hobbes states, the lives of the poor are "nasty,brutish and short", by contrast in other nations , the poor do better within same levels of wealth. The aim of political economy is to understand the processes that produce these differences. The two historical figures that analyzed capitalism were A.Smith and K.Marx. Their philosophy differ in the way each viewed the human conditions and the role of the individual. It could be argued that history has shown Smith to be right and Marx to be wrong but the fact is that each of these men understood capitalism on different terms although both had similar material aims. The main difference between Marx's and Smith's thoughts is found in the values that each concerned. Smith suggested that the economic process can be forever unchangeable in its natural stage as individuals seek their own advantages.If people are left free they will try to improve the quality of their lives.This can be achieved in two ways : by individual effort or at someone else's expense. Most individuals will search for or make something that others will pay for rather than live at someone else's expense. On the other hand, Marx noticed a growing consciousness among the working class of society which he believed was formed by economic development and that would create a transformation of the whole social system: He asserts that "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence , but their social existence that determines their existence.At a certain stage of development , the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production...Then begins the era of social revolution ." (Marx,140) Marx is talking about consciousness and the development of the society. He believes that the wealth produced by the industrial system develops the introspective thought in all people, more importantly among working class. The individual comes to a self-realization through creative labor and develops a self -identity through relations with other members of the society . He considers the potential for intellectual growth as a way to take society to a new level of equality.(Everling,16) For Marx the most basic human needs have to do with recognition of oneself in the products of labor..Through material labor and the labor that involves them in social relations, humans create their environments.Through their activities, the world becomes a place where humans can live and feel secure.Since one can have a place through activities, his individuality based upon how creative he is. Marx believes that in his society labor activity is not a pain since one class isn't forced to work for the other. Thus, for Marx the needs and capacities of labor are universal. Activities of people determine how they develop their capacities and the society determines the result of these activities. For Marx, human nature is changeable and that new social conditions create new kinds of individuals. So, Marx disagrees with the fact that capitalism is inevitable because it is formed of basic human desires. Marx would argue that capitalist society itself creates those desires. Because humans create the social and natural environment and as a result improve themselves during this process, they become historical beings. They have the power to decide their future and change things. In fact, the ability to control one's future and develop in the process is how Marx describes freedom. His freedom is positive on one hand and social on the other. It focuses on the capability of activity, many of which are social and therefore can be appreciated without other individuals.(Moon,8-10) In order to understand Marx's human nature, we have to take a close look at alienation. The basis of his argument is that capitalism alienates humans from their essence in labor. Capitalist society is undesirable since it doesn't allow the individuals of society to improve their natural potentials which is for Marx to express and develop oneself through labor in one's environment.This system of labor made up of four relations:The worker is alienated from his or her productive activity,playing no part in deciding what to do or how to do it.The worker is alienated from the product of that activity,having no control over what is made.The worker is alienated from other human beings ,with competiton and mutual indifference replacing most form of cooperation.Finally, the worker is alienated from the distinctive potential found in the notion of human beings. Marx argues that alienation and capitalism are stuck to one another. To get rid of alienation, one has to abolish capitalism. In capitalism, labor power of a certain group/class of people is exploited. This results in alienation in both sides, exploiter and exploited. (Sismondi,69-70) Besides all these explanations, it is necessary to examine A.Smith's perspective. He simply states the reasons why all men naturally follow self interest and that this process leads to the greatest production of wealth in society.He asserts "...But it is only for the sake of profit that any man employs a capital in the support of industry;and he will always ,therefore, endeavor to employ it in the support of that industry of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value....(Smith,85) Smith was not so much concerned with the development of consciousness among men.Little mention of two classes- the bourgeois and the proletarians- is made by Smith , because according to him all men do decisions based on self interest(Sismondi,52) Since he defines the individual as sovereign (within the laws of justice), and he defines liberty as freedom from constraint, his argument begins with the individual, defining a man's labor as the foundation of all other property. (Smith 215). He uses his economic theory to support his belief that this limitation on government action creates the most overall good for society. He believes that the economic order should be independent from the political order.Smith's Wealth of Nations was a critique of the existing system of state controls that he called merchantilism.He argued that the state intervention not only restricted freedom but also was economically inefficient. In contrast to Marx, Smith doesn't see laborers as slaves:rather as free men with something to sell-their labor.According to Smith's view all men are laborers since all must use effort to create their industry,thus final profit for themselves.He believes that all men are capitalists in a free economic society. Smith suggests that those who possess wealth have an interest in increasing it and such increase could never be motivated by giving society free exercise of all individual interests. He states " The sum of individual private fortunes makes up the wealth of the nation; there is no wealthy person who does not strive to become richer; let him do as he pleases; he will enrich the nation by enriching himself" (Sismondi,53) Each of these philosophers had valid points to make but they are focused on different targets. They in fact agree that the production of wealth in society is good but they would not agree on the conditions of the workers. If Smith possibily ask who stop the workers leave their profession and to join another,Marx response would be the social conditioning. That is among the valid answer for the failure of the communism.People need to believe that if they had made right choices ,or worked hard enough ,they would have gone to the top of society .But in communist plan there was no top to reach to motivate people. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Spartacus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Since the dawn of man, people have had their own forms of religion. Be it simple ceremonial burial or complex blessing rituals, each person had their own way to explain the wonders of nature like, how did we come here and what our purpose here was. Another thing that each individual person had was their own morals. Morals are what define a civilization. Labels like peaceful or barbaric are put on different civilizations because of their morals. The morality of each civilization defined their religious beliefs. The lives of people who lived in the early ancient history time period were tough. They had to roam the land always looking for new game to hunt and plants and berries to gather. The people weren't united because of all this traveling, and therefore contact with other people was minimal. Morals are hard to develop without much contact with other people and so the religion of these early people was minimal. Then came the development of farming into this time period. Farming brought the people together. Small cities began to develop because the people didn't have to move around as much. With all this closeness, the people developed moral views on what to think about thieves or murderers. If certain civilizations didn't mind violence and killing, then they developed into a Brutal civilization. Consequently, the religions of these civilizations were evolved around sacrificial rituals and allegiance to brutal gods. The Assyrian civilization worked around this principle. They used scare tactics to overcome their enemies and treated their captives badly. They also believed in powerful gods who they feared. If certain civilizations became peaceful, then their religion reflected their peaceful nature and didn't have things like sacrifices. The people in peaceful civilizations believed in their religion because they wanted to not because they were afraid to. A good example of this is the Hebrews. The Hebrews were a peaceful people who disliked violence. Because of this peaceful nature, their religion taught values like brotherhood, charity, human dignity, and universal peace. Violent cultures cause violent religions and peaceful cultures create peaceful religion The Greeks were a peaceful civilization. They believed in the idea of democracy and they strongly believed in philosophy. This gave them plenty of time to contemplate about things like morality and religion. Their morals were always related to individual freedom, because they stressed a person's right to criticize, be curious, and be different. Thus, their religion of many gods supported their way of life. Each god would represent a different aspect of life. Kind of like each person is different and represents good and bad in different degrees. The Greeks believed in people being different and their religion involves many different gods. The Romans were very much like the Greeks. They were ruled by a senate for most of their reign, but towards the end were ruled by dictatorship. They were composed of many different cultures and were very tolerant of the different customs and beliefs. This acceptance of many different cultures explains their religious beliefs. First the Romans had a religion with a few main gods like Janus and Jupiter and thousands of little gods like the god of fever and the god of gold coins. Then, as the Roman power expanded, Greek influence grew. So the Romans stole many of the Greek myths and legends and applied them to the Roman gods. This pleased the people for a little while, but they began to become dissatisfied by the old religion. Finally, Christianity began to get converts. Because of the accepted diversity of the Roman empire, the religious beliefs changed with the changing morality of its people. The Middle Ages provide the best support for the thesis. It shows how the church adapted to changing morals. During the Middle Ages, there was a decline in intelligence as a chief moral. This era is even sometimes referred to as the 'Dark Ages'. People became more superstitious. The control of land and money became a big part of everybody's life. This was reflected in the changes that occurred in the Catholic church. The church evolved to become the learning center for the people. The church also started collecting taxes and serving as a hospital for the sick. These changes in the church were brought about by a change in morals. The word Renaissance means rebirth. The Renaissance period in Europe was a rebirth of ideas. Europe mainly had customs and institutions before the Renaissance, but after the Renaissance period got started, it sparked a revolution. This revolution also created a change in religious beliefs. The morals of many people had started to change. Many people started to feel that the church wasn't for them. These people broke off from the church and formed their own religions. One such person is Martin Luther. Luther openly stated ninety- five reasons why he didn't like the church. He went off and formed Luthernism. During the Renaissance, because of the changing morals, religion had to change. The morality of each civilization created their religious beliefs. It is obvious with all of these civilizations, that this holds true. The people from the Ancient Historical time period formed many little colonies. The religion of these colonies changed with the views of the people in them. If the people liked violence, then their gods became powerful to scare them into believing. If the people like peace, then their gods became peaceful and used good ideas to get them to follow. The morals of the Greeks were believing in independence and being different. It isn't a coincidence that their religion contains many different gods each with its own personality and skills, like humans. The Roman culture dealt with so many different cultures, that its morals were frequently changing. The Romans changed their religion three times. During the Middle Ages, there was a decline of intelligence, cleanliness, and overall morals. The church became the tax collection agency, the hospital, and the school, which is a direct correlation between the decline in morals. So the increase in power of the church in the Middle Ages was because of a change in morals. The Renaissance was a rebirth of ideas and morality. These changes had the greatest effect on the church, which had grown strong in the Middle Ages. The peoples changing morals forced them to adopt new religions like Luthernism and Protestantism. Morals are what define a human being. They become present in every part of life, especially religion. Because civilization is moving so fast forward, peoples morals are changing rapidly too. When peoples morals change, it changes their whole life. That is why there have been so many different religions in the past. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\St Francis Assissi.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saint Francis of Assissi 1. Birth Saint Francis was born Giovanni Bernadone in either 1181 or 1182 in the Italian hill town of Assisi. His parents, Pietro and Pica, were members of the rather well-to-do merchant class of the town. Pioetro Bernadone was away in France when his son was born. On his return, he had the boy's name changed from Giovanni to Franceso ("The Little Frenchman"-perhaps a tribute to France, a country he loved and from which his wife's family came). Saint Francis of Assisi, was born in 1182, more probably in the latter year. His mother's family, which was not without distinction, may originally have hailed from Provence. His father, Pietro di Bernardone, was a prosperous cloth merchant and one of the influential business men of Assisi. A merchant in those days was a far different individual from the modern shop keeper; forced by circumstances to be both daring and prudent, he constantly embarked upon the most hazardous undertakings and his career was likely to be a succession of ups and downs. Moreover, business activities, which today tend more and more to assert their independence of any ethical code, were then strictly subordinated to accepted moral standards, as is clearly shown in the writings of Leo Battista Alberti, a century and a half later, or in the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas. Bernardone was not in Assisi when his son was born. At first the child was called John but upon his father's return he was christened Francis, in memory of France, whence Pietro di Bernardone had just returned. More than any other character in history, St. Francis in after life retained the qualities most characteristic of childhood, so that it is not difficult to imagine him as he must have appeared during his early years, with his combination of vivacity, petulance and charm. Childhood At the proper time young Francesco Benardone was sent to clergy of San Giorgio, his parish church, to learn his letters and the ciphering necessary for a merchant. He sat on a bench with the better-class boys, chorusing sacred Latin. He was not a brilliant student. The three extant scraps of his writing betray a clumsy fist and abound in sad solecisms. In later years he avoided holding a pen; he preferred to dictate, and to sign his pronouncements with a cross or tau, a semisacred symbol. However, he learned enough Latin for his purposes, for school routine and for the comprehension of the ritual. Francesco also had the education of the home and shop. He could admire his father, honest and worthy, but an austere man, taking up where he laid not down, reaping where he had not shown. Drama also rendered his secret dream, the realization of the chivalrous life. The exploits of Charlemagne's paladins and the Knights of the Round Table were already familiar throughout Italy, and code of knightly behavior was known and honored, if little practiced. Francis's imagination disported itself in the enchanted world of knighthood; and all his life he used the language of chivalry and appealed to its ideals. After Francis had attained manhood and developed his native discernment, he devoted himself to the profession of his father, who was a merchant. Yet this he did in his own way. Merry and generous by nature, ever ready for jest and song, he roamed the town of Assisi day and night with his comrades and was most prodigal in his spending-to such and extent that he used all the money allowed him and all his earnings for banquets and festivities. For this reason his parents frequently remonstrated with him, pointing out that he was living in such style with his friends that he no longer seemed to be their son, but the son a great prince. Yet as his parents were wealthy and loved their son tenderly, they allowed him to have his own way rather that disturb him. Educational Backround The official Life of Saint Francis, written by Saint Bonaventure, the Minister General of the Franciscan Order, after the chapter of 1266 at which it was decided that such a life was needed, because of the proliferation of apochryphal and spurious lives, records that Francis was sent to school to the priests of Saint George's, also in Assisi. But he seems to have learned little from them except enough Latin to read with difficulty and write great labour. In later life, the clerky Brother Leo usually acted as his secretary; although an example of his signature survives, he preferred to make his mark with a Greek cross, the letter tau, the cross used by the crusaders. However, somewhere - probably in the first instance from his father and his father's business acquaintances - he learned enough French to be able to converse in that language, and earn himself the nickname il Francesco, 'the Frenchman', although whether it was given to him by his father, as pious legend has always maintained, or by the wits of Assisi, is uncertain. Whoever gave it to him, it was the obvious name for a boy wearing French cloth, talking with French visitors, and singing French tunes, the songs of troubadours and jongleurs. John Bernardone became 'Francis' early in life, and has remained Francis throughout the years since. Which dialect of French he spoke is unknown. Because he was called 'the Frenchman' and called his language 'French', it is usually assumed that his dialect was that of the north and the Ile de France, not the langue d'oc of county of Toulouse, which further west towards Navarre shaded into early Spanish. But although he once himself proposed to go to Paris, most of the traces of 'French' influence in his life seem to relate to southern France, and there are no proofs that Pietro Bernardone's travels in search of business took him further north than the great fairs at Toulouse, Lyons, and Montpellier. The Question remains open. Francis's everyday language must have been the current Umbrain dialect: not yet Italian, but a mingling of late Latin and dialect words from which Italian was rapidly emerging. He died just thirty-nine years before the birth of Dante, the first and greatest of the Italian vernacular poets. Religious Affliation and Experiences In the chapel of Our Lady of the Angels, Francis was kneeling at the foot of the crucifix, he was completely drawn out of himself and lost all consciousness except of God. From the cross Christ spoke to him. "Francis," the Voice came, "do you not see that My house is being destroyed? Go therefore and repair it." He took Christ's words in the most literal sense. He could see that the neglected chapel was badly in need of restoration, so he accepted the task laid upon him as being simply that of bringing stones and mortar and setting to work. Not for an instant did he imagine that the commision could be wider than that. Indeed, though the field of his labor was soon to widen to enclose the last limits of the earth, he never ceased to believe, as in the case of the lepers, that the local obligation was also his. He never ceased to be greatly concerned about the rebuilding and care of dilapidated churches. Professional life There is no doubt that Francis and his brothers did preach peace in Assisi in autumn, but whether in fact he played the leading role ascribed to him reconciling the factions is undemonstrable. If the claim also sometimes made is true, that it was from this time that he penitents of Assisi began to call themselves the frates minores, it is unlikely that Francis arbitrated effectually in the quarrel. At Assisi in 1202, frates minores would not have been taken to mean 'the lesser', that is, more humble, 'brothers', but 'brothers of the minores'; it would have bben a political label, as suggestive of commitment as 'the Workers' party' of 'the workers' brotherhood' might be today. Francis had fought with the minores in 1202 and he was committed to poverty; but he had not damned the rich for their wealth, as Joachim of Flora had done, and it is unlikely that he would have begun his mission to the world by deliberately alienating a significant faction in his native city. Major Goals About the spring of the year 1206, Francis was freed from everything tying him to what theologians called 'the world', Francis was poised to begin his life's work at last. There was one difficulty, however. He still did not know what that work was. Even though he was freed from the world, he was still totally dependant on it for food, drink and clothing. He took a job as a dishwasher in a monastery - probably a subpriory of the Benedictines of Mount Subasio - but he felt that he was being badly treated there, and left, crossing the mountain to the village of Gubbio, where an old friend took pity on him, giving him food and clothing. While Francis was working on the restoration of Saint Damian's, Francis also continued his attempts to help the lepers, who at this time were still outlawed and and counted dead by most of the world. Since the first crusade, their numbers had vastly increased, though whether their disease was true leprosy or not is a matter of dispute. To rebuild Saint Domian's, he begged stones - and, of coarse, food - from his father's friends in Assisi. Their pity must have been hard for Pietro Bernardone to bear as anything he had yet endured on Francis's account. Major issues and concerns During the Middle Ages, a number of movements were based on the ideal of poverty. What made the movement led by Saint Francis different was his attractive personality and passionate dedication to the message he preached. One of the most popular of saints, he combined austerity with poetic gentleness. Francis popularized the custom of the Christmas crib. Besides the three branches of the order that he established, many other religious societies bear his name. One of the major issues that Francis took an interest in the most was, preaching the necessity of the poor, a simple life-style based on the ideals of the Gospels. Francis overflowed with a spirit of love not only for men who suffered but also for dumb animals, reptiles, birds, and any other creature with and without consciousness. Above all, he loved little lambs with a special affection and love, fot they showed forth the humility of our Lord Jesus Christ, since the Scriptures used the image of a lamb in describing him. Major life events When Blessed Francis, accompanied by Blessed Peter of Cattaneo, who had been a doctor of law, crossed the sea, he left behind two vicars, Brother Matthew of Nario and Brother Gregory of Naples. He instituted Matthew as vicar of St. Mary of Portiuncula; he was to remain there and accept postulants into the Order, while Gregory toured Italy to console the bretthren. Accourding to the first Rule, the fairs were to fast on the fourth and sixth day of the week. There might be some plausibility in the suggestion that the Roman authorities, while lacking idealism thenselves, shrewdly understood how to utilize the idealism of others, were it not that they would have been imbecile in their policy had they failed to see that enthusiasm, to be useful at all, must be maintained. This actually means that it must be constantly renewed. Therefore it is absurd to suppose that they would have wished to modify the Franciscan idealism in such a way as to destroy or even diminish it. Theirs was the extremely delicate task of directing it so as to preserve it from dissipating its energies and to help it to keep the enthusiasm bright and fresh. . What was this person most known for? Saint Francis of Assisi was most known for all of his preaching. Francis began as a poet and ended as one, though during the years of his active life he appears to have been too busy living poetry to have felt much inclination to write it. Of Francis's own style of preaching we can say that it was altogether unstudied. He never prepared anything but, depending upon the inspiration of the moment, addressed himself with burning intensity to those before him. His whole body seemed to preach, and his gestures were vivacious and, perhaps, violent. Had it not been for his crystalline sincerity he might have struck people as absurd. Probably, too, it was not only in the famous sermon he was soon to deliver before the Pope and the cardinals this his feet danced while he spoke. His great dark eyes, full of fire and tenderness, seemed to look each person present through and through. He had a voice so resonant that it was startling, coming from so frail a man. It was fortunate that he had that asset of the orator, for his physical presence was not at all impressive, and what slight advantages he might have had in this respect were thrown away because of his appearing in a coarse habit patched with material still coarser, sack-cloth that did not even match in color. Detail the search for truth One day Francis, who had begun to walk about the house learning on a stick, thought the time had come for him to go and breathe the country air; he opened the door and went out , undoubtedly on to the road from Spello and Foligno, which was nearest to his house and most convenient for him, being almost level. The road runs along the side of Subasio: on the left rise the curves of the broad mountain shoulder, here green with woods and there showing the bare rocks: on the right the ground slopes away gently, clothed in the uniform soft pallor of the olive. Before him, where the plain stretches away to Foligno, green and fertile, cypresses and oaks strike a livelier not of colour. Of all the landscapes round Assisi it is the sweetest and most attractive. Francis, who had not looked at this view for a long time, sought anxiously for his usual sensations at the sight of it. But the mountains and the slopes, the plain and cypresses and olives, had nothing more to say to him; they were strange, inanimate objects. What resistance was met? The claims of his commune has already drawn Francis towards the profession of arms, but it was not enough to satisfy him. The disputes of a handful of paltry merchants and insignificant nobles over a house of the ownership of a mill, the petty wars of raids and rapine under the very city walls, made no appeal to him, after his short unlucky experience. Of the disputes between Church and Empire he understood but little: he had a respect for ecclesiastical censure, for he had experienced in his own city its blighting effect on his religious life. He sought for far-away adventure, a mighty war, without scruples of conscience, with much glory and the crown of nobility at the end of it. How did he/she affect the world around them? All of the places that Francis visited, for example, Italy, according to the historical records, were many; and as these appear in casual references, they can be only a part of the total. If we were to include the popular legends, the number would be infinite. Terni, Perugia, ubbio, Citta` di Castello, Cortona, Arezzo, Siena, Florence, Bologna, Ancona, Osimo, Ascoli: these are too some of the places that Saint Francis visited. It is at once observable that they are all in a definite and rather circumscribed district. The Saint's appearances in the more remote and diverse parts of the country, such as Rome, Florence, Bologna, and Alexandria, were, in proportion, few and far between; and one gets the impression ( borne out by the definite or circumstantial evidence of the records ) that these were but occasional visits. The other places, on the contrary, appear to represent his usual and appointed circuit. If you take a map of Italy and draw a circle with Assisi as its center, with a diameter of a little less than two hundred kilometers, you will include them all, from Borgo San Sepolcro to Ascoli Piceno, Rieti, and Toscanella, the extremist points being roughly equidistant from Assisi. Find a quote made by the person that most identifies the individual and his/her work. Why did you choose this quote? Saint Francis took a child that had just been born and said, "There have been born today in this street two children, one of whom will be one of the best men in the world. The other will be the worst." That "worst" has been taken to apply to the man who succeeded Francis as the ruler of the Franciscan Order, Brother Elias. Yet, apart from the question as to whether Elias was as bad as all that, there is a reason to believe that he was not born in Assisi at all, but nearby; and nobody knows the exact date of his birth. I chose this particular quote because it talks about the everyday occurrence of children being born each and every day. Some of those children are among those best men or women in the world and some are unfortunate to have the opportunity to even be born. Those children who are born with a disorder, from their mother's wrong doing while carrying her child. Your reflection should include: How did he/she express genuine love and concern for people in the climate of their world? Francis was one that should have been included among the Fathers, for he puts then into shame. He came at the end of the long process of discovery. With him, the wheel has turned full circle: we are back again in the gold-illuminated days of the apostles and of the early catacombs, the days when to be a Christian was to be carefree, before the heretics and arisen and the disputatious theologians has assumed the role of lawgivers. Francis threw learning away and the world sighed with relief, for learning was already weighing heavily in the cloisters, and the librarians, as usual, were wondering whether they would be able to keep count of the books. "What have I to do with books?" Francis said. "O my brethren, all we need to do is pray." As all of the people of the Church read of the Church Fathers, we are all made aware of immense strains, heroic efforts, terrible responsibilities. The Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were shoring up the ruins of Rome with their naked shoulders. They fought prodigiously, with superlative cunning, against the barbarians and the Emperors and all the tribes of wanton and evil people in the world. How did he/she bring to real life what is right, and what is good? Saint Francis, the true disciple of Christ, while he was living in this miserable life, tried to follow in the path of Christ with all his strength, for Christ was the perfect master. So it often happened that as he healed a body, God also healed the soul, for the same thing often happened to Christ. So Francis did not only serve the lepers willingly, but also ordered his brethren as they went about the world to serve the needs of lepers for the love of Christ, who reputed a poor leper himself. Saint Francis was staying in a place near to where some of the brothers of the order were serving a leper hospital. One of the lepers was testy, unruly, and also so obstinate that everyone believed. This leper had abused and cursed whoever waited on him and, what was worse, he bitterly blasphemed and cursed Christ and his Holy Mother. No one wanted to take care, or even be near him. Although the brothers were willing to put up with the leper's many abuses in order to grow in the virtue of patience, but their consciences would not ever tolerate his blasphemies about Christ and his Mother. So the brothers were quite prepared to abandon him, but they thought that before doing this they should consult Saint Francis, who at the time was staying nearby. When the brothers told Francis about this perverse leper, Francis went to see him. Finding the leper, Francis greeted him warmly: "God grant you peace, my dearest brother." The leper then replied with a grumble, "What peace can I find from God, who has taken away my peace and every worldly good and left me cancerous and stinking?" Saint Francis then answered him, "My son, be patient! God often inflicts us with a weakness of the body for the good of our souls. There is a great merit in bearing illness with patience." The sick man retorted, "How can I endure the continual pain both day and night with any sense of peace? Not only am I sick, but the brothers who were sent to help me will not do it, as the ought." Saint Francis, divinely inspired to understand that this leper was possessed by an evil spirit, prayed most devoutly for this man before God. After he had prayed, he returned again to speak to the leper: "My son, I will take care of you, since the others do not want to." "I'll willingly have you. What can you do though that the others have not done?" "What do you want me to do?" "I want you to wash me, for I stink so bad that I cannot stand myself." Saint Francis immediately went and heated water, which he scented with herbs. Then he undressed the man and washed him with his own hands, while another brother poured the water. Through divine power, wherever Saint Francis touched him with his hands, the leprosy disappeared and the flesh grew immediately healthy. And as his body healed, his soul also healed along with his body. When the leper saw his body heal, he began to weep bitterly because of his sorrow for his sins and great compunction that he felt. As his body was cleansed from the leprosy by the bathing, so his soul was cleansing power of his tears and his sorrow. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\St Thomas Aquinas Logical Masterbation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Omnipotence and St. Thomas Aquinas Omnipotence literally means the ability to do all things, or to have absolute power. This quality seems to be generally accepted as an intrinsic characteristic of the Judaeo-Christian god, as it says in Luke I. 37, "...there is nothing that God cannot do.". Certain objections can be raised to attributing this characteristic to god however, in-so-far as this characteristic seems to conflict with other accepted attributes of god. In The Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas addresses some of these objections, the most telling of which can be restated as: (I) To sin is an action, however god is unable to sin. Therefore god cannot be omnipotent. (ii) The greatest act possible of god is his practice of "sparing and having mercy". There are actions judged to be much greater however, such as creating a world. Therefore god is not omnipotent. (iii) If god is omnipotent, then everything is possible and nothing is impossible. If this is true however, things which are necessary (things which cannot possibly not exist) are no longer so. This is impossible - therefore god cannot be omnipotent. Aquinas begins his rebuttals by defining what is encompassed by the characteristic of divine omnipotence. He explains that god is able to all things which are "possible absolutely", which he defines as all things which can be logically expressed without the predicate being in conflict with the subject - i.e. god is capable of all things which do not involve a contradiction in terms. This does not imply any defect in the power of god, Aquinas goes on to say, because impossible things by definition have "no aspect of possibility", moreover, it is absurd to expect divine omnipotence to encompass the logically impossible. (I) Aquinas answers the first objection as follows. He explains that "...to sin is to fall short of perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action..." which he attests is contrary to the meaning of divine omnipotence. (ii) In answering the second objection Aquinas points out, "It is not for one who is bound by the laws of a superior to forgive sins of his own free choice", and adds that divine mercy is indeed gods greatest act, since this mercy leads men into a participation with the infinite good. (iii) Aquinas answers objection (iii) in accord with his explanation of the meaning of god`s omnipotence (above) - God`s omnipotence does not alter the fact that something is impossible, and therefore does not invalidate the concept of logical necessity. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Stephen Dedalus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Stephen Dedalus: Religion Religion is an important and recurring theme in James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Through his experiences with religion, Stephen Dedalus both matures and progressively becomes more individualistic as he grows. Though reared in a Catholic school, several key events lead Stephen to throw off the yoke of conformity and choose his own life, the life of an artist. Religion is central to the life of Stephen Dedalus the child. He was reared in a strict, if not harmonious, Catholic family. The severity of his parents, trying to raise him to be a good Catholic man, is evidenced by statements such as, "Pull out his eyes/ Apologise/ Apologise/ Pull out his eyes." This strict conformity shapes Stephen's life early in boarding school. Even as he is following the precepts of his Catholic school, however, a disillusionment becomes evident in his thoughts. The priests, originally above criticism or doubt in Stephen's mind, become symbols of intolerance. Chief to these thoughts is Father Dolan, whose statements such as, "Lazy little schemer. I see schemer in your face," exemplify the type of attitude Stephen begins to associate with his Catholic teachers. By the end of Chapter One, Stephen's individualism and lack of tolerance for disrespect become evident when he complains to the rector about the actions of Father Dolan. His confused attitude is clearly displayed by the end of the chapter when he says, "He was happy and free: but he would not be anyway proud with Father Dolan. He would be very kind and obedient: and he wished that he could do something kind for him to show him that he was not proud." Stephen still has respect for his priests, but he has lost his blind sense of acceptance. As Stephen grows, he slowly but inexorably distances himself from religion. His life becomes one concerned with pleasing his friends and family. However, as he matures he begins to feel lost and hopeless, stating, "He saw clearly too his own futile isolation. He had not gone one step nearer the lives he had sought to approach nor bridged the restless shame and rancor that divided him from mother and brother and sister." It is this very sense of isolation and loneliness that leads to Stephen's encounter with the prostitute, where, "He wanted to sin with another of his kind, to force another being to sin with him and to exult with her in sin." He wants to be loved, but the nearest thing he can find is prostitution. In the aftermath of this encounter and the numerous subsequent encounters, a feeling of guilt and even more pronounced loneliness begins to invade Stephen's being. Chapter Three represents the turning point of the novel, for here Stephen turns his life around. After the sermon on sin and hell, Stephen examines his soul and sees the shape it is in, wondering, "Why was he kneeling there like a child saying his evening prayers? To be alone with his soul, to examine his conscience, to meet his sins face to face, to recall their times and manners and circumstances, to weep over them." Religion pushes its way suddenly and unexpectedly back into Stephen's life. After his confession at the end of Chapter Three, he begins to lead a life nearly as devout as that of his Jesuit teachers and mentors. Even as he leads this life, however, shades of his former self are obliquely evident through statements such as, "This idea had a perilous attraction for his mind now that he felt his soul beset once again by the insistent voices of the flesh which began to murmur to him again during his prayers and meditations." Here it is evident that, even as his life becomes more and more devout, he can never lead the perfect and sinless life of the Jesuit. The offer of a position as a priest is met by memories of his childhood at Clongowes and thoughts such as, "He wondered how he would pass the first night in the novitiate and with what dismay he would wake the first morning in the dormitory." Stephen realizes that the clerical collar would be too tight for him to wear. A walk on the beach confirms this thought in Stephen's mind through the statement, "Heavenly God! cried Stephen's soul in an outburst of profane joy." The sight of a woman and the knowledge that, as a priest, he could not even talk to her, finally convinces Stephen to abandon religion. His running escape from the woman also symbolizes his run from religion and restriction, a run to freedom, to the life of an artist. The life of an artist is one of individuality and solitude, both of which Stephen exhibits in the final chapter. Religion is the last thing on Stephen's mind as he formulates his theses on art, aesthetic beauty, ideal pity and ideal terror. While these theses are important to the continuity of the novel, religion does not resurface until much later. Near the end of the novel, Cranly sees the folly of the life Stephen is trying to make for himself. He is surrounding himself with beautiful thoughts and images, but these images will not hold him later in life. Realizing such, Cranly gently tries to push religion back into Stephen's life, stating, "Do you not fear that those words may be spoken to you on the day of judgment?" This question, however, is met by the rebuke, "What is offered me on the other hand?...An eternity of bliss in the company of the dean of studies?" Stephen's bitterly sarcastic denunciation of the religious life represents a final break from all religion. The end of Stephen's life in Ireland rings hollow, for this exchange shows the emptiness he has to show for it. In response to the question of whether he loves his mother, Stephen says, "I don't know what your words mean." This statement shows the lack of love in Stephen's life that results from the absence of religion, for without religion there can be no true feeling or outlet for these feelings. While Stephen eventually turns away from religion, it is an important facet in his development as an artist. Religion, originally one of the "nets" by which he flies, leads to the loss of his naiveté and later to his disillusionment with a conformist society as a whole. Stephen's thoughts are too independent and liberal for his contemporaries, and thus it is inevitable that he will cast away his nets, reject society, and become an artist. Religion disturbs, shapes, and finally changes Stephen for good. While religion leads to an artistic and lonely life, Stephen can never totally break from his family or need for companionship. At the close of the novel he says, "Old father, old artificer, stand by me now and ever in good stead," belying the fact that no matter how independent Stephen becomes, no man can be an island. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\STRONG AND WEEK.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ STRONG AND WEEK The Christian religion, like all other religions has its strengths and weaknesses in our modern society. Perhaps the strengths out weight the weaknesses as this is one of the largest religions in the world. Hundreds of people follow the Catholic/Christian religion yet still a greater number follow yet other religions. Perhaps this is because they see the weaknesses or perhaps it is simply because their parents have taught them that it is a sin to follow this religion. The Christian religions do however present much more of an appealing atmosphere than such other religions which are as large as the Christian. The Christian religion is one of few religions where punishments for sins are not severe. In the Christian religion, even if you have lived a life of sin, so long as you repent in the end, you will be saved and given eternal life. This is not so in other religions. Such religions as Hinduism for instance do not believe this. For everything you do wrong you will be punished. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, if not in this life, then the next. Hindu's also believe that punishing the body is part of the path to salvation. Christianity is nothing like this. Many Christians live in high(c)class society. Christianity is one of the most appealing in that any sins may easily be corrected and that Christians may live comfortable, if not wealthy lives without guilt. Christianity, like other religions though, has many weaknesses. Although as time goes on, Christianity is slowly evolving and trying to become even more appealing to society, there are still many downfalls. One thing with Christianity is that from day one we are given a guilt trip. We are born evil. We are born with "the original sin". We are at the mercy of God. If we beg forgiveness however, it shall be granted. My grandmother for instance has been a firm believer in the Roman Catholic faith. She, being taught in the old style, firmly believes in going to confession weekly and begging for forgiveness. It has been taught to her that man is born evil. All we can do is pray, beg and hope for forgiveness. With such a guilt upon his sub(c)conscience, man can never be truly happy. Yet another strength with the Christian faith is that it is one of the more flexible religions. Under the leadership of the pope(s), the Catholic faith has evolved with modern society and become a more "reasonable" faith. Such practices as not eating meat on Fridays, and so forth, have been abolished as the Christian faith has bent to conform with modern society. Some people may see this as a weakness. This is not so. The Christian religion has modified its rituals yet the central beliefs have not been altered since the very beginning of this religion. This is actually quite a good thing. A religion should change as the modern society does and conform to a more "acceptable" approach to continue its teachings/practices. This is one great thing about the Christian faith. A small, often overlooked draw back to the Christian faith is that there is not any solid proof that Jesus existed. To the Christian faith, Jesus is the central figure. A Christian will tell you that the Bible is proof that Jesus existed. The Bible however was written much later, after Jesus' death. Therefore the stories contained have been transferred by word of mouth, which has certainly been distorted and exaggerated. The Shroud of Turin used to be the Christian religion's artifact which was believed to be the original shroud that Jesus was wrapped in when he was buried and therefore solid proof he existed. Recently due to modern carbon dating, this "artifact" has been proven to have been created with paint approximately one thousand years after the day Christ died. To a non(c)believer, this is a major drawback. One very strong point about the Catholic/Christian religion is that they strongly believe in correcting our corrupted world. Many missionaries are sent yearly to third world countries where they help educate, feed and provide moral support for a people who have nothing. With such a practice in place, the Christian religion has put a smile on faces which normally would never know anything more than tears. Probably one of the greatest features of the Christian church which helps it survive in modern society is the hierarchy system upon which this religion is based. Such strong organization structure help this religion in well organized money distribution, etc. In a modern society, such structure is necessary. As one of the largest religions, the Catholic/Christian religion is one of the great religions which stills lives strongly among us in our increasingly modern society. Despite its many weaknesses, the Christian faith has even more strengths upon which its survival is based. Times may change, technology may advance, but essential beliefs never alter. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Study on Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Study on Religion Mike Fehl Sociology-4 Mr. Winch January 6, 1997 Scientific Method Isolating the Problem - Does religious involvement have any impact on how people act? I wanted to find out if how involved a person was in their religion had any effect on their moral standards, behavior, or grades in school. I felt that their might be a pattern formed with involvement and the afore-mentioned variables. Forming a Hypothesis - My hypothesis going into this paper was: Those people who are involve in their religion, on average, have higher moral standards, better behavior, and do better in school than those who are not as involved in their religion. Building a Research Design - In conducting my research I used three sociological research methods: survey method, statistical analysis, and the historical method. This involved a questionnaire, the data from the questionnaire, and studies from magazines and books. Collecting the Data - I collected the data from my questionnaires as well as found books that discussed the subject, and magazine articles on related topics. Analyzing the Data - I compared and contrasted the data I received, whether from my questionnaire or from the text. I tried to find similarities that either proved or disproved my hypothesis. Make Generalizations - After completing my studies, I found a connection between religious involvement; and was able to generalize that those who are involved act and behave better than those who aren't involved. Introduction My purpose for writing this paper on this particular subject was because I was curious to find out if there were any connections between religious involvement and if it affected how people acted. I found some similarities between those who felt that religious involvement affected behavior, and similarities between those who didn't. I also found similarities between those who replied that they were highly involved in their religion, as well as some similarities between those not as highly involved. Research I used three different methods to help me collect my data. The first was the survey method. I developed a questionnaire that I felt would get me the information I seeked. These surveys were distributed in Randolph high school (to Mr. Winch's classes), mostly to Seniors and Sophomores, as well as a few from the Freshman and Junior classes. This gave me a good sample of the teenage population in our area. The questionnaire had the following questions: - 1. What is your religion? - 2. How involved in your religion do you consider yourself? (1-10 1 being the lowest 10 being the highest) - 3. How would you rate your moral standards? 1-10 - 4. How would you rate your behavior? 1-10 - 5. What are your average grades? - 6. Do you feel your religious involvement affects your behavior? Through my questionnaire I found that the majority of the people who felt that they had high religious involvement ( a 6 or better on the 1-10 scale) felt that their religious involvement had an affect on their behavior, while the majority of those that felt that they had low religious involvement ( a 5 or lower) felt that their religious involvement had little or no impact on their behavior. Also I found that a larger percent of those who answered that yes their involvement had an impact on their behavior felt that they had high moral standards, good behavior, and good grades ( a 7 or better for the two former and B's or better for the former) than those who felt that their involvement had no impact on behavior. A related study, conducted by Bill Moyer, showed that involvement and influence of religion is increasing. In November of 1992 only 27% of Americans said the influence of religion was increasing while 38% of Americans in a December 1995 study said that the influence is increasing, an 11% leap in only a matter of 26 months. It was also noted that ". . . the historical role of religion is molding personal identities, shaping social identity, generating community and goals, transmitting values, sharpening critical moral sense, challenging the status quo and questioning authority." 2 Another past study showed similar results. This study noted "Christian teaching is intended to govern the soul." They found that 1970 75% of American people felt that religion didn't influence them, but only 46% were of that opinion in 1980. Their study was also able to show that those people who were considered successful in life, doctors, businessmen, artists, etc., the majority of them were involved in their religion as well as credited their success to the influence of their religion and their involvement in that religion. 3 In research, I found my hypothesis to be proven true. Those people who were involved in their religion, no matter what religion they were, were more likely to have higher moral standards, rate their behavior higher, and do better in school, as well as feel their involvement in their religion affected their behavior. These studies suggest that if more people were involved in their religion that there might be less behavioral problems in our school systems, society would have higher morals, and more people would receive good grades. So after doing these studies I feel that there is definitely a connection between religion and how people act and behave; and I found that those who are involved in religion, whatever religion it may be, act and behave better than those who are not actively involved in religion. So while not all the evidence I found while researching my topic was what I expected and some was inconclusive, the overwhelming feeling I got while studying my research is that my hypothesis is true. Footnotes 1. My Questionnaire on religion from a sample of Randolph High School. 2. Moyer, Bill America's Religious Mosaic, USA Weekend, Gannett Co. Inc., October 11 -13, 1996, pages 4 - 5 3.Bender L., David, Leone, Bruno Religion in America , Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, CA 1989 Bibliography Bender L., David, Leone, Bruno Religion in America , Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, CA 1989 Colombo, Furio, God In America, New York: Columbia University Press, 1984 Marx, Herbert L. Jr., The Reference Shelf: Religions in America, The H.W. Wilson Company, NY 1977 Moyer, Bill America's Religious Mosaic, USA Weekend, Gannett Co. Inc., October 11 -13, 1996, pages 4 - 5 My Questionnaire on religion from a sample of Randolph High School. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Succot.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Succot: The Jewish Holiday After the Exodus from slavery in Egypt, the wandering Jews lived in tents or booths, called Succots. They were pitched wherever they happened to stop for the night. Today it is called the Succot the festival of booths remembering both the ancient agricultural booths and those of the Exodus. The harvest festival of thanksgiving, Succot, begins five days after Yom Kippur, and lasts for eight days. The first two days are the most holy, during which most Jews do not work. The families construct the booths and decorate it with branches, and leaves, fruits, and other designs. The roof is covered lightly, so the stars and the sky can still be seen. Most Jewish families eat all their meals in the Succot, while some even sleep in them. During the Succot festival, thanks are given for all growing plants by using four plants which are symbolic of all the rest. These four plants also represent the Jewish people. The Etrog, or the citrus fruit, stands for the people who are educated in the Torah and who do good deeds. The Lulav, or branch of the date palm, stands for the Jewish people who have knowledge but no good deeds. The Hadas,or myrtle, symbolizes the people who do good deeds, but are not educated. The Aravah, or willow, stands for the people who have no good deeds and no education. These plants are carried around the synagogue in a procession while prayers are recited for blessings on the land and fruit of Israel. In biblical times, the willow, the palm, and the Etrog were used in decorating the Succot. At the end of the Autum harvest, on the fifteenth day of Tishri (September-October) Succot is celebrated. It is believed that the festival originated with the ancient Canaanite celebration after the grape harvest at the end of the annual dry season. During this time rites were performed to incourage the rains. Boughs of fruit trees and evergreens were made into little booths which the early Jewish farmers lived during the festival. The last day of Succot is called Simhat Torah. It means the "rejoicing of the Torah." On this day, the reading of the Torah is completed, and is then immidiately begun again. This symbolizes the fact that the study of the Torah has no beginning and no end. Children are given the honor of being called to read the Torah along side their elders. Generally only adults are called up to the Torah. In a series of seven processions around the synagogue,called Hakafot, the rabbi leads the congregation carrying the Torah. The procession goes seven times around in honor of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, and David. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Sufism 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sufism Sufism, otherwise known as Islamic Mysticism, is a branch of Islam. It deals with special powers that are contained in the Qur'an. It is a more philosophical approach, where a person tries to become one with nature, and feel the power of God. The term mysticism can be defined as the consciousness of the One Reality -- be it called Wisdom, Light, Love or Nothing. (Shcimmel 23) A Sufi tries to unite his will with God's will. They try to isolate themselves, so they can fear and become close to God. By isolating themselves, a Sufi tries to stay away from politics and public affairs, so as too not get corrupted. The Sufi's path is a path of love, to be thankful of all God's bounties. Many Sufi's try to help individuals in trouble. They use special powers, which enable them to help people who are suffering. Of course this power can only be given by God, and Sufi's in no way equal to God's power. In fact, Sufi's that claim to be at the same level of God cannot be classified as a Muslim. (Frager 11) Sufi's stress love, because they believe that love will help you in the Day of Judgement. That the people who you truly love, will give you their good deeds, so that you may enter Paradise. Normally these people who give their good deeds away are known as dervishes (this is quite different from the belief in Islam). Sufi's also stress the remembrance of God, which is called Zikr. They try to get close to God, to be one with God. They define God as something that is close to you but you can't see it. That God is all around us, but His presence is too overwhelming to see. An example is like fish who is in water. The fish can't really see the water, even though it is all around the fish. Once a person realizes the presence of God, he or she will feel closer to God. (Frager 27) Sufi's believe that God remains hidden, so that people don't complain to Him (this however is not an Islamic belief). In Islam, God's presence isn't seen, because He has too much power for the human eyes to see. Sufi's also believe that pain increases the devotion to God. To get close to God, one must experience pain. To suffer pain is a true test of faith. Life becomes a test for that person, and if he or she remains close to God, then he or she passes the test. (Frager 33) When a person feels close to God, he or she has a sense of hope when they pray to God. Part of the work of a Sufi is to change the state of your nafs, nafs meaning your soul. The soul and body are two different things, the soul comes from God and the body is made out of clay. A Sufi believes that the soul is good, but man misuses the soul to cause undesirable effects. He does this by being dominated by his wants and desires. (Shcimmel 45) A Sufi tries to change the state in a person, to bring him closer to God. They go through four stages the first one being the lowest form, to be dominated by yours wants and desires. The second stage is to struggle within you, to criticize yourself whenever you fail. The third stage is a be satisfied with whatever God gives you, be it good or bad. The final stage is to accept death. When this stage has been reached, a person becomes closer to God, which creates a sense of unity with God. (Frager 40) Another way to become closer to God is understand the Qur'an. The degree of understanding a person has about the person is equal to the degree of closeness with God. The Qur'an teaches people how to act like a human being. It tells people what is lawful and unlawful. It contains certain mysteries which can boggle the human mind. It has the answer to all question of life, and that's why a Sufi goes in depth when studying the Qur'an. Dreams are very important to. The reason being is that they contain important messages. There are two types of dreams, which are: the truthful dream and the bolic dream. The truthful dream can be literally translated, and the bolic dream on the other hand needs to be interpreted by dervish. Dreams are a means of communication between the Creator and humanity. To dervish, dreams indicate what type of spiritual state they are in. When the spiritual state of a dervish changes, the duties and prayers change. (Frager 55) What you see in your dream is in the realm of divine knowledge. That which is hidden from you is known within the realm of the Divine Knowledge of God. At sleep the soul comes out of the body, without losing its connection with the body, like a beam of light coming from a flashlight. This light extends to that divine screen and "reads" those entries that pertain to it. In waking up, the light of the soul comes back to the body, as in shutting off the flashlight. According to Sufi's there are several different souls in each person: the mineral soul, the vegetable soul, the animal soul, the human soul, the angelic soul, the secret soul, and the soul of the secrets of the secrets. The dream symbols are different depending on the soul it pertains to, the soul that receives them and the person who see them. For example a Sultan and a slave may have the same dream, but the images in the dream may mean completely different things. The various souls in the human being are not distinct from each other. They are intertwined with each other and soul evolves toward higher souls. (Frager 60) The dreams that people have should only be told to truly loved ones or dream interpreters (who are mainly dervishes). To tell someone else a dream can lead to disastrous results. If they are interpreted the wrong way, or someone is jealous of your dream, the reactions can be devastating. True interpretation is almost inherited, a gift of God, as was given to Jacob and Joseph (other prophets). Besides the interpretations of dreams, submission is also very important in Sufism. Sufi's (along with other Muslims) strongly believe in the submission of God. The term Islam means "Submission to the will of God." Submission to God reminds the Sufi's that God has all the power, and that he controls everything including their actions. The Sufi's look at the story of Abraham as a perfect model of submission to God. Abraham, who was a prophet of God, decided to sacrifice one thousand rams, three hundred oxen and one hundred camels in the name of God, because God had saved him from fire in Nimrod (the people there tried to burn him alive). When people asked him why he sacrificed so much for God, he said that he was willing to sacrifice his life for God, and since God saved him why not sacrifice his personal possessions. He even said that he would sacrifice his own son (if he had one), if God wished it. As the years went on Abraham finally had a son by the name of Ismail. After that God revealed to prophet Abraham to sacrifice his son for him. When prophet Abraham awoke the next day, he couldn't believe his dream. He thought that it was the devil, because he knew that God didn't allow human sacrifices. This happened for a period of three nights, and then prophet Abraham decided to carry out God's wishes. Prophet Abraham took Ismail to an altar near by and told Ismail about his dream, and what he was ready to do anything for God (an act of submission). As they were walking to the altar, the devil tried his best to convince Abraham, then Ismail, and finally Hagar (prophet Abraham's wife) not to do this sacrifice. However, the devil came to no avail. When Prophet Abraham tried to cut Ismail's throat the knife wouldn't cut. No matter how hard he tried it wouldn't cut, so he then threw the knife into a rock, and the rock split in half. It was then that God commanded prophet Abraham to sacrifice a ram, and he did so. This story represents total submission to God, on both Abraham's and Ismail's side. Prophet Abraham was willing to sacrifice his beloved son in the name of God, and Ismail was willing to be sacrificed. But besides submission, a Sufi also needs to have patience. In order to study and understand the Qur'an one needs to have tremendous amounts of patience, otherwise the Sufi's are suppose to help other people, and if he doesn't have any patience, he will become a failure in aiding other people. A person can have a plethora of knowledge, but if he has no patience that knowledge will not help or benefit him, as in the case of the story of Hussain (another famous story of the Sufi's). (Frager 75) In a Turkish village a man by the name of Hussain got married, but he felt that he didn't have any knowledge, in other words he didn't feel like he was worth anything. So he set out on a journey to gain knowledge, and did so for thirty years. After thirty years he started to come back home, where he met another man on the way, who asked him what the real meaning of wisdom was. Hussain gave all the answers he could think of, but he couldn't come up with the one the man wanted. So the man told him that he would tell him the answer, if he came with him and did work. For one year Hussain asked the man, and the man would always say he would give the answer the next day. Finally Hussain became fed up and screamed at the man for an answer. The man finally said that patience was the answer to wisdom. That if a man doesn't have patience, then he has no real knowledge, no matter how many years he studied. (Frager 85) But besides being patient a Sufi must also not give into temptation. A Sufi must have a strong will and be able to control their inner soul (nafs). This also part of the reason why they isolate themselves, so they do not get tempted by any worldly desires. A Sufi's outside appearance should represent his inner soul. If a person does commits a sin then he/she must repent to God, and ask for forgiveness. If a Sufi sees a fault in someone else, then he should correct. It is a Sufi's duty to correct other people and help them. These beliefs are followed by many Sufi's around the world. All aspect of Sufism are considered Islamic, unless the basic principles of Islam are broken. These basic principles are found in the Qur'an and also in the hadith. Anything else added to the religion is called bidah, and is not accepted in Islam. Sufism deals with a whole other side of Islam, a part which deals with mystical powers and mysteries (some of which are not meant to be understood, that is only for God to know). To understand these powers and mysteries are very difficult and take a great deal of studying and self searching. But when one taps into these mystical powers, that person opens a door of unlimited knowledge. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Sufism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sufism Sufism, otherwise known as Islamic Mysticism, is a branch of Islam. It deals with special powers that are contained in the Qur'an. It is a more philosophical approach, where a person tries to become one with nature, and feel the power of God. The term mysticism can be defined as the consciousness of the One Reality -- be it called Wisdom, Light, Love or Nothing. (Shcimmel 23) A Sufi tries to unite his will with God's will. They try to isolate themselves, so they can fear and become close to God. By isolating themselves, a Sufi tries to stay away from politics and public affairs, so as too not get corrupted. The Sufi's path is a path of love, to be thankful of all God's bounties. Many Sufi's try to help individuals in trouble. They use special powers, which enable them to help people who are suffering. Of course this power can only be given by God, and Sufi's in no way equal to God's power. In fact, Sufi's that claim to be at the same level of God cannot be classified as a Muslim. (Frager 11) Sufi's stress love, because they believe that love will help you in the Day of Judgement. That the people who you truly love, will give you their good deeds, so that you may enter Paradise. Normally these people who give their good deeds away are known as dervishes (this is quite different from the belief in Islam). Sufi's also stress the remembrance of God, which is called Zikr. They try to get close to God, to be one with God. They define God as something that is close to you but you can't see it. That God is all around us, but His presence is too overwhelming to see. An example is like fish who is in water. The fish can't really see the water, even though it is all around the fish. Once a person realizes the presence of God, he or she will feel closer to God. (Frager 27) Sufi's believe that God remains hidden, so that people don't complain to Him (this however is not an Islamic belief). In Islam, God's presence isn't seen, because He has too much power for the human eyes to see. Sufi's also believe that pain increases the devotion to God. To get close to God, one must experience pain. To suffer pain is a true test of faith. Life becomes a test for that person, and if he or she remains close to God, then he or she passes the test. (Frager 33) When a person feels close to God, he or she has a sense of hope when they pray to God. Part of the work of a Sufi is to change the state of your nafs, nafs meaning your soul. The soul and body are two different things, the soul comes from God and the body is made out of clay. A Sufi believes that the soul is good, but man misuses the soul to cause undesirable effects. He does this by being dominated by his wants and desires. (Shcimmel 45) A Sufi tries to change the state in a person, to bring him closer to God. They go through four stages the first one being the lowest form, to be dominated by yours wants and desires. The second stage is to struggle within you, to criticize yourself whenever you fail. The third stage is a be satisfied with whatever God gives you, be it good or bad. The final stage is to accept death. When this stage has been reached, a person becomes closer to God, which creates a sense of unity with God. (Frager 40) Another way to become closer to God is understand the Qur'an. The degree of understanding a person has about the person is equal to the degree of closeness with God. The Qur'an teaches people how to act like a human being. It tells people what is lawful and unlawful. It contains certain mysteries which can boggle the human mind. It has the answer to all question of life, and that's why a Sufi goes in depth when studying the Qur'an. Dreams are very important to. The reason being is that they contain important messages. There are two types of dreams, which are: the truthful dream and the bolic dream. The truthful dream can be literally translated, and the bolic dream on the other hand needs to be interpreted by dervish. Dreams are a means of communication between the Creator and humanity. To dervish, dreams indicate what type of spiritual state they are in. When the spiritual state of a dervish changes, the duties and prayers change. (Frager 55) What you see in your dream is in the realm of divine knowledge. That which is hidden from you is known within the realm of the Divine Knowledge of God. At sleep the soul comes out of the body, without losing its connection with the body, like a beam of light coming from a flashlight. This light extends to that divine screen and "reads" those entries that pertain to it. In waking up, the light of the soul comes back to the body, as in shutting off the flashlight. According to Sufi's there are several different souls in each person: the mineral soul, the vegetable soul, the animal soul, the human soul, the angelic soul, the secret soul, and the soul of the secrets of the secrets. The dream symbols are different depending on the soul it pertains to, the soul that receives them and the person who see them. For example a Sultan and a slave may have the same dream, but the images in the dream may mean completely different things. The various souls in the human being are not distinct from each other. They are intertwined with each other and soul evolves toward higher souls. (Frager 60) The dreams that people have should only be told to truly loved ones or dream interpreters (who are mainly dervishes). To tell someone else a dream can lead to disastrous results. If they are interpreted the wrong way, or someone is jealous of your dream, the reactions can be devastating. True interpretation is almost inherited, a gift of God, as was given to Jacob and Joseph (other prophets). Besides the interpretations of dreams, submission is also very important in Sufism. Sufi's (along with other Muslims) strongly believe in the submission of God. The term Islam means "Submission to the will of God." Submission to God reminds the Sufi's that God has all the power, and that he controls everything including their actions. The Sufi's look at the story of Abraham as a perfect model of submission to God. Abraham, who was a prophet of God, decided to sacrifice one thousand rams, three hundred oxen and one hundred camels in the name of God, because God had saved him from fire in Nimrod (the people there tried to burn him alive). When people asked him why he sacrificed so much for God, he said that he was willing to sacrifice his life for God, and since God saved him why not sacrifice his personal possessions. He even said that he would sacrifice his own son (if he had one), if God wished it. As the years went on Abraham finally had a son by the name of Ismail. After that God revealed to prophet Abraham to sacrifice his son for him. When prophet Abraham awoke the next day, he couldn't believe his dream. He thought that it was the devil, because he knew that God didn't allow human sacrifices. This happened for a period of three nights, and then prophet Abraham decided to carry out God's wishes. Prophet Abraham took Ismail to an altar near by and told Ismail about his dream, and what he was ready to do anything for God (an act of submission). As they were walking to the altar, the devil tried his best to convince Abraham, then Ismail, and finally Hagar (prophet Abraham's wife) not to do this sacrifice. However, the devil came to no avail. When Prophet Abraham tried to cut Ismail's throat the knife wouldn't cut. No matter how hard he tried it wouldn't cut, so he then threw the knife into a rock, and the rock split in half. It was then that God commanded prophet Abraham to sacrifice a ram, and he did so. This story represents total submission to God, on both Abraham's and Ismail's side. Prophet Abraham was willing to sacrifice his beloved son in the name of God, and Ismail was willing to be sacrificed. But besides submission, a Sufi also needs to have patience. In order to study and understand the Qur'an one needs to have tremendous amounts of patience, otherwise the Sufi's are suppose to help other people, and if he doesn't have any patience, he will become a failure in aiding other people. A person can have a plethora of knowledge, but if he has no patience that knowledge will not help or benefit him, as in the case of the story of Hussain (another famous story of the Sufi's). (Frager 75) In a Turkish village a man by the name of Hussain got married, but he felt that he didn't have any knowledge, in other words he didn't feel like he was worth anything. So he set out on a journey to gain knowledge, and did so for thirty years. After thirty years he started to come back home, where he met another man on the way, who asked him what the real meaning of wisdom was. Hussain gave all the answers he could think of, but he couldn't come up with the one the man wanted. So the man told him that he would tell him the answer, if he came with him and did work. For one year Hussain asked the man, and the man would always say he would give the answer the next day. Finally Hussain became fed up and screamed at the man for an answer. The man finally said that patience was the answer to wisdom. That if a man doesn't have patience, then he has no real knowledge, no matter how many years he studied. (Frager 85) But besides being patient a Sufi must also not give into temptation. A Sufi must have a strong will and be able to control their inner soul (nafs). This also part of the reason why they isolate themselves, so they do not get tempted by any worldly desires. A Sufi's outside appearance should represent his inner soul. If a person does commits a sin then he/she must repent to God, and ask for forgiveness. If a Sufi sees a fault in someone else, then he should correct. It is a Sufi's duty to correct other people and help them. These beliefs are followed by many Sufi's around the world. All aspect of Sufism are considered Islamic, unless the basic principles of Islam are broken. These basic principles are found in the Qur'an and also in the hadith. Anything else added to the religion is called bidah, and is not accepted in Islam. Sufism deals with a whole other side of Islam, a part which deals with mystical powers and mysteries (some of which are not meant to be understood, that is only for God to know). To understand these powers and mysteries are very difficult and take a great deal of studying and self searching. But when one taps into these mystical powers, that person opens a door of unlimited knowledge. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\T‚moins de J‚hovah.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INTRODUCTION Le Jéhovisme est né à Pittsburgh, Pennsylvanie en 1872. Le fondateur de ce groupe religieux est le clergé américain Charles Taze Russell. À la fin des 1980's il y en comptait environ 3.8 million de Témoins de Jéhovah; aux États-Unis, où ils sont le plus nombreux, il y en a plus que 800,000. En 1990, les proclammateurs comptaient 3.7 million. Ils sont surtout présent aux États-Unis. CHAPITRE 1 Les Témoins de Jéhovah ont plusieurs croyances: -ils croient que les Écritures affirment que Jésus est le Fils unique du Père; mais, pour les Témoins, cet adjectif doit être interprété au sens de premier-né. -"They beleive that soon the forces of good, led by Christ, will defeat the forces of evil, led by Satan, at the battle of Armageddon. Thereafter Christ will rule the earth for a thousand years. During this millennium the dead will rise again, and all people will have a second opportunity to acheive salvation. At the end of the millennium Satan will return to earth, and he and those who support him will finally be destroyed. A perfect humankind will then enjoy eternal life on earth."(1) (1)MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Encarta '95 - "Jehovah's Witnesses", États- Unis, Funk & Wagnalls, 1994, CD-ROM -"This organization denies most of the major doctrines accepted by the historical orthodox Christian church."(2) -Ils ne croient pas que Jésus Christ fait partie du Trinité, mais ils croient qu'il est le Fils de Dieu, un des premiers créations de Dieu; qu'il avait une existence préhumain et que sa vie était transféré du ciel à une utérus d'une vierge, Mary. -(Jésus) "...that his perfect human life laid down in sacrifice makes possible salvation to eternal life for those who exercise faith; that Christ is actively ruling as King, with God-given authority over all the earth since 1914."(3) -Ils croient qu'on vit, depuis 1914, dans les derniers jours du monde. -Les Témoins de Jéhovah croient que Dieu a un nom, Jéhovah, et que l'usage de ce nom est nécessaire au salut. (2)http://www.eskimo.com/~jcw/jcw01.html (3)http://www.wpg.ramp.net/~mptech/mpwhojw.htm -Les Témoins de Jéhovah croient que Jéhovah est le seul vrai Dieu et ils parlent librement aux autres de lui et son amour face à l'humanité. -Les Témoins de Jéhovah ont plusieurs livres importants, Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Six Sermons. Un de leurs livres sacrées est The Watch Tower Bible (la "Tour de Garde"). CHAPITRE 2 Les Témoins ont plusieurs choses à faire et plusieurs régles à suivre, ils ne leurs restent pas beaucoup de temps libre une fois qu'ils ont rempli leurs obligations. "Trois fois par an, enfin, le Témoin participera à des rassemblements où il pourra renforcer ses convictions doctrinales et écouter ses chefs dresser un bilan des succès obtenus."(4) "En théorie, le Témoin de Jéhovah doit participer à cinq réunions par semaine, chacune d'une durée d'une heure."(5) Les Témoins de Jéhovah prêchent de porte-à-porte en distribuant du littérature à du monde sur la rue. (4) et (5) INTROVIGNE, M, Les Témoins de Jéhovah, France (Sarthe), Les Éditions du Cerf, 1990, 127 pages "An outstanding identifying mark of Jehovah's Witnesses is their zealous preaching from house. They do this because Jesus Christ foretold that his disciples would be doing this when he said: This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come. He also instructed his followers: Go ... and make disciples of people of all the nations.-Matt. 24:14; 28:19."(6) L'un des rites les plus importantes des Témoins de Jéhovah concerne la sacralité du sang comme source de vie. En ce qui concerne les transfusions proprement dites, les Témoins n'en ont pratiquement pas parlé jusqu'en 1937, mais leurs refus est devenu une obligation en 1945. Depuis les années 50, ils ont gardés une position dure et, dès cette époque, les Témoins qui ont accepté une transfusion pour eux ou pour leurs enfants ont été exclus de l'organisation. "Witnesses acknowledge allegiance solely to the kingdom of Jesus Christ. They refuse consequently to salute any flag, vote, perform military service, or otherwise signify allegiance to any government. This policy has brought them into conflict with governmental authorities in many countries, including the United States."(7) (6) http://www.wpg.ramp.net/~mptech/mpwhojw.htm (7) Encata '95, "Jehovah's Witnesses" Les Témoins de Jéhovah croient à la vie après la mort, ils croient que celui qui meurt vivra pour une deuxième fois. Ils croient aussi à la ressurection de Jésus Christ. Ils considèrent chaque Témoin comme ministre. L'étude du Bible se fait, le plus souvent, dans des maisons privées. Les membres européens appartiennent à l'Association International des Élèves du Bible. Les lieux où le Témoins de Jéhovah se rencontrent s'appellent Kingdom Halls. "They beleive that 144,000 spirit-anointed Christians will share with Christ in his heavenly Kingdom, ruling as kings with him. They do not beleive that heaven is the reward for everyone who is good." (8) Ils croient que la Terre sera totalement populé par de adorateurs de Jéhovah et qu'ils viveront en éternité de l'humanité parfait. (8) http://www.wpg.ramp.net/~mptech/mpwhojw.htm Quand Jésus à envoyé ses disciples, il les avait dirigé d'aller aux maisons des personnes. La message que les Témoins proclamment est envoyé envers les vies des gens; ils veulent être attention pour ne manquer personne. Leurs appels sont motivés par l'amour, en premier, et aussi pour leurs voisins. Ils ne circulent pas librement, ils n'ont pas de temps libre. Aussi, ils ne peuvent pas avoir ou donner une transfusion de sang pour eux-mêmes ou pour leur enfants. Et ce qui semble le plus étrange, ils ne fêtent pas leurs naissances. CONCLUSION Cet groupe religieux étudie la Bible. Avec quelques amis et son père, Russell fonda en 1870 un groupe d'étude de la Bible. Cette activité se poursuivit jusqu'en 1876. Donc, les Témoins de Jéhovah sont un secte religieux d'origine chrétienne-adventistes. BIBLIOGRAPHIE -1- INTROVIGNE, M, Les Témoins de Jéhovah, France (Sarthe), Les Éditions du Cerf, 1990, 127 pages -2- MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Encarta '95 - "Jehovah's Witnesses", États-Unis, Funk & Wagnalls, 1994, CD-ROM -3- http://www.eskimo.com/~jcw/jcw01.html -4- http://www.wpg.ramp.net/~mptech/mpwhojw.htm f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Taoism and Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Taoism and Buddhism Taoism is one of the two great philosophical and religious traditions that originated in China. The other religion native to China is Confucianism. Both Taoism and Confucianism began at about the same time, around the sixth century B.C.E. China's third great religion, Buddhism, came to China from India around the second century of the common era. Together, these three faiths have shaped Chinese life and thought for nearly twenty-five hundred years (Hartz 3). One dominate concept in Taoism and Buddhism is the belief in some form of reincarnation. The idea that life does not end when one dies is an integral part of these religions and the culture of the Chinese people. Reincarnation, life after death, beliefs are not standardized. Each religion has a different way of applying this concept to its beliefs. This paper will describe the reincarnation concepts as they apply to Taoism and Buddhism, and then provide a comparison of the two. The goal in Taoism is to achieve tao, to find the way. Tao is the ultimate reality, a presence that existed before the universe was formed and which continues to guide the world and everything in it. Tao is sometimes identified as the Mother, or the source of all things. That source is not a god or a supreme being, as Taoism is not monotheistic. The focus is not to worship one god, but instead on coming into harmony with tao (Hartz, 8). Tao is the essence of everything that is right, and complications exist only because people choose to complicate their own lives. Desire, ambition, fame, and selfishness are seen as hindrances to a harmonious life. It is only when a person rids himself of all desires can tao be achieved. By shunning every earthly distraction, the Taoist is able to concentrate on life itself. The longer the person's life, the more saintly the person is presumed to have become. Eventually the hope is to become immortal, to achieve tao, to have reached the deeper life. This is the after life for a Taoist, to be in harmony with the universe, to have achieved tao (Head1, 65). To understand the relationship between life, and the Taoism concept of life and death, the origin of the word tao must be understood. The Chinese character for tao is a combination of two characters that represent the words head and foot. The character for foot represents the idea of a person's direction or path. The character for head represents the idea of conscious choice. The character for head also suggests a beginning, and foot, an ending. Thus the character for tao also conveys the continuing course of the universe, the circle of heaven and earth. Finally, the character for tao represents the Taoist idea that the eternal Tao is both moving and unmoving. The head in the character means the beginning, the source of all things, or Tao itself, which never moves or changes; the foot is the movement on the path (Harts 9). Taoism upholds the belief in the survival of the spirit after death. "To have attained the human form must be always a source of joy. And then to undergo countless transitions, with only the infinite to look forward to, what comparable bliss is that! Therefore it is that the truly wise rejoice in, that which can never be lost, but endures always" (Leek 190). Taoist believe birth is not a beginning, death is not an end. There is an existence without limit. There is continuity without a starting point. Applying reincarnation theory to Taoism is the belief that the soul never dies, a person's soul is eternal. "You see death in contrast to life; and both are unreal - both are a changing and seeming. Your soul does not glide out of a familiar sea into an unfamiliar ocean. That which is real in you, your soul, can never pass away, and this fear is no part of her" (Head2 199). In the writings of The Tao Te King, tao is described as having existed before heaven and earth. Tao is formless, stands alone without change and reaches everywhere without harm. The Taoist is told to use the light that is inside to revert to the natural clearness of sight. By divesting oneself of all external distractions and desires, only then can one achieve tao. In ancient days a Taoist that had transcended birth and death, achieved tao, was said to have cut the Thread of Life (Kapleau 13). The soul, or spirit, is Taoism does not die at death. The soul is not reborn, it migrates to another life. This process, the Taoist version of reincarnation, is repeated until tao is achieved. The following translation from The Tao Te King best summarizes the the theory behind tao and how a Taoist can achieve Tao. The Great Way is very smooth, but the people love the by-paths. . . The wearing of gay embroidered robes, the carrying of sharp swords, fastidiousness in food and drink, superabundance of property and wealth: - this I call flaunting robbery; most assuredly it is not Tao. . . He who acts in accordance with Tao, becomes one with Tao. . . Being akin to Heaven, he possesses Tao. Possessed of Tao, he endures forever. . . Being great (Tao) passes on; passing on, it becomes remote; having become remote, it returns (Head3 109). Buddhism The followers of the Buddha believe life goes on and on in many reincarnations or rebirths. The eternal hope for all followers of Buddha is that through reincarnation one comes back into successively better lives - until one achieves the goal of being free from pain and suffering and not having to come back again. This wheel of rebirth, known as samsara, goes on forever or until one achieves Nirvana. The Buddhist definition of Nirvana is "the highest state of spiritual bliss, as absolute immortality through absorption of the soul into itself, but preserving individuality" (Head1 57). Birth is not the beginning and death is not the end. This cycle of life has no beginning and can go on forever without an end. The ultimate goal for every Buddhist, Nirvana, represents total enlightenment and liberation. Only through achieving this goal is one liberated from the never ending round of birth, death, and rebirth (Head3 73). Transmigration, the Buddhist cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, involves not the reincarnation of a spirit but the rebirth of a consciousness containing the seeds of good and evil deeds. Buddhism's world of transmigration encompasses three stages. The first stage in concerned with desire, which goes against the teachings of Buddha, is the lowest form and involves a rebirth into any number of hells. The second stage is one in which animals dominate. But after many reincarnations in this stage the spirit becomes more and more human, until one attains a deep spiritual understanding. At this point in the second stage the Buddhist gradually begins to abandon materialism and seek a contemplative life. The Buddhist in the third stage is ultimately able to put his ego to the side and become pure spirit, having no perception of the material world. This stage requires one to move from perception to non-perception. And so, through many stages of spiritual evolution and numerous reincarnations, the Buddhist reaches the state of Nirvana (Leek 171). The transition from one stage to another, or the progression within a stage is based on the actions of the Buddhist. All actions are simply the display of thought, the will of man. This will is caused by character, and character is manufactured from karma. Karma means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal or physical is regarded as karma. All good and bad actions constitute karma. As is the karma, so is the will of the man. A person's karma determines what he deserves and what goals can be achieved. The Buddhists past life actions determine present standing in life and current actions determine the next life, all is determined by the Buddhist's karma (Kapleau 20). Buddha developed a doctrine known as the Four Noble Truths based on his experience and inspiration about the nature of life. These truths are the basis for all schools of Buddhism. The fourth truth describes the way to overcome personal desire through the Eightfold Path. Buddha called his path the Middle Way, because it lies between a life of luxury and a life of poverty. Not everyone can reach the goal of Nirvana, but every Buddhist is at least on the path toward enlightenment. To achieve Nirvana the Buddhist must follow the steps of the Eightfold Path. 1. Right Knowledge is knowledge of what life is all about; knowledge of the Four Noble Truths is basic to any further growth as a Buddhist. 2. Right Aspiration means a clear devotion to being on the Path toward Enlightenment. 3. Right Speech involves both clarity of what is said and speaking kindly and without malice. 4. Right Behavior involves reflecting on one's behavior and the reasons for it. It also involves five basic laws of behavior for Buddhists: not to kill, steal, lie, drink intoxicants, or commit sexual offenses. 5. Right Livelihood involves choosing an occupation that keeps an individual on the Path; that is, a path that promotes life and well-being, rather than the accumulation of a lot of money. 6. Right Effort means training the will and curbing selfish passions and wants. It also means placing oneself along the Path toward Enlightenment. 7. Right Mindfulness implies continuing self-examination and awareness. 8. Right Concentration is the final goal to be absorbed into a state of Nirvana (Comptons). Compliance to the path does not guarantee reaching Nirvana, but it is the only path that leads to Nirvana. Only through following this path established by Buddha does a Buddhist have a chance to reach enlightenment, to free oneself from the continuous rounds of birth, death and rebirth, to have reached the ultimate goal - to be absorbed into a state of Nirvana. Comparison The goal in both Taoism and Buddhism is to reach the ultimate goal, to transcend life on earth as a physical being, to achieve harmony with nature and the universe. The ultimate goal for both religions is to achieve immortality. The Taoist called this ultimate goal Tao, while the Buddhist seek Nirvana. Whatever the name, the followers of these religions believe there is an existence beyond life which can be achieved provided the right path or behavior is followed. The path to Tao and Nirvana are similar, yet different. Both believe there is an inner light which guides a person in the right direction to the ultimate goal. Personal desires must be forsaken to enable the inner light to guide a person to achieve eternal bliss. "The teaching regarding the inner light is just as prominent in the Taoist schools as it is among the practices of Buddhism" (Politella 36). The inner light concept is similar, but the actual path is the difference between Taoism and Buddhism. The path toward enlightenment for the Buddhist was defined by Buddha in his Eightfold Path. Only through following this path does the Buddhist reach Nirvana. The path to Tao is individual, it comes from within. No one can define a path for the Taoist, it must come from the inner light. "Tao means way, but in the original and succeeding manuscripts no direct path is explored or expounded. Desire, ambition, fame, and selfishness are seen as complications. That idea is consistent with Buddhist teachings; it is the personal life of each individual that gives Taoism its special form" (Leek 188). Taoism and Buddhism perceive life, death and rebirth as a continuous cycle. This cycle has no beginning and no end. The soul is eternal, yet the soul is not the object of reincarnation. Taoist believe the soul is not reborn, it "migrates to another life" (Head3 109). Buddhist also believe the soul is not reborn, but instead a "consciousness containing the seeds of good and evil deeds" is the object of rebirth (Leek 171). One major difference between Taoism and Buddhism is the concept of karma to the Buddhist. This idea that all actions are the display of thought, the will of man, is known as karma. Karma determines the Buddhist actions and position in life. A person's karma limits the goals which can be achieved. Karma determines where in the cycle of birth, death and rebirth the consciousness returns. This return can be in the form of an animal or human, and the Buddhist must progress through a hierarchy to achieve Nirvana (Leek 171). The Taoist has no concept similar to karma, and no mention of the soul migrating to an animal form. The determining factor to one's life is contained in the individual behavior for the Taoist. By forsaking personal desires in life, by concentrating of the self, a longer life is prolonged. Eventually, by following the inner light, immortality can be achieved. The similarities between Taoism and Buddhism in the belief of life after death far outweigh the differences. Both religions believe the individual must focus on the self to achieve the ultimate goal. To focus on oneself, all desires and personal ambitions must be forsaken. One must focus on the self and the proper way of life to reach immortality. The cycle of life continues indefinitely until the Thread of Life is broken. Only through proper living, by following the correct path guided by the inner light, can one achieve the ultimate goal of Tao or Nirvana. By Rick Dempster f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Taoism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Taoism Taoism is one of the two great philosophical and religious traditions that originated in China. The other religion native to China is Confucianism. Both Taoism and Confucianism began at about the same time, around the sixth century B.C.E. China's third great religion, Buddhism, came to China from India around the second century of the common era. Together, these three faiths have shaped Chinese life and thought for nearly twenty-five hundred years (Hartz 3). One dominate concept in Taoism and Buddhism is the belief in some form of reincarnation. The idea that life does not end when one dies is an integral part of these religions and the culture of the Chinese people. Reincarnation, life after death, beliefs are not standardized. Each religion has a different way of applying this concept to its beliefs. This paper will describe the reincarnation concepts as they apply to Taoism and Buddhism, and then provide a comparison of the two. Taoism The goal in Taoism is to achieve tao, to find the way. Tao is the ultimate reality, a presence that existed before the universe was formed and which continues to guide the world and everything in it. Tao is sometimes identified as the Mother, or the source of all things. That source is not a god or a supreme being, as Taoism is not monotheistic. The focus is not to worship one god, but instead on coming into harmony with tao (Hartz, 8). Tao is the essence of everything that is right, and complications exist only because people choose to complicate their own lives. Desire, ambition, fame, and selfishness are seen as 1 hindrances to a harmonious life. It is only when a person rids himself of all desires can tao be achieved. By shunning every earthly distraction, the Taoist is able to concentrate on life itself. The longer the person's life, the more saintly the person is presumed to have become. Eventually the hope is to become immortal, to achieve tao, to have reached the deeper life. This is the after life for a Taoist, to be in harmony with the universe, to have achieved tao (Head1, 65). To understand the relationship between life, and the Taoism concept of life and death, the origin of the word tao must be understood. The Chinese character for tao is a combination of two characters that represent the words head and foot. The character for foot represents the idea of a person's direction or path. The character for head represents the idea of conscious choice. The character for head also suggests a beginning, and foot, an ending. Thus the character for tao also conveys the continuing course of the universe, the circle of heaven and earth. Finally, the character for tao represents the Taoist idea that the eternal Tao is both moving and unmoving. The head in the character means the beginning, the source of all things, or Tao itself, which never moves or changes; the foot is the movement on the path (Harts 9). Taoism upholds the belief in the survival of the spirit after death. "To have attained the human form must be always a source of joy. And then to undergo countless transitions, with only the infinite to look forward to, what comparable bliss is that! Therefore it is that the truly wise rejoice in, that which can never be lost, but endures always" (Leek 190). Taoist believe birth is not a beginning, death is not an end. There is an existence without limit. There is 2 continuity without a starting point. Applying reincarnation theory to Taoism is the belief that the soul never dies, a person's soul is eternal. "You see death in contrast to life; and both are unreal - both are a changing and seeming. Your soul does not glide out of a familiar sea into an unfamiliar ocean. That which is real in you, your soul, can never pass away, and this fear is no part of her" (Head2 199). In the writings of The Tao Te King, tao is described as having existed before heaven and earth. Tao is formless, stands alone without change and reaches everywhere without harm. The Taoist is told to use the light that is inside to revert to the natural clearness of sight. By divesting oneself of all external distractions and desires, only then can one achieve tao. In ancient days a Taoist that had transcended birth and death, achieved tao, was said to have cut the Thread of Life (Kapleau 13). The soul, or spirit, is Taoism does not die at death. The soul is not reborn, it migrates to another life. This process, the Taoist version of reincarnation, is repeated until tao is achieved. The following translation from The Tao Te King best summarizes the the theory behind tao and how a Taoist can achieve Tao. The Great Way is very smooth, but the people love the by-paths. . . The wearing of gay embroidered robes, the carrying of sharp swords, fastidiousness in food and drink, superabundance of property and wealth: - this I call flaunting robbery; most assuredly it is not Tao. . . He who acts in accordance with Tao, becomes one with Tao. . . Being akin to Heaven, he possesses Tao. Possessed of Tao, he endures forever. . . Being great (Tao) passes on; passing on, it becomes remote; having become remote, it returns (Head3 109). 3 Buddhism The followers of the Buddha believe life goes on and on in many reincarnations or rebirths. The eternal hope for all followers of Buddha is that through reincarnation one comes back into successively better lives - until one achieves the goal of being free from pain and suffering and not having to come back again. This wheel of rebirth, known as samsara, goes on forever or until one achieves Nirvana. The Buddhist definition of Nirvana is "the highest state of spiritual bliss, as absolute immortality through absorption of the soul into itself, but preserving individuality" (Head1 57). Birth is not the beginning and death is not the end. This cycle of life has no beginning and can go on forever without an end. The ultimate goal for every Buddhist, Nirvana, represents total enlightenment and liberation. Only through achieving this goal is one liberated from the never ending round of birth, death, and rebirth (Head3 73). Transmigration, the Buddhist cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, involves not the reincarnation of a spirit but the rebirth of a consciousness containing the seeds of good and evil deeds. Buddhism's world of transmigration encompasses three stages. The first stage in concerned with desire, which goes against the teachings of Buddha, is the lowest form and involves a rebirth into any number of hells. The second stage is one in which animals dominate. But after many reincarnations in this stage the spirit becomes more and more human, until one attains a deep spiritual understanding. At this point in the second stage the Buddhist gradually begins to 4 abandon materialism and seek a contemplative life. The Buddhist in the third stage is ultimately able to put his ego to the side and become pure spirit, having no perception of the material world. This stage requires one to move from perception to non-perception. And so, through many stages of spiritual evolution and numerous reincarnations, the Buddhist reaches the state of Nirvana (Leek 171). The transition from one stage to another, or the progression within a stage is based on the actions of the Buddhist. All actions are simply the display of thought, the will of man. This will is caused by character, and character is manufactured from karma. Karma means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal or physical is regarded as karma. All good and bad actions constitute karma. As is the karma, so is the will of the man. A person's karma determines what he deserves and what goals can be achieved. The Buddhists past life actions determine present standing in life and current actions determine the next life, all is determined by the Buddhist's karma (Kapleau 20). Buddha developed a doctrine known as the Four Noble Truths based on his experience and inspiration about the nature of life. These truths are the basis for all schools of Buddhism. The fourth truth describes the way to overcome personal desire through the Eightfold Path. Buddha called his path the Middle Way, because it lies between a life of luxury and a life of poverty. Not everyone can reach the goal of Nirvana, but every Buddhist is at least on the path toward enlightenment. To achieve Nirvana the Buddhist must follow the steps of the Eightfold Path. 5 1. Right Knowledge is knowledge of what life is all about; knowledge of the Four Noble Truths is basic to any further growth as a Buddhist. 2. Right Aspiration means a clear devotion to being on the Path toward Enlightenment. 3. Right Speech involves both clarity of what is said and speaking kindly and without malice. 4. Right Behavior involves reflecting on one's behavior and the reasons for it. It also involves five basic laws of behavior for Buddhists: not to kill, steal, lie, drink intoxicants, or commit sexual offenses. 5. Right Livelihood involves choosing an occupation that keeps an individual on the Path; that is, a path that promotes life and well-being, rather than the accumulation of a lot of money. 6. Right Effort means training the will and curbing selfish passions and wants. It also means placing oneself along the Path toward Enlightenment. 7. Right Mindfulness implies continuing self-examination and awareness. 8. Right Concentration is the final goal to be absorbed into a state of Nirvana (Comptons). Compliance to the path does not guarantee reaching Nirvana, but it is the only path that leads to Nirvana. Only through following this path established by Buddha does a Buddhist have a chance to reach enlightenment, to free oneself from the continuous rounds of birth, death and rebirth, to have reached the ultimate goal - to be absorbed into a state of Nirvana. Comparison The goal in both Taoism and Buddhism is to reach the ultimate goal, to transcend life on earth as a physical being, to achieve harmony with nature and the universe. The ultimate goal for both religions is to achieve immortality. The Taoist called this ultimate goal Tao, while the Buddhist seek Nirvana. Whatever the name, the followers of these religions believe there is an existence beyond life which can be achieved provided the right path or behavior is followed. The path to Tao and Nirvana are similar, yet different. Both believe there is an inner light which guides a person in the right direction to the ultimate goal. Personal desires must be forsaken to enable the inner light to guide a person to achieve eternal bliss. "The teaching 6 regarding the inner light is just as prominent in the Taoist schools as it is among the practices of Buddhism" (Politella 36). The inner light concept is similar, but the actual path is the difference between Taoism and Buddhism. The path toward enlightenment for the Buddhist was defined by Buddha in his Eightfold Path. Only through following this path does the Buddhist reach Nirvana. The path to Tao is individual, it comes from within. No one can define a path for the Taoist, it must come from the inner light. "Tao means way, but in the original and succeeding manuscripts no direct path is explored or expounded. Desire, ambition, fame, and selfishness are seen as complications. That idea is consistent with Buddhist teachings; it is the personal life of each individual that gives Taoism its special form" (Leek 188). Taoism and Buddhism perceive life, death and rebirth as a continuous cycle. This cycle has no beginning and no end. The soul is eternal, yet the soul is not the object of reincarnation. Taoist believe the soul is not reborn, it "migrates to another life" (Head3 109). Buddhist also believe the soul is not reborn, but instead a "consciousness containing the seeds of good and evil deeds" is the object of rebirth (Leek 171). One major difference between Taoism and Buddhism is the concept of karma to the Buddhist. This idea that all actions are the display of thought, the will of man, is known as karma. Karma determines the Buddhist actions and position in life. A person's karma limits the goals which can be achieved. Karma determines where in the cycle of birth, death and rebirth the consciousness returns. This return can be in the form of an animal or human, and the 7 Buddhist must progress through a hierarchy to achieve Nirvana (Leek 171). The Taoist has no concept similar to karma, and no mention of the soul migrating to an animal form. The determining factor to one's life is contained in the individual behavior for the Taoist. By forsaking personal desires in life, by concentrating of the self, a longer life is prolonged. Eventually, by following the inner light, immortality can be achieved. The similarities between Taoism and Buddhism in the belief of life after death far outweigh the differences. Both religions believe the individual must focus on the self to achieve the ultimate goal. To focus on oneself, all desires and personal ambitions must be forsaken. One must focus on the self and the proper way of life to reach immortality. The cycle of life continues indefinitely until the Thread of Life is broken. Only through proper living, by following the correct path guided by the inner light, can one achieve the ultimate goal of Tao or Nirvana. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Testing The Spirits.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It seems to be that our main questions are, Should we use alcohol and what about those that abuse it? How should the Church deal with those that do drink or should we as a society deal with it? While there is nothing in the Bible that says drinking is a sin, but drunkeness is. I believe as a society we do have a problem with alcohol abuse. But in the same respect I do not feel that the church should judge those who do drink socially, regularly, or abusively. When the time comes everyone will be judged individually by God alone. I feel it is his decision solely to do what is best for all. The church may teach not to use alcohol, but to discriminate against those in the congregation (or even those that are not) that do is not a solution to the problem. I feel in order to get alcohol abuse under control we as a society need to teach our children the risks of using alcohol, not only in the home but in the schools as well. To reach the heart of the problem is to face the problem head on. As a social drinker myself (I put my self in this classification) I don't feel I have an alcohol problem just because I enjoy a drink now and then. I do not abuse it and would never put myself behind the wheel of a car to take the risk of taking someone else's life. You don't need to be drunk to cause an accident, it's been proven in many cases only a few drinks can impair someone's stability. If more thought of this there would be less tragedies on our highways. When it comes to food and there are people starving in the world, when we could help by not converting food grains into alcohol, this should be made more aware to our society. I'm not sure most people are aware of this. It is supposedly our main concern to feed the hungry and shelter the poor. If giving up something that only contributes to loneliness and destruction than ever, because there are more that abuse than those who don't, it seems to me to be a logical solution. I think the best we can hope for in our future and our children's is that we have to communicate with one another the risks of alcohol and the damage it does to one's self, their families and all of those around who care about them. If you're going to drink to abuse it, then its best that you don't drink at all. There is not a better remedy than that. But how do we get people to the point in their life to where they don't want to take a risk of killing someone else or even themselves? What does it take for them to love their neighbor enough not to put them in that situation? f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Text and Traditions.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Text and Traditions: Work Requirement One Historical Reconstruction Major events in Jewish history to the first century AD 1250 BC Fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. 931 BC Divided Kingdoms. 721 BC Fall of Samaria. 587 BC Fall of Jerusalem, Babylonian captivity. 333 BC Jews under Hellenistic rule. 63 BC Jews under Roman rule. 70 AD Fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. Major events between 50 BC - 100 AD 63 BC - 40 BC Hyrcanus2 rules, but is subject to Rome. 41 BC - 30 BC Antony Caesar Roman Emperor. 40 BC - 37 BC Parathions conquer Jerusalem. 38 BC - 4 BC Herod rules as king. Subject to Rome. 37 BC Jerusalem besieged for 6 months. 32 BC Herod Defeated. 31 BC - 14 AD Caesar Augustus Roman Emperor. 19 BC Herod's Temple begun. 16 BC Herod visits Agrppa. 4 BC Herod dies; Archelaus succeeds. 37 AD - 41 AD Caliguta Roman Emperor. 41 AD - 54 AD Claudius Roman Emperor. 54 AD - 68 AD Nero Roman Emperor. The first persecutor of Christians. 66 AD Jews in Palestine tried to revolt. Were crushed by Titus. 69 AD - 79 AD Vespasia Roman Emperor. He continued the persecution. 70 AD Jewish temple destroyed. Small part of the wall left standing. 79 AD Titus Roman Emperor. Detailed analysis of major Jewish groups of the time Pharisees The Pharisees were a group of Jews, that believed strongly against the adoption of Greek ways. They wanted to uphold and protect their fragile Jewish culture, from the Greek influence that was flooding into Israel at the time. They developed as haters of the tradition Greek ways, because of their customs were related to idolatry and immorality. They joined up with a group know as the Hasmoneans and proceeded to conduct a rebellion against the Greek. After gaining religious freedom, they then separated from their new partners, and formed the breakaway party, known today as the Pharisees (meaning 'the separated'). They had extreme power in the synagogue, and eventually turned it into the center of the Jewish faith. This didn't last forever, as it was finally replaced by the temple, erected by David. Saducees The Sadducees (Sons of Zadok) seemed to be a group of aristocratic priestly families, that were powerful within the High Priesthood. They held a monopoly over all the High Priesthood positions and were also powerful in the Sanhedrin. They came across as being a very selfish group that retained their rights and traditions, and also trying to stay on the good side of the Roman Empire. Unlike the Pharisees, they were rigid and closed in sect, and not open to change. When the Romans destroyed the temple, they disappeared and were never heard from again. Zealots The Zealots were a group of radical extremists, that were the cause of many uprisings throughout their history, and eventually they lead a revolt against the Romans in 66-73 AD. To stop this, the Roman Emperor destroyed the third temple, which lead to the end of the uprising. This not only lead to their downfall, but that of the Jews when they were crushed by Emperor Titus in 73 AD. Qumrans/Essenes They were an important Jewish group in the community around the time of Jesus. Although it wasn't until 150 BC until they emerged, they lived their lives according to a strict set of beliefs and rules. To join the group a three year probationary period was imposed to new comers. Members were bound to keep secret the doctrines and practices. Its is believed that John the Baptist was and Essene, and had high connections to their community. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed a lot more light on the practices of the Essenes. These discoveries have proved that some Christian qualities and beliefs are an exact copy of that of the Qumrans/Essenes. Samaritans Samaritans originated from the area located between Judea and Galilee, when the Assyrian settlers intermarried with the Jews that lived there. The population created followed all the laws of Torah in their own special way, and considered themselves to be Jewish. The normal Jews did not accept this, as intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles was forbidden. Throughout the bible, it has been documented that the Samaritans and the Jews were at each other throats, constantly. Analysis of major philosophical ideas of the time Platonism Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher who taught in the period between 427 and 347 BC. He reasoned that the senses can't be trusted, and that one must use reason and maths, to solve problems and to guide oneself throughout life. Plato was a student of Socrates and throughout his works, he drew from other Greek philosophies, although as time progressed, he developed an entirely different philosophical form of thinking that became his own. Aristotelianism Aristotle was a Greek philosopher that was born nearly 400 year BC. During his well documented life, he served as the tutor to Alexander the Great and also wrote many papers on various topics such as Ethics, Physics and Metaphysics. Aristotle also developed theories on the human soul in relation to god. He represented it as a trinity of matter, being vegetable, animal and human in nature, and proposed a 'non-abstract theory of form, where the initiator of all existence is acknowledged as God. Epicureanism Epicurus set up a school in Athens that taught ethics, based on his writings and opinions, in the Hellenistic world. He proposed that the pursuit of happiness should be mans greatest concern, rather than modeling his life on the pleasing of gods and of the deeds needed to be completed for one to have a pleasurable afterlife. His philosophy was that the pleasure seeking of mankind, would not only provide fulfilment for one's own self, but also lead to the advancement and development of society in general. Stoicism Stoicism was a famous school of Hellenistic thought. Its teachings were not just philosophical, but could be used by everyday people, in everyday life. The main goal for the tradition was to attain happiness and liberation from emotion, through the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. We can draw many comparisons between the Christian faith and that of Stoicism. We can also see the influence that the tradition had on many of the late Christian theologians. Mystery Cults/Religions The mystery cults originated from many places in the first century AD. They developed to replace the Olympic pantheons that were becoming implausible and unsatisfying. The followers of these cults worshiped a variety of gods or philosophies, each with their own set of obscure rules and rituals. Secrecy played a great part in these cults (hence the name 'mystery religions') as one could incur the death sentence by revealing the mysteries through speech, dance, pantomime, or any other form of communication. Although one can debate the point of having these religions, it does prove that the human soul requires some form of religious worship, mainstream or otherwise. Gnosticism The Gnostics were a group/sect that existed in the first half of the 20th century, and were thought to lead Christians astray by teaching manipulations of the Gospel. The mixed the ideas of the Christians with that of the Greeks, producing a religion that wanted release from the prison of this world. It draws on the Jewish monldthum, Babylonian anthology and Iranian Deulum, and believes that light and darkness are entwined in a constant battle of cosmic realms. First Century Roman Judea Summary of major New Testament Christian Leaders Peter Peter was one of the first, and major disciples. Peter's original name was the Heb. Simon. His fathers name was Jonah. He worked as a fisherman at the two places of which he took residence: Beth-saida and Capernaum in Galilee. At these places he was in contact with the gentiles. He was probably effected by John the Baptist's movement. He was often the spokesperson for all the of the followers and friends. Before Pentecost it was Peter who took the lead role of educating the people and preaching the word of the bible. The church had made a large impact on the community, but it was Peter that was seen to be the hero and leader. He also was the first apostle to be associated with the Gentiles. At that time in history this move was bound to draw him a lot of criticism. Despite this criticism Peter with some support from his friends was able to make some progress in the acceptance of other racial groups. After the death of Stephen, Peter's whereabouts and activities became very scarce. At one stage he was imprisoned at Jerusalem and then later escaped. It has been thought that he travelled through many cities, taking many brief jobs and participating in some religious events James James was one of the sons of Zebedee. Was a fisherman when called to become one of the twelve apostles with his brother John. These two along with Peter formed the inner circle of the apostles. This inner group was present at most of the major events and were widely respected for their dedication and sheer faith. James was good friends with Jesus and with his brother John, were adeptly nicknamed Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder. It was these two again that cause a stir when requesting Jesus for a place in the Holy Christ's Kingdom. The two were not promised this privilege, they continued to believe and have the faith that would, in theory, get them there anyway. John John was the other son of Zebedee. Was the brother James (the son of Zebedee). It is also possible that John was the cousin of Jesus on his mothers side. As with his Brother James, he was present at many very significant events on the history of Christianity. He was also sent by Jesus to prepare the final pass over meal. John was the one that was probably the closest to Jesus, he was trusted with responsibilities that Jesus himself had given him. James, brother of Jesus James was Jesus's younger brother who, along with his other siblings, refused to accept Jesus's claims of authority before his resurrection. He along with some of his close friends were a group which failed to accept the power and authority of Jesus before the resurrection. The effect the resurrection had on James was unmistakable. He became the leader of the Jewish-Christian Church at Jerusalem. The tradition stated that he was placed the first leader of the faith by the lord himself. He remained leader of the Church, by himself, for some time. He was still the leader when Paul visited Jerusalem for the last time. After receiving a death by stoning, James was named the "just" for his Jewish piety. James is also said to have described himself as "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". Paul (Saul of Tarsis) Paul was born in Tarsus a Roman citizen. After a simple beginning Paul was only effected by preaching of Jesus after he had contact with the risen Christ. Paul then spent the next three years preaching in Damascus. After some pressure from the Jews of the area, Paul fled to Jerusalem where he met up with Barnabas. Barnabas then introduced Paul to the leaders of Christianity. His stay only lasted a brief two weeks because several Jews were trying to kill him. Retreating for some ten years, Barnabas contacted Paul and encouraged him to rejoin the now flourishing Gentile mission. Paul and Barnabas were sent on a mission to establish Christianity in the area surrounding Cyprus and the S Galatia. Despite several set backs and violent outbursts the mission was very successful with new territories become adapt to the Christian ways. As one would expect the relationship between the Gentiles and the newly turned Jewish community was one that was tested often. Differing beliefs lead to a number of verbal and physical conflicts and Barnabas and Paul were called upon to resolve these. They used the help and guidance of their elders and fellow Christians to help with their decisions. Paul once again set off through parts of Europe to convert people to Christianity. This time Barnabas did not travel with him because of a rift in there relationship. Paul discovered new friend that he took with him through Greece and the surrounding parts. He helped set up a large amount of new mission which set the standard for others to grow by. The next area to converted was the lands of Asia. This goal was quickly accomplished by Paul. He was then returned to Greece to help secure the faith there. It was in the years that followed that he wrote several telling letters. This letters were to become a crucial part of the Christian faith in years to come. Judas Iscariot Judas was a member of the 12 disciples, and was the one who betrayed Jesus, which ended in his crucifixion. The opportunity came about when Judas turned Jesus to the authorities. After the event, guilt was beset upon this traitor. Unable to over come this guilt, his life ended in suicide. Judas is widely remember for his treachery and betrayal of the other eleven apostles. He was thought of as a man who was touched by Satan and influenced into evil ways. He was bribed and accepted money to do evil deeds. He claimed this money would be used for the poor.. Barnabas Barnabas was born into a Jewish-Cypriot family. He a member of the Jerusalem church, and as he progressed he became very serious about religion. He also had a significant effect on several matters. He introduced a converted Saul to the main apostles, which lead to Saul being accepted after originally being called an impostor. It was Barnabas who stuck up for the gentiles when they were being condemned. Barnabas thought the movement to accept the Gentiles as equals was an act ignited by God and therefor took the side of God. Being a key member, he took a journey with Paul from Cyprus, to Asia minor, which was taken with the goal of setting up a group of successful Gentile churches. Barnabas was also placed in front of the Jerusalem council with Paul. Barnabas' importance to the issue is clearly shown by the mere fact that he is mentioned before Paul in accounts of the proceedings. Bibliography Setting the scene, Goosen & Thomlinson "Jesus; Mystery and Surprise" (Sydney: EJ Dywer, 1989) Philosophies, Elwell (ed.) "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1990) "The New Bible Dictionary" (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers Inc, 1962) Logos Bible Software v2.0 (Oakharbour: Logos Research System) World Book Encyclopedia World Wide Web (Internet) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\That Which Is Of No Worth 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ That Which Is Of No Worth Parker Coddington Man Ec 300 464-75-9246 January 13, 1997 2 Nephi 9:50-51 talks about buying, prices, and worth. The main point obviously does not refer to the literal exchange of money for goods or services, although the concept can apply to that type of exchange. The first sentence in vs. 50 calls to those who "thirsteth", or basically have a need or want. The may author have used "thisteth" because all mankind physically needs drink to survive; in the same manner, our spiritual thists need to be quenched in order for us to survive in an eternal and spiritual sense. The author calls to the destitute, or basically those people who aren't able to satisfy their thirst due to lack of money. The author isn't saying the milk and honey offered here is free-just that the price isn't in monetary form. In vs. 51, the author talks about not spending money on things of no worth. Once again, this reference's deepest meaning isn't its literal one. The "money" referred to here are the things we do in our lives-how we spend our time, how we treat people, etc. On the surface, this admonition seem rhetorical. Who would spend money on something with no worth? That is the author's point. We need to be wary of what things we consider valuable. It is human nature to see the short-term benefits of things and ignore the long term costs, just as it's natural to see the short term costs and ignore the long term benefits. In order to achieve true happiness in the eternal long run, we must at times make seemingly unsavory sacrifices. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\That Which Is Of No Worth.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Parker Coddington Man Ec 300 464-75-9246 January 13, 1997 ...THAT WHICH IS OF NO WORTH 2 Nephi 9:50-51 talks about buying, prices, and worth. The main point obviously does not refer to the literal exchange of money for goods or services, although the concept can apply to that type of exchange. The first sentence in vs. 50 calls to those who "thirsteth", or basically have a need or want. The may author have used "thisteth" because all mankind physically needs drink to survive; in the same manner, our spiritual thists need to be quenched in order for us to survive in an eternal and spiritual sense. The author calls to the destitute, or basically those people who aren't able to satisfy their thirst due to lack of money. The author isn't saying the milk and honey offered here is free-just that the price isn't in monetary form. In vs. 51, the author talks about not spending money on things of no worth. Once again, this reference's deepest meaning isn't its literal one. The "money" referred to here are the things we do in our lives-how we spend our time, how we treat people, etc. On the surface, this admonition seem rhetorical. Who would spend money on something with no worth? That is the author's point. We need to be wary of what things we consider valuable. It is human nature to see the short-term benefits of things and ignore the long term costs, just as it's natural to see the short term costs and ignore the long term benefits. In order to achieve true happiness in the eternal long run, we must at times make seemingly unsavory sacrifices. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The affects of the removal of Religous support Literature Re.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As it stands, we are the transition stage. We have no structure, there is no black and white, we live in a clouded time. All questions are being answered again, because the past is no longer the present. No person knows if our corrections are correct, but they do know it is what the majority wants. The question which is rarely looked at, and that will be looked at in this paper, is the effects which this transition is having on society. This paper is going to attempt to reveal the results, of the removal of religious education and support. The literature involved is going to display the direct, and indirect effects, of not being brought up to believe a certain religion, but to choose your own, no matter what it is. The past beliefs on religious support and education are displayed in the words of Aristotle; "Moral virtues come from habit... The habits we form from childhood make no small difference, but rather they make all the difference." 1 Our society has decided that the habits referred to by Aristotle, do not matter, when involving religion. Statistics tend to show a different result than what our present society feels. This paper is dealing with several different valid sources, which mesh together to make a collective statement. This statement is that the lack of religious support is one of the main reasons why society and its morals are decreasing. World Vision of Canada has published as of November 1993 statistics dealing with the attendance of church and youth, which states; Canada's church attendance, in all denominations has decreased by twenty-five percent in adults and fifteen percent in youth. In Britain Adult attendance is down ten percent and youth attendance is down nine percent. In France the adult attendance is down thirteen percent, statistics for youth where not available. Australia's adult attendance has decreased twenty-seven percent, and the youth attendance was not available. The most considerable changes have occurred in the United States were fourty-one percent of the adult attendance has decreased, and thirty-five percent of the youth attendance has decreased. 2 These statistics display the implications of the removal of religious education and support, on church attendance. Although this decline in church attendance is a direct result of the removal of religious support and education. It is not one of the more revealing consequences. A poll done by the Angus Reid Group shows that eighty-three percent of Canadians, find that their greatest joy in life was their family. 3 The distressing information found was, sixty-three percent of the people who stated family was their greatest joy, also felt Canadian families are in great distress. They pointed to the rate of divorce and instability of the family unit; financial difficulties; lack of values in society; violence and crime; and unemployment, as their feeling this way. 4 There are over 28 million people in Canada, and close to seven and one-half million families. However, there is no longer one typical family in Canada. The face and structure of the family unit has changed dramatically over the past number of years and the Traditional Nuclear Family is no longer the predominant family unit. Canada is now made up of what one writer has called, The Pluralistic Family. The stress being brought to bear on families and marriages today from all sides is horrendous. 5 It is not an overstatement to say that the survival of any society rests with the family. We are born into families. We are nurtured, protected and comforted by families. The design of God is for lifelong, committed marriage between a husband and wife. His intention is that children be born into the secure, loving environment of godly homes to be trained in His ways. 6 If the survival of society rests with the family, and the majority of families are not a typical one but many combinations, there are going to be direct visible results. One of these results is that the suicide rate of teenagers between the ages of fifteen to nineteen tripled between nineteen fifty-four, and nineteen seventy-two. From nineteen seventy-two until nineteen eighty-six the suicide rose one third. The one theme that runs through the accounts of suicide written by youth today, is the isolation from family and friends - from anyone who could serve as an anchor to reality, or simply listen well. 7 Not only is there a higher percentage, of teenagers taking their lives, society has also engaged, in an astonishing amount of abortions. The Family Research Council findings state that between sixty-seven to seventy-two abortions, are linked to illegitimacy. 8 Also girls who are born out-of-wedlock are much more likely to engage in premarital sex. Premarital sex is nine times more likely to engender abortion, and women who have never married are more than five times as likely to have abortions as their married counterparts. 9 Not only are we killing ourselves, and the ones which are not born yet, society is also showing their difficulty with keeping their marriages. According to the Family Research Council the national rate as of nineteen ninety-four stood at four point six percent. 10 With the realization that society rests on the stability of families, this divorce rate is very damaging to the upbringing of our children. The transition from religious based education, and support by the government, directly effect the increase in the problems stated previously. The literature does not state this is the only reason why our society is suffering. But- it states that the absence of religion in our society is a contributing factor. Because- religion promotes such values, as marriage and commitment, while disapproving of such things as suicide and abortion. BIBLIOGRAPHY Context. Mississauga, Ont: Marc Canada, 1993. FRC. (http://frc.org/townhall/frc/press/121995c.html). "Divorce Issues". 1995. FRC. (http://www.townhall.com/townhall/FRC/infocus/if95c4wl.html). "Abortion Statistics".1995. Korman, Sheila K and Leslie Gerald R. The Family In Social Context(Sixth Edition). Toronto, Ont: Oxford University Press, 1985. O' Bireck, Gary M. Not A Kid Anymore. Toronto, Ont: Nelson Canada, 1996. Waters, F. W. The Way In The Way Out. Toronto, Ont: Oxford University Press, 1967. ENDNOTES 1 Not A Kid Anymore. (Toronto; Nelson Canada, 1996) p.87. 2 Context. (Mississauga; Marc Canada, 1993) p. 32 3 Ibid. p. 47. 4 Ibid. p. 47. 5 Ibid. p. 52. 6 Ibid. p. 67. 7 Not A Kid Anymore. (Toronto; Nelson Canada, 1996) p.95. 8 Abortion Satistics. (http://www.townhall.com/townhall/frc/infocus/if95c4wl.html, 1995.) 9 Ibid. 10 Divorce Issues. (http://frc.org/townhall/frc/press/121995c.html, 1995.) f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Ambivalence of Abortion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Ambivalence of Abortion Whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong, the fact remains that a woman has the right to make her own decisions. If a woman decides to have an abortion it is her right to do as she pleases with her body. It is understandable that many may disagree with abortion being legal, but that is no reason not to allow others to have a different opinion. Nevertheless, the question of whether abortion is morally right should be left up the conscience of the woman whom is making the decision and not through judging eyes not going through the same situation. There are more pros than cons to having an abortion. For instance, a woman with a family of four who are barely surviving discovers she is pregnant. She decides to have an abortion because she cant afford the baby. That might have saved the world of another sad story of a mother abusing and neglecting her unwanted child. Unfortunately, sometimes a mother can run the risk of death if they go through with the pregnancy. Would it be fair to let the mother of two young children die because SOME PEOPLE don't believe in abortion? On the other hand, it may be true that young women are taking advantage of the fact that they can easily have an abortion. Some say they are substituting birth control with abortion. Nevertheless, no one ever said we can't place restrictions on abortion but we can't let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch. The fact remains that although some might take advantage of the situation, it is unconstitutional to deny the opportunity to someone who REALLY has no other alternative but abortion. Every woman (and person) has the right to make their own decisions. No one has the right to deny another of their own opinion. Some may not believe in or agree with abortion and that's perfectly fine but it does not give them the right to deny others of the option. Finally, a woman has the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion and whether or not to feel guilty about it. Although abortion is legal, it doesnt mean you have to like it, agree with it, or have one. It just means that there are others who do agree with it and have the constitutional right to make their own decisions. In conclusion, every woman has the right to have abortion as an option. Ambivalence: The state of having conflicting attitudes or feelings, as love and hate, about the same thing at the same time. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Ambivalence.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Ambivalence of Abortion Whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong, the fact remains that a woman has the right to make her own decisions. If a woman decides to have an abortion it is her right to do as she pleases with her body. It is understandable that many may disagree with abortion being legal, but that is no reason not to allow others to have a different opinion. Nevertheless, the question of whether abortion is morally right should be left up the conscience of the woman whom is making the decision and not through judging eyes not going through the same situation. There are more pros than cons to having an abortion. For instance, a woman with a family of four who are barely surviving discovers she is pregnant. She decides to have an abortion because she cant afford the baby. That might have saved the world of another sad story of a mother abusing and neglecting her unwanted child. Unfortunately, sometimes a mother can run the risk of death if they go through with the pregnancy. Would it be fair to let the mother of two young children die because SOME PEOPLE don't believe in abortion? On the other hand, it may be true that young women are taking advantage of the fact that they can easily have an abortion. Some say they are substituting birth control with abortion. Nevertheless, no one ever said we can't place restrictions on abortion but we can't let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch. The fact remains that although some might take advantage of the situation, it is unconstitutional to deny the opportunity to someone who REALLY has no other alternative but abortion. Every woman (and person) has the right to make their own decisions. No one has the right to deny another of their own opinion. Some may not believe in or agree with abortion and that's perfectly fine but it does not give them the right to deny others of the option. Finally, a woman has the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion and whether or not to feel guilty about it. Although abortion is legal, it doesnt mean you have to like it, agree with it, or have one. It just means that there are others who do agree with it and have the constitutional right to make their own decisions. In conclusion, every woman has the right to have abortion as an option. Ambivalence: The state of having conflicting attitudes or feelings, as love and hate, about the same thing at the same time. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Bible 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Bible In the Holy Bible, teachings guide all types of human beings to a better understanding of life. Many of these verses reach out to man through teachings of human nature and how to create society's moral values. A personal favorite verse that may reach out to every man and not just those who practice the Judaeo - Christian religions is : " The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin. " ( Deuteronomy p178, vs.16) because it tells of a rule that every man should live by - it demands justice to isolate the criminal and thereby shield any innocent relative of any unjust punishment. This is illustrated in the United States justice system and how society punishes it's wrongdoers. This verse delivers the message that every man, despite size, color, religious preference, or personal background, should assume responsibility for his actions. Throughout time men who have entered the courthouses scattering the United States, like the colorful leaves scattered across peoples' yards during autumn, have pleaded innocence - blaming parents and their unjust upbringing. They scream to the jury that it really wasn't their fault, but the fault of their parents because if they had a perfect childhood then they wouldn't have committed the crime. It is true that the values that children develop in their early years are important in influencing future decisions but how does this explain the many adults that climb above their horrible childhood and become successful happy individuals. This proves that the individual is in charge of his every move and every action in life - he is in charge of his own destiny. Sin is never forced upon anyone but merely delivered by just one person's choice. In the trial of the Oklahoma bomber, the jury will not persecute his family because it was his crime, his sin. His family didn't make him do it and they didn't help him accomplish it. When the men who committed the heinous crimes against humanity during World War II under Adolph Hitler's direction pleaded innocence, the courts laughed. Some of these men claimed there was no other choice, Hitler made them do it. Despite there being few options, these men did choose to commit the crimes. They did not have to murder the children and strip the little ones of their innocence and integrity. Hitler was their " father " and they tried to use him as a scapegoat as he used the Jews. It never worked because these men pointed the loaded guns at the victims. These men commanded the gas chambers to continue cooking living families. These men made their choice of sin. Society chose to punish the individual and not their innocent family members for the crimes accomplished. Today people all over the world try to forget previous generations' crimes against humanity. In Germany it took many years after WWII for later generations to even write in history books what really happened. These younger generations felt ashamed and somewhat responsible for the crimes their ancestors committed. It took years to speak of the sharp barbed wire surrounding the death camps housing the innocent. Generations should feel horror to the point where they wouldn't let history repeat itself. They should not take the responsibility of the crime. As the bible says, one must take responsibility for his own actions - not one's father's or previous generations'. After the war ended the prisoners from the concentration camps were allowed back to their homes. Many of these homes were burned to nothing. However those towns still in existence were crawling with people who shunned these war victims - using violence and anger to push them back out of that town. These people continued the hatred the war brought out by blaming these victims for Germany's turmoil after the war ended. These people are as guilty as Hitler for they blamed the innocent for the war. They made themselves guilty, to another degree, of the same horror Hitler , " the father ", displayed. They tried to blame a minority group for something everyone in Germany was responsible for - the Jews did not ruin Germany, the government and the general population was responsible for all of her faults. These people chose their own path of cruelty and sin by promoting violence against innocent bystanders; thus, committing the same crime against humanity. They treated the victims with such anger that they made these homes graveyards for the Jews. It was their choice, it was their sin. Unfortunately, these bitter, anti - semetic people were never punished by society but those knowledgeable of the hateful rejection now look back sick with this sight of injustice. Every man, no matter the degree of injustice served, must live up to his actions. If he is strong enough to commit the cruelty, he alone is strong enough to face it again with consequences. Society unites all faiths and all backgrounds. Decisions are made combining all these different views to create a standard of values for society to reinforce. This verse found in Deuteronomy is also found in this universal standard society strongly upholds. One does not have to be Jewish or Christian to understand the importance of taking responsibility for one's crimes. Blaming family, friends, and other innocent individuals is morally wrong and totally unacceptable in society's eyes. Mankind must learn to accept individual punishment for crimes committed or else justice will never be served. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Bible and the Word.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Bible and the Word "Inspire" According to the Random House Dictionary, the word inspire means "to infuse an animating, quickening, or exalting influence into, or to communicate or suggest by a divine influence." This definition indicates, when applied to the scripture, that the stories and writings in the Bible did not come solely from the minds of the respective authors, but rather from a divine source. This suggests that the authors were scribes, reproducing what was instilled in them by God. This idea is strengthened by looking at distinct examples from the scripture that show that scripture is inspired, and not made up. By using the form of criticism known as literary criticism, we can analyze certain installments of the scripture and use them to prove that the scripture is, in fact, inspired, not a collection of false statements. There are times in the Bible and in Biblical history that the prophets themselves are confronted with people doubting the validity of the scripture, and trying to discredit it. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Here Timothy is relating a charge given to him by Paul. As a story that is being told, it can be easily inferred that Paul had confronted opposition to the belief that scripture was in fact inspired by God, and therefore valid. Using literary criticism allows us to stay on the surface of what is being said, and not necessarily have to dig behind it to find the true meaning (we'll leave that to historical criticism) and therefore by looking at the phrase "scripture is God-breathed" we can further say that God breathed His word into the authors, and they recorded it. God can be viewed as an indirect author, and the inspiration for scripture. "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and the comings of our Lord Jesus Christ but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." "Above all you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." From the standpoint of a literary critic, these two passages represent the question at hand as to whether or not scripture is inspired. Literary criticism looks at the passage as a whole, and reads what it says, just as a normal person would. Using this method, we see easily that scripture is in fact inspired, because it states that there were no cleverly invented stories, but rather God's own words. God's plans for his people are carefully laid out, and there is much doubt that He would entrust average people to teach others about His word without careful explanation as to exactly what it is, and how it came to be. This is why much of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, tells the historical story of the Israelites and there great escape from Egypt. God needed to be sure that exactly what He wanted to be in what was to be called His word was there, and nothing was added or falsified. In this sense, God can be seen as the editor of the Bible. Historical criticism says that if only facts are reliable, than find facts in the Bible. Historical critics are forced the differentiate between fact and myth, leaving quite a bit of room for human error. Due to this weakness, historical criticism is the least compatible method of proving that scripture is inspired. Historical criticism seems to ignore the fact that scripture is also literature, and to use their method of historical criticism, you must take apart the Bible, thereby destroying the literary flow. Literary criticism looks at the scripture in a way that is similar to how the average person reads it. Historical criticism is traditionally elitist, and not available to anyone except the academy. Also, is using historical criticism, complete objectivity is never achieved, because one cannot observe without influencing the object being observed. Many times when scholars are using historical criticism to try and explain certain things about the Bible, the Bible becomes irrelevant to the Church, therefore killing the entire reason for the Bible's existence; the teaching of God's word. Lastly, the Bible itself says that none of its contents are interpretations of God's word, but rather an unadulterated version of the truth; God's word verbatim. Historical criticism uses a historical interpretation to try and prove its point, thereby disproving its own validity. If historical scholars use a method that does not apply to the Bible, then it becomes irrelevant itself. This irrelevance is displayed using the Hermeneutical circle, because the circle implies that there is a cycle and a relationship between history and the content of the text, and while there may be in certain parts, that does nothing to prove that scripture is inspired, and only says that scripture has a possibly factual background. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Bible.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the Holy Bible, teachings guide all types of human beings to a better understanding of life. Many of these verses reach out to man through teachings of human nature and how to create society's moral values. A personal favorite verse that may reach out to every man and not just those who practice the Judaeo - Christian religions is : " The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin. " ( Deuteronomy p178, vs.16) because it tells of a rule that every man should live by - it demands justice to isolate the criminal and thereby shield any innocent relative of any unjust punishment. This is illustrated in the United States justice system and how society punishes it's wrongdoers. This verse delivers the message that every man, despite size, color, religious preference, or personal background, should assume responsibility for his actions. Throughout time men who have entered the courthouses scattering the United States, like the colorful leaves scattered across peoples' yards during autumn, have pleaded innocence - blaming parents and their unjust upbringing. They scream to the jury that it really wasn't their fault, but the fault of their parents because if they had a perfect childhood then they wouldn't have committed the crime. It is true that the values that children develop in their early years are important in influencing future decisions but how does this explain the many adults that climb above their horrible childhood and become successful happy individuals. This proves that the individual is in charge of his every move and every action in life - he is in charge of his own destiny. Sin is never forced upon anyone but merely delivered by just one person's choice. In the trial of the Oklahoma bomber, the jury will not persecute his family because it was his crime, his sin. His family didn't make him do it and they didn't help him accomplish it. When the men who committed the heinous crimes against humanity during World War II under Adolph Hitler's direction pleaded innocence, the courts laughed. Some of these men claimed there was no other choice, Hitler made them do it. Despite there being few options, these men did choose to commit the crimes. They did not have to murder the children and strip the little ones of their innocence and integrity. Hitler was their " father " and they tried to use him as a scapegoat as he used the Jews. It never worked because these men pointed the loaded guns at the victims. These men commanded the gas chambers to continue cooking living families. These men made their choice of sin. Society chose to punish the individual and not their innocent family members for the crimes accomplished. Today people all over the world try to forget previous generations' crimes against humanity. In Germany it took many years after WWII for later generations to even write in history books what really happened. These younger generations felt ashamed and somewhat responsible for the crimes their ancestors committed. It took years to speak of the sharp barbed wire surrounding the death camps housing the innocent. Generations should feel horror to the point where they wouldn't let history repeat itself. They should not take the responsibility of the crime. As the bible says, one must take responsibility for his own actions - not one's father's or previous generations'. After the war ended the prisoners from the concentration camps were allowed back to their homes. Many of these homes were burned to nothing. However those towns still in existence were crawling with people who shunned these war victims - using violence and anger to push them back out of that town. These people continued the hatred the war brought out by blaming these victims for Germany's turmoil after the war ended. These people are as guilty as Hitler for they blamed the innocent for the war. They made themselves guilty, to another degree, of the same horror Hitler , " the father ", displayed. They tried to blame a minority group for something everyone in Germany was responsible for - the Jews did not ruin Germany, the government and the general population was responsible for all of her faults. These people chose their own path of cruelty and sin by promoting violence against innocent bystanders; thus, committing the same crime against humanity. They treated the victims with such anger that they made these homes graveyards for the Jews. It was their choice, it was their sin. Unfortunately, these bitter, anti - semetic people were never punished by society but those knowledgeable of the hateful rejection now look back sick with this sight of injustice. Every man, no matter the degree of injustice served, must live up to his actions. If he is strong enough to commit the cruelty, he alone is strong enough to face it again with consequences. Society unites all faiths and all backgrounds. Decisions are made combining all these different views to create a standard of values for society to reinforce. This verse found in Deuteronomy is also found in this universal standard society strongly upholds. One does not have to be Jewish or Christian to understand the importance of taking responsibility for one's crimes. Blaming family, friends, and other innocent individuals is morally wrong and totally unacceptable in society's eyes. Mankind must learn to accept individual punishment for crimes committed or else justice will never be served. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Big Lie about Theism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Big Lie(about Theism) The Big Lie I have been going to church since I was three years old. I also attended Sunday school since I was three. Since then I have been confirmed as a member of the church and have actively participated in the senior high youth program at my church. All of these years I figured that I would "grow into god", well at least that is what my pastor said. I think of myself now, at seventeen years old, and I still have not "grown into god". I have many reasons why I chose atheism. First I think of church as a bunch of hogwash. When I take a step back to look at the church, here is what I see. I see a god that has not shown any proof for that last 2000 years (if even then), I also see a god that has left no evidence, except for the cross. Lets talk about the cross for a moment. Jesus was supposed to have carried this huge cross only to be nailed to it and hung among thieves. First off, if Jesus was this big threat to a king and supposed to be the Son of God would not one think that he would go out with a bigger ceremony. I do not think that the king would just hand him among thieves. Second, on the third day he was supposed to move this huge stone and "rise". What is rising anyway did he just magically lift into the air without making a sound and no one seeing him. Or was it more of a fade away into nothing, if that was so why did he move the stone? I see many similarities between the church and a cult. What is a cult? A cult as I see it is people who blindly dedicate time and money to a higher power in which they have never seen evidence of, same as the church. The main difference between a church and a cult as I see it is the church has history. Many cults can be self-destructive, hence the church is thought to be stronger. The people of the church also have this book they cling to, the bible. This bible was supposed to be written thousands of years ago and supposed to have actual quotes from Jesus himself. First how could a book last this long? People are currently all excited because of the ending of the millenium, not only has this book been around for one millennium but it has been around for two, supposedly. Think about this, this book has been around since before the fall of the Roman Empire. If a whole empire of people could not survive how could this book. Until 1436 they did not have printing presses, and it was not until 1456 that the first bible was printed. What are the chances that somebody, while reading in the bible, did not spill their wine on the book and ruin the whole thing? I do not think that someone would take the time to write all 1,502 pages over again because some drunk got careless and ruined the whole thing, not to mention the amount of time it would take considering that the bible was written by all different people. While there are my many reasons for thinking as I do, these are only a few. There are still many questions to be answered but I leave now, with my atheism and I hope I at least got your attention enough to make you look at your faith a little closer. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Big Lie.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Big Lie(about Theism) The Big Lie I have been going to church since I was three years old. I also attended Sunday school since I was three. Since then I have been confirmed as a member of the church and have actively participated in the senior high youth program at my church. All of these years I figured that I would "grow into god", well at least that is what my pastor said. I think of myself now, at seventeen years old, and I still have not "grown into god". I have many reasons why I chose atheism. First I think of church as a bunch of hogwash. When I take a step back to look at the church, here is what I see. I see a god that has not shown any proof for that last 2000 years (if even then), I also see a god that has left no evidence, except for the cross. Lets talk about the cross for a moment. Jesus was supposed to have carried this huge cross only to be nailed to it and hung among thieves. First off, if Jesus was this big threat to a king and supposed to be the Son of God would not one think that he would go out with a bigger ceremony. I do not think that the king would just hand him among thieves. Second, on the third day he was supposed to move this huge stone and "rise". What is rising anyway did he just magically lift into the air without making a sound and no one seeing him. Or was it more of a fade away into nothing, if that was so why did he move the stone? I see many similarities between the church and a cult. What is a cult? A cult as I see it is people who blindly dedicate time and money to a higher power in which they have never seen evidence of, same as the church. The main difference between a church and a cult as I see it is the church has history. Many cults can be self-destructive, hence the church is thought to be stronger. The people of the church also have this book they cling to, the bible. This bible was supposed to be written thousands of years ago and supposed to have actual quotes from Jesus himself. First how could a book last this long? People are currently all excited because of the ending of the millenium, not only has this book been around for one millennium but it has been around for two, supposedly. Think about this, this book has been around since before the fall of the Roman Empire. If a whole empire of people could not survive how could this book. Until 1436 they did not have printing presses, and it was not until 1456 that the first bible was printed. What are the chances that somebody, while reading in the bible, did not spill their wine on the book and ruin the whole thing? I do not think that someone would take the time to write all 1,502 pages over again because some drunk got careless and ruined the whole thing, not to mention the amount of time it would take considering that the bible was written by all different people. While there are my many reasons for thinking as I do, these are only a few. There are still many questions to be answered but I leave now, with my atheism and I hope I at least got your attention enough to make you look at your faith a little closer. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Book Of Hosea.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ HOSEA THEME: There is nothing we can do which will separate us from God's compassion and love I certify that I am the author of this work and that any assistance I received in its preparation is fully acknowledged. PART I The book Hosea was written between 790 and 710 BC by the prophet Hosea. The story is about the relationship between Hosea and his wife, Gomer, and how their lives parallel that of the northern kingdom of Israel. There are several themes in the book of Hosea and I will discuss what I think to be the main one, "there is absolutely nothing we can do which will separate us from God's love and compassion". While the northern kingdom prospers monetarily its morals and spiritual condition is sacrificed. The peoples of the northern kingdom have fallen from God's grace due to their worship of God's other than the one true God. The following text describes my opinions, others opinions, and my observations of the book Hosea. The book begins with God telling Hosea to marry an adulterous wife . He does this to show the relationship of the Israelites adultery to God by worshipping idols and other God's. Hosea marries Gomer and they have a son. God informs Hosea to name the child Jezreel because he is going to punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel. Later they have a daughter and God tells Hosea to name her Lo-Ruhama which means, not loved, in Hebrew. Once again Hosea and Gomer have a son that God tells Hosea to name Lo-Ammi which means, not my people, in Hebrew. Chapter one ends with God describing how the two nations, Israel and Judah, be reunited under one appointed leader and one God. Chapter two describes God's feelings towards the nation Israel. He does this by comparing the nation Israel to Hosea's household. He describes how Hosea's wife has been unfaithful to her husband as the nation Israel has been unfaithful to God. He further goes on to describe his plans for the nation Israel and how he is going to let Israel search for Him, through other God's, and the obstacles he'll place in their path to hinder their search. God also declares he will punish the Israelites for forgetting about their one true God. God ends the narration by telling of the restoration of Israel to his favor and the many benefits that will fall upon the nation Israel, once they accept Him as the only God. Chapters three, four, and five describe Hosea and Gomers reconciliation, Israel's lack of faithfulness and love for God; and God's plan to deal with the people and priests of Israel; respectively. The LORD tells Hosea to love his wife again so he buys her back from a slave market and tells her she must live with and be faithful to him. The LORD is extremely distressed by Israel's lack of love and acknowledgment of His existence. He describes how they have reverted to lying, cheating , stealing, murder, etc. and further fail to follow his word. The priests during this time are not to be let off lightly. God tells how the priests have not spread His message, but rather they've fed off the Israelites sins. God tells how he's going to punish the people of Israel, for their sins, and the priests, for their lack of concern. He closes by saying he will go to his place and not recognize the peoples of Israel until they earnestly seek him out. In chapter 11 God capsulizes Israel's sins and his judgment against the people. He describes how he chose the Israelites as His people and how he delivered them from slavery in Egypt. During this dissertation he has a change of heart and decides he will not destroy the nation Israel even if they turn from Him. He decides he will force Israel to repent by less destructive means. In chapter 12 Hosea preaches the Lord's message to the Israelites. He starts by describing Israel's sins against God and how the Israelites wealth has taken them further and further from God's embrace. He talks about how the Israelites will be punished for their sins and that God will repay them, in-kind, for their goodness. He tells Israel they must return to God's favor or judgment will be upon them. His inclusion of Jacob in the reasons for Israel's downfall are also described in chapter 12. He believes since Jacob is His prophet he should also be held accountable for the sins of Israel. He also describes what is going to happen to Gillead because of their wickedness and sacrificing of bulls. The chapter closes as Hosea tells of God's anger at Israel for straying from His laws. Chapter 13 describes God's anger at Israel for idol worship and chapter 14 tells of God's blessings, on the nation, for its repentance. In chapter 13 Hosea tells how the worship of Baal has angered God. God intercedes and reminds the nation Israel that they should acknowledge no other God besides Himself. He also restates the exodus epic and how He led the nation Israel from slavery and saved them in the desert. He then goes on to describe an east wind that will destroy their crops and dry up their wells. The final chapter of Hosea describes how God will save Israel from itself and restore the people as His people. Even though He's angry with Israel he's unable to lay waste to the nation. PART II The experts don't all agree on whether God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute. According to Tullock (1992) this question can be answered in one of the following ways: 1. The LORD actually commanded Hosea to Marry a prostitute, which he did. 2. Gomer was not a prostitute physically. Instead, she was a Baal worshiper, and as such, was spiritually unfaithful. Whether she was ever physically unfaithful was not important. 3. Gomer was a virgin when Hosea married her, but she became unfaithful after marriage. Later, when he looked back upon the experience, he realized that she already had such tendencies when he married her. 4. The whole story is an allegory, which had no relationship to Gomer's morals (Hosea 1:2). (p. 195) Wood (1975) states, "The name of each child was linked symbolically to Israel's coming doom" (p. 20). According to Scott (1975), "By theses experiences Hosea became in heart the instrument of God to declare God's grace, mercy and love (p. 20). "In an oracle calling for his children to plead with their mother that she change her ways, Hosea compared his relations with Gomer to the Lord's relations with Israel" (Hos. 2:2-23) Tullock, 1992, p. 195). Scott (1975) took this verse to mean, "It is as though God is calling the children of Israel to indict their mother because of her crimes against God (2:2) (p. 21). Wood (1975) concludes, "She (Israel) was guilty because she credited her blessings to Baal, not to Jehovah God (p. 31). The comparison of Hosea's personal life with that of the nation Israel's spiritual life is evident throughout the entire book of Hosea. "This verse summarizes the case against Israel as seen in the first two chapters and now relates the whole to Hosea's own personal experience with Gomer as a fit comparison for teaching purposes" (Hos.3:1) Scott, 1975, p. 30). "Religious failures had corroded the national character. The unifying covenant of Sinai had long since been forgotten in practice, if not in name" (Southwestern Journal of Theology, 1975, p. 8). Throughout the whole of chapters three through five Israel's lack of faith and love for God is evident. "The sinful woman stands for Israel. Hosea's ransom speaks of God's love for his people" (Wood, 1975, p. 42). Three things in particular are mentioned as expected by God: (1) truth; (2) lovingkindness sometimes translated "goodness"; and (3) knowledge of God" (Scott, 1975, p. 32). Tullock (1992) describes how, "Israel had become so mired I the muck of Baal worship that the people could no longer find their way back to the LORD" (p. 197). Israel consistently ask for forgiveness, falsely, and was about to find out their fate. Verse 6 of chapter 11 describes God's describes the fall of Israel. "The sword (of the enemy Assyria) will whirl against Israel's cities" (Scott, 1975, p. 71). "Hosea had hope for the nation despite the fact that it had to go through judgment" (Tullock, 1992, p.199). Wood (1975) describes how, "Hosea pointed out that God's grace transcended Israel's guilt, and compelled him to spare her from complete oblivion: (p.103). "Happily, the message of Hosea is not one of ultimate despair. As with other Old Testament prophets this man succeeded in sustaining a note of hope and optimism in spite of the darkness of his time" (Southwestern Journal of Theology, 1975, p. 54). "Judgment must come (Hos 12:1-13:16). Judgment had to come. The people had sinned to much to avoid it" (Tullock, 1992, p. 199). "Hosea was no fatalist. The people made the choice themselves with their own free will" (Wood, 1975, p. 113). "Since God's real covenant lies with the father of both Judah and Israel, namely with Jacob, God's punishment will therefore be meted out to Israel and Judah and His mercy will be shown to both" (Scott 1975 p. 75). "Because Israel exalted herself she went to far and exalted herself against God going after Baal" (Scott 1975 p. 75). Chapter 13 is considered by most of my references to be the defining chapter of the book Hosea. God goes on record to describe the sins of the nation Israel and how they should be punished. "Instead of gratitude for the good things God gave them, they became satiated and proud" (Scott 1975 p. 78-79). "Hosea believed the sins were in heavens record. The guilt would not fade with the passing of time. Israel's sins were "bound up" (v. 12) to await the day of judgment" (Wood 1975, p. 121). "Like Gomer wanton Israel is running after other "loves" instead of being faithful in her "marriage" to God" (NIV Study Bible 1992, p. 987). "The chapter closes with a horrible picture of the enemy's almost unbelievable cruelty and the nations awful fate (vv. 15-16)" (Wood 1975 p. 117). The final chapter of the book of Hosea describes God's judgment upon the nation Israel. "Only one solution was offered. Israel must repent" (Wood 1975, p.127). "He who said earlier that He would like to have healed Israel (7:1), now declares the He will do so" (Scott 1975, p. 83). "Could any contrast be greater than the declaration of judgment in 5:8-12 and the assurance of restoration in 14:4-7" (Southwestern Journal of Theology 1975, p.55). "The God who redeems us purposes that we walk in his statutes free from guilt, but also free from deceit, guile, and willful sin. Through Hosea's closing warning, God makes His appeal to us" (Wood 1975, p. 133). PART III At first I was confused by the way Hosea was talking about Israel and Judah in the same sentence (1:11). I didn't know that Israel had split into the Northern (Israel) and southern (Judah) kingdoms. This fact made me go back and read Tullock and find out what had happened. I also didn't know why the Lord would tell anyone to marry an adulterous (1:2). The whole first chapter had me confused and it wasn't until I read the book of Hosea and studied my reference material that I could make sense of what was going on. Once I'd read the entire book I was able to see how God had used Hosea's family life to relate to His relationship with the people of Israel. At first I thought Hosea 2:1 was God telling Hosea to dump his wife for her adultery. It wasn't until I'd read several of my references that I came to realize it was God telling Hosea's children to rebuke their mother for the way she behaved. I also came to realize this was a veiled reference for the Israelites to forsake their idols and worship of other Gods'. When I read Hosea 2:6 - 13 I saw a very angry God ready to punish Israel for its transgressions. Then Hosea 2:14 - 23 contradicted everything that was said in Hosea 2:6 - 13. This confused me to no end. I ten began to realize how the theme, "there is absolutely nothing we can do which will separate us from God's love and compassion" was going to play a role in this book. It also made me realize that some of the current problems (murder, robbery, theft, etc..) were prevalent in ancient times. I also came to understand a person could call themselves "born again" and feel completely secure in the feeling God would forgive them for their previous sins. Chapter 3 has played a part in my life. My father was unfaithful to my mother and my siblings and I had a hard time understanding how my mother could possibly forgive him. Not only did she forgive him she took him back, just as Hosea did with his unfaithful wife. The numerous references to prostitution in chapter 4 I thought was an excellent analogy to the way the Israelites were giving their bodies and souls over to false Gods' just as prostitutes do to those who also don't acknowledge nor love them. I also see a resemblance to today's society in these verses. Murder, robbery, theft, lying, cheating, etc. are on the rise and we spend all our time blaming everything and everybody without realizing that maybe we've lost our ways in Gods' eye. Reading chapter 5, to me, was redundant. I saw this entire chapter as a rehash of chapter 3 v. 6 - 13. Chapter 11 reminded me of my relationship with my son. No matter how angry I get with him I still love him. It also confused me because I thought it was a sign of God showing human characteristics until I realized God created man. Therefore, maybe we show God - like characteristics when we forgive others. It also reminded me of my relationship with my own father. He's an alcoholic and spent the majority of my childhood in neighborhood bars. Needless to say our relationship was never close; yet I still love him. I also see this love - hate relationship among nations. Whether we're allies or enemies due to political or moral differences you never know when you'll forgive your enemy for his transgressions (perceived or real) and they become you staunchest ally. I had a hard time following along in chapter 12. Hosea preaches the lord's message to the Israelites and he starts by describing Israel's sins against God. Again I thought this was quite redundant even though it wasn't through the spoken word of the Lord. I would imagine had the writer of the book consolidated all of Israel and Judah's sins into one chapter and Gods anger into another the book could have been cut in half. Chapter 13 v. 8 made me think of the rich today. Do they also feel that since they're rich God can't find fault in them, or do they feel that if they become philanthropists God will only see good in them. Even reading my reference material I couldn't understand why God made reference to Gilgal sacrificing bulls (12:11). I assumed animal sacrifice was acceptable, at that time, and couldn't understand why God was angry at Gill. His inclusion of Jacob in the reasons for Israel's downfall led me to wonder whether the priests of today are feeding off other peoples misery and sins. I find many current articles and news stories of priests committing acts of pedophilia quite disturbing; are we also headed in the same direction as Israel and Judah? Chapter 13 made me wonder about Catholics. I'm not nor do I profess to be an expert on religion, but I have to wonder when I see Catholics praying to God through the Virgin Mary, St. Peter, St. Anthony, St. Pauly Girl, (a lame attempt at humor), and other saints and what I think are deities. It also made me wonder about my lack of knowledge about other religions besides my own Presbyterian background. Am I wrong to assume other major religions are trying to develop a relationship with God through the worship of idols? My own ignorance of other religions became quite apparent to me when I thought of the many religous images we take for granted, i. e. Crosses, images of Saints, statues and images of Jesus, etc. I also wonder what will happen to atheists and agnostics. Though I don't think they worship false God's I feel that denying the God's existence is just as bad. I felt that God was bribing the Israelites in chapter 14 by telling them what He would bestow upon them if they came back into his fold. I also sensed that God was unable to control his "chosen people" even though he constantly told them, through his prophet Hosea, what would happen to them should they stray from his flock. Since He was unable to control them I felt He had no recourse but to try to show them the benefits they would reap for their love and worship of Him. I also got the feeling that he was a benevolent God and would love mankind no matter what sins they committed. I came away from reading the book of Hosea feeling their was hope for all mankind. Though I'm constantly bombarded by newspaper articles and television reports about the sins and evils of mankind I know that deep down man is not evil nor is he wicked. I feel though, that society has a great deal to say about his brothers, and sisters, actions. Should we turn a "blind-eye" to the sins and wickedness of others, are we not just as sinful and wicked. God gives us a choice and it's up to us to determine the path we'll take. I have to honestly say this is the first chapter of the Bible (Old and New Testament) that I've studied this thoroughly and I can also say this will not be the last. I came into this course thinking it was just a requirement for me to receive my degree and I'll leave it with the knowledge that I've received more than just three credit hours. References Rainbow Studies, Inc. (1992). The new international version rainbow study bible (4th ed.). El Reno, Oklahoma: Author Scott, Jack B. (1971). The book of hosea: a study manual (2nd Printing). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House. Tullock, John H. (1981).The old testament story (3rd ed.). Englewoods Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, inc. Southwestern Journal of Theology (Fall 1975). Studies in hosea (No. 1). Fort Worth, Texas: Faculty of the School of Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Wood, Fred M. (1975). Hosea: prophet of reconciliation. Nashville, Tennessee: Convention Press. Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991). New York, Random House Inc. 11 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Book of Mark.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Book of Mark: An Essay for Humanities Courses That Treat The Bible As A Historical Document PART A MARK'S THEOLOGY REFLECTED IN WRITING Mark and the other evangelists used basically five ways to change, edit or enhance Jesus' sayings to reflect their own views of Christianity. According to the Five Gospels Book, plagiarism and changing of writing was not a crime, but actually very common Mark's time. Besides, Mark never knew Jesus first- hand, he somehow had to make a 'story' from basically Hearsay! Mark groups different parables and sayings of Jesus by topic; making a false impression that these things happened in order. This may have little effect on changing the meaning of the lesson, however it illustrates the fact that Mark was trying to author a "readable" story for people, rather than a book of facts. The best example would be in Mark 10:17-31 (Jesus Counsel to the Rich) & (Parable of The Camel and the Eye of a Needle). It is doubtful that these things happened at the same time; however, they are GREY in The Five Gospels anyway ... and probably didn't happen as Mark describes. This brings us to Mark's writing style. Mark seems to "tack-on" sentences to Jesus' teachings to make them more "Christian." This really changes the meaning more than any other tactic! Who knows what Mark may have edited-out to accomplish what he wanted to impress upon his readers? In this, he tries to interpret the meaning of Jesus' actions ... and does this in a misleading way. For example: Mark 2:19, Jesus regarding Fasting. Jesus makes a strong statement against importance to fasting, but Mark (in 2:20) tags on: "But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and they will fast in those days." This blatantly shows that Mark held higher regard for the Old Traditions of Fasting rather than Jesus' new teachings! This is also an example of "Christianizing Jesus" according to traditions that have already earned respect from Jews in their tradition. (Wow, this is starting to sound like a fight between Today's Political Parties, isn't it? [Jesus = Liberal Politics / Judaism = Conservative Politics]). Finally, Mark likes to "soften the blow" of Jesus' Hard sayings. He does this for probably the same reason Paul preached that Circumcision was not required for Christians. A good example is The Unforgivable Sin (Mark 3:28-). Jesus clearly states that words against the Holy Spirit are unforgivable. However, Mark adds that "all things are possible with God," which softens this harsh rule! MARK & THE PAROUSIA Mark lived during the Jewish War of 66-70 ADE. Unlike the later evangelists, Matthew and Luke, Mark believed the Parousia was upon us, about to happen at any time! And, for obvious reason: he lived in an extremely troubled time for the Jews, and he had not been worried yet by the Parousia's delay as were later evangelists. Mark 13:4 - 'Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?' According to Mark's writing, Jesus first predicts the destruction of the Temple. However, Mark had written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 ADE! This tactic agrees with The Five Gospels: writing apocalyptic sayings of Jesus after they have already been "fulfilled." I would suppose he did this to give credit to his writing of the second coming of God. An example is the parable of The Fig Tree in Mark 13:28- 37. This addition, obviously written by Mark and not said by Jesus, shows the urgency in which Mark expected the parousia: "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." You can easily see why the other evangelists, Matthew, Luke & John, re-wrote Mark's apocalyptic writing to be more of a "Sacred Time," and less definite. Mark used a common tactic of quoting scripture (especially Dan, Isa, Mic & some Psalms) for his apocalyptic writing. We also saw this in Paul's letters years before. People regarded scripture as fact, therefore a perfect tool to give credit to Mark's & Paul's new writing! Our own culture today is wrapped-up in tradition and Bible quotes as undisputable fact, even though people twist these things to promote their own interests! My own family justifies their hatred for gays by quoting the Bible; they justify a "Woman's Place" by using the Bible; they justify their racism through the Bible (saying that "Love your Brother" could only possibly refer to people of your own color, because your brother could not possibly be of another color); they justify violent punishment for criminals by using the Bible; they choose their political party according to their actions being as conservative as the Bible. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish that my own community was not still living in the dark-ages. PART B THE PARABLE: THE UNFORGIVING SLAVE This parable reflects a part of our American Lifestyle that is very Un-Jesus! Our culture, our government and our judiciary system thrives on punishment; at least we don't still have debtors' prison! Contrary to Mark's interpretation of this parable, I belive it represents a type of perfect love for one's neighbor that is reflected in Jesus' Kingdom of God. Rather than forcing a rule upon the reader, as Mark does, Jesus meant it to be a story where the listener may choose an appropriate mode of behavior; for forgiveness cannot be compromised without undesirable consequences. Instead, Mark adds a Threat to the end of the parable (which is obviously NOT the words of Jesus)! "That's what your heavenly Father will do to you, unless you find it in your heart to forgive ..." I find in many examples that Jesus wanted to have his followers think for themselves, and make choices according to their own conscious; He only made sayings and parables to aid followers in finding the truth for themselves (much like Socrate's tactic for the finding of Truth or Justice). Mark, for his own reasons, felt that it was his duty to attach every saying of Jesus with a command or threat ... therefore making God seem vindictive! CONCLUSION: COMPARISON TO MY FIRST PAPER I remember that when I wrote my first paper, I made a point to discuss quotes from Jesus that seemed foreign to my traditional feeling for Jesus. I wanted to see something in Jesus that I never knew before! Well, I was surprised to find that these same quotes turned-up to be mostly Pink in the Five Gospels (some grey, but no black)! My first quote of Jesus was from Matthew 12:49-50; Jesus refers to the multitudes as his mother and brothers. This turned-up pink in the Five Gospels. I thought that this quote represented Jesus as a God on a equal level with his followers, creating a sense of community (I think that if Jesus were around today (and wasn't in an asylum), he would be a Communist). To me, this contradicts today's church of authority, having Bishops, Deacons, etc. Next, I quoted a few of Jesus' words to live by in chapters 6 and 7 of Matthew. Most of these quotes turned up pink, however a few were mixed with grey, showing the additions of Matthew's redaction. I noted in my paper that I felt these rules were simple & logical ways to lead a happy and loving lifestyle, rather than hard rules that we are used to. The next two quotes I used (Matthew 12:13 - Jesus Breaking the Sabbath) (Mark 15:1-15 - Jesus' dealing with P. Pilate) were grey and black in the Five Gospels. The interesting point to this is that these are the two quotes in which I criticized Jesus' actions. I made points that I thought Jesus was a hypocrite in preaching to keep Jewish Law, and at the same time, break the Sabbath! I also seriously questioned Matthew's interpretation that Pilate tried to save Jesus, knowing that Pilate was not a friend to the Jews! It is refreshing to me to find these quotes in grey & black, because they were very confusing to me in forming an opinion about Jesus. I have enjoyed this assignment because I really feel like I am getting to understand the Historical New Testament! I tested my knowledge of Jesus by reading his quotes from my New King James Version Bible, and tried to spot additions that were not Jesus', and by guessing the color of some of his quotes. In checking back with The Five Gospels, I found myself to be pretty darn accurate! Amazing! Word Count: 1,429 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Buddhas Four Noble Truths A Logical Basis for a Philos.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Buddha's Four Noble Truths: A Logical Basis for Philosophy The Buddha Shakyamuni was born in the 6th century BCE in the area presently known as Nepal. During his 80 year lifetime, he systematically developed a pragmatic, empirically based philosophy which he claimed would lead its followers towards an enlightened existence. Buddhism is commonly called a religion; however, it differs from the usual definition of a religion in that it has no deities, does not promote worship of demigods, and is based on logical reasoning and observation rather than spiritual faith. At the heart of Buddhist philosophy is the Buddha's enumeration of Four Noble Truths: Dukkha (suffering), Samudaya (origin of suffering), Nirodha (cessation of suffering), and Magga (path to cessation of suffering). The Buddha's Four Noble Truths are based on archetypal traits that were elucidated through careful empirical observance and intensive introspection. These Four Noble Truths form a logically coherent set of axioms upon which the whole of Buddhism is based, and provide a solid foundation for a philosophy which is applicable several millennia after its formulation.{1} "What we call a 'being,' or an 'individual,' or 'I,' according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies...." - Walpola Rahula{2} In order to fully understand the Four Noble Truths, it is necessary to investigate the Buddhist view of the individual and its makeup. In some respects, the manner in which Buddhism deals with the mind/body problem is much more advanced than most religious views, and closer to science's understanding of the mind and body. Rather than postulating the existence of an eternal soul with no physical manifestation, the Buddha taught that the person is really a collection of five skandhas or aggregates. These include rupa (matter), vedana (sensations), sanna (perceptions), samkhara (mental formations), and vijnana (consciousness). The aggregate of matter encompasses all tangible aspects of the world. The aggregate of sensations is akin to the process of sensory input; e.g., the activation of retinal cells in the eye. Vedana does not include the process of perception, however; the act of perceiving the senses, i.e., recognition of external sensations, is within the realm of the sanna. Buddha classified mental activities (samkhara), i.e., ideas and thoughts, as being disparate from the state of mental consciousness (vijnana). Consciousness, in the Buddhist view, is the awareness of the sensations and perceptions that the person experiences, while the mental formations are the volitions, whims, thoughts, and ideas that a person has. The breakdown of the individual into the skandhas is strikingly similar to the classifications used in the modern field of psychology. Matter, sensation, perception, cognition, and consciousness are common nomenclature in both paradigms. "There is this Noble Truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are suffering, association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering...." - Shakyamuni Buddha{3} The First Noble Truth, the Truth of Dukkha, is based on Buddha's observation that all people in the world are in a state of dukkha. Dukkha, which translates literally as 'suffering' from the Pali, does not mean pain or distress as the word 'suffer' usually implies. Instead it is used to convey the idea that the very act of living is one of imperfection and impermanence, and hence is a situation that must be remedied in order to achieve true happiness. There are three types of dukkha: dukkha-dukkha (suffering in the conventional sense), viparinama-dukkha (suffering caused by the ephemeral nature of happiness in life), and samkhara-dukkha (suffering caused by existence itself). Suffering in the conventional sense of the word, such as that caused by pain, disease, and poverty, is classified as dukkha-dukkha. The Buddha also noted that happiness itself, being a fleeting emotion, usually resulted in an eventual loss of happiness greater than the initial happiness. This loss of happiness is caused by the removal of whatever situation or object precipitated the happiness in the first place; therefore the transitory nature of life itself is the root of dukkha, in this case called viparinama. This leads to the conclusion that suffering is an inherent trait of existence itself, and is classified as samkhara. And thus the question is raised that if suffering is inherent in life itself, what is the cause (and the remedy) for this undesirable state of affairs? "There is this noble truth of the origin of suffering: It is craving, which produces renewal of being, is accompanied by relish and lust, relishing this and that; in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for nonbeing." - Shakyamuni Buddha{4} While dukkha has a variety of direct causes, Buddhist doctrine teaches that at the heart of all suffering is a basal craving or thirst called tanhâ. Tanha is defined in the original texts as "... this thirst which produces re-existence and re-becoming, and which is bound up with passionate greed, and which finds fresh delight now here and now there ...."{5} There are three sub-divisions of tanha: kama-tanhâ (desire for sensual pleasures), bhava-tanhâ (desire for existence), and vibhava-tanhâ (desire for non-existence). These three types of desire have a common effect - they result in the continuation of suffering and the instantiation of the dukkha. The causal relationship between the tanha and dukkha is delineated by the related concepts of karma and karma-phala. Karma is the Sanskrit word for 'action' or 'doing' and it refers to the actions of a person as a result of his or her mental volition. The result of a person's karma is called karma-phala, commonly colloquialized as the fruits of karma. The basic belief in Buddhism about the mechanics of karma is that when a person has a craving (tanha) of any sort, they will try to attain the thing for which they have the craving (karma), and in doing so will cause the existence of dukkha in their life. This belief is another way of viewing the old axiom that "what goes around, comes around," a simple observation about the nature of cause and effect in relation to human actions. "There is this noble truth of the cessation of suffering: It is the remainderless fading and ceasing, the giving up, relinquishing, letting go, and rejecting of that same craving." - Shakyamuni Buddha{6} The goal of a Buddhist is to eliminate all traces of dukkha from his or her life, thus becoming Enlightened. A person who has attained Enlightenment, according to the Buddha, is in a state of Nirvana. Nirvana is commonly defined as Tanhakkhaya, or the extinction of thirst. It is the end of all earthly suffering and freedom from attachment to the Five Aggregates.{7} While commonly misconstrued as final annihilation, nirvana is simply the final liberation from the earthly existence, or as the Buddha put it, "... [it is] the extinction of desire, the extinction of hatred, the extinction of illusion. This, O bhikkhus, is called the Absolute [Nirvana]."{8} One who is enlightened is able to realize the absolute truth of any situation without the illusion of earthly existence interfering. "There is this noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: It is this Noble Eightfold Path, that is to say: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration." - Shakyamuni Buddha{9} With the goal of Nirvana thus elucidated, the obvious question is "How does one set about reaching Nirvana?" As with the rest of his philosophy, the Buddha answered this question through careful empirical observations. In the early days of his life, Siddhartha lived a life of luxury in which all of the sensual pleasures were given to him. Finding this an unsatisfactory state of affairs, the Buddha attempted to find happiness in a life at the opposite extreme. He became a wandering ascetic, practicing self-denial and abasement for a number of years. After searching for the answer in both hedonism and puritanism, he realized that the path to Enlightenment must lie somewhere between these two antipodes. Thus, the Buddha found the Middle Path or the Way leading to the Cessation of Dukkha, Magga. He declared that eight qualities were required to follow the path to Nirvana: Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration. The rational behind this eightfold path of the Magga is simple - a person who follows it will be endowed with wisdom (right understanding and right thought), compassion (right speech, right action, and right livelihood), and mental awareness (right mindfulness and right concentration). These are the qualities which are both necessary and sufficient to attain final liberation, Enlightenment, and Nirvana. Thus is laid out the very heart of the Buddhist doctrine. These four aspects of the Buddha's philosophy are not lofty, abstract constructs which have no empirical basis. They are, in the most sincere use of the words, 'The Four Noble Truths.' FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} The idea of the cycle of death and rebirth, a central tenet to both Buddhist philosophy and the Hindu religion, will not be brought into this discussion of the Four Noble Truths. While reincarnation was very important to Buddha's formulation of his beliefs, it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for the Four Noble Truths to hold true. When examined from a purely logical and empirical basis, the Four Noble Truths are still valid without the introduction of reincarnation. {2} Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. Page 25. {3} Sherab Chödzin Kohn. The Life of the Buddha. Page 19. {4} Sherab Chödzin Kohn. The Life of the Buddha. Page 19. {5} Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. Page 29. {6} Sherab Chödzin Kohn. The Life of the Buddha. Page 19. {7} B. Alan Wallace. Tibetan Buddhism From the Ground Up. Pages 40-41. {8} Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. Page 36. {9} Sherab Chödzin Kohn. The Life of the Buddha. Page 19. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Buddhas Four Noble Truths A Logical Basis.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Buddha's Four Noble Truths: A Logical Basis for Philosophy The Buddha Shakyamuni was born in the 6th century BCE in the area presently known as Nepal. During his 80 year lifetime, he systematically developed a pragmatic, empirically based philosophy which he claimed would lead its followers towards an enlightened existence. Buddhism is commonly called a religion; however, it differs from the usual definition of a religion in that it has no deities, does not promote worship of demigods, and is based on logical reasoning and observation rather than spiritual faith. At the heart of Buddhist philosophy is the Buddha's enumeration of Four Noble Truths: Dukkha (suffering), Samudaya (origin of suffering), Nirodha (cessation of suffering), and Magga (path to cessation of suffering). The Buddha's Four Noble Truths are based on archetypal traits that were elucidated through careful empirical observance and intensive introspection. These Four Noble Truths form a logically coherent set of axioms upon which the whole of Buddhism is based, and provide a solid foundation for a philosophy which is applicable several millennia after its formulation.{1} "What we call a 'being,' or an 'individual,' or 'I,' according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies...." - Walpola Rahula{2} In order to fully understand the Four Noble Truths, it is necessary to investigate the Buddhist view of the individual and its makeup. In some respects, the manner in which Buddhism deals with the mind/body problem is much more advanced than most religious views, and closer to science's understanding of the mind and body. Rather than postulating the existence of an eternal soul with no physical manifestation, the Buddha taught that the person is really a collection of five skandhas or aggregates. These include rupa (matter), vedana (sensations), sanna (perceptions), samkhara (mental formations), and vijnana (consciousness). The aggregate of matter encompasses all tangible aspects of the world. The aggregate of sensations is akin to the process of sensory input; e.g., the activation of retinal cells in the eye. Vedana does not include the process of perception, however; the act of perceiving the senses, i.e., recognition of external sensations, is within the realm of the sanna. Buddha classified mental activities (samkhara), i.e., ideas and thoughts, as being disparate from the state of mental consciousness (vijnana). Consciousness, in the Buddhist view, is the awareness of the sensations and perceptions that the person experiences, while the mental formations are the volitions, whims, thoughts, and ideas that a person has. The breakdown of the individual into the skandhas is strikingly similar to the classifications used in the modern field of psychology. Matter, sensation, perception, cognition, and consciousness are common nomenclature in both paradigms. "There is this Noble Truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are suffering, association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering...." - Shakyamuni Buddha{3} The First Noble Truth, the Truth of Dukkha, is based on Buddha's observation that all people in the world are in a state of dukkha. Dukkha, which translates literally as 'suffering' from the Pali, does not mean pain or distress as the word 'suffer' usually implies. Instead it is used to convey the idea that the very act of living is one of imperfection and impermanence, and hence is a situation that must be remedied in order to achieve true happiness. There are three types of dukkha: dukkha-dukkha (suffering in the conventional sense), viparinama-dukkha (suffering caused by the ephemeral nature of happiness in life), and samkhara-dukkha (suffering caused by existence itself). Suffering in the conventional sense of the word, such as that caused by pain, disease, and poverty, is classified as dukkha-dukkha. The Buddha also noted that happiness itself, being a fleeting emotion, usually resulted in an eventual loss of happiness greater than the initial happiness. This loss of happiness is caused by the removal of whatever situation or object precipitated the happiness in the first place; therefore the transitory nature of life itself is the root of dukkha, in this case called viparinama. This leads to the conclusion that suffering is an inherent trait of existence itself, and is classified as samkhara. And thus the question is raised that if suffering is inherent in life itself, what is the cause (and the remedy) for this undesirable state of affairs? "There is this noble truth of the origin of suffering: It is craving, which produces renewal of being, is accompanied by relish and lust, relishing this and that; in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for nonbeing." - Shakyamuni Buddha{4} While dukkha has a variety of direct causes, Buddhist doctrine teaches that at the heart of all suffering is a basal craving or thirst called tanhâ. Tanha is defined in the original texts as "... this thirst which produces re- existence and re-becoming, and which is bound up with passionate greed, and which finds fresh delight now here and now there ...."{5} There are three sub- divisions of tanha: kama-tanhâ (desire for sensual pleasures), bhava-tanhâ (desire for existence), and vibhava-tanhâ (desire for non-existence). These three types of desire have a common effect - they result in the continuation of suffering and the instantiation of the dukkha. The causal relationship between the tanha and dukkha is delineated by the related concepts of karma and karma- phala. Karma is the Sanskrit word for 'action' or 'doing' and it refers to the actions of a person as a result of his or her mental volition. The result of a person's karma is called karma-phala, commonly colloquialized as the fruits of karma. The basic belief in Buddhism about the mechanics of karma is that when a person has a craving (tanha) of any sort, they will try to attain the thing for which they have the craving (karma), and in doing so will cause the existence of dukkha in their life. This belief is another way of viewing the old axiom that " what goes around, comes around," a simple observation about the nature of cause and effect in relation to human actions. "There is this noble truth of the cessation of suffering: It is the remainderless fading and ceasing, the giving up, relinquishing, letting go, and rejecting of that same craving." - Shakyamuni Buddha{6} The goal of a Buddhist is to eliminate all traces of dukkha from his or her life, thus becoming Enlightened. A person who has attained Enlightenment, according to the Buddha, is in a state of Nirvana. Nirvana is commonly defined as Tanhakkhaya, or the extinction of thirst. It is the end of all earthly suffering and freedom from attachment to the Five Aggregates.{7} While commonly misconstrued as final annihilation, nirvana is simply the final liberation from the earthly existence, or as the Buddha put it, "... [it is] the extinction of desire, the extinction of hatred, the extinction of illusion. This, O bhikkhus, is called the Absolute [Nirvana]."{8} One who is enlightened is able to realize the absolute truth of any situation without the illusion of earthly existence interfering. "There is this noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: It is this Noble Eightfold Path, that is to say: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration." - Shakyamuni Buddha{9} With the goal of Nirvana thus elucidated, the obvious question is "How does one set about reaching Nirvana?" As with the rest of his philosophy, the Buddha answered this question through careful empirical observations. In the early days of his life, Siddhartha lived a life of luxury in which all of the sensual pleasures were given to him. Finding this an unsatisfactory state of affairs, the Buddha attempted to find happiness in a life at the opposite extreme. He became a wandering ascetic, practicing self-denial and abasement for a number of years. After searching for the answer in both hedonism and puritanism, he realized that the path to Enlightenment must lie somewhere between these two antipodes. Thus, the Buddha found the Middle Path or the Way leading to the Cessation of Dukkha, Magga. He declared that eight qualities were required to follow the path to Nirvana: Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration. The rational behind this eightfold path of the Magga is simple - a person who follows it will be endowed with wisdom (right understanding and right thought), compassion (right speech, right action, and right livelihood), and mental awareness (right mindfulness and right concentration). These are the qualities which are both necessary and sufficient to attain final liberation, Enlightenment, and Nirvana. Thus is laid out the very heart of the Buddhist doctrine. These four aspects of the Buddha's philosophy are not lofty, abstract constructs which have no empirical basis. They are, in the most sincere use of the words, 'The Four Noble Truths.' FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} The idea of the cycle of death and rebirth, a central tenet to both Buddhist philosophy and the Hindu religion, will not be brought into this discussion of the Four Noble Truths. While reincarnation was very important to Buddha's formulation of his beliefs, it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for the Four Noble Truths to hold true. When examined from a purely logical and empirical basis, the Four Noble Truths are still valid without the introduction of reincarnation. {2} Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. Page 25. {3} Sherab Chödzin Kohn. The Life of the Buddha. Page 19. {4} Sherab Chödzin Kohn. The Life of the Buddha. Page 19. {5} Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. Page 29. {6} Sherab Chödzin Kohn. The Life of the Buddha. Page 19. {7} B. Alan Wallace. Tibetan Buddhism From the Ground Up. Pages 40-41. {8} Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. Page 36. {9} Sherab Chödzin Kohn. The Life of the Buddha. Page 19. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Byzantine Empir1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Byzantine Empire The Byzantine Empire, the survivor of the Roman empire, flourished into the oldest and longest lasting empire in our history. It began with Constantine the Great's triumph of Christianity. He then transferred his capital from Rome to the refounded Byzantium in the early 4th century, year 330 AD, and named it Constantinople after himself. This city became the surviving safe spot after the breakup of the Western Roman empire by the 5th century. It was by far the largest and richest city in Christendom during the Middle Ages with a population of about one million people. (Encarta) Constantine the Great had established a criterion for the empire to follow throughout its history. It included the harmony of the church, the leaders and the teachers of the empire. Constantine created a successful new monetary system based on the gold solidus, or nomisma which lasted well into the middle of the 11th century. Because of the commercial thriving throughout the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, many ancient cities flourished. Large estates dominated agriculture which continued to be fruitful in spite of the heavy taxation causing an abandonment of land. From the beginning to the end of the Byzantine empire, the church and the emperor had been the largest landholders, therefore being the largest profiteers of Byzantine. (Encarta) After the Roman empire fell in 476 AD, Byzantine conquered all. It took over the space of southeastern Europe, southwestern Asia, and the northeast corner of Africa. The present day countries in these areas include the Balkan Peninsula, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Egypt. This large empire known as Byzantine didn't get called Byzantine until scholars named it. The people of that time were not thought of as Byzantines but as Romans who lived a Roman lifestyle. Byzantine had been started and ruled by an emperor without any formal constitution. It slowly formed a similar establishment of late Roman institutions. Byzantine followed the Romans orthodox Christianity as well. The predominant language of this era was Greek, although some subjects spoke Latin, Coptic, and Armenian. (Great Ages) The Greek language led to a Greek culture. The Byzantine empire stood out for their Christian religion and their expression of it in their artwork. These Romans carved exquisite ivories, illuminated manuscripts, and formed mosaics out of glass and stone. Mosaics were pictures formed from these objects with the intent to stimulate profound religious thought. The mood of these mosaics was always honoring and respectful of Christianity and its f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Byzantine Empire 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Byzantine Empire The Byzantine Empire, the survivor of the Roman empire, flourished into the oldest and longest lasting empire in our history. It began with Constantine the Great's triumph of Christianity. He then transferred his capital from Rome to the refounded Byzantium in the early 4th century, year 330 AD, and named it Constantinople after himself. This city became the surviving safe spot after the breakup of the Western Roman empire by the 5th century. It was by far the largest and richest city in Christendom during the Middle Ages with a population of about one million people. (Encarta) Constantine the Great had established a criterion for the empire to follow throughout its history. It included the harmony of the church, the leaders and the teachers of the empire. Constantine created a successful new monetary system based on the gold solidus, or nomisma which lasted well into the middle of the 11th century. Because of the commercial thriving throughout the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, many ancient cities flourished. Large estates dominated agriculture which continued to be fruitful in spite of the heavy taxation causing an abandonment of land. From the beginning to the end of the Byzantine empire, the church and the emperor had been the largest landholders, therefore being the largest profiteers of Byzantine. (Encarta) After the Roman empire fell in 476 AD, Byzantine conquered all. It took over the space of southeastern Europe, southwestern Asia, and the northeast corner of Africa. The present day countries in these areas include the Balkan Peninsula, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Egypt. This large empire known as Byzantine didn't get called Byzantine until scholars named it. The people of that time were not thought of as Byzantines but as Romans who lived a Roman lifestyle. Byzantine had been started and ruled by an emperor without any formal constitution. It slowly formed a similar establishment of late Roman institutions. Byzantine followed the Romans orthodox Christianity as well. The predominant language of this era was Greek, although some subjects spoke Latin, Coptic, and Armenian. (Great Ages) The Greek language led to a Greek culture. The Byzantine empire stood out for their Christian religion and their expression of it in their artwork. These Romans carved exquisite ivories, illuminated manuscripts, and formed mosaics out of glass and stone. Mosaics were pictures formed from these objects with the intent to stimulate profound religious thought. The mood of these mosaics was always honoring and respectful of Christianity and its f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Byzantine Empire 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Byzantine Empire The Byzantine Empire, the survivor of the Roman empire, flourished into the oldest and longest lasting empire in our history. It began with Constantine the Great's triumph of Christianity. He then transferred his capital from Rome to the refounded Byzantium in the early 4th century, year 330 AD, and named it Constantinople after himself. This city became the surviving safe spot after the breakup of the Western Roman empire by the 5th century. It was by far the largest and richest city in Christendom during the Middle Ages with a population of about one million people. (Encarta) Constantine the Great had established a criterion for the empire to follow throughout its history. It included the harmony of the church, the leaders and the teachers of the empire. Constantine created a successful new monetary system based on the gold solidus, or nomisma which lasted well into the middle of the 11th century. Because of the commercial thriving throughout the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, many ancient cities flourished. Large estates dominated agriculture which continued to be fruitful in spite of the heavy taxation causing an abandonment of land. From the beginning to the end of the Byzantine empire, the church and the emperor had been the largest landholders, therefore being the largest profiteers of Byzantine. (Encarta) After the Roman empire fell in 476 AD, Byzantine conquered all. It took over the space of southeastern Europe, southwestern Asia, and the northeast corner of Africa. The present day countries in these areas include the Balkan Peninsula, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Egypt. This large empire known as Byzantine didn't get called Byzantine until scholars named it. The people of that time were not thought of as Byzantines but as Romans who lived a Roman lifestyle. Byzantine had been started and ruled by an emperor without any formal constitution. It slowly formed a similar establishment of late Roman institutions. Byzantine followed the Romans orthodox Christianity as well. The predominant language of this era was Greek, although some subjects spoke Latin, Coptic, and Armenian. (Great Ages) The Greek language led to a Greek culture. The Byzantine empire stood out for their Christian religion and their expression of it in their artwork. These Romans carved exquisite ivories, illuminated manuscripts, and formed mosaics out of glass and stone. Mosaics were pictures formed from these objects with the intent to stimulate profound religious thought. The mood of these mosaics was always honoring and respectful of Christianity and its components. Another form of Christian expression was in the form of icons. These were parts of the Gospel played out into visual pictures. The icons portrayed prayers, hymns, and sermons in color. These too created a reverence for worshippers to follow. That was the first goal of icons. The second goal was to form an existential link between themselves as worshippers and God. These are only a few ways that Byzantines use art as a part of their religion. (Great Ages) Religion was a great part of the Byzantine empire. To form a bigger Christian kingdom, Christian Justinian the first attempted to bring the west and east Byzantine empires together in 527 AD Justinian became the second emperor of Byzantine at that time. Him and his wife, Theodora, set a goal to restore the former majesty. (Oxford History) They wanted to improve the intellectual quality and their geographical limits of the Roman Empire. At a great cost, they reconquered North Africa, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and parts of Spain. This was part of the reason the Byzantine empire fell. Justinian and Theodora, with substantial expenses, induced in fabricating public buildings and churches. One of these famous churches was the Hagia Sophia, Church of the Holy Wisdom, in Constantinople. After spending so much of the Byzantine's money, the empire was overstrained when finally their resources ran dry. Along with that problem, plagues crossed the nation and reduced the Byzantine population. (Encarta) To fight the rundown of the Byzantine nation, they transformed their armies into an elite expeditionary guard called tagmata and army corps labeled themes or themata. Each of these were commanded by a strategos or general who acquired civil and military authority of his army district. Thematic armies became army corps districts whose soldiers acquired tax-exempt lands, preserving the core of the empire while avoiding the incriminating drain of cash that had overstrained the salaried armies of the period before the Arab invasions. (Encarta) Finally, the invasions began. Byzantine was able to defend itself against Germanic and Hunnic raids in the 5th and 6th centuries. They were also able to stabilize a reasonably secure eastern frontier against the Sassanid Persian Empire but they could not recover, hold, and govern the entire Mediterranean world like they had. Warfare and the nations insecurity inhibited agriculture and education. With their limited resources, the empire could no longer maintain the full dimensions, foundation, and complexity of the late Roman Empire. It barely managed to endure and adapt to its circumstances. Beginning in the 9th century, Byzantium experienced a major recovery that took many different forms. Many of the offensives halted on the eastern frontier. The reasons being were the decline of the caliphate and of the creativity of Byzantine strategy. In the 10th century, the lands that had been lost to the Slavs were reconquered and reorganized. As well as the recovery of old land, the recovery of learning occurred. Intellectual life was revived in many new fashions. Ancient manuscripts were summarized and recopies, encyclopedias were compiled, and mathematics, astronomy, and literature received new attention. Art and literature also returned to the regained Byzantine. The greatest Byzantine emperor seemed to be Basil II. He restrained a lengthy rebellion and expanded the Byzantine empire. On the downside, he replaced the power of many older families with a new group of loyal families. This failure damaged the revenues, authority, personnel, and other military resources of the state. After his death though, the empire prospered in economic expansion but suffered from many mediocre emperors. These emperors neglected new technological, cultural, and economic developments in the western part of the empire. Meanwhile the army deteriorated. The old thematic armies had been ruined. The fall of the Byzantine empire had been on the decline for some time though. By 1450, only Constantinople and a few small areas to the west were left standing. The Ottomans of Turkey finally ended the Byzantine empire. Mohammed II, the Ottoman sultan, wanted Constantinople as the capital of his empire. After eight weeks of heavy bombardment, his army of 80,000 men got in the walls of the final city standing in their way. They were surprised to be met by such a fierce opposition led by Constantine XI. Finally, when Constantine breathed his last, the Ottomans of Turkey could rejoice at the collapse of the city and the end of the empire. The end of the Byzantine empire showed an end to a great period in history. Their artwork and culture are still admired today. Their perseverance paid off to help them become the longest standing empire in history. Byzantium is one empire that will never be forgotten. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Byzantine Empire.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Byzantine Empire The Byzantine Empire, the survivor of the Roman empire, flourished into the oldest and longest lasting empire in our history. It began with Constantine the Great's triumph of Christianity. He then transferred his capital from Rome to the refounded Byzantium in the early 4th century, year 330 AD, and named it Constantinople after himself. This city became the surviving safe spot after the breakup of the Western Roman empire by the 5th century. It was by far the largest and richest city in Christendom during the Middle Ages with a population of about one million people. (Encarta) Constantine the Great had established a criterion for the empire to follow throughout its history. It included the harmony of the church, the leaders and the teachers of the empire. Constantine created a successful new monetary system based on the gold solidus, or nomisma which lasted well into the middle of the 11th century. Because of the commercial thriving throughout the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, many ancient cities flourished. Large estates dominated agriculture which continued to be fruitful in spite of the heavy taxation causing an abandonment of land. From the beginning to the end of the Byzantine empire, the church and the emperor had been the largest landholders, therefore being the largest profiteers of Byzantine. (Encarta) After the Roman empire fell in 476 AD, Byzantine conquered all. It took over the space of southeastern Europe, southwestern Asia, and the northeast corner of Africa. The present day countries in these areas include the Balkan Peninsula, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Egypt. This large empire known as Byzantine didn't get called Byzantine until scholars named it. The people of that time were not thought of as Byzantines but as Romans who lived a Roman lifestyle. Byzantine had been started and ruled by an emperor without any formal constitution. It slowly formed a similar establishment of late Roman institutions. Byzantine followed the Romans orthodox Christianity as well. The predominant language of this era was Greek, although some subjects spoke Latin, Coptic, and Armenian. (Great Ages) The Greek language led to a Greek culture. The Byzantine empire stood out for their Christian religion and their expression of it in their artwork. These Romans carved exquisite ivories, illuminated manuscripts, and formed mosaics out of glass and stone. Mosaics were pictures formed from these objects with the intent to stimulate profound religious thought. The mood of these mosaics was always honoring and respectful of Christianity and its components. Another form of Christian expression was in the form of icons. These were parts of the Gospel played out into visual pictures. The icons portrayed prayers, hymns, and sermons in color. These too created a reverence for worshippers to follow. That was the first goal of icons. The second goal was to form an existential link between themselves as worshippers and God. These are only a few ways that Byzantines use art as a part of their religion. (Great Ages) Religion was a great part of the Byzantine empire. To form a bigger Christian kingdom, Christian Justinian the first attempted to bring the west and east Byzantine empires together in 527 AD Justinian became the second emperor of Byzantine at that time. Him and his wife, Theodora, set a goal to restore the former majesty. (Oxford History) They wanted to improve the intellectual quality and their geographical limits of the Roman Empire. At a great cost, they reconquered North Africa, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and parts of Spain. This was part of the reason the Byzantine empire fell. Justinian and Theodora, with substantial expenses, induced in fabricating public buildings and churches. One of these famous churches was the Hagia Sophia, Church of the Holy Wisdom, in Constantinople. After spending so much of the Byzantine's money, the empire was overstrained when finally their resources ran dry. Along with that problem, plagues crossed the nation and reduced the Byzantine population. (Encarta) To fight the rundown of the Byzantine nation, they transformed their armies into an elite expeditionary guard called tagmata and army corps labeled themes or themata. Each of these were commanded by a strategos or general who acquired civil and military authority of his army district. Thematic armies became army corps districts whose soldiers acquired tax-exempt lands, preserving the core of the empire while avoiding the incriminating drain of cash that had overstrained the salaried armies of the period before the Arab invasions. (Encarta) Finally, the invasions began. Byzantine was able to defend itself against Germanic and Hunnic raids in the 5th and 6th centuries. They were also able to stabilize a reasonably secure eastern frontier against the Sassanid Persian Empire but they could not recover, hold, and govern the entire Mediterranean world like they had. Warfare and the nations insecurity inhibited agriculture and education. With their limited resources, the empire could no longer maintain the full dimensions, foundation, and complexity of the late Roman Empire. It barely managed to endure and adapt to its circumstances. Beginning in the 9th century, Byzantium experienced a major recovery that took many different forms. Many of the offensives halted on the eastern frontier. The reasons being were the decline of the caliphate and of the creativity of Byzantine strategy. In the 10th century, the lands that had been lost to the Slavs were reconquered and reorganized. As well as the recovery of old land, the recovery of learning occurred. Intellectual life was revived in many new fashions. Ancient manuscripts were summarized and recopies, encyclopedias were compiled, and mathematics, astronomy, and literature received new attention. Art and literature also returned to the regained Byzantine. The greatest Byzantine emperor seemed to be Basil II. He restrained a lengthy rebellion and expanded the Byzantine empire. On the downside, he replaced the power of many older families with a new group of loyal families. This failure damaged the revenues, authority, personnel, and other military resources of the state. After his death though, the empire prospered in economic expansion but suffered from many mediocre emperors. These emperors neglected new technological, cultural, and economic developments in the western part of the empire. Meanwhile the army deteriorated. The old thematic armies had been ruined. The fall of the Byzantine empire had been on the decline for some time though. By 1450, only Constantinople and a few small areas to the west were left standing. The Ottomans of Turkey finally ended the Byzantine empire. Mohammed II, the Ottoman sultan, wanted Constantinople as the capital of his empire. After eight weeks of heavy bombardment, his army of 80,000 men got in the walls of the final city standing in their way. They were surprised to be met by such a fierce opposition led by Constantine XI. Finally, when Constantine breathed his last, the Ottomans of Turkey could rejoice at the collapse of the city and the end of the empire. The end of the Byzantine empire showed an end to a great period in history. Their artwork and culture are still admired today. Their perseverance paid off to help them become the longest standing empire in history. Byzantium is one empire that will never be forgotten. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Case Of The Spaniard Quietist Miguel de Molinos.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I. Factors. The Church, since its origins has suffered from the attack of heretics and their heresies which have caused many controversies and schisms within it. However, many of the conflicts are the result of other than heresies. There are cases where conflicts arose because of ambition of power, lack of moral, and intrigues, other because of lack of wisdom and a poor theological understanding. One of the instances in which a mixture of the elements mentioned above were present was the case of the Spaniard quietist Miguel de Molinos during the XVII century. Molinos was accused by the Church with charges of heresy as well as of immoral misconduct. His main work La Guía Espiritual ("The spiritual Guide") was placed in the Index of the Church, and Molinos himself was condemned to life imprisonment, "to be perpetually clothed in the penitential garb, to recite the Credo and one third of the Rosary, and to make confession four times every year". Molinos recanted publicly. His admirers said that he was behaving consistently with what he believed and taught. His accusers said that his recanting was a proof of his guilt. What were real motives why Molinos admitted his "guilt"? Molinos once said: "The true quietists are always quiet, serene and eve-minded in Graces and in extraordinary favors as also in the most rigorous and bitter torments. No news causes them to rejoice, no event saddens them". Was Miguel de Molinos trying to be consistent way with his mystical teachings of total passivity?, or was he really guilty as charged? Was Molinos a victim of the jealousy of the Jesuits? Was his fall caused by "the machinations of a corrupt clergy who saw that they would loose their living if his plain and simple method of devotion were generally adopted"? Did he ever had any other options than recant admitting his culpability? Was martyrdom his only other option? II. Protagonists Molinos was a man of noble character and a "brilliant and widely cultured mind". His reputation of director of consciences and spiritual guide granted him the admiration and esteem of all kinds of people among whom was Cardinal Benedict Odescalchi who later became pope Innocent XI. At his arrest those who new him close were very distressed. His servants kissing his feet and calling his "a saint" where convinced that all was a mistake. When all this took place in 1685 Molinos was fifty-seven years old, (he was born in 1628 ). Although when arrested he lost control , during the trial he show no apprehension, "he was a quietist by conviction" . The pope Innocent XI ( former Cardinal Benedict Odescalchi and personal friend of Molinos ) was born in Como (Italy) and pursued his studies in Geneva, Rome, and Naples. He was elected pope by the Cardinal College in 1676. He is portrayed by catholic historians as pope that was committed to keep an honorable life, which was hard to do in his age - and office -. He made reforms in the Church specially in relation with the abuses of nepotism. In order to be consistent with his convictions he kept his own nephew away from the Roman Curia. Because of his campaign against king Louis XVI Innocent was called the Protestant pope by the Gallican party. He was considered a man of "iron hand" when needed. "He made some prescriptions concerning the behavior of the clergy, forbade the entering of women into the Vatican Palace (except the royalty), .... and condemned the Quietism of Molinos". Concerning his former friendship with Molinos he claimed "Veramente siamo engannati". III. The Conflict The teachings of Molinos were not knew for the Church. In Spain the mystic Juan Falconí (1596-1638), had a large number of followers during his lifetime. Another group, the "Alumbrados" influenced many people in Cadiz and Seville in the late 1500's. They taught that vocal prayer, and thinking in the humanity of Jesus or in his passion must be avoided. In 1623 the Inquisition condemned them as heretics. It is clear that both, Falconí and the Alumbrados, influenced Molinos' thought. Molinos' doctrines about mysticism were world wide appreciated and practiced. It is said that in Naples he had "more that 20.000 followers". His popularity among the royalty was notable. Queen Christina of Sweden, and princess Borghese were among his devoted followers. The main work of Molinos La Guía Espiritual was subject of investigation by the "Holy Office". However the conflict arose when the Jesuits begun to question his practices and the teachings found in his writings which at one time were highly praise by the clergy . Molinos has taught that "if souls in a high state of prayer are tempted to commit the most obscene and blasphemous acts, they must not leave their prayer to resist the temptation; the devil if being allowed to humiliate them, and if the actions are committed, they are not to be confessed as sins". For him Quietism was the mean to reach God and to find peace: " Rest is necessary for the soul as well as the body; rest in which the force of grace refresh and recreate the soul. This rest can not be obtained by employing the soul in various spiritual activities. Just as the body needs sleep in order to recruit his energies, so the does the soul requires a silent resting if the presence of God". This kind of teachings caused that in many convents the nuns thought lightly if confessions, indulgences, penance, and vocal prayer, and regarded themselves as not blameworthy for their material faults. After months of investigation of his books, and personal letters (about 20.000 were analyzed by the Inquisition), the Inquisition sponsored by the Jesuits presented 263 charges against Molinos. Sixty eighth of his propositions were condemned as "Heretical, erroneous, blasphemous, dangerous, and in practice, incompatible with Christian morality". It is interesting that only two witness accused him with of obscenities . What were those so called obscenities? It is not possible to answer this question. There is no access to the reports of Molino's trial. They are "buried in the secret files of the Holy Office". Molinos retracted from his teaching publicly in 1687 at the Church of Santa María Sopra Minerva. Along with Molinos more than two hundred persons were arrested in Rome, and "several communities of nuns" found themselves implicated in the scandal. One month after his sentence the "Gazette de France" published the news of Molino's dead; however, historians tells us that Molinos lived nine more years, dying at the age of sixty-eight on December 28, 1696. The Catholic Encyclopedia ends its article about Molinos saying: "He lived 9 more years of pious and exemplary behavior, perhaps practicing his teaching that elevated souls seek only the humiliations and scorn that it might please God to send". IV. Possible Options It is evident that the Molinos was facing a dilemma. The Church has called him to repent of serious charges. What should be his response to the mandate of the Church? Shall he be consistent with his Quietism and recant in obedience? He chose to recant admitting the charges against. In doing so he tried to be consistent. By the other hand the other only option was to keep himself standing in his beliefs and to pay a the higher price of martyrdom. We probably never know what was in his mind during the trial. It may be that the accusations of immoral behavior were real and that he just was "caught" and had no other option. V. Biblical Principles. The Scriptures leave no place for immorality and lack of repentance in the life of true believers . We don't know the heart of man, (God is the final judge), but if Molinos was living an immoral lifestyle the Bible have very clear teachings. The Apostle Paul dealing with immorality in the Church of Corinth says: "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 1 Cor. 5:1-2. The Church must never allow immoral people to continue living in sin. In 2 Th. 3:6 Paul again gives specific commandment concerning this issue: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us". There is not only immorality that is to be forbidden in the Church but heresy as well: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself, Titus 3:10-11. Was this the case of Molinos? Was he one of those whom "profess that they know God; but in works they deny him"? Titus 1:16. VI. Conclusion Miguel de Molinos have passed to the history as accused of being both heretic and immoral. He has been judged by the Roman Catholic Church and found guilty. However the lack of historical evidences bring doubts upon his blame. Only God the Supreme Judge of all men will have the last word concerning the case of this mystic of the middle ages. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bell, Mary. A Short History of the Papacy. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1921. Braure, Maurice. The Age of Absolutism. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1963. Calvin, John. Institutes of The Christian Religion. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962. Cristianini, Leon. Heresies and Heretics. New York: Hawthorn Books, c1959. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. 1926 ed. S.v. "Quietism". González, Justo L. The History of Christianity Volume II. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1984. Herbermann, Charles, Edward Pace, Condé Pallen, Thomas Shasan, and John Wynne, eds. The Catholic Encyclopedia New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1911. S.v. "Molinos, Miguel de Art," by Antonio Pérez Goyena. Hogarth, Henry. "The Mystery of Molinos". London Quaterly and Holborn Review, (January 1953): 178: 6-10. Knox, Ronald, A. Enthusiasm. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961 [c1950]. Lea, Henry Charles. A History of the Inquisition in Spain. Vol. IV. New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1988. Llorca Vives, Bernardino. Historia de la Iglesia Católica en sus Cuatro Grandes Edades, Vol. 4. Madrid: Editorial Católica, 1950-1960. Mestre Sanchis, Antonio. La Iglesia en la Espana de los siglos XVII y XVIII. [The Church in Spain during the XVII and XVIII centuries]. Madrid: Editorial Católica, 1979. Pastor, Ludwing. The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages. Vol. 32. USA: Consortium Books, 1978. Whalen, John P., and Patrick O. Boyle, eds. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Washington: McGraw Book Co., 1966. S.v. "Molinos, Miguel de Art," by T. K. Connolly. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Chosen Chaim Potoks Look Into Human Nature 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Chosen: Chaim Potok's Look Into Human Nature A bad thing is only truly bad if you fail to make good of it. The Chosen by Chaim Potok is a testimant to the human ability to learn, grow and prosper from adversity. The story is filled with examples of situations in which something that may seem bad at the time, later reaps great rewards. In the initial portion of The Chosen one of the main characters, Reuven Malter, is struck in the eye by a baseball hit by the other main character, Danny Saunders. Surgery is needed on Reuven's eye, and the future use of his eye is in doubt. To most this might appear a bad situation, a terrible thing to happen to a boy, but Reuven and Danny are brought together by this unfortunate incident and develop a strong and rewarding friendship. This friendship of course has its ups and downs, but overall proves to be an invaluable learning experience to both young men. Danny is forced to endure an awkward and possibly cruel situation for the majority of his formative years. Danny's father never speaks with him. With the exception of Talmud discussions and Danny's baseball team idea, Danny and his father never speak. This situation causes Danny a great deal of emotional pain, a pain which he is unable to comprehend his father's reasons for inflicting. His father feared, and with reason, that if something were not done, Danny would never find his soul. After many years, Danny finally understands, and accepts the reasons for his father's silence, and is in many ways grateful for its success. History is rich with individual, and broad examples of Potok's look into human nature. During the Second World War, America suffered approximately four hundred thousand casualties, yet reached a state of national unity that has not been achieved before or after. The war also ended the Great Depression that caused so many people, son many problems. The atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reaped considerable death and destruction, yet prevented far more. Even as far back as biblical times, the Isrealites became Egyption slaves, but this oppression forced them to break out and return to the "promise land." Charles Darwin theorized that something that is able to survive, adapt and thrive under harsh conditions becomes stronger and better. The world is abundant with examples great and small of Potok's look into human nature. While not all bad situations reap greater rewards than the pain inflicted, if the person or people fail to learn and make something good of it, then it is all for naught. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Chosen Chaim Potoks Look Into Human Nature.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Chosen: Chaim Potok's Look Into Human Nature A bad thing is only truly bad if you fail to make good of it. The Chosen by Chaim Potok is a testimant to the human ability to learn, grow and prosper from adversity. The story is filled with examples of situations in which something that may seem bad at the time, later reaps great rewards. In the initial portion of The Chosen one of the main characters, Reuven Malter, is struck in the eye by a baseball hit by the other main character, Danny Saunders. Surgery is needed on Reuven's eye, and the future use of his eye is in doubt. To most this might appear a bad situation, a terrible thing to happen to a boy, but Reuven and Danny are brought together by this unfortunate incident and develop a strong and rewarding friendship. This friendship of course has its ups and downs, but overall proves to be an invaluable learning experience to both young men. Danny is forced to endure an awkward and possibly cruel situation for the majority of his formative years. Danny's father never speaks with him. With the exception of Talmud discussions and Danny's baseball team idea, Danny and his father never speak. This situation causes Danny a great deal of emotional pain, a pain which he is unable to comprehend his father's reasons for inflicting. His father feared, and with reason, that if something were not done, Danny would never find his soul. After many years, Danny finally understands, and accepts the reasons for his father's silence, and is in many ways grateful for its success. History is rich with individual, and broad examples of Potok's look into human nature. During the Second World War, America suffered approximately four hundred thousand casualties, yet reached a state of national unity that has not been achieved before or after. The war also ended the Great Depression that caused so many people, son many problems. The atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reaped considerable death and destruction, yet prevented far more. Even as far back as biblical times, the Isrealites became Egyption slaves, but this oppression forced them to break out and return to the "promise land." Charles Darwin theorized that something that is able to survive, adapt and thrive under harsh conditions becomes stronger and better. The world is abundant with examples great and small of Potok's look into human nature. While not all bad situations reap greater rewards than the pain inflicted, if the person or people fail to learn and make something good of it, then it is all for naught. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Chruches of Christ A Comparative Essay.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Churches of Christ: A Comparative Essay Over the past ten years there has been much controversy in the Christian and secular media about the International Churches of Christ (ICC), and the United (or mainline) Church of Christ (CoC). This controversy has stemmed from the ICC's misuse of funds, doctrinal problems, member abuse, and mind-control. The differences between the CoC and the ICC are important for Christians know and understand. The CoC began in 1957 when these four groups merged The Congregational Churches, The Christian Church, The Evangelical Synod of North America, and The Reformed Church in the United States. These churches had firm Protestant roots in England, Germany, Sweden, and the United States, totaling over 49 years in their own traditions and fellowship. On June 25, of 1957, the four churches held a synod meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, to commit more fully to unity, liberty, freedom in Christ, and the evangelism of the world. These groups, under the head of the Uniting General Synod, became the United Churches of Christ. Today the CoC has over two thousand registered churches in the world. By 1979, the roots of the CoC were firmly in place. It was then that Chuck Lucas, a pastor at the Gainesville Church of Christ (mainline), met a young college student, Kip McKean, and began discipling him. Kip was a bright student and showed great potential for leadership in the church. However, something in the discipling process went wrong. Kip was expelled from the Gainesville church later that year for reasons dealing with departure from the CoC doctrine, manipulative attitude, unclear motivation, and controlling of other's lives. Kip and his wife Elena moved to Boston and started a small church that grew rapidly from thirty to over three hundred disciples in two months. Kip (who, by this time, proclaimed himself as "God's man for God's mission") then declared in his Evangelism Proclamation speech in 1981 that disciples of his Boston church would be sent out to start sister churches in London, Chicago, New York, Toronto, Providence, Johannesburg, Paris, Stockholm, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Bombay, Cairo, and throughout the United States by the year of 1985. His success with this goal led him to present another Evangelism Proclamation in 1990 that said that every city in the world with a population of over 75,000 will have a sister church by the year 2000. Today the ICC is in over seventy two countries, with a recorded attendance (as of January 1997) of 920,000 people. It is important to note that the ICC's current "fall-away (members who leave the church) rate" is 1:3 (that is, for every one person baptized into the ICC, three leave). Due to this growth and departure from the CoC doctrine, the controversy between the CoC and the ICC has picked up great momentum. The doctrinal and traditional beliefs (i.e., baptism necessary for salvation, acapella worship) of the two groups are based upon the same principals. However, the International Churches of Christ and leader Kip McKean, have taken these foundational Church of Christ beliefs and distorted them into a cult-like system. The leadership setup of the International Churches of Christ differs highly from the mainline CoC in that the ICC has a higherarchy setup closely resembling a multi-level marketing system where every disciple is responsible to report to someone in higher authority, eventually leading to Kip McKean. The cultish behaviors include the ICC's highly enforced beliefs that the International Churches of Christ is the only body of believers in the world, thus having a monopoly on salvation, the ICC is the only "Kingdom of God", negating of previous salvation experiences and baptisms, one on one discipling, the confessions of all sins to the discipler, mind control tactics, spiritual abuse of members, financial misrepresentation, compulsory tithing, and the act of leaving the ICC is to fall away from God negating the ICC's salvation and baptism experience. It is because of these practices the ICC is banned on over forty-five college campuses including Oxford, Berkeley, M.I.T., Yale, Harvard, and Duke. The mainline CoC encourages regular business meetings and the check and balance system of their leaders, while the ICC has one closed business meeting per year, and takes any questions of the higher echelons of leadership as a threat to the ICC's stability. Unquestionably, the ICC is lacking in fundamental CoC and Christian validity. The validity of the controversy between the ICC and the CoC is perceivable, and the CoC vehemently denies any ties to their antagonists the International Churches of Christ. The controversy has led to numerous reports in newspapers including The New York Times, The Wichita Eagle, The Chicago Sun, and the Milwaukee Sentinel, as well as television coverage on 20/20, A Current Affair, Inside Edition, and the BBC's Third Estate Program. Only through careful investigation of the Church of Christ and the International Churches of Christ can one make a personal decision about these deceptive practices. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Churches of Christ.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Churches of Christ: A Comparative Essay Over the past ten years there has been much controversy in the Christian and secular media about the International Churches of Christ (ICC), and the United (or mainline) Church of Christ (CoC). This controversy has stemmed from the ICC's misuse of funds, doctrinal problems, member abuse, and mind-control. The differences between the CoC and the ICC are important for Christians know and understand. The CoC began in 1957 when these four groups merged The Congregational Churches, The Christian Church, The Evangelical Synod of North America, and The Reformed Church in the United States. These churches had firm Protestant roots in England, Germany, Sweden, and the United States, totaling over 49 years in their own traditions and fellowship. On June 25, of 1957, the four churches held a synod meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, to commit more fully to unity, liberty, freedom in Christ, and the evangelism of the world. These groups, under the head of the Uniting General Synod, became the United Churches of Christ. Today the CoC has over two thousand registered churches in the world. By 1979, the roots of the CoC were firmly in place. It was then that Chuck Lucas, a pastor at the Gainesville Church of Christ (mainline), met a young college student, Kip McKean, and began discipling him. Kip was a bright student and showed great potential for leadership in the church. However, something in the discipling process went wrong. Kip was expelled from the Gainesville church later that year for reasons dealing with departure from the CoC doctrine, manipulative attitude, unclear motivation, and controlling of other's lives. Kip and his wife Elena moved to Boston and started a small church that grew rapidly from thirty to over three hundred disciples in two months. Kip (who, by this time, proclaimed himself as "God's man for God's mission") then declared in his Evangelism Proclamation speech in 1981 that disciples of his Boston church would be sent out to start sister churches in London, Chicago, New York, Toronto, Providence, Johannesburg, Paris, Stockholm, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Bombay, Cairo, and throughout the United States by the year of 1985. His success with this goal led him to present another Evangelism Proclamation in 1990 that said that every city in the world with a population of over 75,000 will have a sister church by the year 2000. Today the ICC is in over seventy two countries, with a recorded attendance (as of January 1997) of 920,000 people. It is important to note that the ICC's current "fall-away (members who leave the church) rate" is 1:3 (that is, for every one person baptized into the ICC, three leave). Due to this growth and departure from the CoC doctrine, the controversy between the CoC and the ICC has picked up great momentum. The doctrinal and traditional beliefs (i.e., baptism necessary for salvation, acapella worship) of the two groups are based upon the same principals. However, the International Churches of Christ and leader Kip McKean, have taken these foundational Church of Christ beliefs and distorted them into a cult-like system. The leadership setup of the International Churches of Christ differs highly from the mainline CoC in that the ICC has a higherarchy setup closely resembling a multi-level marketing system where every disciple is responsible to report to someone in higher authority, eventually leading to Kip McKean. The cultish behaviors include the ICC's highly enforced beliefs that the International Churches of Christ is the only body of believers in the world, thus having a monopoly on salvation, the ICC is the only "Kingdom of God", negating of previous salvation experiences and baptisms, one on one discipling, the confessions of all sins to the discipler, mind control tactics, spiritual abuse of members, financial misrepresentation, compulsory tithing, and the act of leaving the ICC is to fall away from God negating the ICC's salvation and baptism experience. It is because of these practices the ICC is banned on over forty-five college campuses including Oxford, Berkeley, M.I.T., Yale, Harvard, and Duke. The mainline CoC encourages regular business meetings and the check and balance system of their leaders, while the ICC has one closed business meeting per year, and takes any questions of the higher echelons of leadership as a threat to the ICC's stability. Unquestionably, the ICC is lacking in fundamental CoC and Christian validity. The validity of the controversy between the ICC and the CoC is perceivable, and the CoC vehemently denies any ties to their antagonists the International Churches of Christ. The controversy has led to numerous reports in newspapers including The New York Times, The Wichita Eagle, The Chicago Sun, and the Milwaukee Sentinel, as well as television coverage on 20/20, A Current Affair, Inside Edition, and the BBC's Third Estate Program. Only through careful investigation of the Church of Christ and the International Churches of Christ can one make a personal decision about these deceptive practices. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The concept of Afterlife as explained through worlds major r.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It wasn't over yet. As the irritating, yet monotonous beeps of the life-monitor in the emergency room began to slowly die away, George struggled to hang on. It's not my time yet, he thought. Please, give me just one more day... The beeps soon became increasingly far in between, while the doctors frantically bustled on in a futile attempt to stabilize the dying man like a bunch of panicking bees trying to save their doomed hive from a pouring rain. The world turned hazy, then completely dark, as George felt himself slowly floating into the darkness. He flew and flew without end. Then there was the light - that infamous "light at the end of the tunnel." (Randles 2) It gave out a strange, comforting warmth that enveloped him, easing his fears and relieving all doubts. George somehow knew what to do - to just let go. He felt quite at home. Back on earth, the rhythmic, mechanical beeps suddenly turned into a solid, continuous high E, signaling the end. George was about to cross over. Being bathed in the strangely comforting light, he was soon greeted by his long-lost friends and relatives, beckoning for him to come, come join them. George wanted to stay. More than anything he cared for, George wanted to stay right here, basking in the light of love. But he felt something pull him back. Wait, not yet, he thought. It's not my time yet... The next moment, George was somehow reunited with his physical body, lying on that uncomfortable hospital bed, amidst the doctors sighing in relief, surrounded no longer by that soft glow, but again by that rhythmic beep, beep, beep... Is there a parallel between George's account of a near-death experience (NDE), and what really happens when we ourselves die? Is there indeed a part of us that conquers death and continues to live a different kind of existence where it has new powers and undergoes unfamiliar experiences? Is there really a heaven, or numerous heavens, full of blissful joys awaiting some of us and a hell, or countless hells, full of different punishments for others? Or is physical death, in fact, the end of life as we know it? Such questions about death and dying has intrigued humanity since the dawn of time. One area to which we might look for some answers to this puzzle is religion. Unlike science, dealing only with the material and tangible, traditional religion takes another view of our reality by recognizing the validity of metaphysical experiences. World's major religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity, as well as primal pagan ones, such as the Greek and Roman mythology, although quite different in basic fundamentals of belief, all attempt to give its followers an explanation of the world on the other side of life. In Greek and Roman mythology, Hades is the god of the dead. He was the son of the Titans Cronus and Rhea and the brother of Zeus and Poseidon. (Cumont 34) When the three brothers divided up the universe after they had deposed their father, Cronus, Hades was awarded the underworld. There, with his queen, Persephone, whom he had abducted from the world above, he ruled the kingdom of the dead. The underworld itself was often called Hades. It was divided into two regions: Erebus, where the dead pass as soon as they die, and Tartarus, the deeper region, where the Titans had been imprisoned. It was a dim and unhappy place, inhabited by vague forms and shadows and guarded by Cerberus, the three-headed, dragon-tailed dog. Sinister rivers separated the underworld from the world above, and the aged boatman Charon ferried the souls of the dead across these waters. Somewhere in the darkness of the underworld Hades' palace was located. It was represented as a many-gated, dark and gloomy place, thronged with guests, and set in the midst of shadowy fields and an apparition-haunted landscape. To Greeks and Romans, life after death was not a pleasant thing. Hades, a dark and gloomy place, was originally the apparent destination for all - the good and the bad. Perhaps with the unintended influence of the incipient contemporary Christianity, Hades was mollified into a much more organized place, giving rewards to the good and punishments to the wicked. One notable aspect of this mythology is that Greeks, much like most of the major religions today, believed in an eternal, undying self in each of us that conquers death and carries on another life after a physical death. Today, unlike the Greeks and Romans, Hindus do not believe in a set place where our undying selves end up after the inevitable physical death. Personal eschatology is concerned with the immediate fate of righteous and unrighteous souls following death, and the conditions governing each category of souls between death and the universal resurrection of humanity. General eschatology, on the other hand, considers the final destiny of the whole human race, especially the events of the last days, that is universal resurrection and final judgment. Hinduism, however, is only concerned with personal eschatology. (Ma'sumian 2) As with any aspect of Hinduism, the teachings of life after death must take into consideration the many different sectarian beliefs. (Smith 26) Different philosophies of Hinduism hold divergent views about what happens after death, but the twin doctrines of karma and samsara are at the center of the eschatological beliefs of most Hindus. According to the samsara (literally "the round of existence") doctrine, the present life of each person is shaped by the fruits of the acts he or she performed in previous lives. Karma can be defined as the law of automatic justice. For every action, there is a reward or retribution; all our present pleasures, pains, and sufferings are the direct result of our past actions. (Ma'sumian 4) As long as our karma results in sins and imperfections, we will continue to be reborn into other existences. More than likely, these successive rebirths will not be on the same plane of being - they may occur in any of a number of temporary heavens or hells, or on earth. Human rebirth is considered most significant because only in human form can we accumulate good karma. (Smith 27) Traditional Hindu literature such as the Puranas identify numerous temporary heavens and hells that are set aside for karmic retribution. Once the consequences of virtuous or evil deeds are exhausted, the soul is reborn as a human being on earth. The purpose of life is to break the vicious cycle of birth-death-rebirth and liberate one's soul, but very few of us can do this at any given time. (Ma'sumian 4) Once enough good karma is collected, the soul is then transmigrated to "the kingdom of inexhaustible light," as mentioned in Rig-Veda. (Ma'sumian 5) The Vedas are the entire body of Hindu sacred writings. (Ma'sumian 3) The Rig-Veda notes that the way to heaven is perilous and believers will have to face many dangers before getting there, including demons who are ready to devour them should they stray from the right path. To help the faithful in this dangerous journey, the Rig-Veda identifies a colorful god named Yama, who was the first man to die but is now the god of the dead and the ruler and judge of the departed. (Ma'sumian 5) It is the twin doctrines of samsara and karma that make the meaning of death and the afterlife in Hinduism very different from the views offered by most other religions. Another major world religion, Buddhism, is also from the East. Like Hinduism, the term Buddhism refers to a diverse array of beliefs and practices and implies a degree of uniformity that does not exist. (Noss 157) After originating in India, Buddhism soon spread to various parts of Asia and eventually reached the western hemisphere in the nineteenth century. Like Hinduism, Buddhism is only concerned with personal eschatology; there is no mention of a collective destiny for humankind. Because Buddhism is essentially a reform movement within Hinduism, Buddhists maintain beliefs in the twin doctrines of transmigration (Hindu samsara) and karma. According to these beliefs, each person is reborn countless times and lives through different types of existence. The quality of his current life is a reflection of present and past karma. Hence, if the individual now lives a comfortable life, this is the reward of good deeds performed in present and past lives. In contrast, those experiencing misery can only blame themselves for evil deeds they are committing or have committed in previous existences. Thus the individual is held totally responsible for the quality of the life he is now experiencing, and pointing the finger of blame at external forces such as a deity, demons, or fate is not acceptable. (Noss 164) Both Buddhists and Hinduists view the universe as a stage for countless rebirths of human beings in a spectrum from evil to goodness. Nonetheless, there are notable differences between the two interpretations of the transmigration, or reincarnation, doctrine. For instance, the Buddhist belief system rejects the Hindu notion of atman (the human soul), the undying self. (Ma'sumian 44) In fact, Buddhist definition of human existence leaves out any reference to a soul. The attributes of a person are carried on to the next life through one of the five elements (physical body, feelings, senses, volition, and consciousness) that make up a human entity: the consciousness. Passages from Buddhist literature acknowledge the survival and immortality of this part of the personality: The mind takes possession of everything not only on earth, but also in heaven, and immortality is its securest treasure-trove. (Buddhist Catena, Anathapindika-Jethavana) In another text, Buddha defines consciousness (Vijnana) as that entity which is "invisible, boundless, all-penetrating, and the ground for Rupa (former body), Vedana (sensation), Samjna (perception), and Samskara (will)." (Noss 164) The Buddhist element of consciousness or mind appears to replace the Hindu notion of atman as the only immortal substance in humans. As with its parent religion Hinduism, belief in the twin doctrines of transmigration and karma makes Buddhism very different from western religions. The main theme of Buddhism is that life is suffering, and the best way to eliminate suffering is to achieve detachment from the world and material possessions. However, most people continually fail to become detached, commit evil, and are thus condemned to successive rebirths. Unlike the two personal eschatological religions from the East, the New Testament of Christianity, which deals mainly with the subject of life and death, has little to say on what happens to individual souls after death. Instead, the major focus of the eschatology of many New Testament books is general. The final destiny of human kind and dramatic events such as the return of Christ in glory in the hereafter are major themes in the Synoptic Gospels (the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Here can be found a number of passages that refer to the return of Christ as an unexpected event preceding the final judgment. (Badham 85) While in some passages the Synoptic Gospels present God as the judge of the world, more often it is Christ who is expected to discharge the duties of the judge. For instance, in Matthew's scene of final judgment (25: 31-32) all the nations of the past and present are brought before Christ: "When the Son of man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Before Him will be gathered all the nations, and He will separate one from the other as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." (Badham 86) Christ will use the believers' earthly deeds as the main criterion for judgment. The lot of the righteous will be eternal life in the Kingdom of God while the evil-doer's fate is eternal punishment: "And they [the wicked] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt 25:46) For centuries, Matthew's vision of the after life, as well as similar prophecies from other authors of the Bible, including the Book of Revelation, inspired many Christian painters including Michelangelo, Giotto, and Moschos to create remarkable visual representations of the events of the last days. (Badham 146) In most of their pictures Jesus is glorified in radiant divine light, surrounded by angels. Such pictures over time became the accepted images of heaven, the final destiny for the righteous. On the other hand, in other pictures, terrifying devils continue to torture sinners, whose names are missing from the Book of Life. It is here that the wicked will burn and be tortured for eternity. The New Testament contains little specific information on the sate of the soul after death. However, like most of its doctrines, the personal eschatology of Christianity revolves around Jesus. Perhaps the major contribution of Christian eschatology is the significance it attaches to belief in the person of Jesus as humankind's only hope for salvation. (Badham 172) Our eternal bliss or damnation in the afterlife depends on whether we accept or reject Jesus as our personal savior. Later Christian teaching related Christ's redemptive role to the doctrine of "original sin," which states that, as descendants of the fallen Adam, the first man created by God, all men are sinful and deserve eternal punishment. However, in His loving kindness, God sent Jesus to atone for our sins by sacrificing His life for us and dying in our place. Those who choose to believe in this and accept Jesus as their only savior will enter paradise and experience eternal life. Those who reject Jesus are condemned to hell-fire and eternal damnation. Evidence of belief in an afterlife can be found since the beginning of recorded time in many cultures. Since then, religions have tried to give its followers an explanation of the world on the other side of life. Greeks and Romans believed in an afterlife where the god of the underworld, Hades, tormented all dead in his unearthly realm. Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation of individual beings, continued on by an undying self, a soul or his consciousness, and his karma. Christians believe in the coming of a savior of mankind, Jesus Christ, whose followers will go to eternal bliss and life, while whose rejecters will eternally burn in hell. Although very different in details of our future life, all of these spiritual guidance teach and advise its followers good actions and intentions in this life so that one may be rewarded a good life in the next world, whichever it may be. Likewise, the wicked shall be punished in the most undesired ways for eternity. Works Cited Badham, Paul. Christian Beliefs about Life after Death. London: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1976. Cumont, Franz Valery Marie. After Life in Roman Paganism; Lectures Delivered at Yale University on the Silinam Foundation. New York: Dover Publications, 1959. Mann, A. T. The Elements of Reincarnation. Rockport, MA: Element Books, Inc., 1995. Ma'sumian, Farnaz. Life After Death; a Study of the Afterlife in World Religions. Rockport, MA: Oneword, 1995. Meek, George W. After We Die, What Then?; Evidence You Will Live Forever. Columbus, Ohio: Ariel Press, 1987. Noss, D. S. and Noss, J. B. A History of the World's Religions. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990. Randles, Jenny. The Afterlife: an Investigation into the Mysteries of Life After Death. New York: Berkeley Books, 1994. Reanney, Darryl. After Death: a New Future for Human Consciousness. New York: W. Morrow, 1995. Smith, Huston. The Illustrated World's Religions. New York: Labyrinth Publishing Ltd., 1994. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Death and Dying Practices of the Australian Aborigines.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Death and Dying Beliefs of Australian Aborigines Although the Aborigines are often classified as a primitive race whose religion is based upon animism and totemism like the American Indians, the Aboriginal funeral practices and beliefs about death have much in common with other cultures. This paper will discuss the death and dying beliefs of the Aborigines that share a common thread with many popular religions of today. Aboriginal beliefs in death and dying are original in that they combine all these beliefs in a different way. The purpose of looking at the commonalties is to examine the shared foundations of all religions by investigating the aspect of death and dying in a very localized and old set of beliefs. As in many religions, Aborigines share a belief in a celestial Supreme Being. During a novice's initiation, he learns the myth of Daramulun, which means "Father," who is also called Biamban, or "Master." Long ago, Daramulun dwelt on earth with his mother. The earth was barren and sterile. There were no human beings, only animals. Daramulun created the ancestors of the tribes and taught them how to live. He gave them the laws that are handed down from father to son, founded the initiation ceremonies and made the bull-roarer, the sound of which imitates his voice. It is Daramulun that gives the medicine men their powers. When a man dies, it is Daramulun who cares for his spirit. This belief was witnessed before the intervention of Christian missionaries. It is also used only in the most secret initiations of which women know nothing and are very central to the archaic and genuine religious and social traditions. Therefore it is doubtful that this belief was due to missionary propaganda but is truly a belief of the Aborigines (Eliade, 1973). Another belief that is reminiscent of the Christian faith is that death came into being only because the communications between heaven and earth had been violently interrupted. When Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden, death came into existence. This belief of the origin of death is common to many archaic religions where communication with heaven and its subsequent interruption is related to the ancestor's loss of immortality or of his original paradisal situation (Eliade, 1973). The Australian ritual re-enactment of the "Creation" has a striking parallel in post-Vedic India. The brahmanic sacrifice repeats what was done in the beginning, at the moment of creation, and it is only because of the strict uninterrupted performance of the sacrifice that the world continues and periodically renews itself. It is only be identifying himself with the sacrifice that man can conquer death. The ritual ensures the continuation of cosmic life and at the same time introduces initiates to a sacred history that ultimately will reveal the meaning of their lives (Charlesworth, 1984). The Egyptian concept of the soul has many similarities to the totemic cosmology of the Dreamtime. Unlike Christian philosophy, in which the soul is a possession of the individual, the Egyptians conceived of the soul as an aspect of a cosmological process. Like the ancient Egyptians, the Aborigines consider the perceivable world an incarnation or projection of similar realities that exist in a universal, spiritual sphere. For them, the human soul shares the threefold nature of the soul of the creating spirits: a universal soul, a natural soul of the species, and a unique individual soul. After death the soul of each person merges first with the spirit species of nature's soul before merging with its ancestral source in the Dreaming (Lawlor, 1991). In the Aboriginal tradition, death, burial and afterlife are rich in meaning and metaphysical interpretation. Aborigines use a wide variety of burial practices, including all of those known to have been used in other parts of the world, as well varieties not practiced anywhere else. Although these rites vary, all Australian Aborigines share many fundamental ideas about death and its relationship to life. The most fundamental concept of death in the Aboriginal tradition is the doctrine of three worlds, the unborn, the living, and the dying, and the Land of the Dead. Therefore their concepts of death are their concepts of life. Each individual passes through these domains only once. After death it is the profound responsibility of the living to ensure that the spiritual component of the dead person is separated from this world and can proceed to the next. The Aborigines believe, as do Native Americans, that the notion of reincarnation depends on two factors: (1) the obsession with the illusion of individuality extends into the belief that the ego survives death and remains intact in the afterlife; (2) such cultures have lost the knowledge of burial practices that assist the spiritual energy of the deceased to separate from the earthly sphere, and so the spiritual atmosphere is polluted with fragmented, disembodied, energies of the dead. Fragments of spirit from the dead can interact with the living, sometimes inhabiting, shadowing or controlling conscious behavior and destiny. The Aborigines say that the atmosphere of the earth is now saturated with dead spirits and that this pollution parallels the physical pollution of the biosphere -- both of which contribute to the self-destructive course of civilization (Lawlor, 1991). The second universally held Aboriginal belief about death is that at the moment of death, the spiritual component of the individual splits into three distinct parts. This is similar to the Egyptian concept of the soul. Unlike Christian philosophy, in which the soul is a possession of the individual, the Egyptians conceived of the soul as an aspect of a cosmological process. Like the ancient Egyptians, the Aborigines consider the perceivable world an incarnation or projection of similar realities that exist in a universal, spiritual sphere. For them, the human soul shares the threefold nature of the soul of the creating spirits: a totemic soul, an ancestral soul and the ego soul. The totemic soul is related to the sources of the life of the body: the earthly location of the birth and the spirit of the animal and plant species to which the person's bloodlines are connected and from which he or she has derived nourishment throughout life. After death, the totemic soul essence, once incorporated in the psychic and physical makeup of a person, is returned in ceremonial ritual to the spirits of nature. Returning spiritual energy to the animating forces of the totemic species reciprocates the debt to all those living things that were sacrificed for the sake of humans. The second aspect of an individual's spirit force that is released at death is called the ancestral soul. This is the aspect of the deceased's soul that emanates from the Ancestor's journeys to the constellations in a particular part of the sky. Each region of the heavens has not only a pictorial constellation, usually an animal, but also a particular pattern of invisible energy. These patterns are symbolized in the geometric clan designs painted on the abdomen of the corpse during burial rites. The same clan design was painted on the person at the time of his or her first initiation. At the person's initiation and at the time of death, the celebrants chant, "May from here your spirit reach to the stomach of the sky." The third aspect is referred to by the Aborigines as the Trickster. It is the spiritual source of the individualized ego and can be characterized as the ego soul. It is the spirit force bound to locality and to the finite. At the time of death, the Trickster is the most dangerous with which to deal. It resents death, because this change removes contact from the material or local world in which it functions. It may become stuck in this world after the other aspects of the soul have departed. The ego soul works throughout its life to plant the possibilities of an earthly immortality. The totem soul, ego soul, and ancestral soul correspond to the cosmic trinity of the unborn, the living and the dying, and the Land of the Dead, as well was to the earthly order of species, place and clan (Lawlor, 1991). In many aspects of Aboriginal life, the concentration is on the interaction between the visible and the invisible, the external world and the Dreamtime reality. The Aboriginal view of death is not any different. The Aborigines consider dying to be a constant complementary process to life, both in a biological sense and in the sense of death throughout initiation. Following physical death, the most significant stage of the dying process begins: the spirit dies away from the earthly atmosphere in a process that can take months, even years (Lawlor, 1991). In the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, the spirit takes only twelve hours to leave the corpse, but there is also the delay in the spirit leaving the body after death (Parry, 1995). After an Aborigine dies, the news is quickly communicated to all clan groups, no matter how distant, in which kin members are living. The messengers approach distant groups and display the collection of clan totemic designs with which the deceased was affiliated. The displays alert people in the camp of their kin relationship and their responsibilities to the dead person. The messengers may also sing songs that hint at the person's identity, but they never reveal the name (Lawlor, 1991). In some tribes, certain mourners must not speak for some time, and in all, the name of the dead may not be mentioned for months or even years. The taboo against pronouncing the name of the dead is strictly observed because it is believed that the vibratory pattern of the person's name can act as a hook or anchor to which the spiritual energy of the deceased can attach itself and thereby remain on earth (Lawlor, 1991). In addition, any persons or objects bearing the same name must no longer be referred to by that name (Elkin, 1964). In traditional cultures, name avoidance may prevent provocation of the spirit. Whereas in today's societies, avoidance of a name may avoidance of pain due to loss (DeSpelder, 1996). Widowed Aboriginal women also maintain vows of silence, even after remarriage, to publicly express sorrow. Many of these women will communicate to one another in sign language. In Indian yoga, vows of silence are believed to instigate rapid inner changes. This aspect of silence would benefit Aboriginal women, who must completely restructure their lives when they move from one marriage to another (Lawlor, 1991). In many other cultures, women have distinct restrictions placed on them after a death. An Islamic widow must wait four months and ten days before remarrying (Parry, 1995). Some generalizations found throughout the Aboriginal tribes are that the actions of those associated with a dying or dead person are regulated by certain forms of social organization, or in particular, the kinship system, generation or age-levels, moiety and cult group. When a person is dying, people watch nearby or at a distance, according to relationship rules; they wail or chant, gash and draw blood from themselves, and maybe throw themselves on the sick person. After death, all of this emotion is usually intensified and often a state of frenzy is reached (Elkin, 1964). Sorrow and grief are highly dramatized in Aboriginal society. Much like Muslim women who are infamous for their dramatic wailings as a release of grief, both men and women wail and lament long after the death of a relative. The tearful demonstrations continue until "they become empty of grief." Grieving is sometimes accompanied by ritual wounding. Bloodletting, like emotion, is an outpouring of spirit into a larger reality. In the dramatization of sorrow, both spirit and blood escape the body in an acknowledgment of the suffering and death that universally befell humankind (Lawlor, 1991). This is not only a sign of real or standardized grief but also of the disturbance of the general sense of well-being. It is also a reaction to the magical death-dealing forces that are ever about and had just been put into effective operation (Elkin, 1964). The feeling of sorrow expands from the individual and society to include a relationship to the land. When someone dies, the places of conception, birth, initiation, marriage, and death of the person receive as much respect and attention as the deceased relative. In this way, grieving moves beyond the individual's death and becomes more a catalyst for remembering places and events and myths associated with those places. The rule in Aboriginal society is to avoid, for a long time, the place where a kin has died, until the memory has faded in intensity. Approaching the death site of a recently deceased relative would imply disrespect. During their absence from these sites, the Aborigines dramatically express nostalgia for the features of that countryside. Often the demonstrations of grief need not be spontaneous or authentic, yet they express a continuing relationship that the living have to the dead. The emotion of grief must be fully released, since any sorrow withheld in the psyche would form a link to which the deceased spirit might cling (Lawlor, 1991). Gradually the heightened emotions and rage die down and come under control as they become centered in traditional manner. After this initial display of grief, the body is attended to and is usually shifted at once to the place of burial or preparation for the burial (Elkin, 1964). There is a standardized process of grief followed by the Aborigines. The self-inflicted pain and loud lamentings are not a measure of the grief actually felt. To a certain extent, the excessive display is due to tribal custom and as such has a very strong hold upon the imagination of a people whose every action is bound and limited by custom. There is also the fear that unless a sufficient amount of grief is displayed, he will be harmed by the offended spirit of the dead person (Spencer, 1968). All religions have some sort of purification rituals. The Jews have many laws detailing ritual cleanliness and in the Hindu caste system those who touch the dead are the lowest caste (Parry, 1995). For the Aborigines, everything that was associated with the dead person is destroyed, avoided or purified. The campsite where the person died is deserted by the group, and the exact place of death is examined by the tribal elders and then marked completely deserted for years (Lawlor, 1991). Though he will no longer need his body as a means of action, it is weighted down, tied up, or the legs are broken so that he will not be able to wander. A zigzag path is followed to and from the grave site at the time of burial, or a smoke screen is passed through so that the spirit of the dead will not be able to follow the mourners (Elkin, 1964). Even in the Roman Empire, the burial customs reflected the belief that the dead might come back and haunt the living (DeSpelder, 1996). Those who take part in the burial are brushed with smoking twigs, and the wives who were closely associated with the diseased during his lifetime, are usually separated from the general camp for a prescribed period of time.. Food taboos are observed and there are special ones adopted because the food was the deceased's totem or was one of which he was fond. In all these ways, the deceased, the thought of death and the gap caused by it are banished from consciousness. When the various taboos have been lifted, the widow is remarried or the widower resumes his habitual ways of living and society regains its equilibrium. The society "bequeaths to the past the associations of death, and faces the future with renewed hope and courage." (Elkin, 1964) Burial practices of the Aborigines are meant to prepare the spirit of the dead person for its new life as well as a mark of respect. Within the Arunta tribe, the body is buried in a relatively short period of time. It is placed in a sitting position with the knees doubled up against the chin and is interred in a round hole in the ground. The earth is pile directly onto the body so as to make a low mound with a depression on one side (van Beek, 1975). There are many forms of burial used by the Aborigines. These forms include interment, mummification, cremation, platform-exposure and delayed burial, and burial in hollow trees. There is a wide spread distribution of a two-fold burial procedure, with the consequent lengthening of the time of the mourning ritual. So persistent is the idea that it is seen in many forms. The different combinations include platform exposure and delayed burial, mummification and final disposal, interment and disinterment for later mourning over bones, and in the removal of bones from one grave to another. Such procedures emphasize the significance of death and the length of time the society requires to adjust itself to the death (Elkin, 1964). Although Aboriginal burial are usually long and elaborate and the disposal of the corpse can be complex, the ritual focuses on the spiritual ramifications of death, not physical disposal or preservation. The primary goal of Aboriginal funeral rites is to safeguard the well-being of the living. The correct funeral procedures and rituals are valued for their benefit to the living (Lawlor, 1991). As in ancient Egyptian and other traditions, the Aboriginal journey to the other world is imagined in a sacred bark or spirit canoe with a mythic ferryman at its helm. Water itself is often used symbolically and associated with death, especially in African culture (Parry, 1995). The ancient Greeks also had such a belief with the skeletal ferryman, Charon, who travels the River Styx to the Underworld. The spirit canoe sets out across the sea to the island of the dead. In many world myths the helmsman is an important figure at the beginning of the journey toward death. In the Aboriginal belief, he is always abusive. He beats the men and rapes or demands sex with women. The beating or rape by the helmsman symbolizes the severe assault and trauma the consciousness undergoes in its initial separation from the body (Lawlor, 1991). Most of the initiation rituals in Aboriginal society follow a pattern of death and rebirth. For example, a novice dies to the profane world of childhood and irresponsible innocence, the world of ignorance, and prepares himself for rebirth as a spiritual being, much as Christians receive a new soul at First Holy Communion. The tribe understands this death literally and mourns over the novices as the dead are mourned (Eliade, 1973). The Aborigine sees life in death and is exposed to it throughout his lifetime in the initiation processes that allow an internal experience of the journey from life to the realm of the dead. The African-American approach to death is also as a rite of passage where the soul passes into another phase (Parry, 1995). The American society denies death and views it as a threat to life. The Aborigine, on the other hand, understands the spiritual reality of death and its necessity. To the Aborigine, it is impossible to understand how to exist in this life without knowing how to exist in death and therefore it is once again apparent that the society's views on death are reflected by their views of life. The world only has meaning to the degree that Death and the Unborn have meaning. To deny or distort the purpose and meaning of one is to deny the same for all (van Beek, 1975). The Aborigines have very defined rituals and expectations dealing with the death of a person. They also have highly evolved meanings to accompany their rituals. Although this paper has shown many similarities between other religions and that of the Aborigines, they have their own distinct compilations of these beliefs and practices. Their standardized grief process, concepts of an afterlife and burial practices are not foreign to today's American society when looking at the meaning and purpose behind their death and dying practices. Certain human emotions manifest themselves across many cultures in their death practices and in the end differences are often in the technicalities when the significance stays the same. However this is not always apparent to people from different religions and can cause certain religions to be labeled primitive and the people to be called savages. BIBLIOGRAPHY Charlesworth, M., H. Morphy, D. Bell, and K. Maddock. Religion in Aboriginal Australia. Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press, 1984. DeSpleder, L. A., A. L. Strickland. The Last Dance; Encountering Death and Dying. London: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1996. Eliade, M. Australian Religions: An Introduction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973. Elkin, A. P. The Australian Aborigines. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1964. Lawlor, R. Voices of the First Day: Awakening in the Aboriginal Dreamtime. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1991. Parry, J. K., A. S. Ryan. A Cross-Cultural Look at Death, Dying, and Religion. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1995. Spencer, B., and F. J. Gillen. The Native Tribes of Central Australia. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1968. van Beek, W. E. A., J. H. Scherer. Explorations in the Anthropology of Religion. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Death Penalty.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Death Penalty American Civil Liberties Union Briefing Paper Number 8 THE DEATH PENALTY Since our nation's founding, the government -- colonial, federal and state -- has punished murder and, until recent years, rape with the ultimate sanction: death. More than 13,000 people have been legally executed since colonial times, most of them in the early 20th Century. By the 1930s, as many as 150 people were executed each year. However, public outrage and legal challenges caused the practice to wane. By 1967, capital punishment had virtually halted in the United States, pending the outcome of several court challenges. In 1972, in _Furman v. Georgia_, the Supreme Court invalidated hundreds of scheduled executions, declaring that then existing state laws were applied in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner and, thus, violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process. But in 1976, in _ Gregg v. Georgia_, the Court resuscitated the death penalty: It ruled that the penalty "does not invariably violate the Constitution" if administered in a manner designed to guard against arbitrariness and discrimination. Several states promptly passed or reenacted capital punishment laws. Thirty-seven states now have laws authorizing the death penalty, as does the military. A dozen states in the Middle West and Northeast have abolished capital punishment, two in the last century (Michigan in 1847, Minnesota in 1853). Alaska and Hawaii have never had the death penalty. Most executions have taken place in the states of the Deep South. More than 2,000 people are on "death row" today. Virtually all are poor, a significant number are mentally retarded or otherwise mentally disabled, more than 40 percent are African American, and a disproportionate number are Native American, Latino and Asian. The ACLU believes that, in all circumstances, the death penalty is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, and that its discriminatory application violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Here are the ACLU's answers to some questions frequently raised by the public about capital punishment. Doesn't the Death Penalty deter crime, especially murder? No, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment, or instituted it, show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been discredited by social science research. The death penalty has no deterrent effect on most murders because people commit murders largely in the heat of passion, and/or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, giving little thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand -- for example, professional executioners -- intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. Some self-destructive individuals may even hope they _will_ be caught and executed. Death penalty laws falsely convince the public that government has taken effective measures to combat crime and homicide. In reality, such laws do nothing to protect us or our communities from the acts of dangerous criminals. Don't murderers _deserve_ to die? Certainly, in general, the punishment should fit the crime. But in civilized society, we reject the "eye for an eye" principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. We should not, therefore, punish the murderer with death. When the government metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life. If execution is unacceptable, what is the alternative? INCAPACITATION. Convicted murderers can be sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including life, as they are in countries and states that have abolished the death penalty. Most state laws allow life sentences for murder that severely limit or eliminate th e possibility of parole. At least ten states have life sentences without the possibility of parole for 20, 25, 30 or 40 years, and at least 18 states have life sentences with _no_ possibility of parole. A recent U. S. Justice Department study of public attitudes about crime and punishment found that a majority of Americans support alternatives to capital punishment: When people were presented the facts about several crimes for which death was a possible punishment, a majority chose lengthy prison sentences as alternatives to the death penalty. Isn't the Death Penalty necessary as just retribution for victims' families? All of us would feel extreme anger and a desire for revenge if we lost a loved one to homicide; likewise, if the crime was rape or a brutal assault. However, satisfying the needs of victims cannot be what determines a just response by society to such crimes. Moreover, even within the same family, some relatives of murder victims approve of the death penalty, while others are against it. What the families of murder victims really need is financial and emotional support to help them recover from their loss and resume their lives. Have strict procedures eliminated discrimination in death sentencing? No. A 1990 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report summarizing several capital punishment studies confirmed "a consistent pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in charging, sentencing and the imposition of the death penalty...." Eighty-two percent of the studies the GAO reviewed revealed that "those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." In addition, the GAO uncovered evidence (though less consistent) that a convict's race, as well as the race of the victim, also influences imposition of the death penalty. A 1987 study of death sentencing in New Jersey found that prosecutors sought the death penalty in 50 percent of the cases involving a black defendant and a white victim, but in only 28 percent of the cases involving black defendants and black victims. A 1985 study found that, in California, six percent of those convicted of killing whites got the death penalty compared to three percent of those convicted of killing blacks. In Georgia, a landmark 1986 study found that, overall, those convicted of killing whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites. African Americans are approximately 12 percent of the U. S. population, yet of the 3,859 persons executed for a range of crimes since 1930, more than 50 percent have been black. Other minorities are also death-sentenced disproportionate to their numbers in the population. This is not primarily because minorities commit more murders, but because they are more often sentenced to death when they do. Poor people are also far more likely to be death sentenced than those who can afford the high costs of private investigators, psychiatrists and expert criminal lawyers. Indeed, capital punishment is "a privilege of the poor," said Clinton Duffy, former warden at California's San Quentin Prison. Some observers have pointed out that the term "capital punishment" is ironic because "only those without capital get the punishment." Maybe it used to happen that innocent people were mistakenly executed, but hasn't that possibility been eliminated? No. A study published in the _Stanford Law Review_ documents 350 capital convictions in this century, in which it was later proven that the convict had not committed the crime. Of those, 25 convicts were executed while others spent decades of their lives in prison. Fifty-five of the 350 cases took place in the 1970s, and another 20 of them between l980 and l985. Our criminal justice system cannot be made fail-safe because it is run by human beings, who are fallible. Execution of innocent persons is bound to occur. Only the worst criminals get sentenced to death, right? Wrong. Although it is commonly thought that the death penalty is reserved for those who commit the most heinous crimes, in reality only a small percentage of death-sentenced inmates were convicted of unusually vicious crimes. The vast majority of individuals facing execution were convicted of crimes that are indistinguishable from crimes committed by others who are serving prison sentences, crimes such as murder committed in the course of an armed robbery. The only distinguishing factors seem to be race and poverty. Who gets the death penalty is largely determined, not by the severity of the crime, but by: the race, sex and economic class of the criminal and victim; geography -- some states have the death penalty, others do not; and vagaries in the legal process. The death penalty is like a lottery, in which fairness always loses. Does the law permit execution of juveniles and people who are mentally retarded or mentally ill? Yes. In 1989, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the execution of 16 and 17 year-old (though not 15 year-old) juvenile murderers. The Court likewise upheld the constitutionality of executing mentally retarded people. Although juries are permitted to consider retardation as a mitigating factor, many people on death row today are mentally retarded. Regarding people who are mentally ill, the Court has held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits execution only if the illness prevents the person from comprehending the reasons for the death sentence or its implications. "Cruel and unusual punishment" -- those are strong words, but aren't executions relatively swift and painless? The history of capital punishment is replete with examples of botched executions. But no execution is painless, whether botched or not, and all executions are certainly cruel. Hanging was the most common form of execution throughout the 19th century and is still practiced in a few states. Problems often attend hanging: If the drop is too short, death comes through gradual strangulation; if too long, the jerk of the rope rips the head off. Electrocution succeeded hanging in the early 20th century. When the switch is thrown, the body jerks, smoke frequently rises from the head, and there is a smell of burning flesh. Science has not determined how long an electrocuted individual retains consciousness, but in May l990, Florida prisoner Jesse Tafero gurgled, and his head bobbed while ashes fell from it, for four minutes. And in 1983, it took three jolts of electricity and ten minutes to kill an individual in Alabama. The gas chamber was intended to improve on electrocution. The condemned is strapped in a chair and a cyanide pellet is dropped into a container of sulfuric acid under the chair to form lethal gas. The person struggles for air and may turn purple and drool. Unconsciousness may not come for several minutes. The firing squad is still administered in Idaho and Utah. The condemned is strapped in a chair and hooded, and a target is pinned to the chest. Five marksmen, one with blanks, take aim and fire. Lethal injection is the latest technique, first used in Texas in l982 and now mandated by law in more than a dozen states. Although this method is defended as more humane, efficient and inexpensive than others, one federal judge observed that even "a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation." In Texas, there have been three botched injection executions since 1985. In one, it took 24 minutes to kill an individual, after the tube attached to the needle in his arm leaked and sprayed noxious chemicals toward witnesses. Another, in 1989, caused Stephen McCoy to choke and heave for several minutes before dying because the dosage of lethal drugs was too weak. Eyewitness accounts confirm that execution by any of these means is often an excruciatingly painful, and always degrading, process that ends in death. Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of uncivilized society. It is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice. It assures the execution of some innocent people. As a remedy for crime, it has no purpose and no effect. Capital punishment ought to be abolished _now_. +-+ | Capital punishment does not deter crime. | | Capital punishment is discriminatory and arbitrary. | | Capital punishment assures the execution of innocent people. | | Capital punishment has no place in civilized society. | +-+ f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Division of Honors and Journeying Among the Gods.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Division of Honors and Journeying Among the Gods In this midterm essay I will discuss why Gods Journey. I believe that Gods journey for two reasons. One reason is to seek out honor for themselves. The other reason is to regain honors they have lost. To demonstrate this I will first discuss the journeys of Hades in the Homeric hymn "To Demeter" comparing it to the journey of Hermes in "To Hermes". I fell that both of these companion journeys were attempts by these Gods to win honors they did not already have. Next I will look at the companion journeys of Demeter and Apollo. I think that both of these Gods journeyed to regain honors they'd previously had, but lost. Lastly I will conclude by showing how all four Gods had to compromise and divide up the honors amongst themselves. "Earth with its wide roads gaped and then over the Nysian field the lord and All receiver, the many named son of Kronos, sprang out upon her with his immortal horses...Not an unseemly bridegroom among the immortals is Aidoneus, Lord on Many, your own brother from the same seed; to his share fell honor when in the beginning a triple division was made, and he dwells among those over whom his lot made him lord" (To Demeter 16-18, 83-87). I think that these two sets of lines show that Hades viewed Persephone as a prize. Honor was one of the things Hades won when he, Zeus, and Poseidon divided up the world. Thus Hades felt justified in journeying up from the underworld to earth to claim Persephone as his bride. I feel that he felt he deserved to have her, according to his logic, because honor was something he was entitled to as a God. I feel that Hermes journey was similar to that of Hades in that he traveled in order to win honor for himself and for his Mother Maia. "A watcher by night and a gate keeper, soon destined to show forth glorious deeds among the immortal gods. Born at dawn, by midday he played his lyre, and at evening he stole the cattle of far shooting Apollon...But I shall be master of whatever skill is best to provide for you and me forever; we shall not suffer, as you bid me, to stay right here and be the only two immortals not plied with gifts and prayers. It is better to be forever in the gods' intimate circle, rich, affluent, and with an abundance of grain, than to sit in this dark cave; and as for honor, I, too, shall claim the rite of which Apollon is a master" (To Hermes 15-18, 166- 173). Hermes much like Hades was destined to achieve glorious deeds and win honor. He felt he was entitled to steal Apollo's cattle, just as Hades felt entitled to steal Persephone, because neither he nor Maia were receiving their just honors from the Gods. I think that honor is one of the most important and significant things among the Gods. It is truly the one area in which Gods are able to distinguish themselves from other gods. I think that both of these Gods risked earning the wrath of other Gods because honor was so important to them, and they felt they were lacking of such. Both of these journeys represent one of the key reasons why I feel that Gods travel. Both of these Gods were not receiving the honors that they felt they deserved as Gods. Furthermore both of them lived in isolated places, Hades in the underworld and Hermes in an isolated cave, away from the other gods who lived on MT. Olympus. Thus these Gods could easily be forgotten and dismissed by the people, and the other Gods. I think that Hermes wanted to own something so people would honor him and his mother in the same fashion they honored the other Gods on Mt. Olympus. I feel that Hades wanted someone whom he could claim as a bride to keep him company in his rule of the underworld isolated away from the other Gods. While both of these Gods were able to temporarily steal away these honors for themselves, they had to take them from other Gods. Once these other Gods found out about their thievery they responded in kind with a journey of their own to reclaim honors which had been there's before and which they felt should still rightfully be theirs. "For nine days then all over the earth mighty Deo roamed about with bright torches in her hands, and in her sorrow never tasted ambrosia or nectar sweet to drink,and never bathed her skin... Afterwards, angered with Kronion, lord of black clouds, she withdrew from the assembly of the gods and from lofty Olympos and went through the cities of men and the wealth of their labors, tearing at her hair form for a long time" (To Demeter 47-50, 91-94); Demeter was so distraught over the rape of Persephone that she roamed the Earth for nine days seeking out her daughter. While the loss of Persephone was perhaps not a loss of honor to her in the same way the stealing Persephone was an 'honor' to Hades, Demeter still felt dishonored and offended that her daughter was taken away from her. When she found out what had happened she walked among the people from village to village until she finally came upon the home of Keleos. There Demeter agreed to serve as the birth mother of Demephoon. I feel that Demeter's journey that brought her to Demephoon was her way of attempting to win back the honor that was taken from her in the form of Persephone. Demeter used Demephoon as a substitute and cared for him in place of Persephone. Apollo goes on a similar journey once he finds out that his cattle have been stolen. "And then he saw a long winged bird and knew forthwith that the robber was the son of Zeus Kronion. And Apollon, son of Zeus, speedily rushed to holy Pylos in search of his shambling cows, his broad shoulders enveloped in a purple cloud... Son of Leto, are not these harsh words you have spoken? And here you're in search of roving cattle? I have neither seen, nor found out, nor heard another man's word; and I will neither tell, nor get the reward for telling (To Hermes 213- 217, 261-264). Apollo is initially thwarted in his efforts to recover what has been taken from him just as Demeter was. He listens to and old man and finally finds Hermes, yet Hermes lies to him and refuses to tell him where his cattle are hidden because he knows that he will receive no prize if he does so. In these situations both Apollo and Demeter are thwarted in their initial efforts to recover their lost honors. Demeter does find a temporary replacement in Demephoon, but that ends when Meteneira catches her placing Demephoon in the fire and Demeter's secret is revealed. This leaves two Gods, Demeter and Apollo, unsatisfied with their stolen honors and two Gods, Hades and Hermes, thoroughly satisfied that they have been able to pull off their great thievery. I feel that since Gods journey to earn or win back honors and to divide them up amongst themselves clearly this unequal situation cannot exist in perpetuity. In both cases Zeus the Ruler of all is called upon to rectify the situation and help work out some type of balance of power between the warring Gods. "So then again the father sent forth all the blessed immortal gods. They ran to her, and each in his turn summoned her and gave her many beautiful gifts and whatever honors she might want to choose among the immortals. But no one could persuade the mind and thought of the angry goddess who stubbornly spurned their offers. She said she would never set foot on fragrant Olympos and never allow the grain in the earth to sprout forth so when loud thundering,far seeing Zeus heard this he sent Argeiphontes of the golden want to Erebos. His mission was to win Hades over with gentle words, and bring Persephone out of the misty darkness" (To Demeter 325-337). In this case Zeus was forced to recall Persephone from Hades in order to placate Demeter. However since Persephone had eaten a pomengrate seed she was sentenced to live two thirds of the year with Demeter and one third of the year with Hades. This division of the honor of having Persephone between Hades and Demeter was a result of the journeys that both of them took. The journeys of Apollo and Hermes resulted in a similar arrangement and division of honors. "For, noble and mighty as you are, O son of Zeus, your seat is first among the immortals, and wise Zeus loves you, by every sacred right, and has granted you splendid gifts. And they say, O Far Shooter, that from Zeus and his divine voice you learn the honors, the prophet's skills, and all god given relevations. I myself have learned that you have all these in abundance. You may choose to learn whatever you desire, but since you heart is so eager to play the lyre, sing and play the lyre and minister to gay festivities, receiving this skill from me and, friend, grant me glory" (To Hermes 468-477). Thus both Apollo and Hermes wind up with something to gain from their journeys. Hermes gains the fame and glory that he sought both among the Gods and among the men on Earth while Apollo was given back his cattle and the ability to play the lyre as well. These hymns I feel both have the same truths within them. Gods travel as a way to gain honor, either new or lost. Honor however is a fungible thing, there can only be so much of it to go around. Thus Gods ultimately journey as a way of dividing up that honor so that every God has some, but no one God has it all. Word Count: 1631 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Effect of the Russian Orthodox Relegion on the Culture of.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 Orthodox Christianity has had an immense effect on the culture of Russia. The adoption of the Orthodox faith from Constantinople by Prince Vladimir in 988 introduced cultural influences that profoundly affected the Russian consciousness. As the people embraced Orthodoxy it developed a uniquely Russian flavor and rooted deep in the fertile Russian soul. Orthodoxy had a major impact on politics, art, and nearly every other aspect of Russia's culture. Orthodoxy helped forge Russia's world view and defined her place in the world. The church affected the thought patterns and motivations of a whole culture and changed the way Russians thought about themselves and the ways that they lived their lives. The church acted as a unifying factor for the Russian nation. Church holidays and fasts enriched and brought meaning to the cycle of seasons and sowing in the subsistence society. Russians possessed a deep religious faith and from it they derived a sense of purpose in the universe and the promise of salvation. The church nourished and preserved the culture of Russia during centuries of internal strife and foreign intervention. Orthodox people feel a strong sense of community and brotherhood towards one another through a shared bond of faith. As a result of this emphasis on community, the rights of the group tend to take precedence over the rights of the individual in Russian culture. The Orthodox and Catholic faiths had an adversarial relationship for years. As this rift deepened and grew increasingly antagonistic, the rift between the East and the West also grew. The difference in religion between Russia and Europe can largely explain the vast differences that developed in their cultures. The Tsar of All Russia derived his power and right to rule from his status as God's chosen representative on earth. As it is God alone who bestowed power on the tsar, it was in the best interest of the monarchy to protect and promote the church. This conception of the tsar possessing a divine right to rule contributed to the political passivity of the Russian people. In the Byzantium tradition the concept of symphonia defined the relationship between the church and the state and acted as a balance on the unlimited power of the tsar. As the head of the church and the head of the state, the metropolitan and the tsar were equals and the metropolitan had the right to censure the tsar. The dispute between the Possessors and the Non-Possessors challenged the idea of symphonia, or harmony and cooperation between the pillars of society. The Possessors and the Non-Possessors held vastly different ideas about the role the church should play in society and politics. When the philosophy of the Possessors triumphed, the church gained the right to wealth and serfs at the expense of political influence. The tsar became superior to the metropolitan, and the regime could now interfere in secular matters of the church. The release of the tsar from any source of accountability left the tsar with absolute, unlimited power. The abuses of Ivan the Terrible typify the danger of absolute rule left unchecked. The Russian people actually believed that God had sent Ivan to rule Russia as a punishment for her sins. The split between the two factions caused the losers, the Non-Possessors, to be reviled as heretics. This had a negative effect because the church came to be represented by a faction instead of through a consensus. This led to only one set of ideas being developed in the church and the culture and as a result it lost some of its vitality. The Possessors made ritual sacrosanct. Every gesture, word, and movement was significant and to deviate from the service in any way would be heresy. This emphasis in the exterior form of religion over inner exultation paved the way for another conflict that was to seriously undermine the power of the church. The third Rome theory was formulated by the monk Philotheus in the fifteenth century. He asserted that Russia was the heir and protector of the only true faith. Rome and Constantinople had both fallen and Moscow was the third and final seat of Orthodoxy. This theory legitimized the Russian Orthodoxy's power and affirmed that she was no longer dependent on Constantinople. A church schism occurred in the seventeenth century due to changes in ritual implemented by the Patriarch Nikon. His attempts to rectify inconsistencies in the rituals of the Greeks and the Russians were merely to establish greater solidarity and continuity between the two faiths. Russia was trying to help the Greeks who were living under Turkish rule since 1439. Russia had a sense of manifest destiny and she felt that she had been chosen to defend the Eastern Orthodox peoples. The belief that ritual must be sacrosanct caused the alteration of ritual to be considered heretical. Those who refused to change their rhythms of worship were called Old Believers and they were executed and silenced by the authorities. The Old Believers insisted on following the old forms because they feared committing heresy. The way they saw the situation was that Rome had fallen because of heresy. Moscow was the last seat of Orthodoxy and if Russia fell from the grace of God, it would mean the end of the world. The basic issue in the schism was the relationship between the Russian and Orthodox churches. Some felt that since Russia had adopted Orthodoxy from Byzantium she should remain a 'junior partner'. Others felt that it was Russia's destiny to be a leader and to free her Eastern brethren. The Orthodox relegion has been essential to the people to bring them a sense of hope and destiny and a glimpse of heaven on earth. The choice of Orthodoxy was as influential as the Mongul Yoke on the formation of the Russian character. Orthodoxy brought the people a lot of joy, created a sense of community, intensified the countries isolation, created beautiful art, started wars, complicated politics, and best of all, reminded the people to love each other. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Effect of the Russian Orthodox Religion on the Cult.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Effect of the Russian Orthodox Religion on the Cult Orthodox Christianity has had an immense effect on the culture of Russia. The adoption of the Orthodox faith from Constantinople by Prince Vladimir in 988 introduced cultural influences that profoundly affected the Russian consciousness. As the people embraced Orthodoxy it developed a uniquely Russian flavor and rooted deep in the fertile Russian soul. Orthodoxy had a major impact on politics, art, and nearly every other aspect of Russia's culture. Orthodoxy helped forge Russia's world view and defined her place in the world. The church affected the thought patterns and motivations of a whole culture and changed the way Russians thought about themselves and the ways that they lived their lives. The church acted as a unifying factor for the Russian nation. Church holidays and fasts enriched and brought meaning to the cycle of seasons and sowing in the subsistence society. Russians possessed a deep religious faith and from it they derived a sense of purpose in the universe and the promise of salvation. The church nourished and preserved the culture of Russia during centuries of internal strife and foreign intervention. Orthodox people feel a strong sense of community and brotherhood towards one another through a shared bond of faith. As a result of this emphasis on community, the rights of the group tend to take precedence over the rights of the individual in Russian culture. The Orthodox and Catholic faiths had an adversarial relationship for years. As this rift deepened and grew increasingly antagonistic, the rift between the East and the West also grew. The difference in religion between Russia and Europe can largely explain the vast differences that developed in their cultures. The Tsar of All Russia derived his power and right to rule from his status as God's chosen representative on earth. As it is God alone who bestowed power on the tsar, it was in the best interest of the monarchy to protect and promote the church. This conception of the tsar possessing a divine right to rule contributed to the political passivity of the Russian people. In the Byzantium tradition the concept of symphonia defined the relationship between the church and the state and acted as a balance on the unlimited power of the tsar. As the head of the church and the head of the state, the metropolitan and the tsar were equals and the metropolitan had the right to censure the tsar. The dispute between the Possessors and the Non-Possessors challenged the idea of symphonia, or harmony and cooperation between the pillars of society. The Possessors and the Non-Possessors held vastly different ideas about the role the church should play in society and politics. When the philosophy of the Possessors triumphed, the church gained the right to wealth and serfs at the expense of political influence. The tsar became superior to the metropolitan, and the regime could now interfere in secular matters of the church. The release of the tsar from any source of accountability left the tsar with absolute, unlimited power. The abuses of Ivan the Terrible typify the danger of absolute rule left unchecked. The Russian people actually believed that God had sent Ivan to rule Russia as a punishment for her sins. The split between the two factions caused the losers, the Non-Possessors, to be reviled as heretics. This had a negative effect because the church came to be represented by a faction instead of through a consensus. This led to only one set of ideas being developed in the church and the culture and as a result it lost some of its vitality. The Possessors made ritual sacrosanct. Every gesture, word, and movement was significant and to deviate from the service in any way would be heresy. This emphasis in the exterior form of religion over inner exultation paved the way for another conflict that was to seriously undermine the power of the church. The third Rome theory was formulated by the monk Philotheus in the fifteenth century. He asserted that Russia was the heir and protector of the only true faith. Rome and Constantinople had both fallen and Moscow was the third and final seat of Orthodoxy. This theory legitimized the Russian Orthodoxy's power and affirmed that she was no longer dependent on Constantinople. A church schism occurred in the seventeenth century due to changes in ritual implemented by the Patriarch Nikon. His attempts to rectify inconsistencies in the rituals of the Greeks and the Russians were merely to establish greater solidarity and continuity between the two faiths. Russia was trying to help the Greeks who were living under Turkish rule since 1439. Russia had a sense of manifest destiny and she felt that she had been chosen to defend the Eastern Orthodox peoples. The belief that ritual must be sacrosanct caused the alteration of ritual to be considered heretical. Those who refused to change their rhythms of worship were called Old Believers and they were executed and silenced by the authorities. The Old Believers insisted on following the old forms because they feared committing heresy. The way they saw the situation was that Rome had fallen because of heresy. Moscow was the last seat of Orthodoxy and if Russia fell from the grace of God, it would mean the end of the world. The basic issue in the schism was the relationship between the Russian and Orthodox churches. Some felt that since Russia had adopted Orthodoxy from Byzantium she should remain a 'junior partner'. Others felt that it was Russia's destiny to be a leader and to free her Eastern brethren. The Orthodox relegion has been essential to the people to bring them a sense of hope and destiny and a glimpse of heaven on earth. The choice of Orthodoxy was as influential as the Mongul Yoke on the formation of the Russian character. Orthodoxy brought the people a lot of joy, created a sense of community, intensified the countries isolation, created beautiful art, started wars, complicated politics, and best of all, reminded the people to love each other. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Egyptian Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Egyptian Religion The Egyptians had a very influential religion that can be analyzed using the five elements of religion. The characteristics of the Ancient Egyptian's religion can be divided into the five elements of religion: authority, faith, rituals, moral code, and concept of the deity. First, the authority of the Egyptian religion. The main authority of the Egyptian religion was the Pharaoh, he had divine right over the people and was considered a god. Also, he could change the religion any way he wanted, for example in the 14th century BC Akhenaton, the Pharaoh outlawed all gods but Aton, who was the sun god, and this became the first monotheistic religion in history, but it was short lived, for when he died the new Pharaoh overruled the law and restored the other gods. The Egyptians Sacred literature was the "Book of the Dead" which consisted of 42 "negative confessions" , spells and prayers. Here is a excerpts from the "Book of the Dead" 1. I have not acted sinfully toward me 2. I have not oppressed the members of my family 3. I have not done wrong instead of what is right 4. I have known no worthless folk (Encarta '96) Their were also what we would call "Priests" who sold the people "magical" items that they said would ensure the dead people a way into heaven. Therefore, the authority of the Egyptian religion was controlled heavily by the government. Second, the Egyptians Faith was an important characteristic of their religion. First, they believed that the Pharaoh was a god, and what he spoke became law. The Egyptians worshipped almost every form of life, the worshipped trees, water, animals, and even vegetables. The Egyptians also believed that a person had 2 souls, the ba and the ka, which left the body at death and then returned later to the body. The Egyptians believed that mummification make sure the ba and the ka would find the body when they returned to the body to transport it to the underworld. The Egyptians also believed that they were the ' cattle of the gods', and were controlled by them. They also believed that the gods owned all the land, so they sold all their crops at the temples. Furthermore, their idea of heaven was that it was in the milky way, that stood for a fertile Nile and where good crops grew every year. Their belief in a hell was that the soul was devoured by a savage animal called the 'Devourer of Souls' and then thrown into a pit of fire. The Egyptians believed that what was placed in a person's tomb was what they would have in the afterlife, so they stocked their tombs full of items, such as war chariots, tables, chairs, and for the king, his throne. Their were even gods and goddesses for Ancient Egyptian cites. Also, the Egyptians believed that no mater what the Pharaoh did, he was entitled to a afterlife. The Egyptians spent most of their lives preparing for the afterlife and a one Egyptologist put it: The dead man is at one and the same time in heaven, in the god's boat, under the earth, tilling the Elysian fields, and in his tomb enjoying his victuals (Casson 81). They also believed that the dead had to be buried on the west side of the Nile, since the sun 'died' in the west. When a person reached judgment day, they had to do a 'negative confession' to 42 sins, each with their own judge, and after that Anibus then proceeded to weigh the person's heart against a feather, the heart had to be lighter than the feather for the person to be admitted to heaven. Also, Thoth was their watching over the weighing. The Egyptians believed that setting of the sun was Nut, goddess of the sky, devouring it and in the morning would give birth to it again. Furthermore, the Egyptian creation myth said that in the beginning their was only the ocean, then Ptah, the Lord of Truth who made an egg, that hatched and made the moon and sun, from the sun came Amon-Ra, the sun god from him came air, from the air, the earth, from the earth, the Nile and from the Nile Egypt, which is how Egypt got the nickname 'the gift of the Nile". Therefore the characteristics of the Egyptian faith are very strict. The Egyptians performed many rituals that characterize their religion. First, when a person died, their body was mummified, the 'mumifier' was performing a ritual. Second, the Egyptians would practice reading the Book of the Dead so that they would be ready to recite it during the Judgment of the Dead. Also, the Egyptians also had hymns, here is an example of one to the sun god, Re: How beautiful it is when thou arisest on the horizon and lightenest the Two Lands with thy rays (Casson 80). In the morning the Pharaoh and would rise, praying to Ra. and in temples the people would sing also: Hail to thee, Ra, Lord of Truth whose shrine is hidden, Lord of gods; the creator in his boat: at whose command the gods were made: Atum, maker of men: supporting their words, giving them life. Lord of wisdom whose precepts are wise: at whose pleasure the Nile overflows: Lord of mercy most loving: at whose coming men live: opener of every eye: proceeding from the firmament: causer of pleasure and light: at whose goodness the gods rejoice (Evans ). These are the Rituals that make up the Egyptian Religion. The Egyptian Moral code is made up of the Book of the Dead, a book that is a list of 42 'Negative confessions', hymns and also prayers. The Book of the Dead has forty-two negative sins, here are some of the major ones: 1. I have not acted sinfully toward men 13. I have not inflicted pain. . . . 16. I have not committed murder 27. I have not added weights to the scales 46. I have not spoke treasonably about the king (marlowe.wimsey.com) The Egyptian moral code also acted as their code of law since it religion/government was so intertwined, and almost one. In conclusion, the Egyptian moral code is very strict and is make up of 'negative confessions'. The Egyptians were polytheistic, although for a short period of time were monotheistic. Some of their major gods were: Isis; wife of Osiris, Re; sun god of Heliopolis, Anibis, jackal god of mummification, Osiris; god of earth, and Thoth; god of wisdom. Furthermore, the Pharaoh of the time decided what gods their were, and at one time Akhenaton banned all gods and created Aton: It originally represented the light and heat of the sun. His name appeared frequently in texts, and used in expressions, the most common was [ All that Aten encompasses ] f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Entertainment Universe.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Entertainment Universe You are walking down a crowded street on a gloomy evening when you come upon a mass of people listening intently to the preaching of a man. The man has an up-side-down cross branded on his forehead. He is screeching his recitation at the people in a demented angry voice. His lessons consist of the following: Pathetic lives, every second someone dies. Delightful is the sight of repention. No destiny, just a certain death. In pain inducing lies salvation. Never repent... In the name of Satan I condemn this image of god... All christians are destroyed. Unguided by the light. The Satanist rejoice. Revocate me!... Revocate the agitator.1 Perhaps most disturbing about the situation is the look of utter devotion many of the young people in the crowd have in their eyes. They believe this mans thoughts and ideas and look to him for guidance. As the intensity of the situation elevates the mass of people begin to violently slam into each other in a chaotic ceremonial dance. The purpose of the dance is to cause and endure as much physical pain as possible. The dance eventually gets so extreme that a young man in the crowd snaps his neck and dies. The man does not stop his ravings and the crowd doesn't stop their dance. Instead the man becomes entirely deranged, screaming at the body of the young man that he is now going to hell where he rot in flames of agony for eternity. The crowd roars and the man laughs. What do you suppose would now transpire? At the very least the man and the crowd would be arrested. More than likely there would be several charges of third degree murder laid, certainly with several convictions. The preacher would most likely be taken to a hospital for a psychological examination, be diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic, and be placed into an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. The event described above did occur, the man recounted does exist and the ritual dance and corresponding death did transpire. However, no charges were pressed, no psychological evaluations were made, the victim was simply given a funeral and the matter was dropped. The account above was able to occur because it took place in a universe completely apart from that of the civil universe - the entertainment universe. In the entertainment universe their is practically no law and no limitation. Anything and everything goes. Rape, murder, graphic torture scenes, child molestation, all this and more are a common theme. The discourse of the artists is exhibited to the mass populace in movie theaters, prime time television and auditoriums filled with thousands of people. The lunacy is able to occur because we control it. It's the mass populace that buys the records, watches the movies and pays the salaries of the artists. It's what we want to see, hear and feel because the entertainment universe consists of our very own nightmares and dreams. It is that which we desire most but can't have. It is the freedom and anarchy we all long for. The mass populace at large are the ecclesia of the entertainment universe. The entertainment universe is spread and taught to the populace through it's own unique priesthood - the media. Without the media the universe would not have the ability to expand and influence at such an enormous level and hence, without the media the entertainment universe would not enjoy the freedom it relishes in. The media also serve as the law enforcers of what little code exists within the universe. The media tell the public the actions of the entertainers, watching their every move, mistake and good will and it is the media alone who have the power to destroy an entertainer. Moreover, it is the media which influences the public and it is the public which sustains the universe and its ability to exist. In conclusion a very powerful and bizarre universe has been revealed and labeled as the entertainment universe. The universe has within it the symbols of freedom, anarchy and the ability to portray the lives which we the populace dream of. Many rituals are present including the dance known as moshing and the divine presence with which the public regard the entertainers. The universe creates the myth of paradise and perfection and hence creates a definite cosmos where those within it are able to live an existence entirely different from that of any other universe. Moreover, the artists have a unique self-identity and self-perception from which they identify themselves and the public identify them. A very powerful aspect of this universe is the media, which is not only a distinctive symbol, but also the enforcers and priesthood of the cosmos. The universe is sustained and able to exist through the support of the mass populace or it's ecclesia, which is utterly reliant upon the media to decree what is good and evil within the entertainment universe. The entertainment universe is a thorough and complete example of how we as a species legitimate marginal situations and relish in the freedom unavailable to the common man. However, the freedom of the artist would not exist were it not for the dreams and wishes of the common man. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\THE EUCHARIST.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SUMMARY Eucharist History -reenacts the closing events of jesus' life -links past-present-future one ceremony -powerful, meaningful ritual -last of the 3 sacraments of initiation -prescribed by christ -have to see the eucharist as body, not bread Eucharist celebrates -"a way of remembering" -daily reminder of Gods love -jesus shared bread at last supper/do this in memory of me -a thanksgiving feast -"eucharist" means giving thanx Ritual Meal -earliest form of rituals are eating and gathering -sacrifice meal -ritual not a routine -builds on the symbolism of a ritual mean Sign and Symbols -symbol of gods love for us -jesus' body -last supper/banquet -welcome others to participate in the eucharist -unfilled celebration -if we went to mass on sunday, it would make the rest of the week more meaningful -unified body -it is the most commonly received sacrament, most pivotal of 7 -as a community, we celebrate the presence of christ in the eucharist -bread: basic food for most people/closely assoc with nature human work Vestements -white/purple/black robe Words -"Do this in Memory of Me." -"This is my body, which has been given up for you." ST. ROBERT'S CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL "THE EUCHARIST" THE EUCHARIST Thesis: The Eucharist is a sign of Jesus' death, and how He gave himself up for us, and how we experience Him through His body. History of the Eucharist The Eucharist is a Jewish Ritual of worship. It dates back to the Last Supper, where Jesus celebrated a typical Jewish community meal with His friends. Sharing a meal with family, (very important to the Jews) also dates back to the Passover Meal. This is called the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and the early Christians added Jewish synagogue service and then became the Liturgy of the Word. The Eucharist is a sacrament, and is also a ritual. It is a repeated sacrament, and is the most frequently used among all sacraments. It is "a way of remembering" and a daily reminder if God's love. Jesus at the Last Supper shared bread with us, and said "Do this in Memory of Me." This is why we have bread, because it represents Jesus' body, and how He gave Himself up for us. The first little while of the Church, the "Mass was celebrated as a friendship meal called agape." Christians shared brought food to the house where they were assembled, but as the numbers increased, the meal was cut down to bread and wine. Today, the offertory collection echoes the early years of the spirit giving at the Eucharist. It is living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever believes has eternal life. Rituals of the Eucharist The Eucharist, breaking of the bread, sharing the wine, eating and gathering are the earliest form of rituals. These rituals are a sacrifice meal. They are sacrifice meals because they take time, and are enjoyed, so therefore it is a meal, not a routine. The sharing of the meal is important, and it is a time of experiencing each other. The word Eucharist means giving thanks, and the ritual of the Eucharist is like a "Thanksgiving every day of the year". Symbols of the Eucharist The Eucharist is a symbol of God's love for us. It illustrates Jesus's body, and welcomes others to participate in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is an unfilled Celebration and receiving the Eucharist on Sunday, makes the rest of the week more meaningful. It symbolizes the unified body of Christ, and the church symbolizes a community as we celebrate the presence in Christ in the Eucharist. The bread symbolizes giving thanks, and is the basic food for most people and is closely associated with nature and work of human hands. Sharing the Cup represents that drink is essential to life and both bread and wine are symbols of Christ. It also symbolizes how we can go forty days without water as opposed to five days without water. Proclaiming the Word of God means that Jesus is present in the Gospels and He comes alive for us in hearing the words and stories of his life. We stand to welcome Christ into our living word of God. Vestments The garments worn during the Eucharist at Church are either Black, White, or Purple. These are for different times of the year. Black symbolizes death, purple illustrates Advent, and white portrays ordinary time. Words, Statements, Responses There are many different expressions used in the Mass, all with important meanings. First, the priest prepares the gifts, to make them Holy. We respond "Blessed it be God forever." Another one is "Do this in Memory of Me." This means that Jesus gave Himself up for us, and wants us to remember what He did for us. It reenacts the closing events of Jesus' life on earth. This is followed by the Eucharist Prayer "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord..." then ensued by "Lord, I am not worth to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed." This means to clean yourself of sins, and get ready for the body of Christ. To ask God if He welcomes you to receive the Eucharist. BIBLIOGRAPHY COOKE, Bernard, THE EUCHARIST, "Mystery of Friendship" Centre of Studies in Religious Education Ohio, 1969. GUZIE, Tad, W. JESUS AND THE EUCHARIST, Paulist Press New York, 1974 RELIGION MANUAL p: 117-131 JOHN 6: 47-58, BIBLE LUKE 22: 14-20 BIBLE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Handout LITURGY OF THE WORD, Handout WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT, Handout f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Excess Of Men In The Mishnaic Tractate Yoma.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Excess Of Men In The Mishnaic Tractate Yoma "Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated man (Leviticus 16.20)." "He who set the Azazel-goat free shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water; after that he may reenter the camp (Leviticus 16.26)." The preceding two quotes were the only mention of any people other than Aaron who were involved in the activities on the Day of Atonement. However, in the mishnaic tractate Yomah the mishnaic authors mention at least 50 other men who participate in the day's events. It is unclear for this addition. Noticeably the groups of men are broken up into two distinct categories. The high priest is apparently trained, guided, and even observed by a group of elders of the court who eventually deliver him to the elders of the priest hood. The other group, was a group of men who completed many of the chosen High Priest's simple minded and non exertive tasks. There is no specific name classification given to these men. This may be exemplary of their unimportance in the holy doings of the day. Unlike the need for elders of the court and priest hood, the necessity of these men is a bit unclear. It is unclear in the mishnaic tractate Yoma, as to why the many tasks performed by this nameless group of men could not just have been performed by the High Priest himself as it was by Aaron. The authors of this text write that "another priest was made ready in his stead lest aught should befall him to render him ineligible ... Also another wife was made ready for Page 2 him lest his own wife should die... (Yoma 1:1)" Obviously one of the concerns for extra people in this day's events is to assure that no matter what happens "the show must go on." "They delivered unto him elders from among the elders of the Court, and they read before him out of the [prescribed] rite for the day; and they said to him, 'My lord High Priest, do thou thyself recite with thine own mouth, lest thou hast forgotten or lest thou hast never learnt'. On the Day of Atonement in the morning they make him to stand at the Eastern Gate and pass before him oxen, rams, and a sheep, that he may gain knowledge and becomes versed in the [Temple-]Service (Yoma 1:3)." The elders were obligatory as they coached the chosen High Priest in what to do on the Day of Atonement. The authors make note of the elders' assistance in Yoma 1:6 where they write "If he was a sage he used to expound [the Scriptures] he read, and if not they read before him. If he was versed in reading [the Scriptures] he read, and if not they read before him." Once again, the theme of the day, "show must go on" distinguishes itself as the authors of this text write that if it should happen that the High priest is unable to read the particular text of the holiest day of the year then there will be others to assist him in doing so. "The Prefect was on his right and the chief of the father's house on his left. If the lot bearing the Name came up in his right hand, the Prefect would say to him, 'My lord High Priest, raise thy right hand'; and if it came up in his left hand the chief of the father's house would say to him, 'My lord High Priest, raise thy left hand'. (Yoma 4:1)" The preceding was yet another example of how the chosen high priest was aided in his holy prayers by other holy learned men. Page 3 While assisting and teaching [the prayer to] the chosen high priest of the Yom Kippur holiday, the elders kept this chosen man in line as well. "If he sought to slumber, young members of the priesthood would snap their middle finger and say to him, 'My lord High Priest, get up and drive away [sleep] this once [by walking] on the [cold] pavement ... And they used to divert him until the time of slaughtering drew near (Yoma 1:7)" The addition of these learned men was quite beneficial in the day's (Yom Kippur's) events as they assisted in prayer (should it be forgotten or not even known by the chosen high priest) and made sure that the high priest did not get lazy. However, it is unclear as to the addition of numerous unnamed men who took part in the petty tasks of the day, Yom Kippur. These tasks were not at all difficult and the men who performed them never received a name or even a higher classification. This was exemplary of their non-importance for the higher cause. " ... and he [the chosen High Priest] gave it to the one that should stir it up on the fourth terrace of the Sanctuary so that it should not congeal (Yuma 4:2) ... They brought out to him [the chosen Holy priest] the ladle and the fire-pan and he took his two hands full [of incense] and put in the ladle (Yoma 5:1) ... Then they brought him [the chosen High Priest] his own raiment and he put it on. And they went with him to his house (Yoma 7:4)." The italicized words refer to the extra men mentioned within the Yoma text that performed simple tasks. Whichever task they performed it was only to assist the high priest, physically, in a task that would come next Page 4 that would be more complex than the one they had just performed. Through the mishnaic tractate Yoma text, that statement reiterates itself. "They brought him [the chosen High priest] the he-goat. He slaughtered it and received its blood in a basin(Yoma 5:4)." One might certainly assume that perhaps they were there in order to assist a man of great importance and to complete frivolous activities that only wasted his time in completing more important activities of the day. However, that would only require a few assistants. The Yoma readings show that there were more than a few men used for more than several activities of the day. Many of the times these men might have been priests, but yet again it is unclear why it was necessary for so many of them. Ranging from Yoma 2:3 till Yoma 2:7 there are at least ten different activities performed each by at least seven different men. "The Daily Whole-offering was offered by nine, ten, eleven, or twelve [priests], never more and never less. Thus it was itself offered by nine; a the Feast [of Tabernacles] one held in his hand the flagon of water - and so they were ten; in the afternoon [it was offered by eleven, [the Daily Whole-offering] itself by nine, while two held in their hands the two faggots of wood; on the Sabbath [it was offered] by eleven; itself by nine while two held in their hands the two dishes of frankincense for the Shrew bread, and on a Sabbath that fell during the Feast [of Tabernacles] another held in his hand the flagon of water (Yoma 2:5)." Page 5 Many times even one activity was broken up into several activities. "A ram was offered by eleven: the flesh by five, and the inwards, the fine flour, and the wine by two each (Yoma 2:6)." One might actually understand the need for assistants on this day. It remains unclear as to why so many assistants were necessary. Consider the following possibility as to why this might have been so. Everyone wanted a part in the process of the day's events of "purification" and transgression of sins. Maybe they felt that participating would help them even more in achieving repent ion on that holiest of holy days. These Israelites certainly wanted to be included in these activities, there is no doubt in that statement. "Before time whosoever was minded to clear the Altar of ashes did so. If they were, many they used to run and mount the [Altar-]Ramp and he that came first within four cubits secured the task. If two were equal the officer said to them, 'Raise the finger' (Yoma 2.1)." At times people were so anxious to participate that people got hurt. "It once happened that two were equal and they ran and mounted the [Altar-] Ramp; and one of them pushed his fellow so that he fell and his leg was broken; (Yoma 2:2)." The high priest would pray for them and, "say: 'O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which they people, House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of the servant Moses, For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you: from all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord. And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the Page 6 mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, 'Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever! (Yoma 6:2)." The assumption of their desire for cleansing of sins proves itself definite from the preceding paragraph. The desire to participate in these activities might not only have been to cleanse one self. The authors of Prov 107 and lbid wrote "the memory of the just is blessed ... but the name of the wicked shall rot. (Yoma 5:II)" The authors of the mishnaic tractate Yoma display a large number of men used in the activities of the day. These men can be separated into two groups of men. These two groups are the learned elders of the society that assist the chosen high priest in completing the prayer part of the day as well as making sure he does not slack off at any point. The other men not entirely described by the mishnaic authors as to what their place in society is, assist in the physical labor of the day. It is understandable as to their benefit. Yet, it is unclear as to why it is necessary for the great amount of them. From the text with in the mishnaic tractate Yoma it appears that people feel that participation in the events of the day delete their sins. The other possibility is that they want to participate in the days events so that they me blessed for taking part in such holy activities. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The First Crusade.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The First Crusade As the year 1000A.D. was approaching the strength of Christianity in Western Europe was growing along with its population. The newly reformed and organized Church began to gain great power. A new Europe was being born with the Catholic Church as a force in every area of life. In Christian beliefs, the savior, Jesus Christ was to return to earth and bring judgment on its people. Many clergy members along with lay people believed this would take place in the year 1000A.D. . Knowing this, the people of Europe awaited the return of Christ and feared the Wrath of God. Religious people wanted to make up for their sins and avoid the horrors of eternal damnation. Clergy members were often consulted to figure out what would be a suitable penance. " The Church itself still frequently imposed pilgrimages as a penance" (Campbell p.14). A pilgrimage to the Holy Land was not an easy task to say the least. The road to Jerusalem was jagged. On the way to Jerusalem, pilgrims were often murdered by thieves. They were defenseless and often did not return. Some pilgrims did return from the Holy Land. They came back with tales that planted the seeds for a Crusade. " The pilgrims that returned from the Holy City of Jerusalem recounted tales, often grossly exaggerated, of the horrible pollution of the sacred places at the hands of the Turks" (Campbell p23). Other stories of the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the burial place of Jesus, by the Turks surfaced in the early eleventh century. The news of the destruction of the Sepulcher was mourned in every Christian country. The nations looked to Rome for a solution to this most serious of Problems. The Byzantine emperor asked for the aid of the Pope to help him with his Turk problem. To the Pope, it would be a strategic move to aid the Byzantine emperor. The Pope realized that this offered the opportunity to re-establish the universal Church and establish the supremacy of Rome. In 1095, at the Council of Clermont in southern France, "Urban II challenged Christians to take up their weapons against the infidels and participate in a holy war and recapture the Holy Land" (Spielvogel,p344). Pope Urban II addressed the French telling them of the horrors imposed on the Holy Land. He told them all of the destruction and desecration of churches, and the torturous treatment of the Christian inhabitants of the Holy Land. The large crowd listening to the Pope's speech was saddened and outraged. The Pope called on Christian knights to set out to the Holy Land and free it from the claws of the pagan Seljuk Turks. He promised any knight who set out to the Holy Land " the remission of sins and be sure of the incorruptible glory of the kingdom of heaven" (Spielvogel,p345). The crowd immediately supported it by crying out " It is the will of God"(Spielvogel,p345). This can be seen as the starting point of the period of the Crusades. A Crusade immediately followed known as the Peasant's Crusade. This Crusade was not organized by the papacy. They were mostly poor or peasants and were inadequately prepared. On their way to the East they terrorized the Balkans by looting and persecuting the Jews. Eventually, they reached Constantinople and were sent by the Emperor Alexius I to Asia Minor where they were slaughtered by the Seljuk Turks. A papal supported Crusade was soon to follow. The soldiers for the first true Crusade were recruited from the warrior class of knights. By 1096, " an international military force, with a large nucleus of knights from central and southern France, Normandy, and Norman Sicily, made its way across the Balkans and assembled in Constantinople" (Hollister,p.189). The warriors of the First Crusade numbered around 25,000 or 30,000. The number of troops may seem minuscule by today's standards it was " immense in the eyes of contemporaries " ( Hollister,p.189). Pope Urban II appointed Adhemar of Le Puy, a French bishop, to lead the Crusaders into the Holy Land. The First Crusade was underway. There were many reasons for knights to venture out to the Holy Land. Many joined the Crusade for the Pope's pledge of the remission of sins and the incorruptible glory of the kingdom of heaven. To them it was like an " armed pilgrimage" (Spielvogel,p346). Others saw a more materialistic goal. They saw victory in the Holy Land as a chance to benefit themselves. They felt they could gain territories, wealth or a title. The Crusade was not only a " Holy War." By 1097, the noble warriors from Western Europe had reached the Byzantine capital of Constantinople. When the Byzantine Emperor Alexius saw the amount of crusading soldiers he was not entirely accepting. He was unsure of the true motives of the Crusaders. To him they posed a threat to his empire due to the size of the armies. Alexius truly called on the West only to aid him in recapturing the lost Byzantine provinces of Asia Minor. The Crusaders were determined on the conquest of the Holy Land. Alexius made the Crusaders promise homage to the lands they would conquer. Alexius promised the Crusaders military aid but it never truly came. After the Crusaders left Constantinople ties with the Byzantines were severed. The crusading armies then moved southeastward across Asia Minor. The immense number of cavalry and foot soldiers reached the ancient city of Antioch by 1098. " After a long and complex siege " the Crusaders captured Antioch ( Hollister,p.192). After the capturing of Antioch, the Crusaders moved towards Palestine. In June of the year 1099 the Crusaders reached the " Holy City " of Jerusalem. " After a five week siege ", Jerusalem was taken by the Crusaders ( Spielvogel,p.346). The victory was celebrated by the plundering of the city. The Crusaders carried on the "Will of God " through the brutal slaughtering of Jerusalem's non- Christian inhabitants. Eyewitnesses described the battle as being so gruesome that their " feet were colored to their ankles with the blood of the slain" and that " neither women nor children were spared" (Hollister,p.193). Conquests in the future followed. As the conquest was ending, the Crusaders set up feudal states in the conquered lands. Four main Latin states were created. They were the principality of Antioch, the county of Edessa, the county of Tripoli and the kingdom of Jerusalem. The ruler of the kingdom of Jerusalem, Godffrey de Bouillon, had the most power. He held the other states as fiefs. The Latin states relied heavily upon the Italian merchant cities for supplies due to the fact that the lands bordering them were enemies. The First Crusade was the most successful of the Crusades. In only three years the Crusaders fulfilled their goal of conquering the Holy Land. They were successful in freeing the Holy Land from the clutches of non-Christian rulers. They successfully carried out the wishes of the Pope and , more importantly, what they believed to be the " Will of God ." The crusading knights gained new powers through the conquest along with salvation. Economically, the First Crusade was a success for Western Europe. New ports on the Mediterranean were in the hands of Western lords, opening new gates for trade. On the other hand, the First Crusade could be seen to be a failure in many ways. Relations with the Byzantine Empire grew far more distant. The Pope's dream of unifying the eastern and western churches could not be achieved. The gruesome display of barbarism on behalf of the Crusaders could also be seen as a failure in morals. It seemed that the Crusaders, for the most part, lost their way. Their goals switched from religious to materialistic. The First Crusade was the first installment in a series that lose their " holiness" and become less successful. Militarily, the First Crusade was an utter success. It started a hatred for the West by the Near and Middle Eastern peoples that still is strong today. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Gospels.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Theocentric Studies-Part I February 2, 1996 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John The four Gospels are neither histories of the life of Christ nor biographies. They are portraits of the person and work of the long promised Messiah, Israel's King and the world's Savior. As portraits they present four different poses of one unique personality. Matthew by the Holy Spirit presents Christ as King, Mark as Servant, Luke as Man, and John as God. Although featuring Christ as King, Matthew sketches His role as a King in closest connection with His character as Servant, as Man, and as God (Matthew 13:53-19:30). Likewise, although featuring Him as Servant, Mark depicts Christ's servant role in closest connection with His character as King, Man and God (Mark 11:1-16:1-8). Similarly Luke focuses the spotlight on Christ as Man and John as God, but like other evangelists they do not separate Him from His full- orbed character (Luke 4:14-9:50, John 1:19-2:50). The four Gospels narrate, largely, the same things, but with some differences. Only Matthew and Luke tell of the Birth and childhood of Jesus (Matthew 1:14-9:1, Luke 1:5-4:13). Matthew and Mark dwell on the Galilean Ministry; Luke, the Perean; John, the Judean. John omits most of the Galilean Ministry, and records visits to Jerusalem that the others omit (Luke 9:51-19:27). The others omit the Judean Ministry, except the Last Week, which all four cover rather extensively. The Last Week occupies one-third of Matthew, approximately one-third of Mark, one-quarter of Luke, and one-half of John. John devotes seven chapters, about one-third of his book, to Crucifixion Day, sunset to sunset. Thus all four writers present the one and same Person: the God-Man, Servant of the Lord, King of Israel, humanity's Redeemer. The special emphasis of Matthew is that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by Old Testament Prophets. As he quotes from the Old Testament repeatedly, he seems to have had Jewish readers in mind. Mark's special emphasis is the Superhuman power of Jesus, by demonstrating His Deity by His Miracles (Mark 1:14-9:1). Omits most of Jesus' lectures. Narrates things Jesus did rather than things Jesus said. Seems to have had Gentile readers in mind. Luke's special emphasis is the humanity of Jesus. Representing Jesus as the Son of God. Luke features His kindness toward the weak, the suffering and the outcast (Luke 9:51-18:27). He seems to have had the Greeks, who represented culture, philosophy and wisdom, in mind. John places special emphasis on the Deity of Jesus. Consists mostly of Jesus' lectures and conversations. Discusses things Jesus said rather than things He did (John 1:1-18). By describing the eternal pre-existence, human birth, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus the Christ and His life and teachings, the four Gospels present a living, dynamic, unique personality. God became man to work out man's redemption from sin. These four portraits present Him as Lord and Savior, rather than describing all He did and in the precise order in which He did it. They introduce us to Him, rather than to His life as a whole. The Gospels are designedly incomplete as a story, but marvelously complete and purposeful as a divine revelation of the Son of God, our Savior. And this is faith's need. It is also disbelief's stumbling block. Works Cited National,"The Holy Bible", Authorized (King James) Version. Philadelphia: The National Bible Press (1963). Cambridge, "The New English Bible", The New English Translation. Cambridge: The University Press (1972). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Gothic Age.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Gothic Age Introduction The Gothic Age As the third year that followed the year on thousand grew near, there was to be seen over almost all the earth, but especially in Italy and in Gaul, a great renewal of church buildings; each Christian community was driven by a spirit of rivalry to have a more glorious church than the others. It was as if the world had shaken itself, and casting off its old garments, had dressed itself again in every part in a white robe of churches. Raoul Glaber, Historia, c.1003 The Gothic Age (c. AD 1130-1530) marked the end to an age of chaos, primarily caused by the sacking and pillaging of the Vikings. After the great minds of Western Europe were freed from using their vast knowledge to defend against invaders or plagues, they now had the time and the resources needed to design any and everything in this era from bridges to city walls and castles to cathedrals. This was also a very religious age, with plenty of money being pumped into the Church, some from the crusades, with all of its included looting, and a lot more from all of the tithes all of the people who were born in the population explosion gave faithfully. Another even bigger source of income for the Church came to it in the shape of power and prestige, when the power of the church peaked in AD 1277. Not only was this a good time for the Church, but this was also a very good time for all of humanity. The standard of living dramatically rose, and along with it, the population of Western Europe shot up. In 1346, the estimated population of Europe was fifty-four point four million just before the plague hit and wiped out more than a third of the population.1 2 This was more than twice the population of Europeans in the year 950 when it was 22,600,0003 . While the population was exploding there were so many new cathedrals built that in the relatively short time period of two hundred and fifty years, there was more stone quarried to be used in cathedrals (several million tons) than was quarried during the age of the pyramids in Egypt, where there are pyramids that are over two hundred and fifty million cubic meters big.4 The Gothic age survived many crusades, a plague that didn¹t leave Europe until the late 18th century, and many other horrible atrocities. Following this great age, there was a period without the great accomplishments as in this age, since everyone was just happy using what their forefathers had done. If not for this age, we would today be without many of our modern conveniences, so I firmly believe that this age was essential to modern day living. Body of Knowledge Gothic Architecture Anyone who has ever walked into a true Gothic cathedral knows how much of an impact one can have on a person . The sheer magnificence of it will shut even the noisiest of tourists up. One can only imagine the impact seeing such a place would have on a person who has never had the opportunity to see one of the great wonders of the modern world, such as a skyscraper. The name alone is enough to bring visions of grandeur, or Las Vegas, a place known for its flashy style and glitz. Just think what a person who has never seen either one of these places, or any place anything like it, would think when they saw a choir with a roof so high a fourteen story building could fit in there* and not even touch the rafters.5 And Imagine what you would think of a stadium that was so large it could hold one million people (the largest one today holds a "mere" forty-two thousand people1). This is what Ameins Cathedral was like when it was built. The entire town of ten thousand people could fit into it all at the same time to go to the same mass. It had a floor that was seven thousand, seven hundred square meters. New Ideas in the Cathedral that Reflected Christianity There were many aspects about Gothic cathedrals that reflected the then modern-day ways of life, such as how a common belief in those times was that the closer you were to God, the holier you were. The architects would build huge spires and high ceilings which would make the building look absolutely massive. Another clever technique of the time was to create picture stories on the windows with stained glass since the vast majority of the people couldn¹t read or write to help the common folk learn the Bible without having someone read it to them. -Walls The walls in a Gothic cathedral were way ahead of the walls in the style that preceded Gothic, Romanesque. The walls in Gothic were thin and had a lot of stained glass in them, not to mention the fact that the new style was a lot higher. The reason that the architect could put up thinner, higher walls was because of two new inventions, the flying buttresses and ribbed vaults. The latter of the two, ribbed vaults, sounds simple enough, but it is effective and ingenious enough to have earned a place in history. All they really are, are supports that go from corner to corner like rafters, although, unlike rafters, they are up against the actual ceiling, therefore putting the weight on the corners and, at the same time, effectively supporting the ceiling. The former of the two inventions, flying buttresses, was also very important, since they, like the ribbed vaults, allowed the architect to build the walls thinner and higher, but it also supported the weight of the walls and the roof. Flying buttresses are basically kickstands that rest up against the side of a cathedral, giving it a wider base, and, a lot like an arching bridge, they put equal pressure from two opposite sides on a keystone. -Stained Glass "[Stained glass windows were] ...a bearer of holy images, an intrinsically rich material resembling valuable stones, and a mystery, because it glowed without fire." -Abbot Sugar It was very common in this day for a person not to know how to read, and there was also a great burden on the Church for the villagers to know basic important scriptures, so there had to be pictures on the wall. Since one can only go so far using frescoes, paintings and other ways to portray a picture, stained glass was an interesting alternative. Before since the walls were thicker and build more as a means to support the high ceilings, stained glass never really was an option, but now with the help of the two previously mentioned means of support, the walls could be made thinner so glass also could be used now. -Spires The function of spires goes far beyond just being there for the appearances, since the church bells are kept in the spires. These bells would tell the town what to do, as in time to go to church, time to eat and among many other different things, time itself, and could be heard clearly throughout the entire town. Even though spires were present before the beginning of the Gothic age, this was the first time they could be built so high, thanks to flying buttresses and ribbed vaults. Cathedrals When funds were readily available, cathedrals didn¹t take very long to build, usually two stages,? although, some times, it took as many as two hundred years. The fastest, though was Chartes, which was built in exactly twenty seven years.6 My Two Favorites There were many different cathedrals built in the Gothic age, but I think that the two most important ones are the cathedral at Notre-Dame in France, and Abbot Sugar¹s masterpiece, St. Denis, which was mentioned previously for its tremendous size. Notre Dame of Paris is famous because it was the first cathedral to use flying buttresses as a means of support, 7 and it also was known for its incredible detail. It has many spectacular figures carved into the stone covering its famous portholes. Notre Dame also has some very famous Rose windows, which show the lines of ancestry (the begating) in the Bible The St. Denis cathedral is famous for its prodigious size, and the fact that it was the first cathedral to use ribbed vaults. I also really admired the architect of St. Denis, Abbot Sugar, because I agreed with a lot of his points of view on cathedral design. One such example can be found in the quote that I used above, about the stained glass. I totally agree with him that point, because I think cathedrals used to have a strong foundation in first impressions; that if you want your cathedral to make the money necessary for upkeep, you must be willing to impress whomever will be going to the church. Conclusion At one time in France, there were over eighty cathedrals, or in other words, a cathedral for every two hundred people. All of these cathedrals being built, not only in France, but also all over Western Europe, needed a lot of stone, and most of it came from France. In fact, by the end of this era, there was so much stone quarried out of Northern France, that the only way to get the rocks needed to build a cathedral, they had to get their bricks from old, run down cathedrals and castles. A Wonderful Time For the Church The reason, I think that there were so many cathedrals, not just as a whole, since the amount per capita is just as staggering, was because this was a great time for the church. As I said before, there were no shortages in men and money to build cathedrals, so the only difficulty was just getting your hands on this money. A Wonderful Time For Mankind Besides all of the advances in the field of architecture, there also were a great deal of inventions for the everyday man. Inventions that greatly increased the standard of living, and eating habits. Reasons for this Being such a Wonderful Age In the Gothic Era, now that there was a high standard of living, the commoners were a little bit closer to being equal with the nobles, which I think was the most important breakthrough that " "broke through" in this age. Bibliography Gothic Architecture By Robert Brammer, 1961 George Brazzillier New York Beverly Hills public Library 723.5 B The Cathedral Builders By Jean Grinner, 1993 by Editions du Seuil Beverly Hills Public Library 726.6 The Gothic Cathedral By Christopher Wilson, 1990 Thames and Hudson Ltd. London Beverly Hills Public Library 726.6 Wilson Cathedrals and Castles: Building in the Middle Ages By Alain Erlande. Translated from French by Rosemary Stone Hewer 1993 Gallimard-- English Translation (c)1995 By Harry N. Abrahms New York and Thames and Hudson Led., London Beverly Hills Public Library 726.6 Cathedral: The Story of It's Construction By David Macaulay, 1973 Houlton Mufflin Inc. Boston Crespi Carmalite High School 726.6Mac Churches: Their Plan and Furnishing By Peter F. Anson, 1948 By the Bruce Publishing Co. Crespi Carmalite High School 726.1Ans Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia, Macintosh Edition, 1992 Compton's NewMedia, Inc. Version 1.00M f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Greek Orthodox Church 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Greek Orthodox Church The Greek Orthodox Church is one of the three major branches of Christianity, which "stands in today's society as one of the communities created by the apostles of Jesus in the region of the eastern Mediterranean, and which spread by missionary activity throughout Eastern Europe" (Meyendorff 5).The word orthodox comes from Greek, meaning right-believing. currently the orthodox religion has more than 174 million followers throughout the world. The Greek Orthodox church is autocephalous, that is, governed by its own head bishop. The head bishops of this autocephalous church may be called patriarch, metropolitan, or archbishop. These clergymen are much like the Pope in that they decide church doctrine and generally make the important decision on controversial topics. In its doctrinal statements, "the Greek Orthodox church strongly affirms that it holds the original Christian faith, which was common to East and West during the first millennium of Christian history" (Meyendorff 18). More particularly, it recognizes the authority of the ecumenical councils at which East and West were represented together. These were the councils of Nicaea I (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus(431), Chalcedon(451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), and Nicaea II (787) (Encarta 1996). The power of teaching and guiding the community is bestowed on certain ministries, particularly that of the bishop of each diocese or is directed through certain institutions, such as councils. Because the church is composed not only of bishops, or of clergy, but of the whole laity as well, "the Orthodox church strongly affirms that the guardian of truth is the entire people of God" (Encarta 96). The doctrine of seven sacraments is accepted in the Greek Orthodox church, although no supreme authority has ever limited the sacraments to that number. The central sacrament is the Eucharist; the others are baptism, normally by immersion; confirmation, which follows baptism immediately in the form of anointment with chrism; penance; Holy Orders; marriage; and anointment of the sick. The Greek Orthodox church admits married men to the priesthood. Bishops, however, are elected from among celibate or widowed clergy. The Greek Orthodox religion differs for many other religions in that they express prayers and worship with pictures. This central function of religious images, called icons, received its full definition following the end of the iconoclastic movement in Byzantium (843). The iconoclasts were looked upon as sacrilegious in that they resemble idols, which were prohibited in the old testament . "The Orthodox theologians, on the other hand, based their arguments on the specifically Christian doctrine of the incarnation: God is indeed invisible and indescribable in his essence, but when the Son of God became man, he voluntarily assumed all the characteristics of created nature, including describability"(Meyendorff 21). Although there are many differences between the Eastern and Western Churches, there is always the possibility of the two churches combining in the future. If each church is willing to make small corrections in their doctrine, the two churches that have been separated for hundreds of years, could possibly combine in the decades ahead. Works Cited Microsoft Encarta. Computer software. Microsoft, 1996. Gateway PC-DOS Meyendorff, Rev John. The Orthodox Church. New York: Ballantine, 1984. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Greek Orthodox Church.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Greek Orthodox Church The Greek Orthodox Church is one of the three major branches of Christianity, which "stands in today's society as one of the communities created by the apostles of Jesus in the region of the eastern Mediterranean, and which spread by missionary activity throughout Eastern Europe" (Meyendorff 5).The word orthodox comes from Greek, meaning right-believing. currently the orthodox religion has more than 174 million followers throughout the world. The Greek Orthodox church is autocephalous, that is, governed by its own head bishop. The head bishops of this autocephalous church may be called patriarch, metropolitan, or archbishop. These clergymen are much like the Pope in that they decide church doctrine and generally make the important decision on controversial topics. In its doctrinal statements, "the Greek Orthodox church strongly affirms that it holds the original Christian faith, which was common to East and West during the first millennium of Christian history" (Meyendorff 18). More particularly, it recognizes the authority of the ecumenical councils at which East and West were represented together. These were the councils of Nicaea I (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus(431), Chalcedon(451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), and Nicaea II (787) (Encarta 1996). The power of teaching and guiding the community is bestowed on certain ministries, particularly that of the bishop of each diocese or is directed through certain institutions, such as councils. Because the church is composed not only of bishops, or of clergy, but of the whole laity as well, "the Orthodox church strongly affirms that the guardian of truth is the entire people of God" (Encarta 96). The doctrine of seven sacraments is accepted in the Greek Orthodox church, although no supreme authority has ever limited the sacraments to that number. The central sacrament is the Eucharist; the others are baptism, normally by immersion; confirmation, which follows baptism immediately in the form of anointment with chrism; penance; Holy Orders; marriage; and anointment of the sick. The Greek Orthodox church admits married men to the priesthood. Bishops, however, are elected from among celibate or widowed clergy. The Greek Orthodox religion differs for many other religions in that they express prayers and worship with pictures. This central function of religious images, called icons, received its full definition following the end of the iconoclastic movement in Byzantium (843). The iconoclasts were looked upon as sacrilegious in that they resemble idols, which were prohibited in the old testament . "The Orthodox theologians, on the other hand, based their arguments on the specifically Christian doctrine of the incarnation: God is indeed invisible and indescribable in his essence, but when the Son of God became man, he voluntarily assumed all the characteristics of created nature, including describability"(Meyendorff 21). Although there are many differences between the Eastern and Western Churches, there is always the possibility of the two churches combining in the future. If each church is willing to make small corrections in their doctrine, the two churches that have been separated for hundreds of years, could possibly combine in the decades ahead. Works Cited Microsoft Encarta. Computer software. Microsoft, 1996. Gateway PC-DOS Meyendorff, Rev John. The Orthodox Church. New York: Ballantine, 1984. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Hebrews Profits.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joseph Napoleon World History 1500 Journal Entry Personal View Isaiah 10:1-6 THE HEBREWS PROPHETS: Isaiah & Amos "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees , to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people. Making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of the reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches? Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives, of fall among the slain.. Yet for all this his anger is not turned away. His hand is still upraised. "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of the wrath! I send him against a Godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch, and to trample them down like mud in the streets." These writings, from the enscriptures of the bible some say philosophical, inspire mystery, wonder and the relation to how true they are. I have a monotheistic way of thinking, though the bible is said to be the writings of the way of life of Moses and the Hebrews, I am puzzled by how certain writings pertain to society, culture and the life of man and women today. As I try to decipher this passage in my own words of Isaiah. One is speaking of the oppression committed by man upon man. It is Jesus asking why man whom were created as brother and sister making unjustly laws...deprive the poor of their rights...withhold the justice from the oppressed of my people. I strongly believe there is a judgment day. For all the wrongs committed in society against one another and against oneself; as the sacred body that be. Harming thy brethren, killing thy neighbor, steeling. All to satisfy the wants for themselves. It is all competitive. Part of my heritage being of Blackfoot Indian descent, the way of life is to create and live life from the gifts of nature in which thy God provided. I can almost guarantee the society today living of monetary value, would not know how to survive if everything all of a sudden were taken away. A sudden exhausting rainfall, which flooded the cities, and devoured the homes, and cars, and other belongings. Some consider this to happen on Judgment Day or the day of Reckoning. As a punishment for man creating these evil doings. People today are so encompassed in the American Way of Living they cannot sacrifice for a minute to live without..forks, eating with thyne hands...the powers tocreate...cars...televisions. computers...telephones...steeling...killing...assaulting...raping...adultery. I myself look forward to the day when I do not have to work two jobs and go to school, to have a good house, a family, a nice car, to live happy. Now ask me have I eaten with my hands, or walked to school or read the newspaper instead of watched tv. Yes, to realize the best things in life are for free! So how can one judge them? How can they pay for their sins. is it " the day of Reckoning" or Judgment day the day in which the truth shall prevail.. So for those people who know about this day... I dispatch him against a people who anger me , seize loot and snatch , and to trample them down like mud in the streets. I believe a good person, inner person who has a good heart and does good will see the light in Judgment day.. Those who deprive the poor, steel commit adultery and follow the way of disobeying the 10 Commandments will pay for their sins. I, like many others in the same have a strong, yet kind heart. I question many times what are my personal attributes and skills and many times reach the same question not answered. Until a little birdie one day told me my heart is good and kind, I care for those who don not care and help those who will not admit they need help. Yet at the same time I give to the poor and can feel for the poor, though sometimes I feel like saying get a damn job. I have learned it is not that easy. Mentally they just cannot do it, it's like living in a world without work. What is one to do, just live? So am I depriving the poor of what they need? All these questions have to have answers and rest, someday I believe they will be answered on the day of Reckoning...Judgment day. In ending I am afraid of this day as I relate to the bible God shall come not a man or animal but as beast and will come take thyne which belongith in thy kindom of Heaven, and I believe that is me. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The History Of Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The History Of Buddhism Soon after Buddha's death or parinirvana, five hundred monks met at the first council at Rajagrha, under the leadership of Kashyapa. Upali recited the monastic code, Vinaya, as he remembered it. Ananda, Buddha's cousin, friend, and favorite disciple, and a man of prodigious memory, recited Buddha's lessons, the Sutras. The monks debated details and voted on final versions. These were then committed to memory by other monks, to be translated into the many languages of the Indian plains. It should be noted that Buddhism remained an oral tradition for over 200 years after the first council, for the simple reason that India did not as yet have an alphabet. In the next few centuries, the original unity of Buddhism began to fragment. The most significant split occurred after the second council, held at Vaishali 100 years after the first. After debates between a more liberal group and traditionalists, the liberal group left and labeled themselves the Mahasangha, "the great sangha." They would eventually evolve into the Mahayana tradition of northern Asia. The traditionalists, now referred to as Sthaviravada, "way of the elders" or, in Pali, Theravada, developed a complex set of philosophical ideas beyond those elucidated by Buddha. These were collected into the Abhidharma or "higher teachings." But they, too, encouraged disagreements, so that one splinter group after another left the fold. Ultimately, 18 schools developed, each with their own interpretations of various issues, and spread all over India and Southeast Asia. Today, only the school stemming from the Sri Lankan Theravadan survives. One of the most significant events in the history of Buddhism is the chance encounter of the monk Nigrodha and the emperor Ashoka Maurya. Ashoka, succeeding his father after a bloody power struggle in 268 bc, found himself deeply disturbed by the carnage he caused while suppressing a revolt in the land of the Kalingas. Meeting Nigrodha convinced Emperor Ashoka to devote himself to peace. On his orders, thousands of rock pillars were erected, bearing the words of the Buddha, in the new brahmi script, the first written evidence of Buddhism. The third council of monks was held at Pataliputra, the capital of Ashoka's empire. There is a story that tells about a poor young boy who, having nothing to give the Buddha as a gift, collected a handful of dust and innocently presented it. The Buddha smiled and accepted it with the same graciousness he accepted the gifts of wealthy admirers. That boy, it is said, was reborn as the Emperor Ashoka. Ashoka sent missionaries all over India and beyond. Some went as far as Egypt, Palestine, and Greece. St. Origen even mentions them as having reached Britain. The Greeks of one of the Alexandrian kingdoms of northern India adopted Buddhism, after their King Menandros was convinced by a monk named Nagasena, the conversation immortalized in the Milinda Pañha. A Kushan king of north India named Kanishka was also converted, and a council was held in Kashmir in about 100 ad. Greek Buddhists there recorded the Sutras on copper sheets which, unfortunately, were never recovered. It is interesting to note that there is a saint in Orthodox Christianity named Josaphat, an Indian king whose story is essentially that of the Buddha. Josaphat is thought to be a distortion of the word bodhisattva. Emperor Ashoka sent one of his sons, Mahinda, and one of his daughters, Sanghamitta, a monk and a nun, to Sri Lanka, Ceylon, around the year 240 bc. The king of Sri Lanka, King Devanampiyatissa, welcomed them and was converted. One of the gifts they brought with them was a branch of the bodhi tree, which was successfully transplanted. The descendants of this branch can still be found on the island. The fourth council was held in Sri Lanka, in the Aloka Cave, in the first century bc. During this time as well, and for the first time, the entire set of Sutras were recorded in the Pali language on palm leaves. This became Theravada's Pali Canon, from which so much of our knowledge of Buddhism stems. It is also called the Tripitaka, or three baskets. The three sections of the canon are the Vinaya Pitaka, the monastic law, the Sutta Pitaka, words of the Buddha, and the Abhidamma Pitaka, the philosophical commentaries. In a very real sense, Sri Lanka's monks may be credited with saving the Theravada tradition. Although it had spread once from India all over southeast Asia, it had nearly died out due to competition from Hinduism and Islam, as well as war and colonialism. Theravada monks spread their tradition from Sri Lanka to Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Laos, and from these lands to Europe and the west generally. Mahayana began in the first century bc, as a development of the Mahasangha rebellion. Their more liberal attitudes toward monastic tradition allowed the lay community to have a greater voice in the nature of Buddhism. For better or worse, the simpler needs of the common folk were easier for the Mahayanists to meet. For example, the people were used to gods and heroes. So, the Trikaya, three bodies, doctrine came into being. Not only was Buddha a man who became enlightened, he was also represented by various god-like Buddhas in various appealing heavens, as well as by the Dharma itself, or Shunyata, emptiness, or Buddha-Mind, depending on which interpretation we look at, sort of a Buddhist Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. More important, however, was the increased importance of the Bodhisattva. A Bodhisattva is someone who has attained enlightenment, but who chooses to remain in this world of Samsara in order to bring others to enlightenment. He is a lot like a saint, a spiritual hero, for the people to admire and appeal to. Along with new ideas came new scriptures. Also called Sutras, they are often attributed to Buddha himself, sometimes as special transmissions that Buddha supposedly felt were too difficult for his original listeners and therefore were hidden until the times were ripe. The most significant of these new Sutras are these: Prajñaparamita or Perfection of Wisdom, an enormous collection of often esoteric texts, including the famous Heart Sutra and Diamond Sutra. The earliest known piece of printing in the world is, in fact, a copy of the Diamond Sutra, printed in China in 868 ad. Suddharma-pundarika or White Lotus of the True Dharma, also often esoteric, includes the Avalokiteshwara Sutra, a prayer to that Bodhisattva. Vimalakirti-nirdesha or Vimalakirti's Exposition, is the teachings of and stories about the enlightened householder Vimalakirti. Shurangama-samadhi or Hero's Sutra, provides a guide to meditation, shunyata, and the bodhisattva. It is most popular among Zen Buddhists Sukhavati-vyuha or Pure Land Sutra, is the most important Sutra for the Pure Land Schools of Buddhism. The Buddha tells Ananda about Amitabha and his Pure Land or heaven, and how one can be reborn there. There are many, many others. Finally, Mahayana is founded on two new philosophical interpretations of Buddhism, Madhyamaka and Yogachara. Madhyamaka means "the middle way." You may recall that Buddha himself called his way the middle way in his very first sermon. He meant, at that time, the middle way between the extremes of hedonistic pleasure and extreme asceticism. But he may also have referred to the middle way between the competing philosophies of eternalism and annihilationism, the belief that the soul exists forever and that the soul is annihilated at death. Between materialism and nihilism, an Indian monk by the name of Nagarjuna took this idea and expanded on it to create the philosophy that would be known as Madhyamaka, in a book called the Mulamadhyamaka-karika, written about 150 ad. Basically a treatise on logical argument, it concludes that nothing is absolute, everything is relative, nothing exists on its own, everything is interdependent. All systems, beginning with the idea that each thing is what it is and not something else, Aristotle's law of the excluded middle, wind up contradicting themselves. Rigorous logic, in other words, leads one away from all systems, and to the concept of shunyata. Shunyata means emptiness. This doesn't mean that nothing exists. It means that nothing exists in and of itself, but only as a part of a universal web of being. This would become a central concept in all branches of Mahayana. Of course, it is actually a restatement of the central Buddhist concepts of anatman, anitya, and dukkha. The second philosophical innovation, Yogachara, is credited to two brothers, Asanga and Vasubandhu, who lived in India in the 300's ad. They elaborated earlier movements in the direction of the philosophy of idealism or chitta-matra. Chitta-matra means literally mind only. Asanga and Vasubandhu believed that everything that exists is mind or consciousness. What we think of as physical things are just projections of our minds, delusions or hallucinations, if you like. To get rid of these delusions, we must meditate, which for the Yogachara school means the creation of pure consciousness, devoid of all content. In that way, we leave our deluded individual minds and join with the universal mind, or Buddha-mind. The last innovation was less philosophical and far more practical, Tantra. Tantra refers to certain writings which are concerned, not with philosophical niceties, but with the basic how-to of enlightenment, and not just with enlightenment in several rebirths, but enlightenment here-and-now. In order to accomplish this feat, dramatic methods are needed, ones which, to the uninitiated, may seem rather bizarre. Tantra was the domain of the siddhu, the adept, someone who knows the secrets, a magician in the ways of enlightenment. Tantra involves the use of various techniques, including the well-known mandalas, mantras, and mudras. mandalas are paintings or other representations of higher awareness, usually in the form of a circular pattern of images, which may provide the focus of one-pointed meditation. Mantras are words or phrases that serve the same purpose, such as the famous "Om mani padme hum." Mudras are hand positions that symbolize certain qualities of enlightenment. Less well known are the yidams. A yidam is the image of a god or goddess or other spiritual being, either physically represented or, more commonly, imagined clearly in the mind's eye. Again, these represent archetypal qualities of enlightenment, and one-pointed meditation on these complex images lead the adept to his or her goal. These ideas would have enormous impact on Mahayana. They are not without critics, however, Madhyamaka is sometimes criticized as word-play, and Yogachara is criticized as reintroducing atman, eternal soul or essence, to Buddhism. Tantra has been most often criticized, especially for its emphasis on secret methods and strong devotion to a guru. Nevertheless, these innovations led to a renewed flurry of activity in the first half of the first millenium, and provided the foundation for the kinds of Buddhism we find in China, Tibet, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere in east Asia. Legend has it that the Chinese Emperor Ming Ti had a dream which led him to send his agents down the Silk Road, the ancient trade route between China and the west, to discover its meaning. The agents returned with a picture of the Buddha and a copy of the Sutra in 42 Sections. This Sutra would, in 67 ad, be the first of many to be translated into Chinese. The first Buddhist community in China is thought to be one in Loyang, established by "foreigners" around 150 ad, in the Han dynasty. Only 100 years later, there emerges a native Chinese Sangha. And during the Period of Disunity, or Era of the Warring States, 220 to 589 ad, the number of Buddhist monks and nuns increase to as many as two million. Apparently, the uncertain times and the misery of the lower classes were fertile ground for the monastic traditions of Buddhism. Buddhism did not come to a land innocent of religion and philosophy, of course. China, in fact, had three main competing streams of thought; Confucianism, Taoism, and folk religion. Confucianisim is essentially a moral-political philosophy, involving a complex guide to human relationships. Taoism is a life-philosophy involving a return to simpler and more "natural" ways of being. And the folk religion, or religions, consisted of rich mythologies, superstitions, astrology, reading of entrails, magic, folk medicine, and so on. Although these various streams sometimes competed with each other and with Buddhism, they also fed each other, enriched each other, and intertwined with each other. Over time, the Mahayana of India became the Mahayana of China and, later, of Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. The first example historically is Pure Land Buddhism. The peasants and working people of China were used to gods and goddesses, praying for rain and health, worrying about heaven and hell, and so on. It wasn't a great leap to find in Buddhism's cosmology and theology the bases for a religious tradition that catered to these needs and habits, while still providing a sophisticated philosophical foundation. The idea of this period of time as a fallen or inferior time, traditional in China, led to the idea that we are no longer able to reach enlightenment on our own power, but must rely on the intercession of higher beings. The transcendent Buddha Amitabha, and his western paradise, "pure land", introduced in the Sukhavati-vyuha Sutra, was a perfect fit. Another school that was to be particularly strongly influenced by Chinese thought was the Meditation School, Dhyana, Ch'an, Son, or Zen. Tradition has the Indian monk Bodhidharma coming from the west to China around 520 ad. It was Bodhidharma, it is said, who carried the Silent Transmission to become the First Patriarch of the Ch'an School in China. From the very beginning, Buddha had had reservations about his ability to communicate his message to the people. Words simply could not carry such a sublime message. So, on one occasion, while the monks around him waited for a sermon, he said absolutely nothing. He simply held up a flower. the monks, of course, were confused, except for Kashyapa, who understood and smiled. The Buddha smiled back, and thus the Silent Transmission began. Zen Buddhism focuses on developing the immediate awareness of Buddha-mind through meditation on emptiness. It is notorious for its dismissal of the written and spoken word and occasionally for his rough-house antics. It should be understood, however, that there is great reverence for the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, even when they are ostensibly ignoring, poking fun, or even turning them upside-down. Zen has contributed its own literature to the Buddhist melting-pot, including The Platform Sutra, written by Hui Neng, the Sixth Patriarch, around 700 ad., The Blue Cliff Record, written about 1000 ad., and The Gateless Gate, written about 1200 ad. And we shouldn't forget the famous Ten Ox-Herding Pictures that many see as containing the very essence of Zen's message. During the Sui dynasty and T'ang dynasty, Chinese Buddhism experienced what is referred to as the "blossoming of schools." The philosophical inspirations of the Madhyamaka and Yogachara, as well as the Pure Land and Ch'an Sutras, interacting with the already sophisticated philosophies of Confucianism and Taoism, led to a regular renaissance in religious and philosophical thought. We find the Realistic School, based on the "all things exist" Hinayana School; the Three-Treatises School, based on Madhyamaka; the Idealist School, based on Yogachara; the Tantric School; the Flower Adornment School, which attempted to consolidate the various forms; and the White Lotus School, which focused on the Lotus Sutra. All the Chinese Schools had their representatives in neighboring countries. Korea was to develop its own powerful form of Ch'an called Son. Vietnam developed a form of Ch'an that incorporated aspects of Pure Land and Hinayana. But it was Japan that would have a field day with Chinese Buddhism, and pass the Mahayana traditions on to the US and the west generally. Again, we begin with the legendary. A delegation arrived from Korea with gifts for the Emperor of Japan in 538 ad., including a bronze Buddha and various Sutras. Unfortunately a plague led the Emperor to believe that the traditional gods of Japan were annoyed, so he had the gifts thrown into a canal. But the imperial court on the 600's, in their constant effort to be as sophisticated as the courts of their distinguished neighbors, the Chinese, continued to be drawn to Buddhism. Although starting as a religion of the upper classes, in the 900's, Pure Land entered the picture as the favorite of the peasant and working classes. And in the 1200's, Ch'an, relabeled Zen, came into Japan, where it was enthusiastically adopted by, among others, the warrior class or Samurai. Zen was introduced into Japan by two particularly talented monks who had gone to China for their educations, Eisai brought Lin-chi Ch'an, with its koans and occasionally outrageous antics; Dogen brought the more sedate Ts'ao-tung Ch'an. In addition, Dogen is particularly admired for his massive treatise, the Shobogenzo. Ch'an has always had an artistic side to it. In China and elsewhere, a certain simple, elegant style of writing and drawing developed among the monks. In Japan, this became an even more influential aspect of Zen. We have, for example, the poetry, calligraphy, and paintings of various monks; Bankei , Basho, Hakuin, and Ryokan. One last Japanese innovation is usually attributed to a somewhat unorthodox monk named Nichiren. Having been trained in the Tendai or White Lotus tradition, he came to believe that the Lotus Sutra carried all that was necessary for Buddhist life. More than that, he believed that even the name of the Sutra was enough. So he encouraged his students to chant this mantra, Namu-myoho-renge-kyo, which means "homage to the Lotus Sutra." This practice alone would ensure enlightenment in this life. In fact, he insisted, all other forms of Buddhism were worthless. Needless to say, this was not appreciated by the Buddhist powers of the day. He spent the rest of his life exiled to a remote island. The Nichiren School nevertheless proved to be one of the most successful forms of Buddhism on the planet. Finally, let's turn out attention to the most mysterious site of Buddhism's history, Tibet. Its first encounter with Buddhism occurred in the 700's ad, when a Tantric master, Guru Rinpoché, came from India to battle the demons of Tibet for control. The demons submitted, but they remained forever a part of Tibetan Buddhism, as its protectors. During the 800's and 900's, Tibet went through a "dark age," during which Buddhism suffered something of a setback. But, in the 1000's, it returned in force. And in 1578, the Mongol overlords named the head of the Gelug School the Dalai Lama, meaning "guru as great as the ocean." The title was made retroactive to two earlier heads of the school. The fifth Dalai Lama is noted for bringing all of Tibet under his religious and political control. The lineage continues down to the present 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, born 1935. In 1989, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on behalf of his people and nation, which had been taken over by the Communist Chinese in 1951. It was in the latter half of the 1800's that Buddhism first came to be known in the west. The great European colonial empires brought the ancient cultures of India and China back to the attention of the intellectuals of Europe. Scholars began to learn Asian languages and translate Asian texts. Adventurers explored previously shut-off places and recorded the cultures. Religious enthusiasts enjoyed the exotic and mystical tone of the Asian traditions. In England, for example, societies sprang up for devotees of "orientalia," such as T. W. Rhys Davids' Pali Text Society and T. Christmas Humphreys' Buddhist Society. Books were published, such as Sir Edwin Arnold's epic poem The Light of Asia. And the first western monks began to make themselves know, such as Allan Bennett, perhaps the very first, who took the name Ananda Metteya. In Germany and France as well, Buddhism was the rage. In the United States, there was a similar flurry of interest. First of all, thousands of Chinese immigrants were coming to the west coast in the late 1800's, many to provide cheap labor for the railroads and other expanding industries. Also, on the east coast, intellectuals were reading about Buddhism in books by Europeans. One example was Henry Thoreau, who, among other things, translated a French translation of a Buddhist Sutra into English. A renewal of interest came during World War II, during which many Asian Buddhists, such as the Zen author D. T. Suzuki, came to England and the U.S., and many European Buddhists, such as the Zen author Alan Watts, came to the U.S. As these examples suggest, Zen Buddhism was particularly popular, especially in the U.S., where it became enmeshed in the Beatnik artistic and literary movement as "Beat Zen." One by one, European and Americans who studied in Asia returned with their knowledge and founded monasteries and societies, Asian masters came to Europe and America to found monasteries, and the Asian immigrant populations from China, Japan, Vietnam and elsewhere, quietly continued their Buddhist practices. Today, it is believed that there are more than 300 million Buddhists in the world, including at least a quarter million in Europe, and a half million each in North and South America. I say "at least" because other estimates go as high as three million in the U.S. alone. Whatever the numbers may be, Buddhism is the third largest religion in the world, after Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. And, although it has suffered considerable setbacks over the centuries, it seems to be attracting more and more people, as a religion or a philosophy of life. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The impeccability of Jesus Christ.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LIKE US IN ALL THINGS BUT SIN: An examination of the question of the impeccability of Jesus Christ Class: THEOL 510 Liberty University 11 October, 1996 The New Testament authors had no qualms about declaring that Jesus was truly human and telling us that Jesus committed no sin. Bible passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22 and 1 John 3:5 "witness that He [Jesus] did not give in to temptation, nor violate the moral standards of God, nor was He inconsistent with the nature of his character." That is, Jesus was sinless. It is vital to our theology that Jesus was sinless. For only if Jesus was sinless could His death have been a vicarious substitution and fulfil God's redemptive plan for man. If Jesus had not been sinless, then it would mean that He died for His own sins and not those of mankind. Had Jesus died for His own sins then His death could not have been accepted by the Father as a vicariously substitution for the punishment and judgement each of us are entitled to receive. Even though there is no serious debate that Jesus was anything but sinless, theologians have discussed the question of whether Jesus could have sinned if He had wanted. This is called the peccability of Christ. The opposing argument, i.e., impeccability, being that even if He had wanted, Jesus could not have sinned. Upon first consideration, one might view this question as being trivial; something to simply keep the theologians "out of mischief" when they have nothing better to do. However, there are some very appropriate reasons for examining this issue. The first reason to examine the issue of Christ's peccability/impeccability is so that we might obtain a better understanding and a more in depth knowledge about both Jesus Christ and God, just as God has invited us. This is the same reason that we study Theology proper. When we arrive at an answer to this question, we will have additional knowledge about Jesus' preincarnate state and a better understanding of the meaning of the statement "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever ." Second, some theologians have argued that the peccability of Jesus has a direct impact on the humanity of Christ. That is, if Jesus was not peccable then just how "human" was he? Could he have been "true man" if he were not able to sin like the rest of mankind? (Note: this is a question of whether Christ could have sinned; not that Christ had to have sinned in order to be human.) Morris indirectly asks if Jesus' impeccability implied that he was lacking a part of the human condition that the rest of mankind have, viz., the consciousness of past sin? If this is the case, Christ may not have been truly human because he only took on most of the "qualities" of human nature but shielded himself from the consciousness of sin. Third, Sahl tells us that "the virgin birth, the Incarnation, and the hypostatic union, are all influenced by the impeccability of Jesus Christ ." Therefore, if we are to have a full understanding of these doctrines, we need to study the question of Christ's peccability/impeccability. Fourth, an understanding of the peccability/impeccability of Jesus Christ will have an impact on our understanding of angels in general and Lucifer/Satan in particular . That is, by examining the peccability/impeccability of Jesus (and the related issue of the temptability of Jesus) we will come to have a better understanding of the realm of angels, especially the fallen angels. Furthermore, by examining the temptations that Satan makes to Christ, we will also have a deeper awareness of the powers of Satan and his followers. Fifth, because the Bible tells us that Jesus did not sin, the question of Jesus' peccability or impeccability will have an impact on biblical inerrancy and integrity. As Sahl states, " if it is possible that the Lord Jesus Christ could succumb to or be deceived by sin, then one must also conclude that it is possible for Him to have given inaccurate information about eternal things when He was growing in wisdom and stature and favour with God and man ." And finally, Christ's peccability/impeccability will have an impact on the victory over temptation and sin that the Redeemer accomplished . For if it was impossible for Jesus to have ever sinned then it is indeed a hallow victory: there was no chance of his ever not winning the battle. Thus, the victory is a very mute point and raises the question if the victory has any real impact on mankind under these circumstances. Thus, we can see that the peccability or impeccability of Jesus is more than simply an academic debate. The outcome of such a debate could have far reaching implications on our view and knowledge of God, our doctrine of the humanity of Jesus, the doctrines of the virgin birth, the Incarnation and the hypostatic union, our theology of angelology, the question of biblical inerrancy and integrity and finally, our view of Jesus' victory over temptation and sin. I would now like to turn to the arguments for the peccability of Jesus, i.e., Jesus could have sinned if he had wanted to sin. As stated earlier, a positive result of this investigation does not imply that Jesus had to have sinned during his earthly life. Only that it was possible for Jesus to have sinned. Our first argument that Jesus was peccable centres on the question of the temptations of Jesus. Charles Hodge has been quoted as "summarizing this teaching in these words: This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potent peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That he did not sin under the greatest provocation ... is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin ." Sahl states this as "if a person has no susceptibility to sin or if sin has no appeal for him, the temptation is a farce ." In short, this means that if Jesus was not capable of being tempted by sin and capable of sinning and then He was not truly human. For temptability and the ability to sin are part of being human. In order to fully understand and respond to this argument based on temptability we must examine the nature of temptability. Sahl argues that the problem with this argument is that we have a misconception of the nature of temptability. Specifically, he says, "the Greek word "to tempt" does not mean to induce evil. The word means 'to try, make a trial of, put to the test ... to signify the trying intentionally with the purpose of discovering what of good or evil, of power or weakness was in a person or thing,' " or "to have an appeal. " In this regard, Sahl concludes that the temptations of Christ were real: Christ faced real challenges in the desert where he proved the good that was in Him and also in the Garden of Gethsemani and on Calvary where he demonstrated His power. Towns notes that temptability may be defined as "Generally understood as the enticement of a person to commit sin by offering some seeming enticement. ... In this sense our sinless Redeemer was absolutely untemptible and impeccable. " That is, because Jesus was God and possessed the attributes of God, there was nothing that Jesus could be enticed to have or obtain. Therefore, he could not be tempted. However, on the opposite side of the question, Towns also notes that "[t]he nature of Christ's temptation was that He was asked to do the things He could do and the things He wanted: the results of which would have come from doing what Satan asked. The nature of His temptation was ... the fact that He as God was tempted to do the things He could do. The things Christ is asked to do ... appear to be valid requests ." Therefore, because Satan asked Christ to do the things he was capable of, e.g., turning stones to bread, etc., we can see that the temptations Christ faced were real. However, the temptations Jesus faced were different from those other men would endure; "[Jesus] was tried as no other was ever tried. Added to the nature of the temptation itself was the greater sensitivity of Christ ". It is possible that the ultimate and most severe temptation of Jesus came in the Garden of Gethsemani. Here Jesus was tempted to abandon the plan of God and to "let this cup pass from me" (Matthew 26:39). Clearly, "Jesus experienced worse temptations than we do." Hence, the temptations Christ faced were real precisely because they were tests of and trials to His power. That is, "when [the Bible tells us Jesus] was tempted ... it implies He was tempted in all His thinking, desires (emotions) and decision-making ability. Christ was tempted in every part of His being as a person is tempted in every part of human nature ." Another point we must remember in disputing the argument of peccability from temptability is that "temptation to sin does not necessitate susceptibility to sin ". The impossible can always be attempted. While success may not be likely, or the attempt may be impractical this does not in and of itself mean that such an attempt cannot be done. Walvoord states "while the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if the power is infinite, the person is impeccable ." As an example, Walvoord quotes Shedd's example of an army: "[it is not correct] to say that because an army cannot be conquered, it cannot be attacked. " There is also Biblical evidence that Jesus was truly tempted as we read in Hebrews "for we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who was tempted in every way that we are" (4:15). In summary then we can see that the argument of Jesus Christ's peccability cannot be supported by the temptation argument. For one to be tempted does not necessarily imply that one must be susceptible to the temptation. Furthermore, Jesus was tempted in every aspect of the term. True, His temptations were different from those we experience, but they were none the less real temptations. And Finally, just because Jesus was tempted does not imply that He was capable of sin. It is possible for Satan to try the impossible, i.e., tempt Jesus, even though there is no chance of success. The second argument in support of the peccability of Jesus rests on the humanity of Jesus, i.e., "[i]f He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning ." This argument rests on two fallacies. First, it fails to recognize that while Jesus was true man, He was also true God. He was the God-man. Even though a man, Jesus still retained all of the attributes of His divine nature (even though through the kenosis, or self-emptying, He willingly did not exercise all of His divine attributes.) "Jesus Christ possessed all the divine attributes of the Father ... In humanity, Christ was totally human; in deity, Jesus was unalterably God. Yet in Jesus Christ was a single, undivided personality in whom these two natures are vitally and undividedly united, so that Jesus Christ is not God and man, but the God-man. " The second fallacy is that, Jesus was first God and subsequently took on human manhood. "The second Trinitarian person [Jesus Christ] is the root and stock into which the human nature is grafted " or "God in becoming man did not diminish His deity, but added a human nature to the divine nature. " >From these two rebuttals we can see that even though Jesus was truly man, He maintained His divine attribute of holiness. It was this holiness which supplied the strength and will power to ensure that Christ avoided sin and could not sin. In other words, "[t]hough Christ was of both human and divine desires, He had only one determinative will. That determinative will is in the eternal Logos." Thus, even though Jesus was truly human, His divine will was more powerful and prevented Him from sinning because "a holy will may be perfectly free, and yet determined with absolute certainty to the right. Such is God's will ." Therefore, "as God, Christ is certain to do only good, and yet He is a moral agent making choices. He need not have the capacity to sin ." The third argument in support of the peccability of Jesus is based on the Scriptural statements that Jesus is the second or New Adam and corresponds to the first Adam. Thus, if Jesus was the second Adam he had to have all the qualities and characteristics of the first Adam. The proponents of this argument then proceed to conclude that one of the characteristics of Adam was the ability to sin. However, in actual fact, this argument misses the point. The first Adam was a perfect man when he was created by God. "Adam was created in holiness without the inward compulsion toward sin that now characterizes his progeny " or "Jesus did not possess a sin nature because it was not a part of the original nature of man ." In the garden Adam knew neither sin nor the consequences of sin. "[Adam] had no experience of sin " before the Serpent and Eve presented him the apple from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was only when Adam disobeyed God that Adam added sin to his perfect nature. This is a case of arguing from the present condition to a past condition which is then applicable to Jesus. It "make[s] the mistake of taking our imperfect lives as the standard, and regarding Christ as human only as He conforms to our failures. [Rather,] He is the standard, and He shows us what a genuine humanity can be ." Thus, the perfect human is without sin and is capable of not sinning (even though the perfect human will still have inherited a sin nature and original sin from Adam). Therefore, Christ can be the second or New Adam and still not have a peccable nature. In the chapter entitled "The Sinlessness of Christ" in Berkouwer's book The Person of Christ, the author presents three unique arguments for the peccability of Christ. I did not find mention of these arguments in any other source and, therefore, am sceptical of the weight they carry. However, I have decided to summarize them below in the interest of completeness. All three of his arguments are based on Biblical passages. Berkouwer's first argument centres on Christ words "Why do you call me good? None is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19, Mark 10:18 and a similar reference in Matthew 19:17). According to Berkouwer, this statement brings the peccability of Christ into question because "people have inferred that Christ himself did not proceed from his absolute sinlessness or holiness but rather places himself in the rank of sinful human beings. " However, to read this passage in this manner is clearly a case of poor interpretation. The Jerome Biblical Commentary tells us that the phrase "good teacher" is "a rarely used epithet for a rabbi " and that Jesus' answer "implies that the epithet 'good' being proper to God, should not be used indiscriminately and casually ." Berkouwer, on the other hand, suggests that this is a different type of misinterpretation. He argues that in the early church and at the time these three Gospels were written, there was no question of the sinlessness of Christ. The sinlessness of Christ is a theological concept which developed later in history: "an explicit attestation to [Jesus'] sense of sinlessness we do not find until we encounter them, as the fruit of the Logos-theology, in the pronouncements of the Johannine Christ ." While I am not personally convinced with Berkouwer's interpretation and prefer to base the rejection of this argument for Jesus' peccability on the correct interpretation of the passage, I will grant that Berkouwer presents a logical and plausible argument given what we know about the development of the New Testament writings. The second argument Berkouwer presents is based on the story of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. In Matthew's account of this incident, John the Baptist recognizes the holiness of Christ and tries to avoid baptising Him. However, Christ instructs John the Baptist to "give in for now " (Matthew 3:15). From this, the argument arises that if Jesus was sinless why was it He had to be baptized and repent His sins? The Jerome Biblical Commentary points out that the dialogue between John the Baptist and Jesus is not found in the accounts of either Mark or Luke and proposes that it is an addition by Matthew because "it was necessary to explain how Jesus could submit to a rite of repentance and confession of sin ." Berkouwer has a more fuller explanation saying "Christ was obedient to the divine law in precisely this manner ... To this law Christ was already subject in his circumcision and in his presentation in the temple and in nothing was he distinguished from the other children of his [i.e., the Jewish] people. "He was born of a woman, born under the law" (Gal. 4:4) ". In other words, Jesus was simply fulfilling the Judaic law and being a good Jew. Like all other Jews of His time, He was keeping the precepts and following the rules. It was not an attempt to deny his holiness or to claim that He was sinful. It was simply a rite of passage. Had He not followed through with the baptism it is possible that Jesus would have been condemned by the Jewish leaders and banned from the Temple. Therefore, we can see that the baptism of Jesus does not carry any weight as an attempt to prove the peccability of Jesus. Berkouwer's third unique approach of the peccability of Jesus is based on Hebrews 5:7-8. In this passage we are told by the apostolic author that "[Jesus] learned obedience from what he suffered." This statement has lead people (at least according to Berkouwer) to question if there was "a stage in which Christ was not yet obedient ... a stage antedating Christ's obedience." In countering this argument Berkouwer points out that Hebrew 5 is related precisely to the suffering of Christ in Gethsemani " where Christ is tempted to derail the divine plan, His cross, death and resurrection. However, Christ was obedient in the sense that He accepted the divine will and accepted the will of the Father. This passage does not relate to the whole life of Christ, but merely to a single episode.. Therefore, this passage is not supportive of the peccability theory. In summary therefore, we have seen that the question of the peccability of Jesus, i.e., Jesus could have sinned if He had wished to sin, cannot be supported by appealing to the following arguments: a) that in order to have a true human nature Jesus had to be able to sin; b) that in order to be really tempted as man is tempted Jesus had to be able to sin; c) that temptability necessitates susceptibility to sin; d) that if Jesus were a true man he would have to be able to sin because sin is part of the human condition; e) that if Jesus were really the Second or New Adam he had to have been able to sin; f) that Jesus statement in Luke 18:19, Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17 ("None is good but God alone") implies that Jesus had to have been able to sin; g) that Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist implies Jesus' sin nature and hence the ability to sin; and h) that Biblical passage of Hebrews 5:7-8 implies that Jesus was not always obedient and thus, able to sin. Therefore, we can conclude that there is no argument that would require us to admit or concur with the peccability of Jesus. Having determined the lack of evidence to support the peccability of Jesus, I now wish to examine the arguments in support of the impeccability of Jesus. The first argument to support the impeccability of Jesus is based on Jesus' divine nature. Towns tells us "Jesus was unalterably God " and to back up this statement he presents nine proofs. Sahl tells us that it is precisely because Jesus is God that "it is not possible for Him to sin ". Pannenberg explains this more fully, saying, "if sin is essentially life in contradiction to God, in self-centred closing of our ego against God, then Jesus' unity with God in his personal community with the Father and in his identity with the person of the Son of God means immediately his separation from all sin ." That is, "the concept of peccability in the person of Christ is contradicted principally by the attributes of immutability ." Pannenberg notes that "for Tertullian, Jesus is ... sinless ... because he is one with the sinless God ." In other words, both Pannenberg and Tertullian conclude that it is impossible for Christ to be peccable because to do so would fly in the face of God's (including Jesus') immutability. For Christ to be able to sin there would have to be a substantial change to the very nature of God. However, God himself has clearly revealed that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8) and "you [Jesus] are the same, and your years will have no end" (Hebrews 1:12). Walvoord has extrapolated these verses to imply, "it is unthinkable that God could sin [in] eternity past, it must also be true that it is impossible for God to sin in the person of Christ incarnate. The nature of His person forbids susceptibility to sin ." Towns states this as "To rob God of any attributes would be to rob God of deity. It would mean that God is no longer immutable (unchanging), and therefore, causes Him to be less than God ." Therefore, based on the above, it is clear that Jesus could not have been able to sin. Second, it has also been argued that since Jesus was God, His omnipotence, even though he chose not to exercise this attribute through the kenosis, would guarantee His impeccability: "peccability always implies weakness on the part of the one tempted. ... On the part of Christ, this is clearly out of the question ." Bechtle states this argument as "falling to temptation shows moral weakness or lack of power and ability. Christ had infinite power, and was therefore not susceptible to sin ." Third, it is argued that because Christ was omniscient He could not have sinned: sin frequently appeals to the ignorance of the one tempted. ... In the case of Christ, the effects of sin were perfectly known, with all the contributing factors. It was impossible for Christ having omniscience to commit that which he knew could only bring eternal woe to Himself and to the race. Having at once infinite wisdom to see sin in its true light and at the same time infinite power to resist temptation, it is evident that Christ was impeccable. Towns takes this argument based on the definition and attributes of God one step further and presents a fourth argument which includes the fact that Jesus was omnipresent as a proof of His impeccability: "Christ is omnipresent (His presence in heaven at the time of the temptation disallows sin), therefore, Christ could not sin for He lived a perfect life in heaven at the moment of the temptation ." The fifth argument in supporting the view that Christ was impeccable appeals to the statement "God cannot be tempted with evil " which is found in James 1:13. However, this is an inaccurate translation of the original manuscript. A more correct translation would be "Surely God, who is beyond the grasp of evil, tempts no one ." This latter interpretation is supported by the Jerome Biblical Commentary . Thus, the passage in James 1:13 is not appropriate to the current discussion and does not prove either the peccability or impeccability of Jesus. The sixth argument in support of the impeccability is what Sahl refers to as the "unique person of Jesus " or the hypostatic union. Under the doctrine of the hypostatic union Jesus "had one intellect, one set of emotions, and one volitional ability to make decisions ." However, some theologians, such as Shedd, believe that "the divinity [of Jesus] is dominant in his person. ... the divinity is the dominant factor in Christ's complex person ." Walvoord concurs with this opinion: "In the person of Christ, however, the human will was always subservient to the divine will and could never act independently ." While such an argument would seem to support the impeccability of Christ, I am not sure that it does not erroneously interpret the two natures of Christ. Under the doctrine of the hypostatic union we know that "the two natures [of Jesus] are bound together ... by a bond unique and inscrutable, which constitutes them one person with a single consciousness and will ." This means that "the human and divine natures did not mingle or merge together into a third nature with a different expression ." However, if Christ had only one single will (a position which "the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 condemned ') which was in fact dominated (and hence controlled) by his divine will, does this not imply that there is a blending of the wills or the creation of a third nature? Accordingly, while I would like to say that this argument supports the claim of Christ's immpeccability, to do so would be to accept an inaccurate definition of the hypostatic union. Therefore, this argument is not applicable to this discussion. The seventh argument in support of the impeccability is that Christ could not sin because he was doing the will of the Father, i.e., arguments from Jesus' omnipotent desire [and] His submission to the divine will. " We know that Christ was doing the will of the Father because the Bible clearly states this: "Then [Jesus] said, 'As is written of me in the book, I have come to do your will, O God' "(Hebrews 10:7);" Jesus explained to them: Doing the will of him who sent me and bringing his work to completion is my food" (John 4:34) and "I have come down from heaven, but to do the will of him who sent me." (John 6:38). The will of the Father is also clearly stated in the Bible: "[God] has sent his Son as an offering for our sins." (1 John 4:10). As an offering for our sins, "Christ is a substitute for sin ." However, the only way that Christ could be a substitute for our sin would be if Christ had no sin himself. "It would only have taken one sin to make Jesus a sinner. ... In that case, he would be unable to save Himself, let alone be the sinless substitute for the sins of the world ."Therefore, if Christ were to fulfill the will of the Father, there would have to be an assurance that He remained sinless throughout his entire life. The only way to guarantee that Christ would remain sinless would be if Christ could not sin. Therefore, Christ had to be impeccable. The eighth argument for the impeccability of Christ is presented by Sahl and is based solely on the Biblical statements of Christ and the fact that the Bible is inerrant, accurate and authoritative. Sahl extracts the following verses: Mark 2:1-12 (the account of the Paralytic at Capernaum), John 7:18 (Whoever speaks on his own is bent on self-glorification. The man who seeks glory for him who sent him is truthful; there is no dishonesty in his heart.), John 8:29 (The One who sent me is with me. He has not deserted me since I always do what pleases him.), and John 14:6 (Jesus told him: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me) and then concludes Jesus "is the impeccable Saviour who saves His people from their sins ." In summary therefore we have seen that: i) the fact that Jesus, who is God, is holy means that He his impeccable because for Him to sin would mean that God is capable of change; j) the fact that Jesus, who is God, is omniscient implies that He is impeccable; k) the fact that Jesus, who is God, is omnipotent implies that He is impeccable; l) the fact that Jesus, who is God, is omnipresent implies that He is impeccable; m) the fact that Jesus is a unique person who has an omnipotent desire and is submissive to the divine will implies He is impeccable; n) the fact that Jesus is the offering and sacrifice for man's sin implies that Jesus is impeccable; and o) the fact that Jesus own statements concerning Himself in the Bible, which is inerrant, implies that Jesus is impeccable. Thus we can conclude that Jesus was impeccable, i.e., he could not sin. This assignment requires that after having examined the question of Christ's peccability or impeccability that the author select a view and defend it. There is no doubt that I would like to take the view that Jesus is peccable and could have sinned if he had wanted to sin. For some reason, I cannot fully express why the peccability of Jesus is very comforting for me. Perhaps it is because such a view would mean that it might be possible for me to also live my life without sin. That is, if the perfect man, Jesus Christ, could live his life without sin, then there is at least the possibility that I could do likewise. There may also be comfort in the fact that it always easier to deal with another person who is similar to ourselves and who is not superior, i.e., without sin. Or maybe, it is because I find myself being tempted so often the idea of a Saviour who can also undergo temptation and who is peccable seems to be less threatening and more approachable than the alternative. However, after reviewing the above material and searching my heart, I would have to select the view that Christ is impeccable as my stand on this issue. While the Bible passages which proclaim Jesus' sinlessness and His impeccability are compelling, the ultimate arguments which convince me is the nature of Jesus, the God-man. For me, Jesus is clearly both God and man; fully the two natures and never separable. If Jesus is God then it means that He must be holy, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresence. Given these attributes and the fact that God is, by definition, immutable then I must conclude that Jesus is impeccable. In conclusion therefore, we have seen that there are several arguments which attempt to prove peccability of Jesus. However, all of these arguments fail to be convincing and have inherent fallacies. On the other hand, we have seen that there are several arguments which prove beyond a doubt that Jesus Christ is impeccable. Each of these arguments, by their very definition and by logical conclusions they lead to, show us that Jesus was impeccable. For myself, while I would like to believe that Jesus is peccable, the evidence and weight of conviction is clearly proves that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity, the true God-man, is impeccable. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Inspiration of Scripture.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ According to the Random House Dictionary, the word inspire means "to infuse an animating, quickening, or exalting influence into, or to communicate or suggest by a divine influence." This definition indicates, when applied to the scripture, that the stories and writings in the Bible did not come solely from the minds of the respective authors, but rather from a divine source. This suggests that the authors were scribes, reproducing what was instilled in them by God. This idea is strengthened by looking at distinct examples from the scripture that show that scripture is inspired, and not made up. By using the form of criticism known as literary criticism, we can analyze certain installments of the scripture and use them to prove that the scripture is, in fact, inspired, not a collection of false statements. There are times in the Bible and in Biblical history that the prophets themselves are confronted with people doubting the validity of the scripture, and trying to discredit it. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Here Timothy is relating a charge given to him by Paul. As a story that is being told, it can be easily inferred that Paul had confronted opposition to the belief that scripture was in fact inspired by God, and therefore valid. Using literary criticism allows us to stay on the surface of what is being said, and not necessarily have to dig behind it to find the true meaning (we'll leave that to historical criticism) and therefore by looking at the phrase "scripture is God-breathed" we can further say that God breathed His word into the authors, and they recorded it. God can be viewed as an indirect author, and the inspiration for scripture. "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and the comings of our Lord Jesus Christ but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." "Above all you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." From the standpoint of a literary critic, these two passages represent the question at hand as to whether or not scripture is inspired. Literary criticism looks at the passage as a whole, and reads what it says, just as a normal person would. Using this method, we see easily that scripture is in fact inspired, because it states that there were no cleverly invented stories, but rather God's own words. God's plans for his people are carefully laid out, and there is much doubt that He would entrust average people to teach others about His word without careful explanation as to exactly what it is, and how it came to be. This is why much of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, tells the historical story of the Israelites and there great escape from Egypt. God needed to be sure that exactly what He wanted to be in what was to be called His word was there, and nothing was added or falsified. In this sense, God can be seen as the editor of the Bible. Historical criticism says that if only facts are reliable, than find facts in the Bible. Historical critics are forced the differentiate between fact and myth, leaving quite a bit of room for human error. Due to this weakness, historical criticism is the least compatible method of proving that scripture is inspired. Historical criticism seems to ignore the fact that scripture is also literature, and to use their method of historical criticism, you must take apart the Bible, thereby destroying the literary flow. Literary criticism looks at the scripture in a way that is similar to how the average person reads it. Historical criticism is traditionally elitist, and not available to anyone except the academy. Also, is using historical criticism, complete objectivity is never achieved, because one cannot observe without influencing the object being observed. Many times when scholars are using historical criticism to try and explain certain things about the Bible, the Bible becomes irrelevant to the Church, therefore killing the entire reason for the Bible's existence; the teaching of God's word. Lastly, the Bible itself says that none of its contents are interpretations of God's word, but rather an unadulterated version of the truth; God's word verbatim. Historical criticism uses a historical interpretation to try and prove its point, thereby disproving its own validity. If historical scholars use a method that does not apply to the Bible, then it becomes irrelevant itself. This irrelevance is displayed using the Hermeneutical circle, because the circle implies that there is a cycle and a relationship between history and the content of the text, and while there may be in certain parts, that does nothing to prove that scripture is inspired, and only says that scripture has a possibly factual background. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Internet.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chapter II Level of Awareness Communication In the late 1980s the National Science Foundation (NSF) built five supercomputer centers to give any academic researcher access to high-power computers formerly available only to military contractors. The NSF built its own network, based on IP technology, to connect the five regional centers together. Individual university networks were chained together and linked to the closest regional center. Soon the network connections were being used for purposes unrelated to the centers, such as interuniversity electronic mail. The savings to be gained from electronic mail (or E-mail) alone were enough of an inducement for many businesses to invest heavily in equipment and network connections in the early 1990s. The employees of a large corporation may send hundreds of thousands of pieces of E-mail over the Internet every month, thereby cutting back on postal and telephone costs. Individuals can join any discussion groups or can "talk" to each other one-on-one. 4 Conferences --- Conferences are discussions between several dozens or even hundreds of people. There are thousands of different topics being discussed ranging from politics to Elvis. Academics swap research findings and businesses search out investment and licensing partners. AIDS and cancer sufferers provide mutual support for each other. An MIT student even posted some questions from his take home exam and had some help from economists from around the world.5 Entertainment Just like newspapers, magazines have taken the plunge and are winning new readers. You can also enjoy on-line "e-zines" that have no hardcopy edition. It's amazing what you can do with an online magazine, or "e-zine" in cyberspeak. You reach a much wider audience at much cheaper cost, compared to print. You get instant feedback from and even real-time interaction with your readers. Distribution is practically effortless. You can add stuff that's impossible in print media, such as animation, sound, and video. And for frustrated writers, it's the best and cheapest way to publish your own magazine. No wonder our local publications are creating their own digital alter-egos. And some enterprising individuals have created original electronic magazines of their own.6 Besides making available such as information sources as online magazines and encyclopedias, these services embrace electronic discussion groups on a variety of topics - hobbies, politics, media, games, sex, and the like. Business The Internet is also a repository of information of businesses. Thousands of discussion groups with specialized interests-in topics ranging from aeronautics to molecular biology-share data across the Internet. The U.S. government posts more and more information, such as Commerce Department data and new patent filings, on the Internet. Additionally, many universities are converting large libraries to electronic form for distribution on the Internet. One of the most ambitious examples of this is Cornell University's ongoing project to convert 100,000 books printed over the past century on the development of American infrastructure-books on bridges, roads, and other public works.7 Some businesses have also begun to explore the possibility of advertising and marketing on the Internet, but thus far the results have been mixed. Protection of copyrighted material is a problem because anyone can "download" (electronically copy) data from the Internet. Some companies have explored encrypting data for sale on the Internet, providing decoding keys only to buyers of the data. To protect their internal business against outside intrusions, most businesses set up a "firewall," a stand alone computer that vets all incoming Internet communications. This kind of set up prevents outsiders from gaining access to the company's protected data.8 CHAPTER III INTERNET FEATURES Electronic Mail (e-mail) Thanks to e-mail, you can transmit a variety of communications and correspondence such as letters, memos, graphics, and spreadsheets over a network to other users. Not only can you send simple messages, but you can attach files to , get receipt acknowledgment, and send information copies of your messages to others. To use e-mail, you must be electronically accessible to others. You need an e-mail address, which is the set of commands used to route messages through gateways until they reach a recipient. Each electronic service or organization offering e-mail has its own address format. Using it, e-mail can sent from users on one interconnected service to users on another service. It helps to have an e-mail program on your PC to check for mail waiting, read the mail, reply to and forward messages, and compose and send new messages. Several commercial and shareware programs to handle those tasks are available. One of the best software products is Eudora, which has a graphical interface for the Apple Macintosh or Windows based PC; look online for EUDORA14.EXE for Windows or Eudora 1.4.2 for the Mac.9 World Wide Web (www) Recently, the red-hot place to be on the Internet for both individuals and businesses has been the World Wide Web, which seemingly came out of nowhere in 1994 to stand the Internet on its ear. Based on a new set of protocols, the Web is helping the Internet deliver the multimedia features that PCs are capable of: classy typography, multicolor graphics, convenient radio button interactivity, and sound and video. While Gopher is a menu based, textual approach to browsing the Internet, the Web offers you a graphic alternative that can become a globe traveling experience. As a pre-established system of links that simplifies the task of navigating among the resources of the net, it's hooked into the rest of the Net in such a way ---through a series of home pages---that lets you treat it as an interactive window on the whole Internet. The Web has become an organized system that makes it easy to find information and move among various Internet resources such as Gophers, FTP files, Telnet sites, USENET newsgroups, and more. It adds structure to the confusing reality of the Internet to help you navigate its fragmented resources.10 Archie, Veronica and Jughead. Tools for researching the huge libraries of information stored in the Net.11 Compnet A Computer Network12 Arpanet. A system of high volume telecommunication trunk lines to ensure built by the US government in the 1960s to ensure continued communication in the event of nuclear attach.13 File Transfer Protocol There are several ways of copying files from other computers on the Internet to your own PC, such as by saving newsgroup messages or e-mail messages that have files attached to them, or by logging onto remote computers that allow downloading using Telnet. But the most flexible downloading is by File Transfer Protocol or FTP. FTP is a standardized method of transferring files between computers on the Internet. "Remote Host" computers known as FTP sites let you download from on-screen lists of files that are available for download. Anonymous FTP sites are especially good in that they let you access the remote computer without already having an account established at that site. A good Windows shareware FTP program is WS-FTP, found online as WS-FTP.ZIP; it even comes with a starter selection of popular FTP sites.14 EUDORA A program that allows you to send e-mail, files and programs to another computer.15 The Internet enables you to communicate quickly and reliably with other people around the world through e-mail. Save on long distance phone calls.15 Internet Relay Chart (IRC) This is a CB like Internet feature in which people meet and chat in real time with one another. But instead of using a microphone, you use a computer keyboard and monitor screen to engage in conversations online. Using IRC, you can chat with people in America and around the world; it's similar to CompuServe's CB simulator and comparable features on other online services. One caution when chatting; don't assume anyone you meet online is who or what they say they are, you can assume any identity you want online.16 Telnet Telnet is a facility used to access other Internet computers. It is a tool that lets you log onto remote computers, access files, and even execute commands and run applications on the remote host as though logged in locally17 CuSeeMe An Internet video conferencing system that enables up to eight users to see and hear each other on their computer screens.18 Internet Talk Radio (ITR) ITR is a broadcast sound recordings.19 Commercial on-line Services CompuServe This sprawling H&R Block subsidiary's wide variety of services and databases makes it a first choice among many researchers, PC power users, businessmen, and professionals. It gives you access to an immense array of travel services, financial information, software, online shopping, and more. CompuServe also has several hundred on-line forums. CompuServe offers a high level of Internet access, including USENET newsgroups, FTP, Telnet, e-mail, gopher, and now the Web.20 America On-line (AOL) AOL is a rapidly expanding online service that challenges industry leader CompuServe, in many areas, especially with its very attractive GUI. New services are added regularly, and there's almost complete access to the Internet.21 Prodigy The Prodigy information Service is a joint IBM-Sears online venture. It's become one of the largest services, mainly due to the colorful, easy to use access software. The software is available in Mac, DOS, and Windows versions. Prodigy features full Internet access and was the first to offer a Web browser. With a click of your mouse, you can jump from the regular Prodigy service to the Web. Prodigy also offers a novel feature that lets you easily create your own Web pages using a list searchable by member name and state.21 Delphi Delphi Internet Services was the first major online service with a full-featured Internet connection. It offers text based access to all major Internet resources but a new graphical interface should be available for Web browsing by the time you read this. There are two access options. One includes 4 hours of non prime time connect time for a $10 basic monthly service charge; prime time hours are $9. A second plan is the 20/20 plan; $20 per month gives you 20 hours of non-prime connect time. Both plans charge $3 a month extra for Internet access. Chapter IV Possible Constraints Encounters Privacy of Information and Threats An estimated 35 million people use e-mail - either via their company's computers or on paid networks such as MCI Mail and as the number of users increases, so does the power of corporate Big Brother. Unlike telephone calls, which by law are private because the phone lines are considered common carriers, the company owns its computer network and all the data in it. Seemingly private e-mail have been used against employee in everything from sexual harassment cases to charge of trade secret theft. Even those meticulous sorts who carefully delete their e-mail can't escape cyber-sleuths who can rummage through a computer's backup system to find just about anything ever stored there. "E-mail is like having a video camera running all the time." Says attorney and author Michael Patrick. "It has an almost truth-serum-like quality."22 Pornography For those interested in pornography, there's plenty of it on the Internet. It comes in all forms: hot chat, erotic stories, explicit pictures, even XXX-rated film clips. Every night brings a fresh crop, and the newsgroups that carry it (alt.sex, alt binaries.pictures.erotica, etc.) are among the top four or five most popular. The salacious stuff is clearly an embarrassment to Clinton Administration, which has been trying to make a virtue of getting the Internet into schools. The White House is concerned, admits Tom Kalil, an adviser to Vice President Al Gore. But to judge the Net by its smut, he says, "is like forming an impression of New York City by looking only at the crime statistics." For purely technical reasons, it is impossible to censor the Internet at present. "It's designed to work around censorhip and blockage," explains Stoll. "If you try to cut something, it self repairs." But some antipornography activists have found a clever way to cope with that. From time to time, they will appear in newsgroups devoted to X-rated picture files and start posting messages with titles like "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!" These typically provoke flurries of angry responses-until it dawns on the pornography lovers that by filling the message board with their rejoinders, they are pushing out the sexy items they came to enjoy.23 Chapter V Conclusion The result of this study shows that the features most commonly used in the Internet is Gopher and Internet Relay Chat. The features least commonly used is freetel. Computer companies should be able to brief the users on the different features of the Internet,-So that user may use the different features effectively and efficiently. The Internet provides a better communication. It provides faster means of communication from one company to another. It is very effective in news conferencing because it updates business firm on the current news on business. The most common problems encountered by the users are slow dial-up, down loading and expensive rate. Computer companies should improve on this so that users will be satisfied through the use of the Internet. It should offer different features that will help uplift the working condition of the people Since the industry of Internet is becoming more and more acceptable in the market nowadays, computer companies should look into the problems the users usually encounter like down loading wherein problems in copying programs and depending on the speed of the modem. And slow dial-up where six number phonelines are not accepted and also with call waiting or partyline, The use of Internet. should already be stable because of the growing demand of its use. in seeing to these problems, computer companies should find fast solution like put in their requirements the guidelines or the don'ts like for example that the phone should be seven digit, to this since most of the companies use this as a tool most specially in communicating. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Jewish Holiday Succot.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Succot The Jewish Holiday After the Exodus from slavery in Egypt, the wandering Jews lived in tents or booths, called Succots. They were pitched wherever they happened to stop for the night. Today it is called the Succot the festival of booths remembering both the ancient agricultural booths and those of the Exodus. The harvest festival of thanksgiving, Succot, begins five days after Yom Kippur, and lasts for eight days. The first two days are the most holy, during which most Jews do not work. The families construct the booths and decorate it with branches, and leaves, fruits, and other designs. The roof is covered lightly, so the stars and the sky can still be seen. Most Jewish families eat all their meals in the Succot, while some even sleep in them. During the Succot festival, thanks are given for all growing plants by using four plants which are symbolic of all the rest. These four plants also represent the Jewish people. The Etrog, or the citrus fruit, stands for the people who are educated in the Torah and who do good deeds. The Lulav, or branch of the date palm, stands for the Jewish people who have knowledge but no good deeds. The Hadas,or myrtle, symbolizes the people who do good deeds, but are not educated. The Aravah, or willow, stands for the people who have no good deeds and no education. These plants are carried around the synagogue in a procession while prayers are recited for blessings on the land and fruit of Israel. In biblical times, the willow, the palm, and the Etrog were used in decorating the Succot. At the end of the Autum harvest, on the fifteenth day of Tishri (September-October) Succot is celebrated. It is believed that the festival originated with the ancient Canaanite celebration after the grape harvest at the end of the annual dry season. During this time rites were performed to incourage the rains. Boughs of fruit trees and evergreens were made into little booths which the early Jewish farmers lived during the festival. The last day of Succot is called Simhat Torah. It means the "rejoicing of the Torah." Succot The Jewish Holiday After the Exodus from slavery in Egypt, the wandering Jews lived in tents or booths, called Succots. They were pitched wherever they happened to stop for the night. Today it is called the Succot the festival of booths remembering both the ancient agricultural booths and those of the Exodus. The harvest festival of thanksgiving, Succot, begins five days after Yom Kippur, and lasts for eight days. The first two days are the most holy, during which most Jews do not work. The families construct the booths and decorate it with branches, and leaves, fruits, and other designs. The roof is covered lightly, so the stars and the sky can still be seen. Most Jewish families eat all their meals in the Succot, while some even sleep in them. During the Succot festival, thanks are given for all growing plants by using four plants which are symbolic of all the rest. These four plants also represent the Jewish people. The Etrog, or the citrus fruit, stands for the people who are educated in the Torah and who do good deeds. The Lulav, or branch of the date palm, stands for the Jewish people who have knowledge but no good deeds. The Hadas,or myrtle, symbolizes the people who do good deeds, but are not educated. The Aravah, or willow, stands for the people who have no good deeds and no education. These plants are carried around the synagogue in a procession while prayers are recited for blessings on the land and fruit of Israel. In biblical times, the willow, the palm, and the Etrog were used in decorating the Succot. At the end of the Autum harvest, on the fifteenth day of Tishri (September-October) Succot is celebrated. It is believed that the festival originated with the ancient Canaanite celebration after the grape harvest at the end of the annual dry season. During this time rites were performed to incourage the rains. Boughs of fruit trees and evergreens were made into little booths which the early Jewish farmers lived during the festival. The last day of Succot is called Simhat Torah. It means the "rejoicing of the Torah." On this day, the reading of the Torah is completed, and is then immidiately begun again. This symbolizes the fact that the study of the Torah has no beginning and no end. Children are given the honor of being called to read the Torah along side their elders. Generally only adults are called up to the Torah. In a series of seven processions around the synagogue,called Hakafot, the rabbi leads the congregation carrying the Torah. The procession goes seven times around in honor of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, and David. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Letter To The Ephesians.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Letter To The Ephesians Introduction As one begins to read the letter to the Ephesians, he is intrigued not only by the many topics that the letter mentions, but also the fact that there are some major differences between this book and Paul's other writings. The purpose of this essay is to explore the book of Ephesians by commenting on critical issues, such as date, authorship, and setting, major theological themes, the purpose of the letter, and to offer an outline of the book itself. Critical Issues Critical issues include those things such as the date the letter was written, who the letter was written by, and where the letter was written. This section of the essay will identify these elements and mention the problems that come about when one thinks logically about the information presented in the letter to the Ephesians. The letter to the church at Ephesus was written about the same time as the letters to the churches at Colosse and Phillipi. A combination of all of my sources suggests this was somewhere between the years of A.D.60-64. A major problem that needs to be addressed is the question of setting. Was the letter to the Ephesians only written to the church at Ephesus? Most sources suggest that it was not. The oldest manuscripts, such as codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, do not have the church at Ephesus as the recipient of the letter; this was added into later manuscripts (Donzé et al, 534). Many state that Ephesians was a circular letter, a letter that was meant to circulate among all of the churches in the area and not meant to be specifically addressed to one church. This theory is supported by the fact that there are very few proper names in the letter, unlike the other letters Paul wrote, and the fact that it does not address specific problems of the church, only general statements are mentioned. Also, if the letter were, in fact written solely to the Ephesians, Paul would probably have included some reference to the fact that he was the pastor of the Ephesian church for two years (Ramsay, 454). Instead of doing this, the author uses phrases such as "I have heard of your faith" (1:15), implying that Paul and the people have not been acquainted (Ramsay, 454). These arguments are what lead modern-day scholars to believe that the letter to the Ephesians was not written only to the Ephesians. The problem of setting is not the only problem that arises in the letter to the Ephesians. Another problem is the question of authorship. Was Ephesians really written by Paul? In my opinion, this is the hardest question to answer because there are very strong arguments that come from both sides of thinking. Some say that Timothy, or some other disciple of Paul for that matter, wrote the letter and support this claim with the fact that there are some eighty-two words in the letter to the Ephesians that are found nowhere else in any of Paul's writings. Furthermore, of those eighty-two words, thirty-eight of those are found nowhere else in the entire New Testament (Ramsay 454). There is also the fact that the sentences are longer and more complex than those of Paul's other letters. These facts are what lead some to believe that Ephesians must have been written by someone else and simply signed by Paul. On the other hand, Paul was in jail at the time he wrote this letter. He calls himself "the prisoner of Christ" (Ephesians 3:1), "the prisoner of God" (Ephesians 4:1), and "an ambassador in bonds" (Ephesians 6:20). Being in jail would have given him ample time to read the letter and revise it; he had plenty of time to write a well-constructed letter with words that he would not normally use and longer, more complex sentences than if he was writing a letter in a hurry. Another strong argument that leads one to believe that Paul wrote Ephesians is the fact that there are fifty-five verses that are exactly the same in the letter to the Colossians (Barclay, 72). Now what is the belief? Did Paul write the letter to the Ephesians, or did Timothy? Maybe it was someone else. No one can be totally positive, which is why this is the major problem in this letter. Purpose of the Book The purpose of this letter is to celebrate the fact that, through Christ, God is uniting all peoples in Christ's church (Ramsay, 456). Ephesians is written to celebrate that unity and encourages Gentile converts to live as members of that church (Ramsay, 456). The first three chapters use praise and prayer to renew the believers' vision of God and the second half encourages the unity of the church (Bowker, 429). Major Theological Themes The major themes that show up in the letter to the Ephesians are those of building the body of Christ and Christian practice, unity, holiness in life, and responsibility in the household (Bowker, 429). The letter mentions the fact that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Christians gives them resurrection power (3:16) and it also points out the importance that Christians suffer for their beliefs, using Paul's imprisonment as an example (3:1-14). The second half on the letter encourages everything that sustains the life of the church. It says that the Ephesians need to maintain their common life, because loss of confidence threatens the unity and identity of the church (Bowker, 429). Outline of the Letter I. Chapter One-A celebration of God's plan to unite all people in Christ A. Verses 1-10-Praise to God for choosing to include us in God's plan B. Verses 11-14-All Christians share the spirit C. Verses 15-23-A prayer for the understanding of God's plan II. Chapter Two-God's plan for the Gentiles A. Verses 1-10-The Gentiles have been saved by God's grace B. Verses 11-22-They are now united with the Jewish Christians in the church III. Chapter Three-Paul's Prayer that the Gentiles share God's plan and be strengthened by it A. Verses 1-13-Paul's concern to share his insight into God's plan B. Verses 14-21-Paul's prayer for understanding and strength IV. Chapters Four ,Five, and Six-Four charges to Gentile converts A. Verses 4:1-16-Promote the church's unity B. Verses 4:17-5:20-Part with pagan ways C. Verses 5:21-6:9-Manifest Christian unity through Christian family life D. Verses 6:10-20-Be good soldiers in God's army V. Chapter Six, verses 21-24-Concluding note and benediction Conclusion The letter to the Ephesians is a book of the Bible that creates many arguments between theologians and Bible commentators. It poses many questions about the critical issues in the letter and the authenticity of the letter. The arguments that are brought forth for each different stand or opinion are what make the book of Ephesians such an interesting piece of work, worthy of the critical eye of the reader. Works Cited Barclay, William. (1958). Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians. Philadelphia. The Westminster Press. Bowker, Donzé, E.H. et al. (1942). Commentary on the New Testament. Washington, DC. The Catholic Biblical Association. Ramsay, William M. (1994). The Westminster Guide to the Books of the Bible. Louisville. Westminster John Knox Press. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Life of Jesus 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Life of Jesus The New Testament is mainly based on the life of Jesus and the early church. He is known as the son of God though his parents were Mary and Joseph. Jesus was born in a stable in city of Bethlehem as there was no room in the inns. Once he was born, Mary had no crib to place him in, so they made one with a troth and some straw. Three Kings and some shepherds came to visit him. The kings gave him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Jesus and his family travelled to Jordan from Galilee so Jesus could be baptised. Jesus went all over Galilee preaching the Good News about the Kingdom of God. He educated in the synagogues, speaking and reading in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. He taught people how to live properly and to always make the right decision. He also told many parables. Jesus healed many different people with incurable diseases and sicknesses. He performed many miracles with the power of God. It was time for Jesus to choose his twelve apostles. He chose Simon, James, John, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, Thaddaeus, Simon and Judas. They all came from different backgrounds. Judas was the apostle who betrayed Jesus. It was time for the last supper. Jesus sat down with his disciples at the table to share the bread and wine. Jesus went to pray in Gethsemane with his disciples when Judas arrived with an armed crowd sent by the chief priests. They arrested him. Jesus was brought to Pilate and he sentenced him to death. Then he was crucified. When he died, a man named Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus and he replied yes. Joseph took the body down wrapped him in linen and placed him in a tomb. He rolled a large stone across the entrance. Jesus's body still had to be anointed, so the day after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James came to dress him. When they arrived the stone was rolled open so they entered though shocked that it was open. In there they saw a man in a white robe, an angel. They were shocked even more. The angel calmed the women and told them that he had been raised. The women were so afraid that they ran out of the tomb yet they were filled with joy. A man stopped them. It was Jesus. The women were so happy. They went to the disciples to tell them the good news. The disciples did not believe them. They all were in disbelief until Jesus appeared to them. Jesus said; "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age."(Matthew 28:18-20) Then he returned to heaven and was seated at the right hand of the Father. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Life of Jesus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Life of Jesus The New Testament is mainly based on the life of Jesus and the early church. He is known as the son of God though his parents were Mary and Joseph. Jesus was born in a stable in city of Bethlehem as there was no room in the inns. Once he was born, Mary had no crib to place him in, so they made one with a troth and some straw. Three Kings and some shepherds came to visit him. The kings gave him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Jesus and his family travelled to Jordan from Galilee so Jesus could be baptised. Jesus went all over Galilee preaching the Good News about the Kingdom of God. He educated in the synagogues, speaking and reading in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. He taught people how to live properly and to always make the right decision. He also told many parables. Jesus healed many different people with incurable diseases and sicknesses. He performed many miracles with the power of God. It was time for Jesus to choose his twelve apostles. He chose Simon, James, John, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, Thaddaeus, Simon and Judas. They all came from different backgrounds. Judas was the apostle who betrayed Jesus. It was time for the last supper. Jesus sat down with his disciples at the table to share the bread and wine. Jesus went to pray in Gethsemane with his disciples when Judas arrived with an armed crowd sent by the chief priests. They arrested him. Jesus was brought to Pilate and he sentenced him to death. Then he was crucified. When he died, a man named Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus and he replied yes. Joseph took the body down wrapped him in linen and placed him in a tomb. He rolled a large stone across the entrance. Jesus's body still had to be anointed, so the day after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James came to dress him. When they arrived the stone was rolled open so they entered though shocked that it was open. In there they saw a man in a white robe, an angel. They were shocked even more. The angel calmed the women and told them that he had been raised. The women were so afraid that they ran out of the tomb yet they were filled with joy. A man stopped them. It was Jesus. The women were so happy. They went to the disciples to tell them the good news. The disciples did not believe them. They all were in disbelief until Jesus appeared to them. Jesus said; "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age."(Matthew 28:18-20) Then he returned to heaven and was seated at the right hand of the Father. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Life of King David 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Life of King David In this essay I will be talking about the life of King David. He was a man who went from being a giant slayer, to a king, to a man in exile and, then he went back to being a great man. As a boy, David was a shepherd. He took care of his father's sheep. He was a very courageous boy. When a wolf tried to steal a sheep, he didn't run, he stood his ground and killed the wolf. One day his father told him to go to the land where his brothers were fighting a war against the Philistines. When he got there, he saw the giant Goliath cursing God and making fun of the Hebrew warriors. David was the only person there with enough courage to fight Goliath. With God's help David killed Goliath with a sling and a stone from a brook nearby. When he killed Goliath, the Philistines were really scared. They all fled for their lives and the Hebrews won the war. During David's life he makes many friends. One of the people who was David's friend was king Saul. David played his harp for Saul and made him feel better when life was getting him down. David also becomes good friends with, Jonathan, Saul's son. Saul gets envious of David because the people of Saul's kingdom really like David. Saul tried to have David killed but, Jonathan finds out about the plot and saves David's life. Later on in life David became king of all Israel. One day David was up on the roof of his palace and he saw Bathsheba bathing on her roof. Instead of turning away from his sinful thoughts, he had her called to his chamber where he lay with her, and had sexual intercourse. David didn't think before he acted and he got Bathsheba pregnant. He had no idea how to get out of the predicament he was in. David summoned Bathsheba's husband Uriah back from battle. He told Uriah to go lay with his wife for the night, but Uriah was loyal to King David and would not leave the King's side. That night Uriah slept with the rest of the King's warriors, instead of his own wife who he hadn't see in days. The next night David tried to get Uriah drunk so he could trick him into lying with his wife. But still Uriah remains loyal to David and, he will not leave his King. Then David came up with an idea to have Uriah fight in the front of the battle where the fighting was fiercest and David knew that Uriah would be killed. Uriah is killed in battle and David is allowed to marry Bathsheba. She bears him a child, and life is good, but David's sins are found out by the prophet Nathan and he loses his position as King. The child Bathsheba had for David dies because David sinned against God. David is exiled and he finds himself living in a cave. God hadn't give up on David. He still had a plan for David's life. By David being exiled, it allows David to write the book of Psalms. These writings are very inspiring. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Life of king David.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Life of King David In this essay I will be talking about the life of King David. He was a man who went from being a giant slayer, to a king, to a man in exile and, then he went back to being a great man. As a boy, David was a shepherd. He took care of his father's sheep. He was a very courageous boy. When a wolf tried to steal a sheep, he didn't run, he stood his ground and killed the wolf. One day his father told him to go to the land where his brothers were fighting a war against the Philistines. When he got there, he saw the giant Goliath cursing God and making fun of the Hebrew warriors. David was the only person there with enough courage to fight Goliath. With God's help David killed Goliath with a sling and a stone from a brook nearby. When he killed Goliath, the Philistines were really scared. They all fled for their lives and the Hebrews won the war. During David's life he makes many friends. One of the people who was David's friend was king Saul. David played his harp for Saul and made him feel better when life was getting him down. David also becomes good friends with, Jonathan, Saul's son. Saul gets envious of David because the people of Saul's kingdom really like David. Saul tried to have David killed but, Jonathan finds out about the plot and saves David's life. Later on in life David became king of all Israel. One day David was up on the roof of his palace and he saw Bathsheba bathing on her roof. Instead of turning away from his sinful thoughts, he had her called to his chamber where he lay with her, and had sexual intercourse. David didn't think before he acted and he got Bathsheba pregnant. He had no idea how to get out of the predicament he was in. David summoned Bathsheba's husband Uriah back from battle. He told Uriah to go lay with his wife for the night, but Uriah was loyal to King David and would not leave the King's side. That night Uriah slept with the rest of the King's warriors, instead of his own wife who he hadn't see in days. The next night David tried to get Uriah drunk so he could trick him into lying with his wife. But still Uriah remains loyal to David and, he will not leave his King. Then David came up with an idea to have Uriah fight in the front of the battle where the fighting was fiercest and David knew that Uriah would be killed. Uriah is killed in battle and David is allowed to marry Bathsheba. She bears him a child, and life is good, but David's sins are found out by the prophet Nathan and he loses his position as King. The child Bathsheba had for David dies because David sinned against God. David is exiled and he finds himself living in a cave. God hadn't give up on David. He still had a plan for David's life. By David being exiled, it allows David to write the book of Psalms. These writings are very inspiring. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Lives of Confucious and Guatma Siddartha.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE LIVES OF CONFUCIUS AND GUATAMA SIDDHARTHA Dariush Nazem World Civilization 121 September 19, 1996 Professor: Helju Bennett Section Teacher: Sara Abosch The Life Of Confucius Throughout the time span that man has lived on earth, there have been many religions in existence. Two very important and influencing religions that have been around for over two thousand years are Confucianism and Buddhism. The founders of these two religions, Confucius and Buddha, respectively, lived different lives and had different thoughts. Although this made two totally different religions, they both had one common goal. That common goal was to assist the human population and improve their lifestyle. Confucius was a sage in China and also it's greatest philosopher. He was one of the most prominent figures and is respected throughout all of China. He was born at Tsou, in the state of Lu, known today as the Shandong province, in the year 551 B.C. He was named Ch'iu, meaning 'hill', because he had a very large bump on his head. This name has rarely been used because of the Chinese way of showing "reverence by avoidance". (Encyclopedia Americana, v. 7; 540) K'ung Futzu was what was used. The name got Latinized and it became Confucius. Ever since Confucius' birth, he was a great student. All throughout his childhood Confucius liked to play religious and cultural roles. By the age of 15, Confucius began to take his studies very seriously. He was a diligent and studious learner and put forth his whole effort on his studies. Nothing is known about his educators or his education. Confucius started work at an early age, due to the fact that his father died. By the age of seventeen, Confucius received a job in the public service. Most likely this job was being a keeper of fields and cattle, a town governor, or a court arbiter of ritual. Confucius, because he loved to learn and he loved his studies so much, became a very educated man and in turn was highly respected. In 529 B.C. Confucius' mother died and observed the standard withdrawal from life of three years. This included the withdrawal from his duties as a public worker. After this long observance, Confucius returned home and opened his house up to students and began teaching. This became his full time job and he took it seriously. At one point, Confucius' teachings were wanted by so many that he had 3,000 students attending his school. 72 of them had mastered the six arts-rituals, music, archery, charioteering, literature, and mathematics. He was a great teacher, well known and respected. He was able to get his disciples responsible positions in the Chinese government and also able to get them jobs as teachers. He knew many and the favors that he asked for were granted by others. Confucius believed that "knowledge meant wisdom", (Encyclopedia Americana, v. 7; 540). He thought that this in turn would help him become more educated and not only to help himself but to also help the country. He was a reformer and preached for good government. He believed in such idea like "avoidance of needless wars, decrease in taxes, and mitigation of severe punishment". (Encyclopedia Americana, v. 7; 540) He finally received that opportunity in the state of Lu. The state of Lu, where Confucius was born, was in turmoil. There were three major families fighting. Each one fighting against each other just to see who could become more powerful. One of these families, the emperor of Mang He, allowed Confucius to come to his capital. Mang He wanted Confucius to teach his son the teachings and allow him to become a disciple. This enabled Confucius to learn a great deal about past empires and past emperors. He was able to obtain resources that only officials had access to. It also allowed him to collect materials and information for works that he would produce later on in his life. Confucius soon returned back to Lu to find more disorganization and more fighting. The ruler, Duke Chao, fleed for refuge and Confucius followed. Here Confucius thought that he could become ruler but there was great envy that suppressed his advancement. Soon after, Confucius was appointed governor of Chung Tu. Here is where Confucius had success. In such a short time, he reformed this state. It became a model for many other states to follow. After four years of government and a disagreement with a Duke, Confucius went into wandering for 13 years. Confucius traveled about trying to help reform different states. But no one really needed his help so at the age of 67 Confucius returned back to his home state of Lu. His wife, son, and two of his favorite disciples all died in a short time span. He spent his last years editing the classical texts and continuing teaching to his students. Confucius knew his life was not worth much anymore and that it was coming to an end. In 479 B.C. Confucius died. The Life Of Buddha The Buddha, otherwise known as Guatama Siddhartha, had a very different life than that of Confucius. The Buddha was born in 566 B.C. to Queen Maya and King Suddhodana. He was given the name "Siddhartha" which means which means "all wishes accomplished". Seven day's after the birth, his mother, Queen Maya died. Queen Maya's younger sister, Mahapajapati, took the responsibility of raising Guatama and the King made her his second wife. Right from the birth of this prince, his father, mother, second mother, and the whole kingdom knew that he was bound to be an important figure in the Chinese society. From a very young age Guatama Siddhartha was cared for extensively. Starting at the age of seven, Prince Siddhartha began taking lessons on how to read, write, and reckon. The prince also took astronomy and archery. He took his courses seriously and also excelled in them. Anything and everything that he wanted was gotten for him. Guatama Siddhartha never had to work. He had slaves that would take care of everything for him. In addition, the slaves that worked for him were fed rice and meat, while any other average slave-servent working for an average man were fed broken rice and sour gruel. This is just how well treated the prince and the princess's servants were treated. The prince always had women surrounding him, shelter over his head in any type of weather and a different palace for different seasons. In short, the prince was spoiled. Around the age of eighteen the prince got married and within the first year a son was expected. Before the birth of the son, the prince asked his father for permission to wander outside of the palace gates. The father agreed but let everyone know beforehand that the prince was leaving the palace and that nothing should be in his view that might disturb him. The prince wandered outside the gates four different times. In these trips he saw an old man, an ill man, a funeral procession and a reclusive man. The first three incidents upset him greatly. The prince never thought that man could become so horrifying. But the forth encounter intrigued him. Upon his encounter with the recluse man he asked: " "What gain is there in the life of a recluse?" the person answered and said: "I depart from the impermanence of age, illness, and death, and gain the freedom of deliverance. I forsake the illusive love of life, walk the path of Right Dharma, and save living beings with compassion." The prince exclaimed: "What could be more noble than the path of a recluse."" (Takakusu, 15) Soon after this incident, his son was born. The palace celebrated and so did the town. The kingdom had yet another son. The kingdom was proud, the palace was proud, the King was proud but yet the prince was still troubled. Why was he so troubled? What was the prince thinking so much about? The prince, after seeing and knowing that he was no longer pleased with his palace life, decided to leave the castle and flee into the country. Upon his call, the charioteer Chanda arrived, and the prince told about his plan to leave. The charioteer brought a horse. The prince, Chanda and the horse left. The prince left everything behind him. His father, wife, son and riches were now of the past. Upon entering the countryside, Guatama Siddhartha began to take off his clothes and talk to his charioteer. He talked how not to be sad, that he was going to search for Enlightenment and to go tell the palace that he was not coming back. With this, Chanda received the princes clothes and jewels, and with sadness in his eyes rode away back to the palace knowing that he was the messenger of bad news. The prince, who for 19 years was looked after with great detail and who could have anything he wanted, was now on his own. He wandered around the Himalayas, down to the plains, followed the Gandaki river south, crossed the Ganges, into Madadha. Everywhere that the lonely prince went, he was looking for answers about life but nothing truly satisfied him. He kept on traveling and eating just enough food to get by. Everyone he encountered was impressed with the prince's lonely and newly deprived life. Soon there was a following of the prince and it grew daily. The prince, knowing this, still deprived himself of meals: Going from just one a day to one a month to just eating a grain of rice a day. "He became hollow-eyed; he was barboned, and the belly and the back touched. The pains physical and mental reached the last point" (Takakusu, 27). Guatama Siddhartha realized that by practically killing himself he was not going to receive enlightenment. "He made up his mind that he must yet work out means to attain the end" (Takakusu, 27). The prince revived himself to the point where he was alive again and he began wandering again. He ended up in Gaya where "there was a great pipal tree, and that the platform surrounded by the roots of the trees was fit as the seat for attaining Enlightenment for the Buddha's and the three times of the past present and the future" (Takakusu, 30). The prince now sat there and said to himself that he was not going to move until he gained Enlightenment. With many distractions from others, the prince sat there looking for Enlightenment. And then it happened. The prince attained Enlightenment. The sun shined, flowers blossomed and music was played. The prince was now "The Buddha"--"one who is awake". He received ideas he had not received before, he opened his mind in ways he had not done before, and he began preaching to anyone that would listen to any of his "great ideas". The Buddha taught years and years. He educated men on everything. From eating to sleeping, to talking and writing the Buddha was a mentor. But he was over eighty years of age now and growing weaker and weaker. He soon died and as fast as the sun shined and flowers blossomed the sky went black and "the world again turned back to old darkness" (Takakusu, 53). Similarities and Differences There are many similarities between two of the greatest philosophers of all time. One of the most common and basic similarity is that both religions emerged around the same time period. Each religion in this world was brought up in a time period. For example, Christianity emerged around 40 A.D., but Confucianism and Buddhism both emerged in the 6th century B.C. This similarity is basic but it is an important one only for the fact that since these two religions emerged around the same time period they both have a lot of the same views on life. One example of this is that in Buddhism there are eight basic paths to follow. This is called the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path included Right Views, Right Aspirations, Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindedness, and Right Rapture. In Confucianism there were similar beliefs that each person followed but these beliefs were not given the names that Buddhism gave them. For example, Confucius believed that "if everyone knew his or her place and kept it, then, said Confucius, all would be well" (McNEILL, 153). This part of Confucianism could be translated in Buddhism to one of the Noble Eightfold Paths: Right Conduct. Another similarity of the two religions was that both Confucius and Buddha taught others about their views and the teachings that they had established. After Confucius worked for the government he went into his "wandering" state. Here is where he came to many opinions and beliefs on life that still hold true in the religion today. He had these basic rules and values on life that he taught to anyone who would listen. He had students and followers that would listen to his views and in turn practice them. As for Buddha, once he achieved Enlightenment he went around teaching what he believed was right for society. He taught everyone. From Kings of states in Asia to just an ordinary person he was more than willing to try and install new beliefs in them. Both of them used their power that they received to try and help other individuals. One last similarity between Confucianism and Buddhism is that both have a set of rules that are followed by the followers. In Confucianism, The Deliberate Tradition is part of how one can receive advice on their life when they need answers. There are five parts of The Deliberate Tradition: Jen (relationship between two people), Chun tzu (ideal relations), Li (propriety), Te (power), and Wen (arts of peace). All of these Deliberate Traditions helped form a lot of how a person would act and how a person would live. The Deliberate Tradition gives the basics of Confucianism. Similarly, Buddhism has the Eightfold Path. This list is what a follower of the Buddihist religion should abide by. This includes: Right Views, Right Aspirations, Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Kindness, and lastly Right Rapture. The Eightfold Path describes how a person should perform their everyday tasks. Both Confucianism and Buddhism followers use these lists to help them live from day to day. These list in each religion are respected and followed by greatly. There are also many differences between the two religions. One major and noticeable difference is Confucius was brought up much differently than Buddha. Guatama Siddhartha was brought up in a wealthy environment. He was given more than enough and was not expected any less than the best. For example, the prince had different houses for different seasons. There was always a cover over his head to protect him and there was always servants waiting for him. As for Confucius he had a much different lifestyle. He had to work at an early age only for the fact that his father had died. He worked hard and brought his standard up instead of staying at the same lower class that he was born into. At times he would hardly have enough to eat. But he always worked hard and it paid off for him. This is just one example of how two great philosophers that were brought up so differently impacted society so great. Another example of how different these two great philosophers were was in how their views emerged and how they came up with answers to their questions. Confucius always had answers to questions that were asked to him. He was well educated and he was very logical. His answers to questions made sense to everyone and soon everyone understood that what he was saying was correct. As for Buddha he had to gain his education through his wanderings. He was very wealthy and there was really no need for him to become educated. But soon realizing that he was not happy as a rich man he left and went into his sojourns. He thought that maybe if he starved himself then he would be able to receive Enlightenment. But this did not work for him. Finally while underneath a pipal tree Buddha attained Enlightenment. This is where he gained his knowledge to help others and to set the standards of Buddhism. Therefore, the way in which each philosophers views emerged were different each still came to conclusions on life and how a human can become satisfied with ones life. One last difference between Confucianism and Buddhism is that Buddhism has a final goal, Nirvana. Nirvana is one reaches an ultimate state where everything in ones life is perfect. On the contrary, Confucianism is a philosophy that gives only rules and proverbs to follow. These rules do not have a goal to strive for in the end. These proverbs just try and guide a person through life and help that person achieve a satisfactory life for oneself. In conclusion, Confucius and Buddha had totally different life's. How they were raised by family and how their life was overall in comparison to each other was totally different. Guatama Siddhartha was born into a very wealthy family while Confucius had to work hard for every thing he earned. In addition, the way in which the conclusions that they came to about life were totally different. Confucius was knowledgeable and was able to answers others questions about life while Buddha had to attain Enlightenment. These two major philosophers have/had a major impact on society. Even though these religions are very different they are also very the same. They wanted to help society and help the individuals in the society. They were two very smart individuals that have affected the world when they were alive and will affect anyone who follows their religions in the future. Bibliography Encyclopedia Americana; 1994; S. v. "Confucianism" Encyclopedia Britanica; 1991; S.v. "Confucianism" Creel, H.G., Confucius and the Chinese Way, New York: Harper and Bro. Publishers, 1960. Legge, James, The Philosophy of Confucius, New York: The Peter Pauper Press, 1976. McNeill, William H., A History Of The Human Community Volume I: Prehistory to 1500, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992. Nakamura, Hajime, Gotama Buddha, Los Angelos: Buddhist Books International, 1977. Smith, Huston, The World's Religions, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. Starr, Frederick, Confucianism, New York: Covici-Friede, 1930. Takakusu, Junjiro, A Life of the Buddha, Japan: Mitsutoyo Mfg. Co., Ltd., 1964. Yamamoto, Kosho, The Buddha, Japan: The Okazakiya Shoten, 1961. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Lives of Confucius and Guatama Siddhartha.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Lives of Confucius and Guatama Siddhartha Dariush Nazem World Civilization 121 September 19, 1996 Professor: Helju Bennett Section Teacher: Sara Abosch The Life Of Confucius Throughout the time span that man has lived on earth, there have been many religions in existence. Two very important and influencing religions that have been around for over two thousand years are Confucianism and Buddhism. The founders of these two religions, Confucius and Buddha, respectively, lived different lives and had different thoughts. Although this made two totally different religions, they both had one common goal. That common goal was to assist the human population and improve their lifestyle. Confucius was a sage in China and also it's greatest philosopher. He was one of the most prominent figures and is respected throughout all of China. He was born at Tsou, in the state of Lu, known today as the Shandong province, in the year 551 B.C. He was named Ch'iu, meaning 'hill', because he had a very large bump on his head. This name has rarely been used because of the Chinese way of showing "reverence by avoidance". (Encyclopedia Americana, v. 7; 540) K'ung Futzu was what was used. The name got Latinized and it became Confucius. Ever since Confucius' birth, he was a great student. All throughout his childhood Confucius liked to play religious and cultural roles. By the age of 15, Confucius began to take his studies very seriously. He was a diligent and studious learner and put forth his whole effort on his studies. Nothing is known about his educators or his education. Confucius started work at an early age, due to the fact that his father died. By the age of seventeen, Confucius received a job in the public service. Most likely this job was being a keeper of fields and cattle, a town governor, or a court arbiter of ritual. Confucius, because he loved to learn and he loved his studies so much, became a very educated man and in turn was highly respected. In 529 B.C. Confucius' mother died and observed the standard withdrawal from life of three years. This included the withdrawal from his duties as a public worker. After this long observance, Confucius returned home and opened his house up to students and began teaching. This became his full time job and he took it seriously. At one point, Confucius' teachings were wanted by so many that he had 3,000 students attending his school. 72 of them had mastered the six arts-rituals, music, archery, charioteering, literature, and mathematics. He was a great teacher, well known and respected. He was able to get his disciples responsible positions in the Chinese government and also able to get them jobs as teachers. He knew many and the favors that he asked for were granted by others. Confucius believed that "knowledge meant wisdom", (Encyclopedia Americana, v. 7; 540). He thought that this in turn would help him become more educated and not only to help himself but to also help the country. He was a reformer and preached for good government. He believed in such idea like " avoidance of needless wars, decrease in taxes, and mitigation of severe punishment". (Encyclopedia Americana, v. 7; 540) He finally received that opportunity in the state of Lu. The state of Lu, where Confucius was born, was in turmoil. There were three major families fighting. Each one fighting against each other just to see who could become more powerful. One of these families, the emperor of Mang He, allowed Confucius to come to his capital. Mang He wanted Confucius to teach his son the teachings and allow him to become a disciple. This enabled Confucius to learn a great deal about past empires and past emperors. He was able to obtain resources that only officials had access to. It also allowed him to collect materials and information for works that he would produce later on in his life. Confucius soon returned back to Lu to find more disorganization and more fighting. The ruler, Duke Chao, fleed for refuge and Confucius followed. Here Confucius thought that he could become ruler but there was great envy that suppressed his advancement. Soon after, Confucius was appointed governor of Chung Tu. Here is where Confucius had success. In such a short time, he reformed this state. It became a model for many other states to follow. After four years of government and a disagreement with a Duke, Confucius went into wandering for 13 years. Confucius traveled about trying to help reform different states. But no one really needed his help so at the age of 67 Confucius returned back to his home state of Lu. His wife, son, and two of his favorite disciples all died in a short time span. He spent his last years editing the classical texts and continuing teaching to his students. Confucius knew his life was not worth much anymore and that it was coming to an end. In 479 B.C. Confucius died. The Life Of Buddha The Buddha, otherwise known as Guatama Siddhartha, had a very different life than that of Confucius. The Buddha was born in 566 B.C. to Queen Maya and King Suddhodana. He was given the name "Siddhartha" which means which means " all wishes accomplished". Seven day's after the birth, his mother, Queen Maya died. Queen Maya's younger sister, Mahapajapati, took the responsibility of raising Guatama and the King made her his second wife. Right from the birth of this prince, his father, mother, second mother, and the whole kingdom knew that he was bound to be an important figure in the Chinese society. From a very young age Guatama Siddhartha was cared for extensively. Starting at the age of seven, Prince Siddhartha began taking lessons on how to read, write, and reckon. The prince also took astronomy and archery. He took his courses seriously and also excelled in them. Anything and everything that he wanted was gotten for him. Guatama Siddhartha never had to work. He had slaves that would take care of everything for him. In addition, the slaves that worked for him were fed rice and meat, while any other average slave-servent working for an average man were fed broken rice and sour gruel. This is just how well treated the prince and the princess's servants were treated. The prince always had women surrounding him, shelter over his head in any type of weather and a different palace for different seasons. In short, the prince was spoiled. Around the age of eighteen the prince got married and within the first year a son was expected. Before the birth of the son, the prince asked his father for permission to wander outside of the palace gates. The father agreed but let everyone know beforehand that the prince was leaving the palace and that nothing should be in his view that might disturb him. The prince wandered outside the gates four different times. In these trips he saw an old man, an ill man, a funeral procession and a reclusive man. The first three incidents upset him greatly. The prince never thought that man could become so horrifying. But the forth encounter intrigued him. Upon his encounter with the recluse man he asked: " "What gain is there in the life of a recluse?" the person answered and said: "I depart from the impermanence of age, illness, and death, and gain the freedom of deliverance. I forsake the illusive love of life, walk the path of Right Dharma, and save living beings with compassion." The prince exclaimed: "What could be more noble than the path of a recluse."" (Takakusu, 15) Soon after this incident, his son was born. The palace celebrated and so did the town. The kingdom had yet another son. The kingdom was proud, the palace was proud, the King was proud but yet the prince was still troubled. Why was he so troubled? What was the prince thinking so much about? The prince, after seeing and knowing that he was no longer pleased with his palace life, decided to leave the castle and flee into the country. Upon his call, the charioteer Chanda arrived, and the prince told about his plan to leave. The charioteer brought a horse. The prince, Chanda and the horse left. The prince left everything behind him. His father, wife, son and riches were now of the past. Upon entering the countryside, Guatama Siddhartha began to take off his clothes and talk to his charioteer. He talked how not to be sad, that he was going to search for Enlightenment and to go tell the palace that he was not coming back. With this, Chanda received the princes clothes and jewels, and with sadness in his eyes rode away back to the palace knowing that he was the messenger of bad news. The prince, who for 19 years was looked after with great detail and who could have anything he wanted, was now on his own. He wandered around the Himalayas, down to the plains, followed the Gandaki river south, crossed the Ganges, into Madadha. Everywhere that the lonely prince went, he was looking for answers about life but nothing truly satisfied him. He kept on traveling and eating just enough food to get by. Everyone he encountered was impressed with the prince's lonely and newly deprived life. Soon there was a following of the prince and it grew daily. The prince, knowing this, still deprived himself of meals: Going from just one a day to one a month to just eating a grain of rice a day. "He became hollow-eyed; he was barboned, and the belly and the back touched. The pains physical and mental reached the last point" (Takakusu, 27). Guatama Siddhartha realized that by practically killing himself he was not going to receive enlightenment. "He made up his mind that he must yet work out means to attain the end" (Takakusu, 27). The prince revived himself to the point where he was alive again and he began wandering again. He ended up in Gaya where "there was a great pipal tree, and that the platform surrounded by the roots of the trees was fit as the seat for attaining Enlightenment for the Buddha's and the three times of the past present and the future" (Takakusu, 30). The prince now sat there and said to himself that he was not going to move until he gained Enlightenment. With many distractions from others, the prince sat there looking for Enlightenment. And then it happened. The prince attained Enlightenment. The sun shined, flowers blossomed and music was played. The prince was now "The Buddha"--"one who is awake". He received ideas he had not received before, he opened his mind in ways he had not done before, and he began preaching to anyone that would listen to any of his "great ideas". The Buddha taught years and years. He educated men on everything. From eating to sleeping, to talking and writing the Buddha was a mentor. But he was over eighty years of age now and growing weaker and weaker. He soon died and as fast as the sun shined and flowers blossomed the sky went black and "the world again turned back to old darkness" (Takakusu, 53). Similarities and Differences There are many similarities between two of the greatest philosophers of all time. One of the most common and basic similarity is that both religions emerged around the same time period. Each religion in this world was brought up in a time period. For example, Christianity emerged around 40 A.D., but Confucianism and Buddhism both emerged in the 6th century B.C. This similarity is basic but it is an important one only for the fact that since these two religions emerged around the same time period they both have a lot of the same views on life. One example of this is that in Buddhism there are eight basic paths to follow. This is called the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path included Right Views, Right Aspirations, Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindedness, and Right Rapture. In Confucianism there were similar beliefs that each person followed but these beliefs were not given the names that Buddhism gave them. For example, Confucius believed that " if everyone knew his or her place and kept it, then, said Confucius, all would be well" (McNEILL, 153). This part of Confucianism could be translated in Buddhism to one of the Noble Eightfold Paths: Right Conduct. Another similarity of the two religions was that both Confucius and Buddha taught others about their views and the teachings that they had established. After Confucius worked for the government he went into his " wandering" state. Here is where he came to many opinions and beliefs on life that still hold true in the religion today. He had these basic rules and values on life that he taught to anyone who would listen. He had students and followers that would listen to his views and in turn practice them. As for Buddha, once he achieved Enlightenment he went around teaching what he believed was right for society. He taught everyone. From Kings of states in Asia to just an ordinary person he was more than willing to try and install new beliefs in them. Both of them used their power that they received to try and help other individuals. One last similarity between Confucianism and Buddhism is that both have a set of rules that are followed by the followers. In Confucianism, The Deliberate Tradition is part of how one can receive advice on their life when they need answers. There are five parts of The Deliberate Tradition: Jen (relationship between two people), Chun tzu (ideal relations), Li (propriety), Te (power), and Wen (arts of peace). All of these Deliberate Traditions helped form a lot of how a person would act and how a person would live. The Deliberate Tradition gives the basics of Confucianism. Similarly, Buddhism has the Eightfold Path. This list is what a follower of the Buddihist religion should abide by. This includes: Right Views, Right Aspirations, Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Kindness, and lastly Right Rapture. The Eightfold Path describes how a person should perform their everyday tasks. Both Confucianism and Buddhism followers use these lists to help them live from day to day. These list in each religion are respected and followed by greatly. There are also many differences between the two religions. One major and noticeable difference is Confucius was brought up much differently than Buddha. Guatama Siddhartha was brought up in a wealthy environment. He was given more than enough and was not expected any less than the best. For example, the prince had different houses for different seasons. There was always a cover over his head to protect him and there was always servants waiting for him. As for Confucius he had a much different lifestyle. He had to work at an early age only for the fact that his father had died. He worked hard and brought his standard up instead of staying at the same lower class that he was born into. At times he would hardly have enough to eat. But he always worked hard and it paid off for him. This is just one example of how two great philosophers that were brought up so differently impacted society so great. Another example of how different these two great philosophers were was in how their views emerged and how they came up with answers to their questions. Confucius always had answers to questions that were asked to him. He was well educated and he was very logical. His answers to questions made sense to everyone and soon everyone understood that what he was saying was correct. As for Buddha he had to gain his education through his wanderings. He was very wealthy and there was really no need for him to become educated. But soon realizing that he was not happy as a rich man he left and went into his sojourns. He thought that maybe if he starved himself then he would be able to receive Enlightenment. But this did not work for him. Finally while underneath a pipal tree Buddha attained Enlightenment. This is where he gained his knowledge to help others and to set the standards of Buddhism. Therefore, the way in which each philosophers views emerged were different each still came to conclusions on life and how a human can become satisfied with ones life. One last difference between Confucianism and Buddhism is that Buddhism has a final goal, Nirvana. Nirvana is one reaches an ultimate state where everything in ones life is perfect. On the contrary, Confucianism is a philosophy that gives only rules and proverbs to follow. These rules do not have a goal to strive for in the end. These proverbs just try and guide a person through life and help that person achieve a satisfactory life for oneself. In conclusion, Confucius and Buddha had totally different life's. How they were raised by family and how their life was overall in comparison to each other was totally different. Guatama Siddhartha was born into a very wealthy family while Confucius had to work hard for every thing he earned. In addition, the way in which the conclusions that they came to about life were totally different. Confucius was knowledgeable and was able to answers others questions about life while Buddha had to attain Enlightenment. These two major philosophers have/had a major impact on society. Even though these religions are very different they are also very the same. They wanted to help society and help the individuals in the society. They were two very smart individuals that have affected the world when they were alive and will affect anyone who follows their religions in the future. Bibliography Encyclopedia Americana; 1994; S. v. "Confucianism" Encyclopedia Britanica; 1991; S.v. "Confucianism" Creel, H.G., Confucius and the Chinese Way, New York: Harper and Bro. Publishers, 1960. Legge, James, The Philosophy of Confucius, New York: The Peter Pauper Press, 1976. McNeill, William H., A History Of The Human Community Volume I: Prehistory to 1500, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992. Nakamura, Hajime, Gotama Buddha, Los Angelos: Buddhist Books International, 1977. Smith, Huston, The World's Religions, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. Starr, Frederick, Confucianism, New York: Covici-Friede, 1930. Takakusu, Junjiro, A Life of the Buddha, Japan: Mitsutoyo Mfg. Co., Ltd., 1964. Yamamoto, Kosho, The Buddha, Japan: The Okazakiya Shoten, 1961. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Lust For Power 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Lust For Power: How Politics and Personal Relations Become One WILLIAM YAO The stories of the Bible reveal a pattern of "ups and downs" for the nation of Israel. A period of prosperity, faithfulness and fearing God would almost always be followed by a period of destitution, lawlessness and idolatry. This recurring cycle can be linked to political authority, and the level of separation of political authority from other influences. The successful struggle for liberation under the leadership of Moses and the glorious conquest of Canaan under Joshua instilled a fresh breeze of hope and a renewed faith in God in the nation of Israel. Guided by God, the nation of Israel met with unprecedented success as they journeyed to the promised land. During this time, political authority among the Israelites rested in the hands of patriarchs, or prominent members within the tribes. These men were righteous figures of authority, chosen by God, to lead His people and to teach His ways. The success that swept over the Israelites was short-lived, however, and for the next two hundred years the people of Israel struggled against neighboring tribes. The new generation of Israelites "knew neither the Lord nor what he did for Israel" (Judges 2:10). They began to "do evil in the eyes of the Lord" by worshipping other gods and engaging in various sexual activities. To save His people from their enemies and from their "evil ways," God "raised up" judges to rescue them (Judges 2:16). These so-called judges had the political authority vested in them to lead the people of Israel and to save them from their sins. They mobilized the people of Israel against invasions of the tribes all around them. At this time, the nation of Israel was nothing more than a loose confederation of twelve tribes. Israel had no central authority, which meant no unity, no organization and no power. During the period of the judges, there was no need for a central government, because the people of Israel were able to defend their tribal territories effectively against adjoining peoples. Whenever there was a threat from a neighboring tribe, God sent a judge to lead the Israelites against their enemies. As this era came to an end, however, the Israelites were faced with a much larger problem - the Philistines' military threat. As the Israelites were eliminating all the small powers around them, the Philistines, with their iron implements and organization, were becoming an emergent threat. In order to protect themselves from the looming danger of the Philistine army, the Israelites asked for a king to furnish unification, organization and power for the nation of Israel. God granted their request, and Samuel reluctantly appointed Saul in God's name. The king's function was to provide leadership and to unify the people against their enemies. However, the responsibilities, powers and privileges that came with kingship overwhelmingly went beyond the scope of politics. The personal relationships between the king and his people became increasingly involved with government. With the rise of the monarchy came a definite change in political authority. As Israel changed from the period of judges to the period of the monarchy, politics and political authority became increasingly associated with personal relationships. In the period of the monarchs, the separation between politics and personal matters was no longer delineated as it was before, and politics and personal relations became interrelated. "Whenever the Lord raised up a judge for them, he was with the judge and saved them out of the hands of their enemies as long as the judge lived" (Judges 2:18). God sent judges to lead the Israelites in the process of consolidating tribal areas and defense against organized enemies. The judges led the Israelites into battle and also served as reminders to the people to obey the word of God. It is needless to say then, that the judges were leaders of the Israelites during desperate times. The main reason why a clear distinction between personal relations and political authority during the period of the judges was possible , was that there was no succession of judges. God chose judges to lead Israel against its enemies only when they were in need of leadership and guidance, and in doing so, there was no power struggle or "fight for the crown." There was no specific person "next in line" to lead the Israelites, because the only thing important to them at that time was defending themselves against neighboring powers. It was of no concern to the Israelites who the leader was, as long as the leader was competent and effective. Another characteristic of the judges' rule that compensated for the separation of politics and personal matters was the brevity of their leadership. Whereas a monarch would remain ruler of the land after conquest, the judges served only as a sort of "temporary relief" for the nation of Israel. After fulfilling their assignment as leaders of the Israelites against their adversaries during times of emergency, they would humble themselves before God and before the Israelites. It is clear that the judges possessed political authority over the Israelites, but rarely did they allow personal matters and relationships to interfere with government. Only in the case of Samson did his personal relationships and desires come in the way of political authority. There were twelve judges in all, but the Bible pays most of its attention to three of the twelve: Deborah, Gideon, and Samson. Deborah, the only woman leader of the judges, won unquestioned respect. She commanded Barak, son of Abinoam, to battle Sisera, the commander of the army of King Jabin. Throughout the story of her triumph, not once was Deborah's personal relations mentioned. It can be assumed then, that Deborah kept her personal relations separate from her political leadership, and was focused on one thing and one thing only - the defeat of Jabin and the Canaanites. Forty years of peace ensued after Deborah's military victory, and then the people of Israel again began to fall into sin and were overcome once again, this time by the Midianites. God raised up Gideon to direct the people of Israel against the Midianites. Gideon defeated the Midianites, and in doing so, was offered an opportunity to be king. However, Gideon declined the opportunity to rule declaring "I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord will rule over you" (Judges 8:23). The lack of succession of judges is parallel to the separation of politics and personal relations. There was evidently no power struggle among the Israelites, because even when offered the power to rule, Gideon declined. There was no fight for succession of leadership because there was no succession of leadership. The story of Samson can be seen as the transition from the period of judges to the period of the monarchy. Samson, although the most gifted of the judges, had a tragic flaw; he was pitifully unable to control his lust for women. Samson's personal desire for women affected his ability to reason, and thus hindered his ability to lead the people of Israel. With his great physical strength and hot temper, Samson single-handedly pushed back the Philistines - more by accident than by intention. . He was eventually betrayed and ruined by a woman due to his boisterous wildness and careless encounter with Delilah. God intended Samson for great things. Of all the judges, he was the only one to be announced by an angel before he was born (Judges 13:3). He was given supernatural abilities, and his life was specially devoted to God. However, despite all these advantages given to him at birth, his uncontrollable desire for woman destroyed him. His personal relations destroyed his prospects of becoming a great leader among the Israelites. Samson's desire for women overpowered his desire to deliver the Israelites out of the hands of the Philistines, and this led to his tragic downfall. The story of Samson vaguely foreshadows the connection between politics and personal relations in the period of the monarchs. It acts as a link joining a period when politics and personal relations are clearly defined and separate, and a period when they are indistinct and inseparable. Nearing the end of the period of the judges, the Israelites began to notice that virtually every other nation had a king, while Isarael was nothing more than an alliance of scattered tribes . The rising power of the Philistines and other imminent threats to Israelite security impelled the Israelites to ask for a king. A king offered two advantages: first, a king would provide central government, therefore providing unity and organization; and second, since a king would normally be succeeded by his sons, the nation did not have a crisis of leadership every its leader became old. God despondently granted the wish of His people and gave them a king. Samuel anointed Saul as king of Israel, and the people were satisfied. Military success went hand in hand with bringing the tribes together in one united country, but when the desire for succession of the crown came into play, personal relations and government become one. Saul was successful as king of Israel until David proved to be a threat to the crown. After David defeated Goliath of the Philistines, the people sang aloud "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands" (1 Samuel 18:7). Saul thus became jealous of David, for he could not stand to be second best in a nation he calls his own. From that point thereafter, Saul's political authority and leadership was no longer concentrated on the good of the nation and the welfare of his people, but rather he focused his efforts on "keeping a jealous eye on David" (1 Samuel 18:11), and David "remained his enemy the rest of his days" (1 Samuel 18:29). Saul spent the rest of his days searching for David in attempts to kill him so that he may regain the respect of his people, and in doing so killed many innocent bystanders that got in his way. This rash outrage of jealousy and personal hatred for David was critically associated with politics. While Saul could have directed his efforts toward the betterment of Israel, he was after personal benefit, and this led to his eventual collapse. David, having unconditional respect for Saul, spared his life twice, and thus allowed Saul to further pursue him. Saul eventually dies, however, and David is made king over the house of Judah. Although David's reign was better than that of Saul's, he too had problems. Ish-Bosheth is the threat to the throne this time, while Ish- Bosheth's general Abner is a threat to him. Abner slept with Saul's concubine, therefore openly making a claim on the crown. In David's time, women acted as political symbols. Abner's sleeping with Saul's concubine suggested that he had his eyes on becoming king himself. In pursuit of David, Abner killed the brother of Joab, David's general. As a result Joab had a personal vendetta against Abner and was after his life. When Ish-Bosheth was murdered, and it was evident that David was going to become the next king, Joab murdered Abner. It is not difficult to see that this "soap opera" of events is due to the fact that personal relations and politics were interrelated. Either personal relations effected a political change, or politics effected a change in personal relations. After David is crowned king of Israel, he had problems of the same nature. David, seeing the alluring Bathsheba, wanted her for his own immediately. He blatantly disregarded the fact that she had a husband, Uriah, and took her for his wife, having Uriah killed in the process. This corrupt use of political authority demonstrates how political authority and personal relations are linked. David's son, Absalom, also had his eyes on the throne. He led a conspiracy against his father by traveling all over Israel winning the favor of the people, and he also slept with his father's concubines in public. Absalom publicly slept with his father's concubines for political reasons; it made clear his claim to the throne. Israelites who held back their allegiance thinking father and son would reconcile their differences, knew now that the breach was permanent; they had to take a side. Again sexual potency and sexual relations are acutely tied in with politics. David was ultimately confronted with the fact that he must capture or destroy his son Absalom. When he found out that his soldiers killed Absalom, he mourned deeply. His love for his son collided with his effectiveness as a leader. David wept so excessively that it demoralized the troops who had risked their lives for him and the nation of Israel. When David's time was over, once again there was a power struggle for succession of the throne. This time it was between the sons of David, Adonijah and Solomon. Adonijah took initiative and set himself up as king, but Bathsheba, David's favorite wife, and Nathan the prophet, "pulled a few strings" to secure Solomon's claim of the crown. Due to the efforts of Bathsheba and Nathan, Solomon was crowned king. This "pulling of strings" demonstrates how personal relations may engender lasting impacts on politics. If Bathseba had not been David's favorite wife, and Nathan had not been David's trusted advisor, Adonijah may have been crowned king of Israel instead of Solomon. Solomon also used women to his advantage; he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Most of his wives were princesses of nearby tribes, so it can be inferred that his marriages were politically motivated. He was married to Pharaoh's daughter, and had an alliance with Pharaoh. The story of Solomon's succession is as complicated and as involved with personal relations as his predecessors. As Israel developed from a confederation of tribes into a great monarchial power, a notable change took place. As the nation of Israel moved from the period of judges to the period of the monarchy, politics and political authority became increasingly associated with personal matters and personal relations. Personal relations began to affect politics and political authority, and in turn, politics affected personal relations. This change occurred because the characteristics of leadership changed. During the period of the judges, there was no succession of power, and because there was no succession of power, no one was fighting for it. The judges were sent to lead the Israelites in times of need and emergency. Their leadership was only ephemeral, and thus not one of them were able to gain an exorbitant amount of political power. When the period of the monarchy was firmly in place, however, there was a system of succession of power. Even before the king muttered his last words, there were peopleeagerly waiting in line to take his place. And if that wasn't enough, people were plotting against the king in hopes of succeeding the throne, even his own sons. This feature of the period of the monarchy allowed for the mixing and intertwining of politics and personal relations. The use of women as symbols of power and dominance became abundant as kings challenged the prospective successors, and as prospective successors challenged the kings. Events took place that can be compared to episodes of TV soap operas or Melrose Place. Politics and personal relations became interrelated, and above all else, the underlying reason was power. As people began to lust for power, for wealth, and for recognition, the association of the two became imminent, and the separation of the two became impossible. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\the lust for power.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE LUST FOR POWER: HOW POLITICS AND PERSONAL RELATIONS BECOME ONE WILLIAM YAO The stories of the Bible reveal a pattern of "ups and downs" for the nation of Israel. A period of prosperity, faithfulness and fearing God would almost always be followed by a period of destitution, lawlessness and idolatry. This recurring cycle can be linked to political authority, and the level of separation of political authority from other influences. The successful struggle for liberation under the leadership of Moses and the glorious conquest of Canaan under Joshua instilled a fresh breeze of hope and a renewed faith in God in the nation of Israel. Guided by God, the nation of Israel met with unprecedented success as they journeyed to the promised land. During this time, political authority among the Israelites rested in the hands of patriarchs, or prominent members within the tribes. These men were righteous figures of authority, chosen by God, to lead His people and to teach His ways. The success that swept over the Israelites was short-lived, however, and for the next two hundred years the people of Israel struggled against neighboring tribes. The new generation of Israelites "knew neither the Lord nor what he did for Israel"(Judges 2:10). They began to "do evil in the eyes of the Lord" by worshipping other gods and engaging in various sexual activities. To save His people from their enemies and from their "evil ways," God "raised up" judges to rescue them (Judges 2:16). These so-called judges had the political authority vested in them to lead the people of Israel and to save them from their sins. They mobilized the people of Israel against invasions of the tribes all around them. At this time, the nation of Israel was nothing more than a loose confederation of twelve tribes. Israel had no central authority, which meant no unity, no organization and no power. During the period of the judges, there was no need for a central government, because the people of Israel were able to defend their tribal territories effectively against adjoining peoples. Whenever there was a threat from a neighboring tribe, God sent a judge to lead the Israelites against their enemies. As this era came to an end, however, the Israelites were faced with a much larger problem - the Philistines' military threat. As the Israelites were eliminating all the small powers around them, the Philistines, with their iron implements and organization, were becoming an emergent threat. In order to protect themselves from the looming danger of the Philistine army, the Israelites asked for a king to furnish unification, organization and power for the nation of Israel. God granted their request, and Samuel reluctantly appointed Saul in God's name. The king's function was to provide leadership and to unify the people against their enemies. However, the responsibilities, powers and privileges that came with kingship overwhelmingly went beyond the scope of politics. The personal relationships between the king and his people became increasingly involved with government. With the rise of the monarchy came a definite change in political authority. As Israel changed from the period of judges to the period of the monarchy, politics and political authority became increasingly associated with personal relationships. In the period of the monarchs, the separation between politics and personal matters was no longer delineated as it was before, and politics and personal relations became interrelated. "Whenever the Lord raised up a judge for them, he was with the judge and saved them out of the hands of their enemies as long as the judge lived" (Judges 2:18). God sent judges to lead the Israelites in the process of consolidating tribal areas and defense against organized enemies. The judges led the Israelites into battle and also served as reminders to the people to obey the word of God. It is needless to say then, that the judges were leaders of the Israelites during desperate times. The main reason why a clear distinction between personal relations and political authority during the period of the judges was possible , was that there was no succession of judges. God chose judges to lead Israel against its enemies only when they were in need of leadership and guidance, and in doing so, there was no power struggle or "fight for the crown." There was no specific person "next in line" to lead the Israelites, because the only thing important to them at that time was defending themselves against neighboring powers. It was of no concern to the Israelites who the leader was, as long as the leader was competent and effective. Another characteristic of the judges' rule that compensated for the separation of politics and personal matters was the brevity of their leadership. Whereas a monarch would remain ruler of the land after conquest, the judges served only as a sort of "temporary relief" for the nation of Israel. After fulfilling their assignment as leaders of the Israelites against their adversaries during times of emergency, they would humble themselves before God and before the Israelites. It is clear that the judges possessed political authority over the Israelites, but rarely did they allow personal matters and relationships to interfere with government. Only in the case of Samson did his personal relationships and desires come in the way of political authority. There were twelve judges in all, but the Bible pays most of its attention to three of the twelve: Deborah, Gideon, and Samson. Deborah, the only woman leader of the judges, won unquestioned respect. She commanded Barak, son of Abinoam, to battle Sisera, the commander of the army of King Jabin. Throughout the story of her triumph, not once was Deborah's personal relations mentioned. It can be assumed then, that Deborah kept her personal relations separate from her political leadership, and was focused on one thing and one thing only - the defeat of Jabin and the Canaanites. Forty years of peace ensued after Deborah's military victory, and then the people of Israel again began to fall into sin and were overcome once again, this time by the Midianites. God raised up Gideon to direct the people of Israel against the Midianites. Gideon defeated the Midianites, and in doing so, was offered an opportunity to be king. However, Gideon declined the opportunity to rule declaring "I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord will rule over you" (Judges 8:23). The lack of succession of judges is parallel to the separation of politics and personal relations. There was evidently no power struggle among the Israelites, because even when offered the power to rule, Gideon declined. There was no fight for succession of leadership because there was no succession of leadership. The story of Samson can be seen as the transition from the period of judges to the period of the monarchy. Samson, although the most gifted of the judges, had a tragic flaw; he was pitifully unable to control his lust for women. Samson's personal desire for women affected his ability to reason, and thus hindered his ability to lead the people of Israel. With his great physical strength and hot temper, Samson single-handedly pushed back the Philistines - more by accident than by intention. . He was eventually betrayed and ruined by a woman due to his boisterous wildness and careless encounter with Delilah. God intended Samson for great things. Of all the judges, he was the only one to be announced by an angel before he was born (Judges 13:3). He was given supernatural abilities, and his life was specially devoted to God. However, despite all these advantages given to him at birth, his uncontrollable desire for woman destroyed him. His personal relations destroyed his prospects of becoming a great leader among the Israelites. Samson's desire for women overpowered his desire to deliver the Israelites out of the hands of the Philistines, and this led to his tragic downfall. The story of Samson vaguely foreshadows the connection between politics and personal relations in the period of the monarchs. It acts as a link joining a period when politics and personal relations are clearly defined and separate, and a period when they are indistinct and inseparable. Nearing the end of the period of the judges, the Israelites began to notice that virtually every other nation had a king, while Isarael was nothing more than an alliance of scattered tribes . The rising power of the Philistines and other imminent threats to Israelite security impelled the Israelites to ask for a king. A king offered two advantages: first, a king would provide central government, therefore providing unity and organization; and second, since a king would normally be succeeded by his sons, the nation did not have a crisis of leadership every its leader became old. God despondently granted the wish of His people and gave them a king. Samuel anointed Saul as king of Israel, and the people were satisfied. Military success went hand in hand with bringing the tribes together in one united country, but when the desire for succession of the crown came into play, personal relations and government become one. Saul was successful as king of Israel until David proved to be a threat to the crown. After David defeated Goliath of the Philistines, the people sang aloud "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands" (1 Samuel 18:7). Saul thus became jealous of David, for he could not stand to be second best in a nation he calls his own. From that point thereafter, Saul's political authority and leadership was no longer concentrated on the good of the nation and the welfare of his people, but rather he focused his efforts on "keeping a jealous eye on David" (1 Samuel 18:11), and David "remained his enemy the rest of his days" (1 Samuel 18:29). Saul spent the rest of his days searching for David in attempts to kill him so that he may regain the respect of his people, and in doing so killed many innocent bystanders that got in his way. This rash outrage of jealousy and personal hatred for David was critically associated with politics. While Saul could have directed his efforts toward the betterment of Israel, he was after personal benefit, and this led to his eventual collapse. David, having unconditional respect for Saul, spared his life twice, and thus allowed Saul to further pursue him. Saul eventually dies, however, and David is made king over the house of Judah. Although David's reign was better than that of Saul's, he too had problems. Ish-Bosheth is the threat to the throne this time, while Ish-Bosheth's general Abner is a threat to him. Abner slept with Saul's concubine, therefore openly making a claim on the crown. In David's time, women acted as political symbols. Abner's sleeping with Saul's concubine suggested that he had his eyes on becoming king himself. In pursuit of David, Abner killed the brother of Joab, David's general. As a result Joab had a personal vendetta against Abner and was after his life. When Ish-Bosheth was murdered, and it was evident that David was going to become the next king, Joab murdered Abner. It is not difficult to see that this "soap opera" of events is due to the fact that personal relations and politics were interrelated. Either personal relations effected a political change, or politics effected a change in personal relations. After David is crowned king of Israel, he had problems of the same nature. David, seeing the alluring Bathsheba, wanted her for his own immediately. He blatantly disregarded the fact that she had a husband, Uriah, and took her for his wife, having Uriah killed in the process. This corrupt use of political authority demonstrates how political authority and personal relations are linked. David's son, Absalom, also had his eyes on the throne. He led a conspiracy against his father by traveling all over Israel winning the favor of the people, and he also slept with his father's concubines in public. Absalom publicly slept with his father's concubines for political reasons; it made clear his claim to the throne. Israelites who held back their allegiance thinking father and son would reconcile their differences, knew now that the breach was permanent; they had to take a side. Again sexual potency and sexual relations are acutely tied in with politics. David was ultimately confronted with the fact that he must capture or destroy his son Absalom. When he found out that his soldiers killed Absalom, he mourned deeply. His love for his son collided with his effectiveness as a leader. David wept so excessively that it demoralized the troops who had risked their lives for him and the nation of Israel. When David's time was over, once again there was a power struggle for succession of the throne. This time it was between the sons of David, Adonijah and Solomon. Adonijah took initiative and set himself up as king, but Bathsheba, David's favorite wife, and Nathan the prophet, "pulled a few strings" to secure Solomon's claim of the crown. Due to the efforts of Bathsheba and Nathan, Solomon was crowned king. This "pulling of strings" demonstrates how personal relations may engender lasting impacts on politics. If Bathseba had not been David's favorite wife, and Nathan had not been David's trusted advisor, Adonijah may have been crowned king of Israel instead of Solomon. Solomon also used women to his advantage; he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Most of his wives were princesses of nearby tribes, so it can be inferred that his marriages were politically motivated. He was married to Pharaoh's daughter, and had an alliance with Pharaoh. The story of Solomon's succession is as complicated and as involved with personal relations as his predecessors. As Israel developed from a confederation of tribes into a great monarchial power, a notable change took place. As the nation of Israel moved from the period of judges to the period of the monarchy, politics and political authority became increasingly associated with personal matters and personal relations. Personal relations began to affect politics and political authority, and in turn, politics affected personal relations. This change occurred because the characteristics of leadership changed. During the period of the judges, there was no succession of power, and because there was no succession of power, no one was fighting for it. The judges were sent to lead the Israelites in times of need and emergency. Their leadership was only ephemeral, and thus not one of them were able to gain an exorbitant amount of political power. When the period of the monarchy was firmly in place, however, there was a system of succession of power. Even before the king muttered his last words, there were people eagerly waiting in line to take his place. And if that wasn't enough, people were plotting against the king in hopes of succeeding the throne, even his own sons. This feature of the period of the monarchy allowed for the mixing and intertwining of politics and personal relations. The use of women as symbols of power and dominance became abundant as kings challenged the prospective successors, and as prospective successors challenged the kings. Events took place that can be compared to episodes of TV soap operas or Melrose Place. Politics and personal relations became interrelated, and above all else, the underlying reason was power. As people began to lust for power, for wealth, and for recognition, the association of the two became imminent, and the separation of the two became impossible. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Marriage Feast.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Marriage Feast The Marriage FeastIn Luke chapter fourteen, verses sixteen through twenty-four, Jesus speaks to the crowds about the parable of "The Marriage Feast." The parable itself begins with a certain man who gives a great supper and extends his invitation to the rich and well to do. However, those invited begin to make excuses. One had bought a piece of ground and said he must go see it. Another had bought five yoke of oxen and wanted to test them. A third said he had just gotten married and could not come. The master, being angry, sends his servants to go out and invite others. At first the poor, maimed, lame and blind are invited and arrive in the man's house. There is still room left in the man's house so the servants are sent out again to invite those among the bushes of the roads and sideways to come. Those invited who made excuses would not eat his supper that he had prepared. I believe this invitation to the banquet is symbolical of the invitation to eternal life through the gospel message. Jesus uses the figure of the banquet to illustrate the "feast" in the kingdom of God were people will come from all over to take their places at the feast of eternal life with God. Two scholarly interpretations of this parable are described below. Wilfrid J. Harington argues in his book, A Key to the Parables, that "The Great Feast" is used as a metaphor in Luke's gospel. According to Harington the point of the parable is the refusal of the wealthy guests that were invited and the replacement of them by the poor and lame. Those that are within the city are the sinners. These consist of the scribes and Pharisees who are like the guests who received the invitation and did not accept it. The invitation to those outside the city refers to the Gentiles. Herington believes that this is to show how God has called the poor and outcasts and has offered them the salvation that the scribes and Pharisees had rejected. Harington also agrees that the two stories of "The Great Feast" are basically the same in Matthew's and in Luke's Gospels. Both Luke and Matthew both give a warning to the scribes and Pharisees that their place in heaven is going to be given up to others, namely the blind, poor and lame. One of the differences in Matthew is the added detail that Luke does not contain. In Matthew there is a king that has prepared the great feast for his son. The servants sent out to invite theses people are the servants are beaten and some are killed. The king became furious at this and destroys the city. In Matthew the king is God. The wedding feast is a messianic blessedness. The king's son is the Messiah, and the messengers are the prophets and the Apostles. The guests who ignored the invitation and maltreated the servants are the Jews. The burned city is Jerusalem and those who are called are the pagans. Another interpreter, Frederick Howk Borsch, argues in his book, Many Things in Parables, that Luke's version of the parable can be described as more secular, for it does not have many of the details that Matthew uses for his salvation-history allegory. Borsch describes how the eating together was a way of establishing community, offering hospitality, and building trust and friendship in that era. The actions of inviting people to a meal and accepting the invitation were full of significance of the general hospitality that was known in that era. Borsch explains how the most important part of the parable is the context. He goes on to explain how the context advises readers to invite the poor, maimed, lame, and blind to their dinners rather than friends, relatives, and the wealthy. Borsch is telling that true charity and hospitality was known in Judaism in that time. They did not invite people based on receiving a favor in return. It was based on the true charity that was and still is imbedded in their culture. Borsch tells how Luke shows that the intended guests were individuals of wealth. Only after this plan fails is the poor, lame, and blind invited. It is anger rather than charity that provides the host's motivation. The banquet parable provides a defense by suggesting that it is the outcasts who are to participate in the age to come. Borsch believes that Luke's parable seems more interested in those who are finally included than the guests who refuse to come. Borsch's article tells of the double summoning of guests to fill the banquet hall. The first group that the servants were sent out to get were the people of the streets and lanes of the city. These people represent the Jews. The second group that the servants were sent out to get were those from the highways and the hedges. These people represent the Gentiles. Borsch also argues another way of interpreting these people. He says that those from the city are primarily the outcast among the Jews who accepted Jesus rather than the Jews generally, since the original invitees represent Jews more generally would probably better. Luke's primary concern is with charity towards the outcasts and uses the parable as a warning against worldly concerns that lead one to miss what is far more important. Borsch explains the Jesus' healing ministry and his reaching out to and associating with the sick, maimed, and poor were ways of making the coming of the kingdom known. The parable concludes in high and holy humor, offering new hope to all whom might otherwise feel uninvited to the party. Both Harrington and Borsch offer explanations of the different groups of people that are called to feast. However both authors have different opinions on how these people would be interpreted. Harrington believes that those that are within the city are the sinners who are like the guests who received the invitation and did not accept it. The invitation to those outside the city refers to the Gentiles. Borsch believes that those from the city are primarily the outcast who accepted Jesus and the original invitees represent the Jews. Borsch's view on the parable is based on charity and its place in Judaism at that time. Harrington's view on the parable is based on how God has called the poor and outcasts and offered them the salvation that the scribes and Pharisees had rejected. Harrington also describes the differences between Matthews's version of the parable and Luke's version, while Borsch main focus is on Luke's version. Both of these authors display strong opinions to their interpretations of this parable. While both offer different interpretations of the groups that are invited to the feast, they still have the strong underlying theme of the feast of salvation that everyone is called to, including the poor and lame. Harrington uses higher-level language but does not offer as an in depth analysis as Borsch's analysis. Borsch offers a more in depth analysis of Luke's gospel but he does not offer the dual interpretation of the parable from both Matthew's and Luke's gospels. In conclusion these two authors represent two different interpretations of one parable, yet they still have the same underlying theme of the everlasting feast of salvation that one can acquire. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Minor Post Exilic Prophets 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Minor Post Exilic Prophets Before the Babylonian exile, Biblical prophesy reached its highest point. Prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel changed and molded the scope of Israelite religion. Their writings were intelligent, insightful, well developed, and contained a great spiritual meaning. Following the Babylonian exile, however, prophesy took a depressing downward turn. There are many post exilic prophets, yet their writings are usually short, mostly irrelevant, repetitive, and, for the most part, anonymous. Though this is the case for many of these prophets, their works cannot be overlooked. Haggai and Zechariah were leaders in the cultic reform of the Israelite people. Malachai calmed their fears, and assured them of God's love. Still other prophets told of a new, Messianic time when the word of the Lord would be held in its former glory. These were the most important works, as post exilic Israel needed not only protection, but spiritual guidance to sustain their society. The prophet Haggai was in integral figure in uniting the Israelite people. Upon return to their homeland, the Israelites found most of the infrastructure in a state of disrepair, with the people uncaring for their moral and social responsibilities, to say nothing for their religious practices. (OVC) Even the temple of the Lord had been destroyed. Haggai emphasized the return to a more cultic society. Through Haggai, God explained the plight of the Israelite people, as in Haggai 1:6: "You have sown much, but harvested little; you eat, but there is not enough to be satisfied; you put on clothing, but no one is warm enough...Why? Because of My house which lies desolate while each of you runs to his own house." (Haggai 1:9) The word of Haggai is accepted as the word of God, and the temple is rebuilt in less than four years. "I am with you," said the Lord,in Haggai 1:13 when the temple was finally built. (EIB) The prophesy of Haggai did not end with the building of the Lord's temple. He offered a message of hope to the people of Israel. Haggai said that the promises made by God would be kept, now that He had a dwelling place within the city. God inspired the people of the newly reformed city, saying: "Who is left among you who saw this temple in its former glory?...Does it not seem to you like nothing in comparison? The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former, and in this place I shall give peace." (Haggai 2:3,9) He also talks of a time of political upheaval and reform, when he promises to "overthrow the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the power of the kingdoms and nations; and I will overthrow the chariots and their riders, and the horses and their riders will go down, every one by the sword of another." (Haggai 2:22) The "latter glory" foretold in Haggai's prophesy is emphasized in the book of Zechariah. Zechariah prophesied in the shadow of Haggai, but gave his words a slightly different spin. He emphasizes, like the pre-exilic prophets, the importance of a moral reform among the Israelites. Zechariah's way of recieving the word of God is very unique among the prophets. The word comes to him in the form of eight visions. These "colorful and strange" visions make up most of his book. (OVC) The visions are so bizarre that the Lord sends an angel as in interpreter, so that Zeccariah can derive meaning from them. (I have taken descriptions of these visions, from the OVC and other texts, and combined them with actual verses from the bible in order to create these descriptions.) The first of thsese eight visions is that of four angels, whose amazing speed is symbolized by horses. These four angels report that all is at peace with the nation, because the opponents to the nation have been silenced. This is called "a time of universal peace" (Carstensen, OVC). Even though the land is peaceful, the Lord is not, and he expresses his hatred toward those who have been allied against the Israelites. The second vision is of four horns and four smiths. This vision fortells the complete destruction of the enemies of God. The horns may be the four most powerful armies allied against the nation, and the smiths could be the angels send by got to protect the inhabitants of the nation. The third vision begins with a man marking off the city boundaries with a plumb line. Again, and angel interpreter tells Zechariah to inform the man that there need be no boundary lines, because the city shall have no walls. It goes on to say that if there is true faith and belief in the Lord, a city without any defenses will be safer than the most heavily armored city. The second part of this vision is an invitation to the Israelite armies to share in the destruction of their enemies. This vision is significant because it describes the Lord dwelling with his people, an event which creates happiness in and of itself, not only because people are pleased that the Lord is with them, but because the Lord does not choose to surround Himself with depressed people. The fourth vision is very significant, in that the character of Satan is reintroduced as the adversary. Joshua, the high priest, is brought on trial, with an angel as judge. Satan brings these charges to the court, and accuses Joshua. The angel of the Lord removes Joshua's clothes, and replaces them with a white robe, symbolizing the absolution of sin from the Israelite population. Joshua is given the responsiblity of being a moral and spiritual leader in society. In the fifth vision, there is a golden lampstand, adorned by seven lamps. These lamps smbolize the light of the Lord, and His vision, which not only gives light to the people, but oversees the actions of the people, both on and off of holy ground. On either side of the lampstand are two olive trees, representative of Joshua and Zerubbabel. In the sixth vision, God uses a large, flying scroll to symbolize a curse on evildoers, mostly thieves and liars. The curse gives an ominous vision of death to those who disobey the word of God. Though theft and perjury are the only two sins mentioned here, they are probably just symbols of a longer list of greater sins which would fall under this curse. The seventh vision speaks of a woman trapped in a wine cask. The angel lifts the lead cover to show Zechariah the woman, who is called Wickedness. The angel talks of building a temple in the land of Shinar, where she will be sent so that the Israelite land will be absolved of sin. The eighth is a wrap-up, in the tradition of the first vision. Four horsemen bring news that the land is calm, and now that His people are reformed, God is also calm. Later in this chapter, there is also talk of the coronation of Joshua, the son of the high priest. It is told that later, Joshua would build the temple of the Lord, uniting the people and nations of the Middle East. Zechariah and Haggai both told of the rebuilding of the temple and the return to the cultic society by the Israelites. Haggai focused more on the cultic activities than Zechariah. This is not to say that Haggai ignored the moral aspects of society. He believed, through the building of the temple, the Lord would reside in the city, and the community would come together. Zechariah prophesied to the same ends, in that by unifying the people, the Lord would be with them, and further, by rebuilding His temple, the people would return to their former religious ways. God would see this, and want to reside with His people. Through both of these books, there are undertones of a future society, where the power of God would be realized. The future society is the focus of the books of Malachai and Obadiah. The prophet known as Malachai could have been anyone. The word Malachai, in Hebrew, means "messenger". The author of the book of Malachai told of another prophet who would be born to the earth to prepare the people for the return of their God. The later editors assumed that the prophet was referring to himself, which was not necessarily the case. He brought a word of warning to the Israelites, warning them that their half hearted attempts at sacrifice would not be sufficient. He said, "A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?" (Malachi 1:6) He goes on to tell the priests how they have upset him so: "You are presenting defiled food upon My altar. But you say, 'how have we defiled Thee?'...But when you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil?" (Malachai 1:7,8) The Lord then goes on to invite the Israelites to offer such inferior animals to their governor, and see if their community leader is as forgiving. Much of the post-exilic prophesy is warning, with undertones of a glorious future. Through these prophets, we see a sence of rebuilding, of picking up the nation where it left off. Much of the ceremonial history of the Israelites is shaped in this time period, mostly by Haggai, who believed that a strong sense of ceremony must accompany a strong moral belief to satisfy the Lord. Furthermore, to receive the Lord's residence with the people as well as his blessing, there must be a suitable house in which he can dwell. Palaces, beliefs, and the restructuring and rebuilding of society all played a major role in the healing of the Israelite population following the Babylonian exile. These prophets played an important part in leading the people to social stability. Their words are a minor portion of the bible, but the implications of their words drastically shaped the israelite society. Notes: It amazed me that such a minor spot in such a huge book could have such great implications on a society. Had these prophets not interceded in the affairs of the Israelites, the entire Jewish religion would have been on the verge of collapse. Many of the practices and beliefs set during the post-exilic period have lasted in Israel for hundreds of years. I found it ironic, however, that after the nation healed itself, it immediatly began to discuss plans for war with other nations. Throughout the Bible, there are discussions of prosperity and pease, but does it have to come at the expense of other nations? It would have been more economical for the Israelites to at least establish a solid medium for trade, and a constant source of manpower and funds before they began to wage war on other cities. In researching this paper, I found the OVC to be especially helpful. It contained a verse by verse breakdown of the entire book, as well as historical backgrounds. Scripture quotations are from my New American Standard Bible. Works Cited Carstensen, Roger N. The Book of Zechariah. From The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible. Abingdon Press, 1971. Achtemeier, Paul J. Harper's Bible Dictionary. Harper and Row, 1985. Carey, Gary. Cliff's Notes on Old Testament. Cliffs Notes, Inc, 1995. Barker, William P. Everyone in the Bible. Fleming H. Revell, 1966. Brownrigg, Ronald and Comay, Joan. Who's Who in the Bible. Crown Publishers, Inc, 1946 and 1952. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Minor Post Exilic Prophets.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: Biblical prophesy following the exile of the Hebrews from Babylon Title: The Minor Post Exilic Prophets Before the Babylonian exile, Biblical prophesy reached its highest point. Prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel changed and molded the scope of Israelite religion. Their writings were intelligent, insightful, well developed, and contained a great spiritual meaning. Following the Babylonian exile, however, prophesy took a depressing downward turn. There are many post exilic prophets, yet their writings are usually short, mostly irrelevant, repetitive, and, for the most part, anonymous. Though this is the case for many of these prophets, their works cannot be overlooked. Haggai and Zechariah were leaders in the cultic reform of the Israelite people. Malachai calmed their fears, and assured them of God's love. Still other prophets told of a new, Messianic time when the word of the Lord would be held in its former glory. These were the most important works, as post exilic Israel needed not only protection, but spiritual guidance to sustain their society. The prophet Haggai was in integral figure in uniting the Israelite people. Upon return to their homeland, the Israelites found most of the infrastructure in a state of disrepair, with the people uncaring for their moral and social responsibilities, to say nothing for their religious practices. (OVC) Even the temple of the Lord had been destroyed. Haggai emphasized the return to a more cultic society. Through Haggai, God explained the plight of the Israelite people, as in Haggai 1:6: "You have sown much, but harvested little; you eat, but there is not enough to be satisfied; you put on clothing, but no one is warm enough...Why? Because of My house which lies desolate while each of you runs to his own house." (Haggai 1:9) The word of Haggai is accepted as the word of God, and the temple is rebuilt in less than four years. "I am with you," said the Lord,in Haggai 1:13 when the temple was finally built. (EIB) The prophesy of Haggai did not end with the building of the Lord's temple. He offered a message of hope to the people of Israel. Haggai said that the promises made by God would be kept, now that He had a dwelling place within the city. God inspired the people of the newly reformed city, saying: "Who is left among you who saw this temple in its former glory?...Does it not seem to you like nothing in comparison? The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former, and in this place I shall give peace." (Haggai 2:3,9) He also talks of a time of political upheaval and reform, when he promises to "overthrow the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the power of the kingdoms and nations; and I will overthrow the chariots and their riders, and the horses and their riders will go down, every one by the sword of another." (Haggai 2:22) The "latter glory" foretold in Haggai's prophesy is emphasized in the book of Zechariah. Zechariah prophesied in the shadow of Haggai, but gave his words a slightly different spin. He emphasizes, like the pre-exilic prophets, the importance of a moral reform among the Israelites. Zechariah's way of recieving the word of God is very unique among the prophets. The word comes to him in the form of eight visions. These "colorful and strange" visions make up most of his book. (OVC) The visions are so bizarre that the Lord sends an angel as in interpreter, so that Zeccariah can derive meaning from them. (I have taken descriptions of these visions, from the OVC and other texts, and combined them with actual verses from the bible in order to create these descriptions.) The first of thsese eight visions is that of four angels, whose amazing speed is symbolized by horses. These four angels report that all is at peace with the nation, because the opponents to the nation have been silenced. This is called "a time of universal peace" (Carstensen, OVC). Even though the land is peaceful, the Lord is not, and he expresses his hatred toward those who have been allied against the Israelites. The second vision is of four horns and four smiths. This vision fortells the complete destruction of the enemies of God. The horns may be the four most powerful armies allied against the nation, and the smiths could be the angels send by got to protect the inhabitants of the nation. The third vision begins with a man marking off the city boundaries with a plumb line. Again, and angel interpreter tells Zechariah to inform the man that there need be no boundary lines, because the city shall have no walls. It goes on to say that if there is true faith and belief in the Lord, a city without any defenses will be safer than the most heavily armored city. The second part of this vision is an invitation to the Israelite armies to share in the destruction of their enemies. This vision is significant because it describes the Lord dwelling with his people, an event which creates happiness in and of itself, not only because people are pleased that the Lord is with them, but because the Lord does not choose to surround Himself with depressed people. The fourth vision is very significant, in that the character of Satan is reintroduced as the adversary. Joshua, the high priest, is brought on trial, with an angel as judge. Satan brings these charges to the court, and accuses Joshua. The angel of the Lord removes Joshua's clothes, and replaces them with a white robe, symbolizing the absolution of sin from the Israelite population. Joshua is given the responsiblity of being a moral and spiritual leader in society. In the fifth vision, there is a golden lampstand, adorned by seven lamps. These lamps smbolize the light of the Lord, and His vision, which not only gives light to the people, but oversees the actions of the people, both on and off of holy ground. On either side of the lampstand are two olive trees, representative of Joshua and Zerubbabel. In the sixth vision, God uses a large, flying scroll to symbolize a curse on evildoers, mostly thieves and liars. The curse gives an ominous vision of death to those who disobey the word of God. Though theft and perjury are the only two sins mentioned here, they are probably just symbols of a longer list of greater sins which would fall under this curse. The seventh vision speaks of a woman trapped in a wine cask. The angel lifts the lead cover to show Zechariah the woman, who is called Wickedness. The angel talks of building a temple in the land of Shinar, where she will be sent so that the Israelite land will be absolved of sin. The eighth is a wrap-up, in the tradition of the first vision. Four horsemen bring news that the land is calm, and now that His people are reformed, God is also calm. Later in this chapter, there is also talk of the coronation of Joshua, the son of the high priest. It is told that later, Joshua would build the temple of the Lord, uniting the people and nations of the Middle East. Zechariah and Haggai both told of the rebuilding of the temple and the return to the cultic society by the Israelites. Haggai focused more on the cultic activities than Zechariah. This is not to say that Haggai ignored the moral aspects of society. He believed, through the building of the temple, the Lord would reside in the city, and the community would come together. Zechariah prophesied to the same ends, in that by unifying the people, the Lord would be with them, and further, by rebuilding His temple, the people would return to their former religious ways. God would see this, and want to reside with His people. Through both of these books, there are undertones of a future society, where the power of God would be realized. The future society is the focus of the books of Malachai and Obadiah. The prophet known as Malachai could have been anyone. The word Malachai, in Hebrew, means "messenger". The author of the book of Malachai told of another prophet who would be born to the earth to prepare the people for the return of their God. The later editors assumed that the prophet was referring to himself, which was not necessarily the case. He brought a word of warning to the Israelites, warning them that their half hearted attempts at sacrifice would not be sufficient. He said, "A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?" (Malachi 1:6) He goes on to tell the priests how they have upset him so: "You are presenting defiled food upon My altar. But you say, 'how have we defiled Thee?'...But when you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil?" (Malachai 1:7,8) The Lord then goes on to invite the Israelites to offer such inferior animals to their governor, and see if their community leader is as forgiving. Much of the post-exilic prophesy is warning, with undertones of a glorious future. Through these prophets, we see a sence of rebuilding, of picking up the nation where it left off. Much of the ceremonial history of the Israelites is shaped in this time period, mostly by Haggai, who believed that a strong sense of ceremony must accompany a strong moral belief to satisfy the Lord. Furthermore, to receive the Lord's residence with the people as well as his blessing, there must be a suitable house in which he can dwell. Palaces, beliefs, and the restructuring and rebuilding of society all played a major role in the healing of the Israelite population following the Babylonian exile. These prophets played an important part in leading the people to social stability. Their words are a minor portion of the bible, but the implications of their words drastically shaped the israelite society. Notes: It amazed me that such a minor spot in such a huge book could have such great implications on a society. Had these prophets not interceded in the affairs of the Israelites, the entire Jewish religion would have been on the verge of collapse. Many of the practices and beliefs set during the post-exilic period have lasted in Israel for hundreds of years. I found it ironic, however, that after the nation healed itself, it immediatly began to discuss plans for war with other nations. Throughout the Bible, there are discussions of prosperity and pease, but does it have to come at the expense of other nations? It would have been more economical for the Israelites to at least establish a solid medium for trade, and a constant source of manpower and funds before they began to wage war on other cities. In researching this paper, I found the OVC to be especially helpful. It contained a verse by verse breakdown of the entire book, as well as historical backgrounds. Scripture quotations are from my New American Standard Bible. Works Cited Carstensen, Roger N. The Book of Zechariah. From The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible. Abingdon Press, 1971. Achtemeier, Paul J. Harper's Bible Dictionary. Harper and Row, 1985. Carey, Gary. Cliff's Notes on Old Testament. Cliffs Notes, Inc, 1995. Barker, William P. Everyone in the Bible. Fleming H. Revell, 1966. Brownrigg, Ronald and Comay, Joan. Who's Who in the Bible. Crown Publishers, Inc, 1946 and 1952. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Mormons.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Mormons Mormonism is a way of life that is practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Over two-thirds of the church's membership is in the United States. However, members are also located in many other countries around the world. Mormons use the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and two other books or revelations to Joseph Smith, founder of the church. These other two revelations are the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The Mormon organization consists of a three member First Presidency and a twelve man Council of Apostles who make up the major policy-making body of the church. Mormonism's founding doctrine was based on the assumption that Christianity was corrupt and that it was necessary to restore the "true" Christian gospel. The Mormon church sees only itself as recognized by God. Joseph Smith founded the church in New York in 1830. He said that he had visions of God and other heavenly beings that told him to establish the restored Christian Church. He was "directed" to some thin metal plates that he translated into what is now called the book of Mormons. This book describes the history, wars, and religious beliefs of a group of people who migrated from Jerusalem to America. Smith attracted a small group of followers who settled in Kirtland, Ohio, and Jackson County, Missouri. Because of persecution, the church moved to northern Missouri, then to Nauvoo, Illinois. The people of Illinois welcomed the persecuted Mormons, and Smith began to construct a temple and a hotel there. In 1843, Smith secretly instituted the practice of plural marriage among a group of his followers. This could be because he himself had 50 wives. The Mormons lived in relative peace until 1844 when a group became mad about Smith's practices. They started a newspaper called the "Nauvoo Expositor" and attacked him, accusing him of practicing polygamy. Smith denied this charge but was killed anyway. Brigham Young took over as their new leader. In 1852 , polygamy was officially announced at the Mormon conference. Points of Debate What was so wrong with their views? * Belief in the Bible and Book of Mormon ==> How? The Mormons believe the Bible and The Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. However, the Bible states that it is the only Word of God. ==> Mormonism believes that God has a physical body. The Bible contradicts this belief * Belief in Polygamy ==> Teach that Jesus Christ himself is a polygamist. * Mormonism and Blacks ==> Mormonism teaches that African Americans have dark skin because they are cursed by God, and are an inferior race. * King James Bible is Plagiarized ==> An analysis by Michael Marquard, shows that the portion of the Book of Mormon that was supposed to have been written during the Old Testament period is literally peppered with phrases and quotations from the King James New Testament. ==> The book of Mormon virtually copies the life of the Apostle Paul with its own teacher, named Alma. * Blunders in Biblical Material ==> Peter's paraphrase of Moses' words in the Bible is referred to as Moses' own words in the Book of Mormon. Thus Peter is accidentally quoted hundreds of years before the book of Acts was written or Peter had ever uttered his words. Are their limits on acceptable beliefs in our democracy? * Yes, but not enough ==> There are limits to keep religious beliefs from physically harming us, such as the Branch Dividians, but there are no limits on beliefs that can spiritually harm us, such as the Mormon religion. Should we welcome and tolerate all views? * We should listen, then judge ==> We should allow these religions to state their purpose and determine how their teachings will affect us. ==> We should not tolerate any view which is detrimental to our society or to our country. Mormonism goes against all beliefs of the early Christian church. The Mormon Church was too radical for the people and that is why they were persecuted. Bibliography Allen, James B., and Leonard, Glen M., The Story of the Latter-day Saints (1976). . Arrington, Leonard J., and Bitton, Davis, The Mormon Experience (1979). Bitton, Davis, and Beecher, Maureen, eds., New Views of Mormon History (1987). Hansen, Klaus J., Mormonism and the American Experience (1981). Shipps, Jan, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (1984). Walters, Wesley P. Mormonism (1996). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Natural Law Theory.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The natural law theory is a theory that dates back to the time of the Greeks and great thinkers like Plato and Aristotle. Defined as the law which states that human are inborn with certain laws preordained into them which let them determine what is right and what is wrong.(Bainton 174) This theory was them adapted by religious philosophers to fit the Christian religion.(Berkhof 114) This, however was not exactly the same as the original. The classical thinkers were the first to define the natural law. Heraclitus, in the sixth century BC, specified one the components by saying, *for all human laws are nourished by one, the divine.* This meant that a divine power determined a logic and gave to all humans. (Microsoft Encarta) This definition put this law into direct conflict with positive laws. Aristotle elaborated on the word natural in relation to law. He said that a natural law was one that had the same validity for every one and situation.(Berkhof 268) An example of this would be that a man contemplating murder would see that it was wrong by his nature. His reason would tell him that to kill another was unnatural, and therefore wrong. Cicero tries to determine what the actual law encompassed and he came up with the theory of Stoicism. Stoicism is an interpretation of the natural law which states that every, single person is a part of the universe that was created and is ruled by a divine power rationally. To live rationally and with virtue, according to the Stoics, was to follow one*s nature and reason. Thus, they deemed emotion and passion irrational, and therefore unnatural. For Stoics, the wise would be those who excluded emotion and passion from their decision making process.(Bainton 21-22) The great Christian philosophers came upon this theory and realized that it was compatible to their religion. Probably the most famous of them was St. Thomas Aquinas. He stated in his Summa Theologiae that God gave man the ability to determine the difference of right from wrong by the *Eternal Law.* This law gave all beings a tendency to do what was proper or natural. He went on to say that by doing what was right, each being was in fact using divine reason. The natural law, according to Aquinas, was the participation in the Eternal Law, doing what was right.(Comptons) Marriage and the procreation of children, for example, are natural to all beings. The desire to marry and make offspring is an inborn instinct given by God. The natural law, in both Christian and secular views, state that all humans act or should act in certain ways and abide by certain rules, and that these were predestined by a divine power. The Christian thinkers, led by St. Thomas Aquinas, only added that the divine power was God and that by doing what was right, one was using divine reason. The natural law is the essence of the word natural. It just means anything normal or feels normal is right. I do agree with most of the natural law. I very much believe that God gave man the ability to reason right from wrong and that sometimes we just have a feel for what is right and wrong. I don agree, however, with the Stoics* viewpoint that emotion and passion are unnatural. They must be natural because they are found in every person. Also, the emotion of passion is a very desirable trait in the Bible. I think emotions are one way God tries to tell us what is just. Bibliography Works Cited Bainton, Roland H. Christianity. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 1987. Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990. Compton*s Encyclopedia. *St. Thomas Aquinas* Britannica Inc.: Chicago, 1989. vol. 2. pg. 520. Microsoft Encarta. *Natural Law.* Works Researched Bainton, Roland H. Christianity. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 1987. Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990. Compton*s Encyclopedia. *St. Thomas Aquinas* Britannica Inc.: Chicago, 1989. vol. 2. pg. 520. Compton*s Encyclopedia. *Natural Law* Britannica Inc.: Chicago, 1989. vol. 16. pg. 87-88. ELibrary, Internet, *Natural Law* Microsoft Encarta. *Natural Law.* f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The New Age Movement 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The New Age Movement Although the New Age movement is not technically a religion , eight to nine percent of people that do not believe in organized religion find the New Age as their replacement. The New Age movement is very difficult to describe although not impossible. It is a complex sociological phenomenon that can be perceived in many ways. Basically, what another person sees, the other may not. The New Age movement is best understood as a network of networks. A network is an informal, loosely knit organization which is very different in both structure and operation than other types of organizations. Networks are spontaneously created by people to address problems and offer possibilities primarily outside of established institutions. Networks tend to be decentralized, often having no single leader of headquarters and with power and responsibility widely distributed. Networks also see through many perspectives. The New Age movement is an extremely large and structured network of organization and individuals that are bound together by common values. These values are based on mysticism and monism which is the world view that "all is one". The New Age movement is not a cult by any accepted sociological definition. Although there are several cults which could be classified within, such as the Transcendental Meditation and the followers of deported Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Cult membership is by far the exception and not the rule for New Agers. New Agers tend to be eclectic which means that they draw what they think is the best from various sources. Exclusive devotion to a single teacher, teaching or techniques is not long term. They move from one approach to "wholeness" to another in their spiritual quest.(Miller. 1989. P.18) New Agers consider spirituality much more a matter of experience than belief. Some New Agers do not believe that their beliefs are universal. Beliefs are often portrayed as direct impediments to enlightenment. As I stated before, all New Agers believe that "all is one". A second assumption is that this Ultimate reality is neither dead matter nor unconscious energy. In other words, it is Being and Awareness. New Agers believe that man is separated by God only in his own conscious and awareness. Therefore he is the victim of a false sense of separate identity which makes him unable to see his essential unity with God. This is supposed to be the cause of all his problems. New Agers believe that a man can be saved and made whole by spiritual technology. New Agers believe that specific techniques for changing the consciousness can enable the seeker to consciously experience his supposed oneness with God. The techniques can be meditation, chanting and dancing. Salvation for the New Ager is linked with experimental knowledge. In addition to the beliefs just stated, most New Agers adhere to the ancient Hindu doctrines of reincarnation and Karma. By the definition of Karma, it is understood that whatever a person does, whether it is good or bad, it will return to him in the exact proportion of good or bad. It should be made known that New Agers go on to spiritualize the universe by making consciousness its essence, rather than matter. (Miller. 1989, p.22) Until the later 1980's the majority of Americans were unfamiliar with the New Age movement. There is no doubt that they had encountered certain elements of the New Age, such as Yoga, reincarnation, and astrology. It was not until late 1986 and throughout 1987 that the New Age movement finally caught the media's attention. A large and varied assortment of believers including celebrities were just the type of publicity that the New Age movement needed to catch the media's attention. And so, one article after another began to appear. However, the media's focus remained entirely on the movements more sensational side, treating it like a fad or fashion. But, the New Age movement has yet to be discovered by the media due to the fact that this movement is a serious cultural development. (Chandler. 1988. P.26) Even though the New Age movement is a minority within our society, it is an active minority. It currently has very little political power, but an expanding social influence. It views its ideas and programs as the new wave of the future and believes that it only needs the support of a few people to overturn traditional religion. Misunderstanding the New Agers is not rare, Christians have viewed them as people who are anti Christ, therefore, most Christians have regarded them with fear and hate. But, further in my reading, it was stated that New Agers are intelligent, humanitarian and generally sincere group of people. It seems that what the book was trying to project to the reader was that people should try to understand the New Agers instead of looking for the evil, because if they do not, they will fail to see New Agers for who they really are. (Miller. 1989. P.21) In some respects, New Age religion can be classified as the classic monistic Hinduism, known as Vedanta. Their most basic beliefs about God, the world, man and salvation are the same as are the mystical experiences. Much of the New Age technology that produced these experiences has come from India. But, New Agers have rejected the traditional Hindu view of the world because many of them have a social conscience. Their desire is to change the world not leave it. The other reason is that many of them desire personal as well as spiritual fulfillment. In comparison to the Christian religion their difference lies in the belief that all is one (god), therefore there could be no sin and no death. The death of Christ for our sins becomes meaningless. Although the New Agers will agree that Jesus Christ is God, his world view will always compel him to say that Jesus is no more God than anyone else. In the Christian religion, Jesus is separated from the rest of humanity in fact that he is demonstrated as divine. In my opinion, I do not think that I could consider myself as equal with God or Jesus, therefore I personally did not believe in some aspects of this religion. (Lewis. 1992, p.48) In choosing this religion as my area of research, I never realized the complexity of the topic. Through extensive research I have developed a keen understanding of this topic. There are some things that I strongly agree with while others need to be put to the test. WORK CITED Chandler, R. 1988. Understanding The New Age. Word Publishing. Dallas Miller, E. 1989. A Crash Course On The New Age Movement. Baker Book House. Michigan. Lewis, J. 1992. Perspectives On The New Age. State University of New York Press. Albany. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The New Age Movement.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Although the New Age movement is not technically a religion , eight to nine percent of people that do not believe in organized religion find the New Age as their replacement. The New Age movement is very difficult to describe although not impossible. It is a complex sociological phenomenon that can be perceived in many ways. Basically, what another person sees, the other may not. The New Age movement is best understood as a network of networks. A network is an informal, loosely knit organization which is very different in both structure and operation than other types of organizations. Networks are spontaneously created by people to address problems and offer possibilities primarily outside of established institutions. Networks tend to be decentralized, often having no single leader of headquarters and with power and responsibility widely distributed. Networks also see through many perspectives. The New Age movement is an extremely large and structured network of organization and individuals that are bound together by common values. These values are based on mysticism and monism which is the world view that "all is one". The New Age movement is not a cult by any accepted sociological definition. Although there are several cults which could be classified within, such as the Transcendental Meditation and the followers of deported Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Cult membership is by far the exception and not the rule for New Agers. New Agers tend to be eclectic which means that they draw what they think is the best from various sources. Exclusive devotion to a single teacher, teaching or techniques is not long term. They move from one approach to "wholeness" to another in their spiritual quest.(Miller. 1989. P.18) New Agers consider spirituality much more a matter of experience than belief. Some New Agers do not believe that their beliefs are universal. Beliefs are often portrayed as direct impediments to enlightenment. As I stated before, all New Agers believe that "all is one". A second assumption is that this Ultimate reality is neither dead matter nor unconscious energy. In other words, it is Being and Awareness. New Agers believe that man is separated by God only in his own conscious and awareness. Therefore he is the victim of a false sense of separate identity which makes him unable to see his essential unity with God. This is supposed to be the cause of all his problems. New Agers believe that a man can be saved and made whole by spiritual technology. New Agers believe that specific techniques for changing the consciousness can enable the seeker to consciously experience his supposed oneness with God. The techniques can be meditation, chanting and dancing. Salvation for the New Ager is linked with experimental knowledge. In addition to the beliefs just stated, most New Agers adhere to the ancient Hindu doctrines of reincarnation and Karma. By the definition of Karma, it is understood that whatever a person does, whether it is good or bad, it will return to him in the exact proportion of good or bad. It should be made known that New Agers go on to spiritualize the universe by making consciousness its essence, rather than matter. (Miller. 1989, p.22) Until the later 1980's the majority of Americans were unfamiliar with the New Age movement. There is no doubt that they had encountered certain elements of the New Age, such as Yoga, reincarnation, and astrology. It was not until late 1986 and throughout 1987 that the New Age movement finally caught the media's attention. A large and varied assortment of believers including celebrities were just the type of publicity that the New Age movement needed to catch the media's attention. And so, one article after another began to appear. However, the media's focus remained entirely on the movements more sensational side, treating it like a fad or fashion. But, the New Age movement has yet to be discovered by the media due to the fact that this movement is a serious cultural development. (Chandler. 1988. P.26) Even though the New Age movement is a minority within our society, it is an active minority. It currently has very little political power, but an expanding social influence. It views its ideas and programs as the new wave of the future and believes that it only needs the support of a few people to overturn traditional religion. Misunderstanding the New Agers is not rare, Christians have viewed them as people who are anti Christ, therefore, most Christians have regarded them with fear and hate. But, further in my reading, it was stated that New Agers are intelligent, humanitarian and generally sincere group of people. It seems that what the book was trying to project to the reader was that people should try to understand the New Agers instead of looking for the evil, because if they do not, they will fail to see New Agers for who they really are. (Miller. 1989. P.21) In some respects, New Age religion can be classified as the classic monistic Hinduism, known as Vedanta. Their most basic beliefs about God, the world, man and salvation are the same as are the mystical experiences. Much of the New Age technology that produced these experiences has come from India. But, New Agers have rejected the traditional Hindu view of the world because many of them have a social conscience. Their desire is to change the world not leave it. The other reason is that many of them desire personal as well as spiritual fulfillment. In comparison to the Christian religion their difference lies in the belief that all is one (god), therefore there could be no sin and no death. The death of Christ for our sins becomes meaningless. Although the New Agers will agree that Jesus Christ is God, his world view will always compel him to say that Jesus is no more God than anyone else. In the Christian religion, Jesus is separated from the rest of humanity in fact that he is demonstrated as divine. In my opinion, I do not think that I could consider myself as equal with God or Jesus, therefore I personally did not believe in some aspects of this religion. (Lewis. 1992, p.48) In choosing this religion as my area of research, I never realized the complexity of the topic. Through extensive research I have developed a keen understanding of this topic. There are some things that I strongly agree with while others need to be put to the test. WORK CITED Chandler, R. 1988. Understanding The New Age. Word Publishing. Dallas Miller, E. 1989. A Crash Course On The New Age Movement. Baker Book House. Michigan. Lewis, J. 1992. Perspectives On The New Age. State University of New York Press. Albany. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Old Testament 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Old Testament is a compilation, and like every compilation it has a wide variety of contributors who, in turn, have their individual influence upon the final work. It is no surprise, then, that there exist certain parallels between the Enuma Elish, the cosmogony of the Babylonians, and the Book of Genesis, the first part of the Pentateuch section of the Bible. In fact, arguments may be made that other Near Eastern texts, particularly Sumerian, have had their influences in Biblical texts. The extent of this 'borrowing', as it were, is not limited to the Bible; the Enuma Elish has its own roots in Sumerian mythology, predating the Enuma Elish by nearly a thousand years. A superficial examination of this evidence would erroneously lead one to believe that the Bible is somewhat a collection of older mythology re-written specifically for the Semites. In fact, what develops is that the writers have addressed each myth as a separate issue, and what the writers say is that their God surpasses every other. Each myth or text that has a counterpart in the Bible only serves to further an important idea among the Hebrews: there is but one God, and He is omnipotent, omniscient, and other-worldly; He is not of this world, but outside it, apart from it. The idea of a monotheistic religion is first evinced in recorded history with Judaism, and it is vital to see that instead of being an example of plagiarism, the Book of Genesis is a meticulously composed document that will set apart the Hebrew God from the others before, and after. To get a clear picture of the way the Book of Genesis may have been formed (because we can only guess with some degree of certainty), we must place in somewhere in time, and then define the cultures in that time. The influences, possible and probable, must be illustrated, and then we may draw our conclusions. If we trace back to the first appearance of the Bible in written form, in its earliest translation, we arrive at 444 B.C.. Two texts, components of the Pentateuch referred to as 'J' and 'E' texts, can be traced to around 650 B.C. Note that 'J' refers to Yahweh (YHVH) texts, characterized by the use of the word 'Yahweh' or 'Lord' in accounts; 'E' refers to Elohist texts, which use, naturally, 'Elohim' in its references to God.1 But 650 B.C. isn't our oldest reference to the 'J' and 'E' texts; they can be traced, along with the other three strands of the Pentateuch, to at least 1000 B.C. Our first compilation of these strands existed in 650 B.C.. We must therefore begin our search further back in time. We can begin with the father of the Hebrew people, Abraham. We can deduce when he lived, and find that he lived around 1900 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia2. If we examine his world and its culture, we may find the reasons behind certain references in Genesis, and the mythologies they resemble. The First Babylonian Dynasty had begun around 1950 B.C. and would last well into the late 16th century B.C.. The Babylonians had just conquered a land previously under the control of the Assyrians, and before that, the Summering. Abraham had lived during a time of great prosperity and a remarkably advanced culture. He was initially believed to have come from the city of Ur, as given in the Bible as "...the Ur of Chaldees". Earlier translations read, however, simply "...Land of the Chaldees"; later, it was deduced that Abraham had come from a city called Haran3. In any case, he lived in a thriving and prosperous world. Homes were comfortable, even luxurious. Copies of hymns were found next to mathematical tablets detailing formulae for extracting square and cube roots.4 The level of sophistication 4000 years ago is remarkable. We can also deduce that it was a relatively stable and peaceful society; its art is characterized by the absence of any warlike activity, paintings or sculptures.5 We also have evidence of an Israelite tribe, the Benjamites, in Babylonian texts. The Benjamites were nomads on the frontier of its boundaries, and certainly came in contact with Babylonian ideas- culture, religion, ethics. The early tribes of Israel were nomadic, "taking with them the early traditions, and in varying latitudes have modified it"6 according to external influences. The message remained constant, but the context would subtly change. In addition to the Benjamites in Mesopotamia, there were tribes of Israel in Egypt during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom period7, which certainly exposed these people to Egyptian culture as well as Babylonian culture as a result of trade between the two kingdoms. Having placed Abraham and certain early Semites in this time, we can now examine the culture they would have known. The Babylonian Dynasty had as one of its first leaders a man known as Hammurabi. In addition to being the world's first known lawgiver, he installed a national god for his people named Marduk 8. Marduk's story is related in the Enuma Elish: It begins with two primordial creatures, Apsu and Tiamat. They have children, who are gods. These children became too noisy and disruptive to Apsu, who wished to kill them. One of these gods, Ea, kills Apsu first. Tiamat becomes enraged, and increasingly threatening towards Ea and the remaining gods for killing her mate. One by one, the gods seek to quiet Tiamat, but each fails. However, one god, Marduk, agrees to stop Tiamat, but only if he is granted sole dominion over all other gods. They agree, and Marduk battles Tiamat, killing her and creating the world from her corpse. In addition, Marduk slays one of the gods who allied himself with Tiamat, and from this dead god's blood, Marduk creates man. 9 On the surface, it looks and sounds nothing like Genesis. However, we can begin to draw our parallels as we go into more detail. For example, Babylonian poetry has no rhyme, but it has meter and rhythm, like Hebrew 10. Notice the similarity in the next two passages: "Half of her he set in place and formed the sky... as a roof. He fixed the crossbar... posted guards; He commanded them not to let her waters escape" 11 and "Then God said, 'Let there be a dome... to separate one body of water from the other.'" Genesis 1:6 "All the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened..." Genesis 7:11 Also compare the creation of days and the special significance conferred upon the seventh: "Thou shalt shine with horns to make six known days, on the seventh with... a tiara." 12 From Genesis (1:31-2-1): "Evening came and morning followed- the sixth day... "So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested from all the work he had done in creation." We can summarize the similarities like so: each created the firmament, dry land, the celestial bodies, and light. Each makes man the crowning achievement. On the seventh day, God rests and sanctifies the day. In the seventh tablet of the Enuma Elish, the gods rest and celebrate. These similarities strongly suggest a common knowledge of the Enuma Elish among writers of the Book of Genesis (each section of Genesis is composed of four different sets of writers). In addition to Babylonian influence, look at the following taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which can be traced back to 3000 B.C.: "I am Re.. I am the great god who came into being by himself..."13 Compare that to the familiar "I am who am." These similarities are of secondary importance, however; we now begin to see the departures. For one, if Marduk is all-powerful, why does he do battle with Tiamat, when a word would suffice? For example: "Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. "Then God said, 'Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.' And so it happened..." Genesis 1:3, 1:6 God's word alone is sufficient to render unto the world any change He wishes. This is a radical innovation in a world where pantheistic religion more closely resembles a super-powered family that doesn't get along very well. The Egyptian god Re may have been self-created, but he is by no means all-powerful, and not at all the only of his kind. Marduk is a warrior who can defeat primordial serpents, but the Hebrew god has but to speak: "...and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast." Psalms, 33:9 The word of God is all-powerful.. And here we begin to see our greatest departures. We have a monotheistic religion, the first of its kind, created amidst a culture that, in the case of the Babylonians, has up to fifty gods!14 Not only is there but one god, but he is all-powerful, so much so that he does not find it necessary to wrestle with nature or defeat mighty primordial gods. He simply speaks and it is done. It is our first occurrence of divine will impose upon the world. Furthermore, it is a god without a precursor, without creation. He is something apart from this world. Tiamat and Apsu lived in a world already created (and by whom?); the Egyptian gods have a multitude of births of gods in their texts15. In fact, there was once a debate on the translation of a single verb in the Bible, "bara", meaning "to create". Later translations modify this to "bero", meaning "to create from nothing". When written in Hebrew, only careful scrutiny would distinguish the two. The distinction is important, however, because it changes the implications involved in creating. Does God create the world from something or nothing? In the following passage, "When God began to create heaven and earth- the earth being a desolate waste, with darkness upon the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the waters- God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light." it is inferred that God is creating with something. The next translation, "When God began to create the heaven and earth, the earth was a desolate waste and darkness was upon the abyss and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light..." implies that God began by creating a desolate waste, then creating light, then shaping the waste, and so forth. All this as a function of one verb16. As another departure, examination of creation stories by Summering and Babylonians show that they begin with subordinate clauses such as "when" or "On the day of."17 Genesis clearly diverges from this: "In the beginning" clearly sets apart the text from any other, making it the actual start of all time and space as we know it. It also puts the Hebrew god outside of time and space. There would be no point in arguing that the Old Testament was influenced by the contemporary cultures of its writers; the facts clearly point to innumerable external sources of inspiration. But while we can acknowledge these similarities, we must also acknowledge that the writers of the Book of Genesis are making a radical departure from the norm: they have created a monotheistic religion, and their god is all-powerful, beyond the scope of human comprehension. Typically, gods are represented as something akin to humans on a grander scale; the Hebrew god is simply not measured or scaled; He is an unknown quantity, set apart from the bounds of human knowledge. These similarities serve a function as a contrast to the differences between these religions. It would seem that the writers acknowledged these other religions, and addressed each one by creating a god that surpasses all others. The god that creates himself is one of many; the Hebrew god stands alone in his might. The god that created the world defeated another god, and formed the earth from the corpse; in Genesis, God speaks and his words transform into actions. God exists before the matter He shapes to His will. The writers have then, in fact, minimized the actions of all other gods in comparison to one all-powerful deity such as this. By drawing comparisons to other texts, the message can be lost in attempting to find the roots of certain ideas. But the origins of the stories are not nearly as important as the overall message being stated, and while the ideas they resemble may be old, the message is clear and unique: there is but one, and He is beyond all that is. His will alone suffices, and He predates even time itself. And that message has changed the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Old Testament.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Old Testament is a compilation, and like every compilation it has a wide variety of contributors who, in turn, have their individual influence upon the final work. It is no surprise, then, that there exist certain parallels between the Enuma Elish, the cosmogony of the Babylonians, and the Book of Genesis, the first part of the Pentateuch section of the Bible. In fact, arguments may be made that other Near Eastern texts, particularly Sumerian, have had their influences in Biblical texts. The extent of this 'borrowing', as it were, is not limited to the Bible; the Enuma Elish has its own roots in Sumerian mythology, predating the Enuma Elish by nearly a thousand years. A superficial examination of this evidence would erroneously lead one to believe that the Bible is somewhat a collection of older mythology re-written specifically for the Semites. In fact, what develops is that the writers have addressed each myth as a separate issue, and what the writers say is that their God surpasses every other. Each myth or text that has a counterpart in the Bible only serves to further an important idea among the Hebrews: there is but one God, and He is omnipotent, omniscient, and other-worldly; He is not of this world, but outside it, apart from it. The idea of a monotheistic religion is first evinced in recorded history with Judaism, and it is vital to see that instead of being an example of plagiarism, the Book of Genesis is a meticulously composed document that will set apart the Hebrew God from the others before, and after. To get a clear picture of the way the Book of Genesis may have been formed (because we can only guess with some degree of certainty), we must place in somewhere in time, and then define the cultures in that time. The influences, possible and probable, must be illustrated, and then we may draw our conclusions. If we trace back to the first appearance of the Bible in written form, in its earliest translation, we arrive at 444 B.C.. Two texts, components of the Pentateuch referred to as 'J' and 'E' texts, can be traced to around 650 B.C. Note that 'J' refers to Yahweh (YHVH) texts, characterized by the use of the word 'Yahweh' or 'Lord' in accounts; 'E' refers to Elohist texts, which use, naturally, 'Elohim' in its references to God.1 But 650 B.C. isn't our oldest reference to the 'J' and 'E' texts; they can be traced, along with the other three strands of the Pentateuch, to at least 1000 B.C. Our first compilation of these strands existed in 650 B.C.. We must therefore begin our search further back in time. We can begin with the father of the Hebrew people, Abraham. We can deduce when he lived, and find that he lived around 1900 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia2. If we examine his world and its culture, we may find the reasons behind certain references in Genesis, and the mythologies they resemble. The First Babylonian Dynasty had begun around 1950 B.C. and would last well into the late 16th century B.C.. The Babylonians had just conquered a land previously under the control of the Assyrians, and before that, the Summering. Abraham had lived during a time of great prosperity and a remarkably advanced culture. He was initially believed to have come from the city of Ur, as given in the Bible as "...the Ur of Chaldees". Earlier translations read, however, simply "...Land of the Chaldees"; later, it was deduced that Abraham had come from a city called Haran3. In any case, he lived in a thriving and prosperous world. Homes were comfortable, even luxurious. Copies of hymns were found next to mathematical tablets detailing formulae for extracting square and cube roots.4 The level of sophistication 4000 years ago is remarkable. We can also deduce that it was a relatively stable and peaceful society; its art is characterized by the absence of any warlike activity, paintings or sculptures.5 We also have evidence of an Israelite tribe, the Benjamites, in Babylonian texts. The Benjamites were nomads on the frontier of its boundaries, and certainly came in contact with Babylonian ideas- culture, religion, ethics. The early tribes of Israel were nomadic, "taking with them the early traditions, and in varying latitudes have modified it"6 according to external influences. The message remained constant, but the context would subtly change. In addition to the Benjamites in Mesopotamia, there were tribes of Israel in Egypt during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom period7, which certainly exposed these people to Egyptian culture as well as Babylonian culture as a result of trade between the two kingdoms. Having placed Abraham and certain early Semites in this time, we can now examine the culture they would have known. The Babylonian Dynasty had as one of its first leaders a man known as Hammurabi. In addition to being the world's first known lawgiver, he installed a national god for his people named Marduk 8. Marduk's story is related in the Enuma Elish: It begins with two primordial creatures, Apsu and Tiamat. They have children, who are gods. These children became too noisy and disruptive to Apsu, who wished to kill them. One of these gods, Ea, kills Apsu first. Tiamat becomes enraged, and increasingly threatening towards Ea and the remaining gods for killing her mate. One by one, the gods seek to quiet Tiamat, but each fails. However, one god, Marduk, agrees to stop Tiamat, but only if he is granted sole dominion over all other gods. They agree, and Marduk battles Tiamat, killing her and creating the world from her corpse. In addition, Marduk slays one of the gods who allied himself with Tiamat, and from this dead god's blood, Marduk creates man. 9 On the surface, it looks and sounds nothing like Genesis. However, we can begin to draw our parallels as we go into more detail. For example, Babylonian poetry has no rhyme, but it has meter and rhythm, like Hebrew 10. Notice the similarity in the next two passages: "Half of her he set in place and formed the sky... as a roof. He fixed the crossbar... posted guards; He commanded them not to let her waters escape" 11 and "Then God said, 'Let there be a dome... to separate one body of water from the other.'" Genesis 1:6 "All the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened..." Genesis 7:11 Also compare the creation of days and the special significance conferred upon the seventh: "Thou shalt shine with horns to make six known days, on the seventh with... a tiara." 12 From Genesis (1:31-2-1): "Evening came and morning followed- the sixth day... "So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested from all the work he had done in creation." We can summarize the similarities like so: each created the firmament, dry land, the celestial bodies, and light. Each makes man the crowning achievement. On the seventh day, God rests and sanctifies the day. In the seventh tablet of the Enuma Elish, the gods rest and celebrate. These similarities strongly suggest a common knowledge of the Enuma Elish among writers of the Book of Genesis (each section of Genesis is composed of four different sets of writers). In addition to Babylonian influence, look at the following taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which can be traced back to 3000 B.C.: "I am Re.. I am the great god who came into being by himself..."13 Compare that to the familiar "I am who am." These similarities are of secondary importance, however; we now begin to see the departures. For one, if Marduk is all-powerful, why does he do battle with Tiamat, when a word would suffice? For example: "Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. "Then God said, 'Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.' And so it happened..." Genesis 1:3, 1:6 God's word alone is sufficient to render unto the world any change He wishes. This is a radical innovation in a world where pantheistic religion more closely resembles a super-powered family that doesn't get along very well. The Egyptian god Re may have been self-created, but he is by no means all-powerful, and not at all the only of his kind. Marduk is a warrior who can defeat primordial serpents, but the Hebrew god has but to speak: "...and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast." Psalms, 33:9 The word of God is all-powerful.. And here we begin to see our greatest departures. We have a monotheistic religion, the first of its kind, created amidst a culture that, in the case of the Babylonians, has up to fifty gods!14 Not only is there but one god, but he is all-powerful, so much so that he does not find it necessary to wrestle with nature or defeat mighty primordial gods. He simply speaks and it is done. It is our first occurrence of divine will impose upon the world. Furthermore, it is a god without a precursor, without creation. He is something apart from this world. Tiamat and Apsu lived in a world already created (and by whom?); the Egyptian gods have a multitude of births of gods in their texts15. In fact, there was once a debate on the translation of a single verb in the Bible, "bara", meaning "to create". Later translations modify this to "bero", meaning "to create from nothing". When written in Hebrew, only careful scrutiny would distinguish the two. The distinction is important, however, because it changes the implications involved in creating. Does God create the world from something or nothing? In the following passage, "When God began to create heaven and earth- the earth being a desolate waste, with darkness upon the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the waters- God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light." it is inferred that God is creating with something. The next translation, "When God began to create the heaven and earth, the earth was a desolate waste and darkness was upon the abyss and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light..." implies that God began by creating a desolate waste, then creating light, then shaping the waste, and so forth. All this as a function of one verb16. As another departure, examination of creation stories by Summering and Babylonians show that they begin with subordinate clauses such as "when" or "On the day of."17 Genesis clearly diverges from this: "In the beginning" clearly sets apart the text from any other, making it the actual start of all time and space as we know it. It also puts the Hebrew god outside of time and space. There would be no point in arguing that the Old Testament was influenced by the contemporary cultures of its writers; the facts clearly point to innumerable external sources of inspiration. But while we can acknowledge these similarities, we must also acknowledge that the writers of the Book of Genesis are making a radical departure from the norm: they have created a monotheistic religion, and their god is all-powerful, beyond the scope of human comprehension. Typically, gods are represented as something akin to humans on a grander scale; the Hebrew god is simply not measured or scaled; He is an unknown quantity, set apart from the bounds of human knowledge. These similarities serve a function as a contrast to the differences between these religions. It would seem that the writers acknowledged these other religions, and addressed each one by creating a god that surpasses all others. The god that creates himself is one of many; the Hebrew god stands alone in his might. The god that created the world defeated another god, and formed the earth from the corpse; in Genesis, God speaks and his words transform into actions. God exists before the matter He shapes to His will. The writers have then, in fact, minimized the actions of all other gods in comparison to one all-powerful deity such as this. By drawing comparisons to other texts, the message can be lost in attempting to find the roots of certain ideas. But the origins of the stories are not nearly as important as the overall message being stated, and while the ideas they resemble may be old, the message is clear and unique: there is but one, and He is beyond all that is. His will alone suffices, and He predates even time itself. And that message has changed the world. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Religion Of Huckleberry Finn.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Religion Of Huckleberry Finn Religion is a simple concept to learn. Webster's dictionary defines religion as: "belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe." Although it is understood what religion is, not everyone has the same views. There are numerous varieties and sub-vrieties of religions. In fact, religion can be so diverse that one might say that he or she is of the same religion as another person but the way he or she demonstrates their beliefs may be dramatically different. In the novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain, writes about a young boy's growing and maturing experiences one summer as he travels down the Mississippi River. One of the things that this boy, Huck Finn, discovers is how religion affects his lifestyle. Huckleberry Finn's views of religion have an impact on many essential points in the episodic novel. Religion has an effect on three of Huck's major decisions throughout the novel. His religion is tested when he first decides to help Jim run away. His religion is tested when he lies to most of the people he meets traveling down the Mississippi River, and Huckleberry's religion is tested when he decides to help Jim escape from slavery for good. Huckleberry Finn was raised without a strong religious influence. Huck's father being a raging alcoholic, and Huck living mostly on his own, were two of the factors that contributed to this. Pap came to visit him one night and expressed his negative thoughts on school and religion. "First you know you'll get religion, too. I never see such a son" (Twain 20). Despite these warnings, the Widow Douglas continued to teach Huck. Later in the novel, these teaching have consequential effects on Huck. Huck's religious morals are first tested when he decides to help the Widow's slave escape to freedom. During the time that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn took place, slavery was not uncommon. In the beginning of the story, Huck displays similar beliefs as the people that are raising him; blacks are considered property and not people. Huck chooses to help Jim run away despite the fact that he knows that Jim is considered property and helping him would be like stealing. The widow tries to convert Huck to Christianity. She preaches all about heaven, hell, and the things that one should do to get to either place. Huck is not too concerned about either, obviously, because he helps Jim run away. As Jim and Huck travel down the Mississippi, Huck, at first, does not think much of the fact that he is helping Jim escape to freedom. As the novel progresses, though, Huck begins to think about the consequences of his actions. The things that the Widow had previously worked diligently to install in Huck had some effect on him. This is apparent for the first time when Jim expresses his anxiety to become free. This makes Huck feel nervous of the deed that he is doing. "Well I can tell you it made me all over trembly and feverish, too, to hear him, because I begun to get it through my head that he was most free --- and who was to blame for it? Why me" (Twain 85). Huck's first reaction is that he is letting the Widow Douglas down by not returning her property. Huck is only worried about honor and what was right for the time but a similar event happens later in the novel where Huck considers his actions a little more carefully. Huckleberry finally begins to realize that Jim is not property, but an actual person. He plays a trick on Jim and finds out that he has feelings too. This brings Huck and Jim closer together and Huck accepts the fact that Jim is not a slave but a friend. Huck is tried again for what to do about Jim when Jim is sold to Silas Phelps down south. He knew he had to get Jim out somehow and he still was feeling guilty for taking him in the first place. "And at last, when it hit me all of a sudden that here was the plain hand of Providence slapping me in the face and letting me know that my wickedness was being watched all the time from up there in heaven" (Twain 204). Huck decides to write to Jim to save him from a life of slavery with a complete stranger. He never sends the letter but he feels much better after he writes it. "All right, then, I'll go to hell" (206). Ultimately, Huck came to the conclusion that he has already done so many sinful things that there was no use in trying to get to heaven anymore. Today, many Americans would look at Huck and believe he was right in trying to free Jim. During the era of the Civil War, many would think differently. Huckleberry Finn could hardly be called sacrilegious but he was no saint either. Religion had a good deal of impact on him. It almost caused him to give himself up to do what he thought was right. In the beginning of the novel, we see that Huck is not interested in religion, or what the Widow has to say at all. Throughout each episode, however, one can see that what the Widow taught him had some effect. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Roots of Christianity & Judaism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Roots of Judaism and Christianity (the title and intro has been removed) ------------------ (i) Judaism: The Jews are a people who trace their descent from the biblical Israelites and who are united by the religion called Judaism. They are not a race; Jewish identity is a mixture of ethnic, national, and religious elements. An individual may become part of the Jewish people by conversion to Judaism; but a born Jew who rejects Judaism or adopts another religion does not entirely lose his Jewish identity. In biblical times the Jews were divided into 12 tribes: Reuben, Simeon (Levi), Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim, and Manasseh. The word Jew is derived from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. The name Israel referred to the people as a whole and to the northern kingdom of 10 tribes. Today it is used as a collective name for all Jewry and since 1948 for the Jewish state. (Citizens of the state of Israel are called Israelis; not all of them are Jews.) In the Bible, Hebrew is used by foreign peoples as a name for the Israelites; today it is applied only to the hebrew language. The origin of the Jews is recounted in the Hebrew Bible. Despite legendary and miraculous elements in its early narratives, most scholars believe that the biblical account is based on historic realities. According to the Book of Genesis, God ordered the patriarch Abraham to leave his home in Mesopotamia and travel to a new land, which he promised to Abraham's descendants as a perpetual inheritance. Although the historicity of Abraham, his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob is uncertain, the Israelite tribes certainly came to Canaan from Mesopotamia. Later they, or some of them, settled in Egypt, where they were reduced to slavery; they finally fled to freedom under the leadership of an extraordinary man named Moses, probably about 1200 BC. After a period of desert wandering, the tribes invaded Canaan at different points, and over a lengthy period of time they gained control over parts of the country. For a century or more the tribes, loosely united and sometimes feuding among themselves, were hard pressed by Canaanite forces based in fortified strongholds and by marauders from outside. At critical moments tribal chieftains rose to lead the people in battle. But when the Philistines threatened the very existence of the Israelites, the tribes formed a kingdom under the rule (1020-1000 BC) of Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin. Saul died fighting the Philistines and was succeeded by David of the tribe of Judah. David crushed the power of the Philistines and established a modest empire. He conquered the fortress city of Jerusalem, which up to that time had been controlled by a Canaanite tribe, and made it his capital. His son Solomon assumed the trappings of a potentate and erected the Temple in Jerusalem, which became the central sanctuary of the distinctive monotheistic Israelite religion and ultimately the spiritual center of world Jewry. The national union effected by David was shaky. The economically and culturally advanced tribes of the north resented the rule of kings from pastoral Judah, and after Solomon's death the kingdom was divided. The larger and richer northern kingdom was known as Israel; Judah, with Benjamin, remained loyal to the family of David. Israel experienced many dynastic changes and palace revolutions. Both Israel and Judah, located between the empires of Egypt and Assyria, were caught in the struggle between the two great powers. Assyria was the dominant empire during the period of the divided kingdom. When Israel, with Egyptian encouragement, tried to throw off Assyrian rule, it was destroyed and a large number of its inhabitants were deported (722 BC). Judah managed to outlive the Assyrian Empire (destroyed c.610), but the Chaldean (Neo-Babylonian) Empire that replaced it also insisted on control of Judah. When a new revolt broke out under Egyptian influence, the Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple (587 or 586 BC); the royalty, nobility, and skilled craftsmen were deported to Babylonia. Loss of state and Temple, however, did not lead to the disappearance of the Judeans, as it did in the northern kingdom. The peasantry that remained on the land, the refugees in Egypt, and the exiles in Babylonia retained a strong faith in their God and the hope of ultimate restoration. This was largely due to the influence of the great prophets. Their warnings of doom had been fulfilled; therefore, the hopeful message they began to preach was believed. The universal prophetic teaching assured Jews that they could still worship their God on alien soil and without a temple. Henceforth the Jewish people and religion could take root in the dispersion as well as in the homeland. Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylonia in 536 BC. Subsequently he permitted the exiles to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple. (Many chose, however, to remain in Mesopotamia, where the Jewish community existed without interruption for more than 2,500 years until the virtual elimination of Jewish presence in Iraq after World War II.) Leadership of the reviving Judean center was provided largely by returning exiles--notably Nehemiah, an important official of the Persian court, and Ezra, a learned priest. They rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem and consolidated spiritual life by a public ceremony of allegiance to the Torah and by stringent rules against mixed marriage. In the following centuries leadership was provided mainly by priests, who claimed descent from Moses' brother Aaron; the high priest usually represented the people in dealings with the foreign powers that successively ruled the land. Alexander the Great conquered Palestine in 322; his successors, the Macedonian rulers of Egypt (the Ptolemies) and Syria; vied for control of this strategically important area; eventually the Syrians won. Hellenistic influences penetrated Jewish life deeply, but when the Seleucid king Antichus IV tried to impose the worship of Greek gods upon the Jews, a rebellion ensued (168 BC). The popular revolt was led by the Maccabees, a provincial priestly family (also called Hasmoneans). By 165 they recaptured the Temple, which had been converted into a pagan shrine, and rededicated it to the God of Israel. Hostilities with Syria continued; but Simon, the last of the Maccabean brothers, consolidated his power and was formally recognized in 131 BC as ruler and high priest. His successors took the title of king and for about a century ruled an independent commonwealth. Dynastic quarrels, however, gave the Roman general Pompey the Great an excuse to intervene and make himself master of the country in 63 BC. In subsequent decades a family of Idumaean adventurers ingratiated themselves with the successive Roman dictators; with Roman help, Herod the Great made himself ruler of Judea, eventually (37 BC) with the title of king. Able but ruthless, he was hated by the people, although he rebuilt the Temple with great magnificence. The Romans allowed Herod's sons less authority and in 6 BC put the country formally under the control of their own officials, known as procurators. New spiritual forces emerged during the Maccabean and Herodian periods. The leadership of hereditary priests was contested by laymen distinguished for their learning and piety, who won the respect and support of the people. The priestly conservatives came to be known as Sadducees, the more progressive lay party as the Pharisees. The latter came to dominate the Sangedrin, which was the highest religious and legal authority of the nation. Burdoned by excessive taxation and outraged by acts of brutality, the Judeans became more and more restive under Roman rule, all the more because they were confident that God would ultimately vindicate them. Revolutionary groups such as the Zealots emerged calling for armed revolt. The Sadducees were inclined to collaborate with the Romans; the Pharisees advocated passive resistance but sought to avoid open war. In AD 66 the moderates could no longer control the desperate populace, and rebellion against Roman tyranny broke out. After bitter fighting the Romans captured Jerusalem and burned the Temple in 70; at Masada the Zealots held out until 73, when most of the 1,000 surviving defenders killed themselves to defy capture by the Romans. As a result of the revolt thousands of Jews were sold into slavery and thus were scattered widely in the Roman world. The last vestiges of national autonomy were obliterated. The Pharisaic leaders, shortly thereafter given the title of Rabbi, rallied the people for a new undertaking--the reconstruction of religious and social life. Using the institution of the Syanagogue as a center of worship and education, they adapted religious practice to new conditions. Their assembly, the Sanhedrin, was reconvened at Jabneh, and its head was recognized by the Romans and given the title of patriarch; the Diaspora Jews accepted his authority and that of the Sanhedrin in matters of Jewish law. Many Diaspora Jewish communities rebelled against Rome early in the 2d century; however, their rebellions were crushed, with much bloodshed. Still more bitter was the revolt of Palestinian Jewry led by Bar Kochba in 132; it was put down after three years of savage fighting. For a time thereafter observance of basic Jewish practices was made a capital crime, and Jews were banned from Jerusalem. Under the Antonine emperors (138-92), however, milder policies were restored, and the work of the scholars was resumed, particularly in Galilee, which became the seat of the partriarchate until its abolition (c.429) by the Romans. There the sages called tannaim completed the redaction of the Mishnah (oral law) under the direction of Judah Ha-Nasi. In the 3d and 4th centuries scholarly activity in Palestine declined as a result of bad economic conditions and oppression by Christian Rome. Meanwhile, two Babylonian pupils of Judah ha -Nasi had returned home, bringing the Mishnah with them, and established new centers of learning at Sura and Nehardea. A period of great scholarly accomplishment followed, and leadership of world Jewry passed to the Babylonian schools. The Babylonian Talmud became the standard legal work for Jews everywhere. Babylonian Jewry enjoyed peace and prosperity under the Parthian and Sassanian rulers, with only occasional episodes of persecution. In addition to the heads of the academies, the Jews had a secular ruler, the exilarch. This situation was not significantly changed by the Muslim conquest of the Persian empire. At the end of the 6th century, the heads of the academies had adopted the title of gaon (Hebrew, "excellency"), and the next four centuries are known as the gaonic period; communities throughout the world turned to the Babylonian leaders for help in understanding the Talmud and applying it to new problems. About 770 the sect of Karaites, biblical literalists who rejected the Talmud, appeared in Babylonia. Despite the vigorous opposition of the great Saadia Ben Joseph Gaon and other leaders, the Karaites continued to flourish for centuries in various lands; today the sect has only a few small remnants. Jews had long been accustomed to living in neighborhoods of their own, for security and for ready access to a synagogue. From the 16th century, however, they were systematically compelled to live in walled enclosures, to be locked in at night and on Christian holidays, and to wear a distinguishing badge when outside the walls. The Jewish quarter of Venice (established 1516) was called the GHETTO, and this local name became a general term for such segregated areas. Cut off from normal relations with non-Jews, few Jews had any idea of the cultural revival of the Renaissance. Even in the field of Jewish law they tended to a rigid conservatism. In Poland and Lithuania, social conditions also had a segregatory effect. The Jews continued to speak a German dialect, mixed with many Hebrew words and with borrowings from Slavic languages--now known as Yiddish). Intellectual life was focused on study of the Talmud, in which they achieved extraordinary mastery. They enjoyed a large measure of self- government, centralized in the Council of the Four Lands. Persecutions became more frequent, however, inspired by competition from the growing Christian merchant class and by overly zealous churchmen. In 1648 a rebellion of Cossacks and Tatars in the Ukraine--then under Polish rule--led to an invasion of Poland, in which hundreds of thousands of Jews were massacred. Polish Jewry never recovered from this blow. A little over a century later, Poland was partitioned (1772, 1793, 1795) among Prussia, Austria, and Russia, and most of Polish Jewry found itself under the heartless rule of the Russian tsars. Some 18th-century liberals began to advocate an improvement of Jewish status; at the same time Moses Mendelssohn and a few other Jews were urging their coreligionists to acquire secular education and prepare themselves to participate in the national life of their countries. Such trends were intensified by the French Revolution. The French National Assembly granted (1791) Jews citizenship, and Napoleon I, although not free from prejudice, extended these rights to Jews in the countries he conquered, and the ghettos were abolished. After Napoleon's fall (1814-15), the German states revoked the rights he had granted the Jews, but the struggle for emancipation continued. Equal rights were achieved in the Netherlands, and more slowly in Great Britain. Germany and Austria, even after 1870, discriminated against Jews in military and academic appointments; in these countries much popular hostility continued, now called Anti-Semetism and supposedly justified on racial rather than religious grounds. In the American colonies the Jews had suffered relatively minor disabilities; with the founding of the United States, Jews became full citizens-- although in a few states discriminatory laws had to be fought. Jews entered the life of the Western world with keen enthusiasm; they contributed significantly to commercial, scientific, cultural, and social progress. But the old structure of Jewish life was severely damaged: community controls became less effective, and neglect of religious observance, mixed marriage, and conversion to Christianity occurred. In response to such challenges, new modernist versions of Judaism were formulated; these movements originated in Germany and had their greatest development in North America. In Russia hopes of improvement were soon abandoned; the government engaged in open war against Jews. Under Nicholas I (r. 1825-55), 12-year-old Jewish boys were drafted into the army for terms of more than 30 years (whereas other Russians were drafted at 18 for 25 years); and Jewish conscripts were treated with the utmost brutality to make them convert to Christianity. After 1804, Jews were allowed to reside only in Poland, Lithuania, and the Ukraine; Russia proper was closed to them. This Pale of settlement was later made smaller. From 1881 on, anti-Jewish riots, tolerated and sometimes instigated by the government, sent thousands fleeing to Western Europe and the Americas. Because Russia refused to honor the passports of American Jews, the United States abrogated a trade treaty in 1913. In response to these policies, new trends appeared in Russian Jewry. A movement of Jewish nationalism expressed itself in a revival of Hebrew as a secular language and in a few attempts at colonization in Palestine. A Jewish socialist movement, the Bund, appeared in urban centers, stressing the Yiddish language and folk culture. The violent outburst of hatred that accompanied the Dreyfus Aaair in France inspired Theodor Herzl to launch the movement of Zionism, which sought to establish a Jewish state. Its chief support came from East European Jews; elsewhere Herzl's proposals were considered impractical and a threat to newly won civil status. During World War I, East European Jews suffered heavily from troops on both sides. American Jewry now found itself for the first time the leading element in the world Jewish community, bearing the major responsibility for relief and reconstruction of the ravaged centers. The peace treaties guaranteed equal rights to minorities in the newly constituted or reconstituted countries, but these agreements were not consistently upheld with regard to Jewish minorities, and colonization in Palestine expanded considerably. In the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Great Britain announced its support for a Jewish national home; this purpose, approved by the Allied governments, was embodied in the mandate for Palestine that Britain assumed after the war. British agents had secretly made contradictory promises to Arab leaders, however, and growing Arab nationalism expressed itself in anti- Jewish riots in Palestine in 1920-21 and 1929. In the latter year leading non-Zionist Jews, convinced that Palestine alone offered hope for impoverished and oppressed millions (since Western nations had rigidly restricted immigration), joined with the Zionists to form the Jewish Agency to assist and direct Jewish settlement and development in Palestine. The Communist Revolution of 1917 did not end the sufferings of the Jewish population in Russia. Much of the fighting in the Civil War of 1918-20 took place in the Ukraine, where the White Russian armies conducted savage pogroms in which thousands of Jews were massacred. Although discriminatory decrees were abolished and anti-Semitism was banned as counterrevolutionary under the Soviet system, Judaism suffered the same disabilities as other religious groups. After the fall of Leon Trotsky, the old anti-Semitism was revived as a government policy. In Germany the Weimar Republic for the first time abolished all official discrimination against Jews. The republic was unpopular, however, and anti-Semitism was popular. Calculated use of anti-Semitism as an instrument was a major factor in the rise to power of Adolf Hitler in 1933, whereupon the German Jews were immediately disfranchised, robbed of possessions, deprived of employment, barred from the schools, and subjected to physical violence and constant humiliation. Once World War II occupied the attention of the democracies, Hitler and his supporters attempted "the final solution," the complete extermination of the Jews. About 6 million Jews --almost a third of their total number--were massacred, starved, or systematically gassed in concentration camps. In addition to destroying so many individual lives, the Holocaust eradicated the communities of Central and Eastern Europe, which had been the chief centers of learning and piety for nearly a thousand years. The Western democracies all but closed their doors to refugees. Britain meanwhile had gradually abandoned the Balfour Declaration, reducing the number of Jews admitted to Palestine in order to placate the Arabs. After repeated outbreaks of violence, investigations, and abortive British plans, Britain announced that it was giving up the mandate, and the United Nations adopted a resolution calling for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab areas. On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since then Israel has fought five wars against Arab coalitions to establish and preserve its independence. A peace treaty (Mar. 26, 1979) between Israel and Egypt was not accepted by the other Arab states. Although the USSR voted for the UN partition resolution in 1947, it later became markedly anti-Israel in its policies. A resurgence of Jewish self-consciousness, however, occurred within Soviet Jewry despite deprivation of religious education and other discriminations. Over the years a number of Soviet Jews emigrated to Israel and the United States, although official restrictions caused a decline in emigration in the 1980s until 1987, when new legislation provided a liberal emigration policy. Since World War II the Jews of the United States have achieved a degree of acceptance without parallel in Jewish history, and Jews play a significant role in intellectual and cultural life. The elimination of social barriers has led to a high rate of mixed marriage. During the same period there has been a growth in synagogue affiliation and support for Israel. Recent estimates put the total number of Jews at about 17.5 million, of whom almost 7 million reside in the United States, more than 2 million in the republics of the former USSR, and over 4.3 million in Israel. France, Great Britain, and Argentina also have significant Jewish populations. The once- substantial communities in North Africa and the Middle East have been reduced to small fragments. Most of these Oriental Jews have settled in Israel. Thousands of Ethiopian Jews, for example, were airlifted to Israel in 1984-85 and 1991. Israel's Jewish population increased significantly in the early 1990s, when it received hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the disintegrating Soviet Union. (ii) Christianity: Christianity is the religion of about a billion people whose belief system centers on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. To Christians, Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Messiah or Christ promised by God in the prophecies of the Old Testament; by his life, death, and resurrection he freed those who believe in him from their sinful state and made them recipients of God's saving grace. Many also await the second coming of christ, which they believe will complete God's plan of salvation. The Christian Bible, or Holy Scripture, includes the Old Testament and also the New Testament, a collection of early Christian writings proclaiming Jesus as lord and savior. Arising in the Jewish milieu of 1st-century Palestine, Christianity quickly spread through the Mediterranean world and in the 4th century became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christians have tended to separate into rival groups, but the main body of the Christian church was united under the Roman emperors. During the Middle Ages, when all of Europe became Christianized, this main church was divided into a Latin (Western European) and a Greek (Byzantine or Orthodox) branch. The Western church was in turn divided by the Reformation of the 16th century into the Roman Catholic church and a large number of smaller Protestant churches: Lutheran, Reformed (Calvinist), Anglican, and sectarian. These divisions have continued and multiplied, but in the 20th century many Christians joined in the ecumenical movement to work for church unity. This resulted in the formation of the world council of churches. Christianity, a strongly proselytizing religion, exists in all parts of the world. Certain basic doctrines drawn from Scripture (especially from the Gospels and the letters of Saint Paul), interpreted by the fathers of the church and the first four ecumenical councils, historically have been accepted by all three of the major traditions. According to this body of teaching, the original human beings rebelled against God, and from that time until the coming of Christ the world was ruled by sin. The hope of a final reconciliation was kept alive by God's covenant with the Jews, the chosen people from whom the savior sprang. This savior, Jesus Christ, partly vanquished sin and Satan. Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, preached the coming of God's Kingdom but was rejected by the Jewish leaders, who delivered him to the Romans to be crucified. On the third day after his death God raised him up again. He appeared to his disciples, commanding them to spread the good news of salvation from sin and death to all people. This, according to Christian belief, is the mission of Christ's church. Christians are monotheists (believers in one God). The early church, however, developed the characteristic Christian doctrine of the Trinity, in which God is thought of as Creator (Father), Redeemer (Son), and Sustainer (Holy Spirit), but one God in essence. Christianity inherited and modified the Jewish belief that the world would be transformed by the coming of the Reign of God. The Christians held that the bodies of those who had died would rise again, reanimated, and that the righteous would be triumphant, the wicked punished. This belief, along with Jesus' promise of "eternal life," developed into a doctrine of eternal rewards (heaven) and punishments (hell) after death. A source of doctrinal uncertainty was whether salvation depended on God's election in advance of a believer's faith, or even in a decision of God before the disobedience and fall of the first man and woman. Although Christians today tend to emphasize what unites them rather than what divides them, substantial differences in faith exist among the various churches. Those in the Protestant tradition insist on Scripture as the sole source of God's revelation. The Roman Catholics and Orthodox give greater importance to the tradition of the church in defining the content of faith, believing it to be divinely guided in its understanding of scriptural revelation. They stress the role of ecumenical councils in the formulation of doctrine, and in Roman Catholicism the pope, or bishop of Rome, is regarded as the final authority in matters of belief. Christian societies have exhibited great variety in ethos, from mutual love, acceptance, and pacifism on the one hand, to strict authoritarianism and forcible repression of dissent on the other. Justification for all of these has been found in various passages in the Bible. A prominent feature of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches is Monasticism. Christians also vary widely in worship. Early Christian worship centered on two principal rites or sacraments: Baptism, a ceremonial washing that initiated converts into the church; and the eucharist, a sacred meal preceded by prayers, chants, and Scripture readings, in which the participants were mysteriously united with Christ. As time went on, the Eucharist, or Mass, became surrounded by an increasingly elaborate ritual in the Latin, the Greek, and other Eastern churches, and in the Middle Ages Christians came to venerate saints--especially the Virgin Mary--and holy images. In the West, seven sacraments were recognized. The Protestant reformers retained 2 sacraments--baptism and the Eucharist--rejecting the others, along with devotion to saints and images, as unscriptural. They simplified worship and emphasized preaching. Since the 19th century there has been a certain amount of reconvergence in worship among ecumenically minded Protestants and Roman Catholics, with each side adopting some of the other's practices. For example, the Catholic Mass is now in the vernacular. Among other groups in both traditions, however, the divergence remains great. In most Christian churches Sunday, the day of Christ's resurrection, is observed as a time of rest and worship. The resurrection is more particularly commemorated at Easter, a festival in the early spring. Another major Christian festival is Christmas, which commemorates the birth of Jesus. The age of Christian antiquity extends from the beginning of the Christian era (dated from the approximate time of Jesus' birth) through the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire in the 5th century. After Jesus was crucified, his followers, strengthened by the conviction that he had risen from the dead and that they were filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, formed the first Christian community in Jerusalem. By the middle of the 1st century, missionaries were spreading the new religion among the peoples of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy. Chief among these was Saint Paul, who laid the foundations of Christian theology and played a key role in the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a world religion. The original Christians, being Jews, observed the dietary and ritualistic laws of the Torah and required non-Jewish converts to do the same. Paul and others favored eliminating obligation, thus making Christianity more attractive to Gentiles. The separation from Judaism was completed by the destruction of the church of Jerusalem by the Romans during the Jewish Revolt of AD 66-70. After that Christianity took on a predominantly Gentile character and began to develop in a number of different forms. At first the Christian community looked forward to the imminent return of Christ in glory and the establishment of the Kingdom. This hope carried on in the 2d century by Montanism, an ascetic movement emphasizing the action of the Holy Spirit. Gnosticism, which rose to prominence about the same time, also stressed the Spirit, but it disparaged the Old Testament and interpreted the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in a spiritual sense. The main body of the church condemned these movements as heretical and, when the Second Coming failed to occur, organized itself as a permanent institution under the leadership of its bishops. Because of their refusal to recognize the divinity of the Roman emperor or pay homage to any god except their own, the Christians were subjected to a number of persecutions by the Roman authorities. The most savage of these were the one under Emperor Decius (249-51) and that instigated by Diocletian (303-13). Many Christians welcomed martyrdom as an opportunity to share in the sufferings of Christ, and Christianity continued to grow despite all attempts to suppress it. Out of the experience of persecution a controversy grew over whether those who had denied their faith under press f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Roots of Judaism and Christianity.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Roots of Judaism and Christianity (i) Judaism: The Jews are a people who trace their descent from the biblical Israelites and who are united by the religion called Judaism. They are not a race; Jewish identity is a mixture of ethnic, national, and religious elements. An individual may become part of the Jewish people by conversion to Judaism; but a born Jew who rejects Judaism or adopts another religion does not entirely lose his Jewish identity. In biblical times the Jews were divided into 12 tribes: Reuben, Simeon (Levi), Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim, and Manasseh. The word Jew is derived from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. The name Israel referred to the people as a whole and to the northern kingdom of 10 tribes. Today it is used as a collective name for all Jewry and since 1948 for the Jewish state. (Citizens of the state of Israel are called Israelis; not all of them are Jews.) In the Bible, Hebrew is used by foreign peoples as a name for the Israelites; today it is applied only to the hebrew language. The origin of the Jews is recounted in the Hebrew Bible. Despite legendary and miraculous elements in its early narratives, most scholars believe that the biblical account is based on historic realities. According to the Book of Genesis, God ordered the patriarch Abraham to leave his home in Mesopotamia and travel to a new land, which he promised to Abraham's descendants as a perpetual inheritance. Although the historicity of Abraham, his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob is uncertain, the Israelite tribes certainly came to Canaan from Mesopotamia. Later they, or some of them, settled in Egypt, where they were reduced to slavery; they finally fled to freedom under the leadership of an extraordinary man named Moses, probably about 1200 BC. After a period of desert wandering, the tribes invaded Canaan at different points, and over a lengthy period of time they gained control over parts of the country. For a century or more the tribes, loosely united and sometimes feuding among themselves, were hard pressed by Canaanite forces based in fortified strongholds and by marauders from outside. At critical moments tribal chieftains rose to lead the people in battle. But when the Philistines threatened the very existence of the Israelites, the tribes formed a kingdom under the rule (1020- 1000 BC) of Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin. Saul died fighting the Philistines and was succeeded by David of the tribe of Judah. David crushed the power of the Philistines and established a modest empire. He conquered the fortress city of Jerusalem, which up to that time had been controlled by a Canaanite tribe, and made it his capital. His son Solomon assumed the trappings of a potentate and erected the Temple in Jerusalem, which became the central sanctuary of the distinctive monotheistic Israelite religion and ultimately the spiritual center of world Jewry. The national union effected by David was shaky. The economically and culturally advanced tribes of the north resented the rule of kings from pastoral Judah, and after Solomon's death the kingdom was divided. The larger and richer northern kingdom was known as Israel; Judah, with Benjamin, remained loyal to the family of David. Israel experienced many dynastic changes and palace revolutions. Both Israel and Judah, located between the empires of Egypt and Assyria, were caught in the struggle between the two great powers. Assyria was the dominant empire during the period of the divided kingdom. When Israel, with Egyptian encouragement, tried to throw off Assyrian rule, it was destroyed and a large number of its inhabitants were deported (722 BC). Judah managed to outlive the Assyrian Empire (destroyed c.610), but the Chaldean (Neo-Babylonian) Empire that replaced it also insisted on control of Judah. When a new revolt broke out under Egyptian influence, the Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple (587 or 586 BC); the royalty, nobility, and skilled craftsmen were deported to Babylonia. Loss of state and Temple, however, did not lead to the disappearance of the Judeans, as it did in the northern kingdom. The peasantry that remained on the land, the refugees in Egypt, and the exiles in Babylonia retained a strong faith in their God and the hope of ultimate restoration. This was largely due to the influence of the great prophets. Their warnings of doom had been fulfilled; therefore, the hopeful message they began to preach was believed. The universal prophetic teaching assured Jews that they could still worship their God on alien soil and without a temple. Henceforth the Jewish people and religion could take root in the dispersion as well as in the homeland. Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylonia in 536 BC. Subsequently he permitted the exiles to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple. (Many chose, however, to remain in Mesopotamia, where the Jewish community existed without interruption for more than 2,500 years until the virtual elimination of Jewish presence in Iraq after World War II.) Leadership of the reviving Judean center was provided largely by returning exiles--notably Nehemiah, an important official of the Persian court, and Ezra, a learned priest. They rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem and consolidated spiritual life by a public ceremony of allegiance to the Torah and by stringent rules against mixed marriage. In the following centuries leadership was provided mainly by priests, who claimed descent from Moses' brother Aaron; the high priest usually represented the people in dealings with the foreign powers that successively ruled the land. Alexander the Great conquered Palestine in 322; his successors, the Macedonian rulers of Egypt (the Ptolemies) and Syria; vied for control of this strategically important area; eventually the Syrians won. Hellenistic influences penetrated Jewish life deeply, but when the Seleucid king Antichus IV tried to impose the worship of Greek gods upon the Jews, a rebellion ensued (168 BC). The popular revolt was led by the Maccabees, a provincial priestly family (also called Hasmoneans). By 165 they recaptured the Temple, which had been converted into a pagan shrine, and rededicated it to the God of Israel. Hostilities with Syria continued; but Simon, the last of the Maccabean brothers, consolidated his power and was formally recognized in 131 BC as ruler and high priest. His successors took the title of king and for about a century ruled an independent commonwealth. Dynastic quarrels, however, gave the Roman general Pompey the Great an excuse to intervene and make himself master of the country in 63 BC. In subsequent decades a family of Idumaean adventurers ingratiated themselves with the successive Roman dictators; with Roman help, Herod the Great made himself ruler of Judea, eventually (37 BC) with the title of king. Able but ruthless, he was hated by the people, although he rebuilt the Temple with great magnificence. The Romans allowed Herod's sons less authority and in 6 BC put the country formally under the control of their own officials, known as procurators. New spiritual forces emerged during the Maccabean and Herodian periods. The leadership of hereditary priests was contested by laymen distinguished for their learning and piety, who won the respect and support of the people. The priestly conservatives came to be known as Sadducees, the more progressive lay party as the Pharisees. The latter came to dominate the Sangedrin, which was the highest religious and legal authority of the nation. Burdoned by excessive taxation and outraged by acts of brutality, the Judeans became more and more restive under Roman rule, all the more because they were confident that God would ultimately vindicate them. Revolutionary groups such as the Zealots emerged calling for armed revolt. The Sadducees were inclined to collaborate with the Romans; the Pharisees advocated passive resistance but sought to avoid open war. In AD 66 the moderates could no longer control the desperate populace, and rebellion against Roman tyranny broke out. After bitter fighting the Romans captured Jerusalem and burned the Temple in 70; at Masada the Zealots held out until 73, when most of the 1,000 surviving defenders killed themselves to defy capture by the Romans. As a result of the revolt thousands of Jews were sold into slavery and thus were scattered widely in the Roman world. The last vestiges of national autonomy were obliterated. The Pharisaic leaders, shortly thereafter given the title of Rabbi, rallied the people for a new undertaking--the reconstruction of religious and social life. Using the institution of the Syanagogue as a center of worship and education, they adapted religious practice to new conditions. Their assembly, the Sanhedrin, was reconvened at Jabneh, and its head was recognized by the Romans and given the title of patriarch; the Diaspora Jews accepted his authority and that of the Sanhedrin in matters of Jewish law. Many Diaspora Jewish communities rebelled against Rome early in the 2d century; however, their rebellions were crushed, with much bloodshed. Still more bitter was the revolt of Palestinian Jewry led by Bar Kochba in 132; it was put down after three years of savage fighting. For a time thereafter observance of basic Jewish practices was made a capital crime, and Jews were banned from Jerusalem. Under the Antonine emperors (138-92), however, milder policies were restored, and the work of the scholars was resumed, particularly in Galilee, which became the seat of the partriarchate until its abolition (c.429) by the Romans. There the sages called tannaim completed the redaction of the Mishnah (oral law) under the direction of Judah Ha-Nasi. In the 3d and 4th centuries scholarly activity in Palestine declined as a result of bad economic conditions and oppression by Christian Rome. Meanwhile, two Babylonian pupils of Judah ha -Nasi had returned home, bringing the Mishnah with them, and established new centers of learning at Sura and Nehardea. A period of great scholarly accomplishment followed, and leadership of world Jewry passed to the Babylonian schools. The Babylonian Talmud became the standard legal work for Jews everywhere. Babylonian Jewry enjoyed peace and prosperity under the Parthian and Sassanian rulers, with only occasional episodes of persecution. In addition to the heads of the academies, the Jews had a secular ruler, the exilarch. This situation was not significantly changed by the Muslim conquest of the Persian empire. At the end of the 6th century, the heads of the academies had adopted the title of gaon (Hebrew, "excellency"), and the next four centuries are known as the gaonic period; communities throughout the world turned to the Babylonian leaders for help in understanding the Talmud and applying it to new problems. About 770 the sect of Karaites, biblical literalists who rejected the Talmud, appeared in Babylonia. Despite the vigorous opposition of the great Saadia Ben Joseph Gaon and other leaders, the Karaites continued to flourish for centuries in various lands; today the sect has only a few small remnants. Jews had long been accustomed to living in neighborhoods of their own, for security and for ready access to a synagogue. From the 16th century, however, they were systematically compelled to live in walled enclosures, to be locked in at night and on Christian holidays, and to wear a distinguishing badge when outside the walls. The Jewish quarter of Venice (established 1516) was called the GHETTO, and this local name became a general term for such segregated areas. Cut off from normal relations with non-Jews, few Jews had any idea of the cultural revival of the Renaissance. Even in the field of Jewish law they tended to a rigid conservatism. In Poland and Lithuania, social conditions also had a segregatory effect. The Jews continued to speak a German dialect, mixed with many Hebrew words and with borrowings from Slavic languages--now known as Yiddish). Intellectual life was focused on study of the Talmud, in which they achieved extraordinary mastery. They enjoyed a large measure of self- government, centralized in the Council of the Four Lands. Persecutions became more frequent, however, inspired by competition from the growing Christian merchant class and by overly zealous churchmen. In 1648 a rebellion of Cossacks and Tatars in the Ukraine--then under Polish rule--led to an invasion of Poland, in which hundreds of thousands of Jews were massacred. Polish Jewry never recovered from this blow. A little over a century later, Poland was partitioned (1772, 1793, 1795) among Prussia, Austria, and Russia, and most of Polish Jewry found itself under the heartless rule of the Russian tsars. Some 18th-century liberals began to advocate an improvement of Jewish status; at the same time Moses Mendelssohn and a few other Jews were urging their coreligionists to acquire secular education and prepare themselves to participate in the national life of their countries. Such trends were intensified by the French Revolution. The French National Assembly granted (1791) Jews citizenship, and Napoleon I, although not free from prejudice, extended these rights to Jews in the countries he conquered, and the ghettos were abolished. After Napoleon's fall (1814-15), the German states revoked the rights he had granted the Jews, but the struggle for emancipation continued. Equal rights were achieved in the Netherlands, and more slowly in Great Britain. Germany and Austria, even after 1870, discriminated against Jews in military and academic appointments; in these countries much popular hostility continued, now called Anti-Semetism and supposedly justified on racial rather than religious grounds. In the American colonies the Jews had suffered relatively minor disabilities; with the founding of the United States, Jews became full citizens- - although in a few states discriminatory laws had to be fought. Jews entered the life of the Western world with keen enthusiasm; they contributed significantly to commercial, scientific, cultural, and social progress. But the old structure of Jewish life was severely damaged: community controls became less effective, and neglect of religious observance, mixed marriage, and conversion to Christianity occurred. In response to such challenges, new modernist versions of Judaism were formulated; these movements originated in Germany and had their greatest development in North America. In Russia hopes of improvement were soon abandoned; the government engaged in open war against Jews. Under Nicholas I (r. 1825-55), 12-year-old Jewish boys were drafted into the army for terms of more than 30 years (whereas other Russians were drafted at 18 for 25 years); and Jewish conscripts were treated with the utmost brutality to make them convert to Christianity. After 1804, Jews were allowed to reside only in Poland, Lithuania, and the Ukraine; Russia proper was closed to them. This Pale of settlement was later made smaller. From 1881 on, anti-Jewish riots, tolerated and sometimes instigated by the government, sent thousands fleeing to Western Europe and the Americas. Because Russia refused to honor the passports of American Jews, the United States abrogated a trade treaty in 1913. In response to these policies, new trends appeared in Russian Jewry. A movement of Jewish nationalism expressed itself in a revival of Hebrew as a secular language and in a few attempts at colonization in Palestine. A Jewish socialist movement, the Bund, appeared in urban centers, stressing the Yiddish language and folk culture. The violent outburst of hatred that accompanied the Dreyfus Aaair in France inspired Theodor Herzl to launch the movement of Zionism, which sought to establish a Jewish state. Its chief support came from East European Jews; elsewhere Herzl's proposals were considered impractical and a threat to newly won civil status. During World War I, East European Jews suffered heavily from troops on both sides. American Jewry now found itself for the first time the leading element in the world Jewish community, bearing the major responsibility for relief and reconstruction of the ravaged centers. The peace treaties guaranteed equal rights to minorities in the newly constituted or reconstituted countries, but these agreements were not consistently upheld with regard to Jewish minorities, and colonization in Palestine expanded considerably. In the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Great Britain announced its support for a Jewish national home; this purpose, approved by the Allied governments, was embodied in the mandate for Palestine that Britain assumed after the war. British agents had secretly made contradictory promises to Arab leaders, however, and growing Arab nationalism expressed itself in anti- Jewish riots in Palestine in 1920-21 and 1929. In the latter year leading non-Zionist Jews, convinced that Palestine alone offered hope for impoverished and oppressed millions (since Western nations had rigidly restricted immigration), joined with the Zionists to form the Jewish Agency to assist and direct Jewish settlement and development in Palestine. The Communist Revolution of 1917 did not end the sufferings of the Jewish population in Russia. Much of the fighting in the Civil War of 1918-20 took place in the Ukraine, where the White Russian armies conducted savage pogroms in which thousands of Jews were massacred. Although discriminatory decrees were abolished and anti-Semitism was banned as counterrevolutionary under the Soviet system, Judaism suffered the same disabilities as other religious groups. After the fall of Leon Trotsky, the old anti-Semitism was revived as a government policy. In Germany the Weimar Republic for the first time abolished all official discrimination against Jews. The republic was unpopular, however, and anti- Semitism was popular. Calculated use of anti-Semitism as an instrument was a major factor in the rise to power of Adolf Hitler in 1933, whereupon the German Jews were immediately disfranchised, robbed of possessions, deprived of employment, barred from the schools, and subjected to physical violence and constant humiliation. Once World War II occupied the attention of the democracies, Hitler and his supporters attempted "the final solution," the complete extermination of the Jews. About 6 million Jews --almost a third of their total number--were massacred, starved, or systematically gassed in concentration camps. In addition to destroying so many individual lives, the Holocaust eradicated the communities of Central and Eastern Europe, which had been the chief centers of learning and piety for nearly a thousand years. The Western democracies all but closed their doors to refugees. Britain meanwhile had gradually abandoned the Balfour Declaration, reducing the number of Jews admitted to Palestine in order to placate the Arabs. After repeated outbreaks of violence, investigations, and abortive British plans, Britain announced that it was giving up the mandate, and the United Nations adopted a resolution calling for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab areas. On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since then Israel has fought five wars against Arab coalitions to establish and preserve its independence. A peace treaty (Mar. 26, 1979) between Israel and Egypt was not accepted by the other Arab states. Although the USSR voted for the UN partition resolution in 1947, it later became markedly anti-Israel in its policies. A resurgence of Jewish self- consciousness, however, occurred within Soviet Jewry despite deprivation of religious education and other discriminations. Over the years a number of Soviet Jews emigrated to Israel and the United States, although official restrictions caused a decline in emigration in the 1980s until 1987, when new legislation provided a liberal emigration policy. Since World War II the Jews of the United States have achieved a degree of acceptance without parallel in Jewish history, and Jews play a significant role in intellectual and cultural life. The elimination of social barriers has led to a high rate of mixed marriage. During the same period there has been a growth in synagogue affiliation and support for Israel. Recent estimates put the total number of Jews at about 17.5 million, of whom almost 7 million reside in the United States, more than 2 million in the republics of the former USSR, and over 4.3 million in Israel. France, Great Britain, and Argentina also have significant Jewish populations. The once- substantial communities in North Africa and the Middle East have been reduced to small fragments. Most of these Oriental Jews have settled in Israel. Thousands of Ethiopian Jews, for example, were airlifted to Israel in 1984-85 and 1991. Israel's Jewish population increased significantly in the early 1990s, when it received hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the disintegrating Soviet Union. (ii) Christianity: Christianity is the religion of about a billion people whose belief system centers on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. To Christians, Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Messiah or Christ promised by God in the prophecies of the Old Testament; by his life, death, and resurrection he freed those who believe in him from their sinful state and made them recipients of God's saving grace. Many also await the second coming of christ, which they believe will complete God's plan of salvation. The Christian Bible, or Holy Scripture, includes the Old Testament and also the New Testament, a collection of early Christian writings proclaiming Jesus as lord and savior. Arising in the Jewish milieu of 1st-century Palestine, Christianity quickly spread through the Mediterranean world and in the 4th century became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christians have tended to separate into rival groups, but the main body of the Christian church was united under the Roman emperors. During the Middle Ages, when all of Europe became Christianized, this main church was divided into a Latin (Western European) and a Greek (Byzantine or Orthodox) branch. The Western church was in turn divided by the Reformation of the 16th century into the Roman Catholic church and a large number of smaller Protestant churches: Lutheran, Reformed (Calvinist), Anglican, and sectarian. These divisions have continued and multiplied, but in the 20th century many Christians joined in the ecumenical movement to work for church unity. This resulted in the formation of the world council of churches. Christianity, a strongly proselytizing religion, exists in all parts of the world. Certain basic doctrines drawn from Scripture (especially from the Gospels and the letters of Saint Paul), interpreted by the fathers of the church and the first four ecumenical councils, historically have been accepted by all three of the major traditions. According to this body of teaching, the original human beings rebelled against God, and from that time until the coming of Christ the world was ruled by sin. The hope of a final reconciliation was kept alive by God's covenant with the Jews, the chosen people from whom the savior sprang. This savior, Jesus Christ, partly vanquished sin and Satan. Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, preached the coming of God's Kingdom but was rejected by the Jewish leaders, who delivered him to the Romans to be crucified. On the third day after his death God raised him up again. He appeared to his disciples, commanding them to spread the good news of salvation from sin and death to all people. This, according to Christian belief, is the mission of Christ's church. Christians are monotheists (believers in one God). The early church, however, developed the characteristic Christian doctrine of the Trinity, in which God is thought of as Creator (Father), Redeemer (Son), and Sustainer (Holy Spirit), but one God in essence. Christianity inherited and modified the Jewish belief that the world would be transformed by the coming of the Reign of God. The Christians held that the bodies of those who had died would rise again, reanimated, and that the righteous would be triumphant, the wicked punished. This belief, along with Jesus' promise of "eternal life," developed into a doctrine of eternal rewards (heaven) and punishments (hell) after death. A source of doctrinal uncertainty was whether salvation depended on God's election in advance of a believer's faith, or even in a decision of God before the disobedience and fall of the first man and woman. Although Christians today tend to emphasize what unites them rather than what divides them, substantial differences in faith exist among the various churches. Those in the Protestant tradition insist on Scripture as the sole source of God's revelation. The Roman Catholics and Orthodox give greater importance to the tradition of the church in defining the content of faith, believing it to be divinely guided in its understanding of scriptural revelation. They stress the role of ecumenical councils in the formulation of doctrine, and in Roman Catholicism the pope, or bishop of Rome, is regarded as the final authority in matters of belief. Christian societies have exhibited great variety in ethos, from mutual love, acceptance, and pacifism on the one hand, to strict authoritarianism and forcible repression of dissent on the other. Justification for all of these has been found in various passages in the Bible. A prominent feature of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches is Monasticism. Christians also vary widely in worship. Early Christian worship centered on two principal rites or sacraments: Baptism, a ceremonial washing that initiated converts into the church; and the eucharist, a sacred meal preceded by prayers, chants, and Scripture readings, in which the participants were mysteriously united with Christ. As time went on, the Eucharist, or Mass, became surrounded by an increasingly elaborate ritual in the Latin, the Greek, and other Eastern churches, and in the Middle Ages Christians came to venerate saints--especially the Virgin Mary--and holy images. In the West, seven sacraments were recognized. The Protestant reformers retained 2 sacraments--baptism and the Eucharist--rejecting the others, along with devotion to saints and images, as unscriptural. They simplified worship and emphasized preaching. Since the 19th century there has been a certain amount of reconvergence in worship among ecumenically minded Protestants and Roman Catholics, with each side adopting some of the other's practices. For example, the Catholic Mass is now in the vernacular. Among other groups in both traditions, however, the divergence remains great. In most Christian churches Sunday, the day of Christ's resurrection, is observed as a time of rest and worship. The resurrection is more particularly commemorated at Easter, a festival in the early spring. Another major Christian festival is Christmas, which commemorates the birth of Jesus. The age of Christian antiquity extends from the beginning of the Christian era (dated from the approximate time of Jesus' birth) through the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire in the 5th century. After Jesus was crucified, his followers, strengthened by the conviction that he had risen from the dead and that they were filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, formed the first Christian community in Jerusalem. By the middle of the 1st century, missionaries were spreading the new religion among the peoples of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy. Chief among these was Saint Paul, who laid the foundations of Christian theology and played a key role in the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a world religion. The original Christians, being Jews, observed the dietary and ritualistic laws of the Torah and required non-Jewish converts to do the same. Paul and others favored eliminating obligation, thus making Christianity more attractive to Gentiles. The separation from Judaism was completed by the destruction of the church of Jerusalem by the Romans during the Jewish Revolt of AD 66-70. After that Christianity took on a predominantly Gentile character and began to develop in a number of different forms. At first the Christian community looked forward to the imminent return of Christ in glory and the establishment of the Kingdom. This hope carried on in the 2d century by Montanism, an ascetic movement emphasizing the action of the Holy Spirit. Gnosticism, which rose to prominence about the same time, also stressed the Spirit, but it disparaged the Old Testament and interpreted the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in a spiritual sense. The main body of the church condemned these movements as heretical and, when the Second Coming failed to occur, organized itself as a permanent institution under the leadership of its bishops. Because of their refusal to recognize the divinity of the Roman emperor or pay homage to any god except their own, the Christians were subjected to a number of persecutions by the Roman authorities. The most savage of these were the one under Emperor Decius (249-51) and that instigated by Diocletian (303-13). Many Christians welcomed martyrdom as an opportunity to share in the sufferings of Christ, and Christianity continued to grow despite all attempts to suppress it. Out of the experience of persecution a controversy grew over whether those who had denied their faith under press f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\THE SACRED DEVINE.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I believe the Divine sacred is something more powerful than anything on earth. Not necessarily in a physical sense but more in a spiritual. I feel that the youth of today, more than any other time in the world's history, needs to know something about what their parents and ancestors have found in religion. As we look at today's youth we see a decline in good Christian values or in a better sense the falling away from the good life Jesus has taught us. I remember when was a little boy my father always made me attend every funeral that happened to family or friends, even if I didn't know them. I remember always asking my father if the deceased went to heaven or hell? My father would always tell me if the deceased was a member of the church, followed the ten commandments, and followed the good life taught to us by Jesus, he was enrolled for heaven. If the deceased had never went to church, broke some of the ten commandments, and did not follow the good life, he was consigned to hell. Myself as a six-year-old I never wanted to go to hell. I remember what my Sunday school teachers told of this place where you live in a a fiery pit always in pain. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't sound like fun to me. I began from then on being the best person I could, I never missed church on Sundays, and to the best of my ability tried to live the life Jesus has paved for us. This is by far the most religious experience, that I have ever experienced in my life. I never found myself so part of a religion, that I was so Christian that I was going to live my life in such a way that I was going to heaven. In my judgment there has never been a time in the history of the world when men and women were so eager to find a religion or religious truth. They seem to be looking for something they should have found in their childhood, like I did. I realized that at an early age what the good life was and in knowing that I could live my life accordingly. My relation to the universe is, for me, an all important affair. I can make no attempt to teach everyone the way that I have realized when I was little, nor do I attempt to solve all the problems that any one day presents. However, I am ever growing and through growing so is my faith in the religion that I have lived my life for. As I wait for Jesus to walk in this world again and all my answers of the divine are answered. Then the mystery will be solved. Until that day arrives I will continue to live my life the best was I know how all due to the fact of my religious experience that happened to me when I was a little boy. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Sacred Divine.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Sacred Divine I believe the Divine sacred is something more powerful than anything on earth. Not necessarily in a physical sense but more in a spiritual. I feel that the youth of today, more than any other time in the world's history, needs to know something about what their parents and ancestors have found in religion. As we look at today's youth we see a decline in good Christian values or in a better sense the falling away from the good life Jesus has taught us. I remember when was a little boy my father always made me attend every funeral that happened to family or friends, even if I didn't know them. I remember always asking my father if the deceased went to heaven or hell? My father would always tell me if the deceased was a member of the church, followed the ten commandments, and followed the good life taught to us by Jesus, he was enrolled for heaven. If the deceased had never went to church, broke some of the ten commandments, and did not follow the good life, he was consigned to hell. Myself as a six-year- old I never wanted to go to hell. I remember what my Sunday school teachers told of this place where you live in a a fiery pit always in pain. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't sound like fun to me. I began from then on being the best person I could, I never missed church on Sundays, and to the best of my ability tried to live the life Jesus has paved for us. This is by far the most religious experience, that I have ever experienced in my life. I never found myself so part of a religion, that I was so Christian that I was going to live my life in such a way that I was going to heaven. In my judgment there has never been a time in the history of the world when men and women were so eager to find a religion or religious truth. They seem to be looking for something they should have found in their childhood, like I did. I realized that at an early age what the good life was and in knowing that I could live my life accordingly. My relation to the universe is, for me, an all important affair. I can make no attempt to teach everyone the way that I have realized when I was little, nor do I attempt to solve all the problems that any one day presents. However, I am ever growing and through growing so is my faith in the religion that I have lived my life for. As I wait for Jesus to walk in this world again and all my answers of the divine are answered. Then the mystery will be solved. Until that day arrives I will continue to live my life the best was I know how all due to the fact of my religious experience that happened to me when I was a little boy. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Sermon at Benares 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Sermon at Benares Bill Conway 3-4-97 Rel 103 3:00 1. The two extremes in which the Buddha speaks of are: that conjoined with the passions and luxury, low, vulgar, common, ignoble and useless. The second is: that conjoined with self-torture, painful, ignoble, and useless. The avoidance of these two extremes is the path to enlightenment of the middle path as the Buddha had. The middle path produces insight and knowledge, and tends to calm, to higher knowledge, enlightenment, Nirvana. 2. The Buddha speaks of four noble truths. They are as follows: 1) The noble truth of suffering. 2) The noble truth of cause of suffering. 3) The noble truth of the cessation of suffering, the cessation without a remainder of craving, the abandonment, forsaking, release, non-attachment. 4) The noble truth of the way that leads to the cessation of suffering. 3. The eight-fold path is namely, right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. 4. Nirvana is the absolute enlightenment that leads to purification of the soul. It is achieved through the belief in the four noble truths and the action taken to use or follow them. This all together provides enlightenment and the ultimate goal of reaching Nirvana. Nirvana also means, you are at one with Buddha and have gained the respect of him. Ultimately it is similar to the belief of heaven and God. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Sermon at Benares.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bill Conway 3-4-97 Rel 103 3:00 The Sermon at Benares 1. The two extremes in which the Buddha speaks of are: that conjoined with the passions and luxury, low, vulgar, common, ignoble and useless. The second is: that conjoined with self-torture, painful, ignoble, and useless. The avoidance of these two extremes is the path to enlightenment of the middle path as the Buddha had. The middle path produces insight and knowledge, and tends to calm, to higher knowledge, enlightenment, Nirvana. 2. The Buddha speaks of four noble truths. They are as follows: 1) The noble truth of suffering. 2) The noble truth of cause of suffering. 3) The noble truth of the cessation of suffering, the cessation without a remainder of craving, the abandonment, forsaking, release, non-attachment. 4) The noble truth of the way that leads to the cessation of suffering. 3. The eight-fold path is namely, right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. 4. Nirvana is the absolute enlightenment that leads to purification of the soul. It is achieved through the belief in the four noble truths and the action taken to use or follow them. This all together provides enlightenment and the ultimate goal of reaching Nirvana. Nirvana also means, you are at one with Buddha and have gained the respect of him. Ultimately it is similar to the belief of heaven and God. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Spaniard Quietist Miguel de Molinos.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Spaniard Quietist Miguel de Molinos I. Factors. The Church, since its origins has suffered from the attack of heretics and their heresies which have caused many controversies and schisms within it. However, many of the conflicts are the result of other than heresies. There are cases where conflicts arose because of ambition of power, lack of moral, and intrigues, other because of lack of wisdom and a poor theological understanding. One of the instances in which a mixture of the elements mentioned above were present was the case of the Spaniard quietist Miguel de Molinos during the XVII century. Molinos was accused by the Church with charges of heresy as well as of immoral misconduct. His main work La Guía Espiritual ("The spiritual Guide") was placed in the Index of the Church, and Molinos himself was condemned to life imprisonment, "to be perpetually clothed in the penitential garb, to recite the Credo and one third of the Rosary, and to make confession four times every year". Molinos recanted publicly. His admirers said that he was behaving consistently with what he believed and taught. His accusers said that his recanting was a proof of his guilt. What were real motives why Molinos admitted his "guilt"? Molinos once said: "The true quietists are always quiet, serene and eve-minded in Graces and in extraordinary favors as also in the most rigorous and bitter torments. No news causes them to rejoice, no event saddens them". Was Miguel de Molinos trying to be consistent way with his mystical teachings of total passivity?, or was he really guilty as charged? Was Molinos a victim of the jealousy of the Jesuits? Was his fall caused by "the machinations of a corrupt clergy who saw that they would loose their living if his plain and simple method of devotion were generally adopted"? Did he ever had any other options than recant admitting his culpability? Was martyrdom his only other option? II. Protagonists Molinos was a man of noble character and a "brilliant and widely cultured mind". His reputation of director of consciences and spiritual guide granted him the admiration and esteem of all kinds of people among whom was Cardinal Benedict Odescalchi who later became pope Innocent XI. At his arrest those who new him close were very distressed. His servants kissing his feet and calling his "a saint" where convinced that all was a mistake. When all this took place in 1685 Molinos was fifty-seven years old, (he was born in 1628 ). Although when arrested he lost control , during the trial he show no apprehension, "he was a quietist by conviction" . The pope Innocent XI ( former Cardinal Benedict Odescalchi and personal friend of Molinos ) was born in Como (Italy) and pursued his studies in Geneva, Rome, and Naples. He was elected pope by the Cardinal College in 1676. He is portrayed by catholic historians as pope that was committed to keep an honorable life, which was hard to do in his age - and office -. He made reforms in the Church specially in relation with the abuses of nepotism. In order to be consistent with his convictions he kept his own nephew away from the Roman Curia. Because of his campaign against king Louis XVI Innocent was called the Protestant pope by the Gallican party. He was considered a man of "iron hand" when needed. "He made some prescriptions concerning the behavior of the clergy, forbade the entering of women into the Vatican Palace (except the royalty), .... and condemned the Quietism of Molinos". Concerning his former friendship with Molinos he claimed "Veramente siamo engannati". III. The Conflict The teachings of Molinos were not knew for the Church. In Spain the mystic Juan Falconí (1596-1638), had a large number of followers during his lifetime. Another group, the "Alumbrados" influenced many people in Cadiz and Seville in the late 1500's. They taught that vocal prayer, and thinking in the humanity of Jesus or in his passion must be avoided. In 1623 the Inquisition condemned them as heretics. It is clear that both, Falconí and the Alumbrados, influenced Molinos' thought. Molinos' doctrines about mysticism were world wide appreciated and practiced. It is said that in Naples he had "more that 20.000 followers". His popularity among the royalty was notable. Queen Christina of Sweden, and princess Borghese were among his devoted followers. The main work of Molinos La Guía Espiritual was subject of investigation by the "Holy Office". However the conflict arose when the Jesuits begun to question his practices and the teachings found in his writings which at one time were highly praise by the clergy . Molinos has taught that "if souls in a high state of prayer are tempted to commit the most obscene and blasphemous acts, they must not leave their prayer to resist the temptation; the devil if being allowed to humiliate them, and if the actions are committed, they are not to be confessed as sins". For him Quietism was the mean to reach God and to find peace: " Rest is necessary for the soul as well as the body; rest in which the force of grace refresh and recreate the soul. This rest can not be obtained by employing the soul in various spiritual activities. Just as the body needs sleep in order to recruit his energies, so the does the soul requires a silent resting if the presence of God". This kind of teachings caused that in many convents the nuns thought lightly if confessions, indulgences, penance, and vocal prayer, and regarded themselves as not blameworthy for their material faults. After months of investigation of his books, and personal letters (about 20.000 were analyzed by the Inquisition), the Inquisition sponsored by the Jesuits presented 263 charges against Molinos. Sixty eighth of his propositions were condemned as "Heretical, erroneous, blasphemous, dangerous, and in practice, incompatible with Christian morality". It is interesting that only two witness accused him with of obscenities . What were those so called obscenities? It is not possible to answer this question. There is no access to the reports of Molino's trial. They are "buried in the secret files of the Holy Office". Molinos retracted from his teaching publicly in 1687 at the Church of Santa María Sopra Minerva. Along with Molinos more than two hundred persons were arrested in Rome, and "several communities of nuns" found themselves implicated in the scandal. One month after his sentence the "Gazette de France" published the news of Molino's dead; however, historians tells us that Molinos lived nine more years, dying at the age of sixty-eight on December 28, 1696. The Catholic Encyclopedia ends its article about Molinos saying: "He lived 9 more years of pious and exemplary behavior, perhaps practicing his teaching that elevated souls seek only the humiliations and scorn that it might please God to send". IV. Possible Options It is evident that the Molinos was facing a dilemma. The Church has called him to repent of serious charges. What should be his response to the mandate of the Church? Shall he be consistent with his Quietism and recant in obedience? He chose to recant admitting the charges against. In doing so he tried to be consistent. By the other hand the other only option was to keep himself standing in his beliefs and to pay a the higher price of martyrdom. We probably never know what was in his mind during the trial. It may be that the accusations of immoral behavior were real and that he just was "caught" and had no other option. V. Biblical Principles. The Scriptures leave no place for immorality and lack of repentance in the life of true believers . We don't know the heart of man, (God is the final judge), but if Molinos was living an immoral lifestyle the Bible have very clear teachings. The Apostle Paul dealing with immorality in the Church of Corinth says: "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 1 Cor. 5:1-2. The Church must never allow immoral people to continue living in sin. In 2 Th. 3:6 Paul again gives specific commandment concerning this issue: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us". There is not only immorality that is to be forbidden inthe Church but heresy as well: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself, Titus 3:10-11. Was this the case of Molinos? Was he one of those whom "profess that they know God; but in works they deny him"? Titus 1:16. VI. Conclusion Miguel de Molinos have passed to the history as accused of being both heretic and immoral. He has been judged by the Roman Catholic Church and found guilty. However the lack of historical evidences bring doubts upon his blame. Only God the Supreme Judge of all men will have the last word concerning the case of this mystic of the middle ages. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bell, Mary. A Short History of the Papacy. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1921. Braure, Maurice. The Age of Absolutism. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1963. Calvin, John. Institutes of The Christian Religion. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962. Cristianini, Leon. Heresies and Heretics. New York: Hawthorn Books, c1959. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. 1926 ed. S.v. "Quietism". González, Justo L. The History of Christianity Volume II. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1984. Herbermann, Charles, Edward Pace, Condé Pallen, Thomas Shasan, and John Wynne, eds. The Catholic Encyclopedia New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1911. S.v. "Molinos, Miguel de Art," by Antonio Pérez Goyena. Hogarth, Henry. "The Mystery of Molinos". London Quaterly and Holborn Review, (January 1953): 178: 6-10. Knox, Ronald, A. Enthusiasm. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961 [c1950]. Lea, Henry Charles. A History of the Inquisition in Spain. Vol. IV. New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1988. Llorca Vives, Bernardino. Historia de la Iglesia Católica en sus Cuatro Grandes Edades, Vol. 4. Madrid: Editorial Católica, 1950-1960. Mestre Sanchis, Antonio. La Iglesia en la Espana de los siglos XVII y XVIII. [The Church in Spain during the XVII and XVIII centuries]. Madrid: Editorial Católica, 1979. Pastor, Ludwing. The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages. Vol. 32. USA: Consortium Books, 1978. Whalen, John P., and Patrick O. Boyle, eds. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Washington: McGraw Book Co., 1966. S.v. "Molinos, Miguel de Art," by T. K. Connolly. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Story Of Isaak.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Story Of Isaak In telling the story of Isaac it is very important to tell about his father Abram . Once Lord ordered Abram to leave his country , his people and his father's household and to go to the land that God was going to show him . After that God made promises which were fulfilled inthe rest of the Genesis. The first was making Abram into a great nation . Naturally question arises : how can man be made into a great nation ? The answer is that through one's heir that in it's term will give more and more heirs (children) one can be made into nation . Than God promised that he would bless Abram , making his name great, that he would bless those who bless him , that he wold curse those who curse him and finally that through Abram all nations would be blessed. At that time Abram was seventy five years old , so he followed the Lord's will and took his wife Sarai , nephew Lot and moved to Canaan. While Abram was travelling at the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shehem , God appeared to him and told that through his offspring he would receive that land . Because there was a famine in that land Abram went to Egypt. But there was a problem . Abram knew how beautiful his wife Sarai was, also he knew what would happen to her if Egyptians saw her ; moreover he knew what would happen to him if they would have learned that Abraham was her husband- he would be dead . So they decided to pretend as if she was his sister . But once Pharaoh's officials saw her so they took her to the palace . Sarai became Pharaoh's wife , Pharaoh in his term treated well to Abraham(he gave cattle, sheep, different servants).But the Lord inficted serious deseases on Egypt , Pharaoh understood that that was all because of Sarai and he gave back her to Abram . Then he made orders about them to his men and they sent him on his way . All that time Lot was with them . They came to Negev , after that they moved to Bethel, there Abraham called on the name of the Lord . Land could not support allof them while they stayed together , for their posessions where so great . So Abram decided: let Lot to go to the left and himself to the right . In the telling of the story of Isaac it is very important to notice that he was the part of the covenant of the Lord with Abram . Since God promised to make Abraham into a great nation Abraham wondered how , because he was childless . He even thought of making the child of his servant , Hagar , to be his heir . Abraham and Hagar had a son in the name of Ishmael. Once God appared to Abram in the vision telling that he was his reward but Abram wondered what Lord could give to him since he remained childless and only son of his servant would be his heir . God gave a defenite answer that only his own son would be his heir. God required a sucrifice and said that he, Abram , will have his own son . Also he told that his descendants will be strangers in the country of not their own and they will be inslaved and mistreated for hundred years , but God would punish that nation and afterward they will come out with great posessions . Hagar was dispised and she run out of that house , but she met angel in the desert who told that her descendants would be multiplied so that it would be impossible to count them also he orderd to come back to Sarai and submit to her. When Abram was ninety nine years old God appeared to him again and proclaimed that he would confirm their covenant and that from that moment Abram would be Abraham and his wife Sarai would be called Sarah . The Lord promised that their descendants would be numorous and that every male among them should be circumsised . Now the Lord was gracious to Sarah and did what he had promised , she became pregnant and gave a son to Abraham in his old age , he gave him the name Isaac. When he was eight years old he was circumsised , as God commanded him . Once Sarah told to Abraham to get rid of the Ishmael and Hagar because she didn't want Ishmael to share in inheritance with Isaac . Abraham was confused about that matter because Ishmael was his son too, but God advised to follow the will of Sarah and not to warry about the Ishmael because he would be made into a nation too. Next morning Hagar left with the boy and wandered in the desert of Beersheba . They were about dieing there , but God saved them and promised to make Ishmael into a great nation . Let come back to Abraham . One of the most well known Old Testament stories is the test of Abraham . God said that he wanted him to take his son , Isaac , to take him to the region of Moriah and to sucrifice as a burnt offering on the one of the mountains he would point him out . Next morning Abraham saddled donkey and went to the place God told him about . They walked for three days then when Abraham saw the place of their destination he left his servants and then went only with Isaac.(by the way many biblical scholars think that God chose the place of the sucrifice that was in the three days journey far from their place becauese for this big period of time Abraham could change his mind many times) He took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on Issac and they went to the mountain . While they were walking Isaac asked his father about the lamb for the offering , but Abraham replied that God would provide it. He made an altar up there , then bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar and right in that moment when Abraham was about to pierce him the voice from the sky stopped him . Thus Abraham proved his faith to God so God told that he would surely bless him and make his son into a gret nation . When Abraham was old he ordered to his chief servant to find a wife for Isaac among his relatives , but not from Canaanites among whom he was living and certainly not to bring Isaac to his homeland because God gave him that land . So the servant went to the home -land of Abraham , he reached the spring where women came to draw water and prayed to God to help him to find the girl . He asked for if he says to the girl: " Please let down your jar so I can have a drink " and she would reply: " Drink and I will water your camels too "-let her be the one God chose for Abraham . Right at that moment Rebekah , daughter of Bethuel, showed up and happened the same dialog he was expecting . Then the servant talked to her parents , told them the situation, that it was the will of the Lord so her parents agreed and let Rebekah to become the wife of Abraham's son , Isaac . Parents asked to leave the daughter for ten days , but the servant insisted so they immediately went back to the Abraham's home . Then Isaac married Rebekah . At that time Abraham was fourty years old. His wife , Rebekah was barren and he prayed to God because of that so the Lord answered his prayer and she became pregnant . An interesting fact : the babies josted each other within her and she asked why did it happen ? The Lord told to her that two people were within her and that from her two nations would be seperated , one would be stronger than the other and the older will serve the yonger . The first borned was a boy with a red skin so they named him Esau the second one had a hand on Esau's heel , he was named Jacob . When the boys grew up , Esau became a skillful hunter And Jacob was a quiet man who stayed among the tents so Isaac loved Esau and Rebakah loved Jacob . Esau despised his birthright when he came very hungry and Jacob was cooking stew ; Esau asked to give him some but Jacob requested first to swear to sell his birthright (brothers !) . Isaac left that land to go to Abimelech , king of Philistines in Gerar because there was a famine in that land , then he wanted to go down to Egypt , but the Lord ordered him not to go there . God promised that he would give him all that lands and also to bless him . So Isaac stayed in Gerar .Then happens the same story as with Abraham he was afraid that someone who sees his wife Rebekah might kill him because she was very beautiful and he decided to tell everybody that she was his sister . In this place Isaac showed his weak beleive in God because in Genesis 26:3 God promises that he would be with Isaac , moreover he would bless him ! In the whole Genesis there is no such a verse when God says : " Isaac , you have to tell everybody that Rebekah is your sister because I won't be able to protect you if somebody finds out that she is your wife " . By the way , there is no such verse which says that all women at that time were so ugly , that to meet pretty woman was practically impossible , that civilized men ( who were sofisticated enough to wright such books as Genesis ) would not greet the man with a beautiful wife , but they would kill him ! So the conclusion is : Isaac didn't believe that God would be able to protect him . Once Abimelech looked out of the window and saw Isaac caressing Rebekah so he understood that she was Isaac's wife , he was surprised , but ordered his men not to molest to this couple. Then Isaac moved to the Valley of Gerar , his servants discovered a fresh water in that land. After that he moved to Beersheba ... When Isaac was very old and his eyes vere so weak that he could not see any more he wanted to give his blessings before he dies. So he asked Esau to go hunting for a wild game , to prepare tasty food for him and to receive blessings before he dies. Rebekah herd all of this and because she loved Jacob more they decided to deceive Isaac . Jacob took Esau's clothes covered his skin on his hands with goatskin , gave the food which Isaac required and finaly received the blessings . When Esau came back it was late because Isaac had given all his blessings allready . Isaac lived one hundred and fifty years , when he died Esau and Jacob burried him ... f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Symbolism of Religion and Comparison 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Symbolism of Religion and Comparison In comparing the books "Confession of the Jews" and "First Confession", I have found there to be similarities and differences. For example, "First Confession" deals with a boy converting from a boy to a young man by going to confession and telling his sins for the first time. "Conversion of the Jews" deals with converting a boy into someone he has never really seen which was a free thinker which only older people usually do. In "Conversion of the Jews" Ozzie, who was the main character, had a problem with getting along with the priest Rabbi Binder at Hebrew School. Rabbi Binder didn't really like Ozzie because he was always asking a lot of questions and Rabbi Binder was always getting angry at him. In "First Confession" Jackie, the main character, also had a problem. Jackies problem was similar to Ozzies, but also different. Jackie had a problem with his sister Nora. Nora believed that Jackie was always lying and being bad. On his confession day his mother sent Nora go with Jackie. Nora ordered Jackie to tell all of his sins, including how he was mean to the grandmother who lived with them. Ozzie seemed troubled to Rabbi Binder in "Conversion of the Jews". In reality Jackie wasn't bad at all, he was just a boy who wanted answers to his questions. And that was proved when Ozzie asked a question in class and Rabbi Binder went crazy and hit Ozzie because he thought Ozzie was trying to be a wise guy. So Ozzie tried to prove a point to Rabbi Binder and his fellow classmates by running to the roof and making believe he was going to jump. With Ozzie being on the roof it gave Rabbi Binder a bigger belief that Ozzie was crazy and troubled. Ozzie wasn't really crazy, he was just trying to make a point that he really wasn't dumb. Ozzie just wanted to believe that there was really a Christ. So with the point that Ozzie was trying to make helped to convert everyone and their beliefs. Jackie, like Ozzie, was also troubled in "First Confession". He was a young boy who lived with his family, including the grandmother. Jackie believed the grandmother didn't like him very much, so he did mean things to her like hide under the table when she cooked dinner. When it came time for his first confession he went with his sister Nora. Nora tormented Jackie and scared him into believing he was a sinner and he will pay for all of his sins. Jackie was not as bad as Nora made him out to be, he was just being a normal young boy. When Jackies turn was up to make his confession, he was unsure of what to do so he did what he thought was right but messed up and ended up humiliating Nora. In reality the priest did not find anything wrong with what Jackie did, the priest actually found it to be very amusing. Jackie went ahead and told his sins and ended up only having to say three hail Mary's. Nora was in complete shock and could not believe such a sinner got off with such an easy penance, but Jackie did and also made good friends with the priest. Religion was very important in both stories. "First Confession" deals with being in church and telling sins to a priest which is what most Catholics practice in a catholic church. In "Conversion of the Jews" the children went to Hebrew School which was a way for the Jews to practice their religion. The two stories are different in religion ways but they are the same for the ways they preach and how it is taught. In comparing the two boys, I would have to say that they are very similar in ways of their conscience. Ozzie was scared to get in trouble and he did not do it on purpose but it always happened that he did get in trouble. He just wanted to be taught about his religion the right way but he felt he never got the answers he needed to his questions which led him to the roof. He knew it was not right for him to jump off the roof, so he just tormented everyone into thinking he was going to jump. He had a guilty conscience because he knew everyone was starting to worry, but he stayed until he proved his point. As for Jackie, I believe his sister Nora gave him a conscience. She made him believe he was very bad and only sinned all the time. He did not feel so bad when he was doing the wrong things, but he did feel bad when it was time to confess. Even though he had a conscience of believing he was bad, the priest did not think he was so bad. By telling the priest all of his sins, Jackie was relieved of his guilty conscience and was finally able to feel good about himself. Not only was their conscience that made them similar, but also their identity. Ozzie and Jackie both found who they were in the two stories. Ozzie always believed he was just a trouble maker because that is what he always heard, but I knew he really was not a trouble maker. Ozzie did what he did for a purpose including going to the roof. Being on the roof helped him realize what was going on around him. It helped him realize who he was and what he was becoming. Ozzie was just a boy wanting to learn without getting into trouble. Jackie found who he was while telling the priest his sins, all of them. Jackie really was not bad, everyone just told him that he was all the time, so that is what he started believing. He was just a boy doing and acting how young boys act. All little kids, including girls, are not perfect, so how can anyone expect Jackie to be perfect. Just because Nora believed she was perfect does not mean Jackie is bad because he does not follow how Nora acts. Jackie found his true self while telling the priest all of his sins, which made him feel he can actually live with himself. Reading both stories gave me a sense of what both religions are like. I'm catholic and already know what it is like to go to confession, but I never had an experience like Jackie. I am very familiar with the Jewish religion, but never heard of Ozzies experience, not that it even happens in everyday life. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Symbolism of Religion and Comparison.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Symbolism of Religion and Comparison In comparing the books "Confession of the Jews" and "First Confession", I have found there to be similarities and differences. For example, "First Confession" deals with a boy converting from a boy to a young man by going to confession and telling his sins for the first time. "Conversion of the Jews" deals with converting a boy into someone he has never really seen which was a free thinker which only older people usually do. In "Conversion of the Jews" Ozzie, who was the main character, had a problem with getting along with the priest Rabbi Binder at Hebrew School. Rabbi Binder didn't really like Ozzie because he was always asking a lot of questions and Rabbi Binder was always getting angry at him. In "First Confession" Jackie, the main character, also had a problem. Jackies problem was similar to Ozzies, but also different. Jackie had a problem with his sister Nora. Nora believed that Jackie was always lying and being bad. On his confession day his mother sent Nora go with Jackie. Nora ordered Jackie to tell all of his sins, including how he was mean to the grandmother who lived with them. Ozzie seemed troubled to Rabbi Binder in "Conversion of the Jews". In reality Jackie wasn't bad at all, he was just a boy who wanted answers to his questions. And that was proved when Ozzie asked a question in class and Rabbi Binder went crazy and hit Ozzie because he thought Ozzie was trying to be a wise guy. So Ozzie tried to prove a point to Rabbi Binder and his fellow classmates by running to the roof and making believe he was going to jump. With Ozzie being on the roof it gave Rabbi Binder a bigger belief that Ozzie was crazy and troubled. Ozzie wasn't really crazy, he was just trying to make a point that he really wasn't dumb. Ozzie just wanted to believe that there was really a Christ. So with the point that Ozzie was trying to make helped to convert everyone and their beliefs. Jackie, like Ozzie, was also troubled in "First Confession". He was a young boy who lived with his family, including the grandmother. Jackie believed the grandmother didn't like him very much, so he did mean things to her like hide under the table when she cooked dinner. When it came time for his first confession he went with his sister Nora. Nora tormented Jackie and scared him into believing he was a sinner and he will pay for all of his sins. Jackie was not as bad as Nora made him out to be, he was just being a normal young boy. When Jackies turn was up to make his confession, he was unsure of what to do so he did what he thought was right but messed up and ended up humiliating Nora. In reality the priest did not find anything wrong with what Jackie did, the priest actually found it to be very amusing. Jackie went ahead and told his sins and ended up only having to say three hail Mary's. Nora was in complete shock and could not believe such a sinner got off with such an easy penance, but Jackie did and also made good friends with the priest. Religion was very important in both stories. "First Confession" deals with being in church and telling sins to a priest which is what most Catholics practice in a catholic church. In "Conversion of the Jews" the children went to Hebrew School which was a way for the Jews to practice their religion. The two stories are different in religion ways but they are the same for the ways they preach and how it is taught. In comparing the two boys, I would have to say that they are very similar in ways of their conscience. Ozzie was scared to get in trouble and he did not do it on purpose but it always happened that he did get in trouble. He just wanted to be taught about his religion the right way but he felt he never got the answers he needed to his questions which led him to the roof. He knew it was not right for him to jump off the roof, so he just tormented everyone into thinking he was going to jump. He had a guilty conscience because he knew everyone was starting to worry, but he stayed until he proved his point. As for Jackie, I believe his sister Nora gave him a conscience. She made him believe he was very bad and only sinned all the time. He did not feel so bad when he was doing the wrong things, but he did feel bad when it was time to confess. Even though he had a conscience of believing he was bad, the priest did not think he was so bad. By telling the priest all of his sins, Jackie was relieved of his guilty conscience and was finally able to feel good about himself. Not only was their conscience that made them similar, but also their identity. Ozzie and Jackie both found who they were in the two stories. Ozzie always believed he was just a trouble maker because that is what he always heard, but I knew he really was not a trouble maker. Ozzie did what he did for a purpose including going to the roof. Being on the roof helped him realize what was going on around him. It helped him realize who he was and what he was becoming. Ozzie was just a boy wanting to learn without getting into trouble. Jackie found who he was while telling the priest his sins, all of them. Jackie really was not bad, everyone just told him that he was all the time, so that is what he started believing. He was just a boy doing and acting how young boys act. All little kids, including girls, are not perfect, so how can anyone expect Jackie to be perfect. Just because Nora believed she was perfect does not mean Jackie is bad because he does not follow how Nora acts. Jackie found his true self while telling the priest all of his sins, which made him feel he can actually live with himself. Reading both stories gave me a sense of what both religions are like. I'm catholic and already know what it is like to go to confession, but I never had an experience like Jackie. I am very familiar with the Jewish religion, but never heard of Ozzies experience, not that it even happens in everyday life. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Third Miracle.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Third Miracle "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."Albert Einstein Director Agnieszka Holland has produced a thoughtful and thought-provoking film in The Third Miracle. It centers on the complicated character, Father Frank Moore. This troubled priest recently found by Bishop Cahill's secretary hiding in a downtown soup kitchen is also the diocesan postulator for any alleged supernatural activity in the region. He is most known for earlier exposing what many considered a saint, as a sexually tortured man who eventually committed suicide. This incident branded him the "miracle killer". In the beginning, even he had begun to believe in the intercession of this legendary Fr. Falcone. Discovering the truth left him with a scarred psyche filled with regret from years of shooting holes in people's beliefs. While in a crisis of faith he is asked by his prelate to investigate a new case -- Helen O'Regan and a miracle at St. Stanislaus parish in a dilapidated urban area. The miracle was a girl named Maria, cured of terminal Lupus after praying for the intercession of the recently deceased O'Regan. Included with the physical healing was a yearly manifestation where a favorite statue of Helen's would shed tears of blood. The blood matched Helen's type. Maria went on to become a prostitute and drug addict leading her mother to claim "God wasted a miracle". Additionally, Helen's daughter Roxane struggled with the investigation since she had bitterness toward her mother for leaving her at age 16 by moving into the parish rectory. For her religion was "pathetic" and her bitterness prevented her from seeing how God could work miracles through a flawed human being like her mother. The added dimension of a romantic relationship between her and Fr. Malone was unnecessary and incidental to the story, except to show the loneliness and humanity of the postulator. This new endeavor reinvigorates Fr. Frank. He sees it as a possibility to redeem his past, this is manifested in a poignant scene where he cries out, "I want God to show his face again". He acknowledges his weakness in view of her character by declaring, "Her [Helen's] heart was full of love. I'm not even a good priest. Make me worthy" Miracles are an invitation to faith. I think this is an appropriate theme for this movie because the primary miracles associated with Helen become invitations to faith for each of the characters in the movie. For Fr. Frank, they are an invitation to renew and rediscover his own faith, and his priestly vows through his relationship with Roxanne. For Archbishop Werner, who plays the part of the religious yet skeptical devil's advocate, they also issue an invitation. His biggest problem is the source of the miracle. Sainthood, according to him, should be reserved for the heroic martyr not for an American housewife. Yet ironically, he was one of the few witnesses of Helen's miracle when she was just a child. As a German soldier passing through her town he witnessed how her intercession appeared to stop bombs midair. So for him it was an invitation to faith in miracles coming from unexpected and even flawed mediums. A later second miracle which saves Maria's life again - it is an invitation for Maria's mother and Maria to effect change in their lives and embrace the Christian faith and morality which are connected with the events. These miracles, as invitations to faith, open up the possibility of liberation, healing and transformation for each of the characters, in their own way. We are left to wonder to what degree they each respond to this compelling invitation f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF JOAN OF ARC.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF JOAN OF ARC On May 16, 1920, Pope Benedict XV conducted a ceremony at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome to canonize Joan of Arc, often referred to as the Maid of Orleans. This ceremony was the final step in a process that was begun in 1849 by the Bishop of Orleans, Felix Dupanloup, over 400 years after St. Joan's was tried, convicted and executed in the name of the Church. A study of her heroic deeds and an intensive review of her life, virtues and the trial transcripts that condemned her to be burned at the stake, resulted first in her beatification in 1909, and finally her canonization 11 years later in 1920 (Pernoud 245). Amazingly, two years after that, the woman who had been condemned, put to death, and then canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church, was declared the patroness of France (McBride 82). Jeanne d'Arc was born around January 6, 1412, in the village of Domremy in France (Thurston). At the time of her birth, France and England had been engaged in the longest war in history, which has come to be known as the Hundred Years' War. These two countries were fighting over whose right it was to rule. The English had occupied much of northern France, and the primary issue became the survival of France as an independent state rather than as part of an Anglo-French empire ruled by the English monarchy. The French were determined to drive the English out and crown Charles VII as their king (Reither 227-229). Joan was a simple peasant girl who was raised in a Catholic home as the youngest of five children (Thurston). Her mother was very religious and had a big influence on Joan's life. Joan never learned to read or write, but was skilled in spinning and sewing. She was also always very strong and healthy (Michelet 8). At the age of thirteen, Joan began to have holy visions and hear the voices of saints she identified as St. Margaret, St. Catherine, and St. Michael (Thurston). Her voices convinced her to vow to remain a virgin (Lucie-Smith). When Joan was seventeen years old, the voices revealed her divine mission. Joan was told that she had been chosen to lead the French army into battle against the English, to drive them from French soil. The voices instructed her to go to see Robert Baudricourt, the Captain of Vaucouleurs, who would arrange for her to be taken to see the king (Michelet 12). On her second visit she was able to convince Baudricourt to allow her to see the king. She dressed in men's clothing for the first time to make this trip (Thurston). When she arrived, the council kept her waiting for two days while they debated whether she should be taken to the king. Eventually, it was agreed that the king would receive her. The king was doubtful and tested Joan by disguising himself. Joan identified him immediately, and won his confidence by assuring him that God recognized him as the true heir to the French throne. A committee made up of several bishops and doctors were assembled in Poitiers to examine her and determine the truthfulness of her revelations (Michelet 18-20). Joan made a good impression on the committee members. Their final conclusion was that they could "find no evil but only good, humility, virginity, devotion, honesty, and simplicity" in Joan. They finally recommended that the king accept her help (Pernoud 30). King Charles gave her armor, and horses. A special banner was made for her to carry into battle (Michelet 22-23). An army was assembled to lift the siege of Orleans and Joan rode with them. She was not a military commander, but acted more as a moral leader. Joan imposed strict rules and required her troops to go to confession and leave prostitutes behind. She traveled with the army and was there to inspire the troops with confidence for victory. After inviting the English to surrender, she developed the plan that was used to free the city of Orleans from the English. She was actually wounded in the battle, but returned to inspire her troops to a great victory (McBride 80). She continued to lead her troops into battle against the English, resulting in great successes in many more battles. In a great victory at Patay, the English were completely defeated and forced to retreat. This opened the way for the fulfillment of her mission and the coronation of Charles VII as king of France in Reims on July 17, 1429 (Thurston). After the coronation, the king seemed less interested in Joan and the continuation of the campaign to remove the English from France (McBride 81). Joan was frustrated by the king's attitude and a truce he had signed with the Duke of Burgundy (Thurston). Finally, at the end of the truce, Joan once again rode with the troops to defend the town of Compiegne which was under siege from the English. Although her voices had predicted that she would be captured, she threw herself into the battle. She stayed to the rear to cover the retreat of her men, but ended up being pulled from her horse and captured. The man who had taken her prisoner sold her to John of Luxembourg (Michelet 50). Joan's capture was met with strong reactions. The English badly wanted to discredit Joan, especially her claim that God directed her. If true this would mean that God favored the French over the English (McBride 81). England was a government dominated by Bishops who were led by a Cardinal. Any suggestion that God favored Joan's mission was intolerable (Michelet 62). The Vicar General of the Inquisitor demanded that Joan be sent to Paris for trial on the grounds that she was a heretic and a witch. A letter had been sent from the University of Paris to the Pope in Rome accusing Joan of heresy because she pretended to predict the future (Lucie-Smith 207). Although Joan was in reality a political prisoner of war, the English leadership wanted a trial that was conducted by the Church (Michelet 63). Although the French people saw Joan as a hero and a saint, her name inspired fear and dread in the English people, and they were determined to be rid of her for the humiliation she had caused them. The English could not afford to put Joan to death for beating them in battle, but they could possibly have the Church condemn her as a heretic and a witch (Thurston). Incredibly, Charles and his advisors did nothing to rescue or ransom Joan even though she was responsible for placing him on his throne (Pernoud 98). To accomplish their goals, the English used Peter Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais. He was an ambitious man with no scruples who could be relied upon to use his authority to ensure the outcome of the trial favored the English position (Michelet 64). Cauchon negotiated a sale price for Joan of 10,000 pounds, which was paid by the English crown. The English always intended to burn Joan, and money was used to make sure it would happen (Lucie-Smith 231). The English paid all of the expenses of the judges and gave letters guaranteeing protection from consequences to Cauchon and other officials who participated in the trial (Lucie-Smith 227). Cauchon then had himself appointed the chief judge for Joan's ecclesiastical trial (Pernoud 89). The trial took place in Rouen Castle where Joan was also held prisoner and guarded by English soldiers. Joan complained about this and requested to be placed in a church prison where she could have women to attend to her needs (Thurston). They tried everything they could think of to break her. She was treated very badly. She was kept in an iron cage and chained by her neck, hands and feet. She was made to endure mental torment and insults by the guards. Throughout her ordeal Joan was treated as a prisoner of war and refused the decent treatment that she would have had in a Church prison (Pernoud 104-105). Intellectuals at the University of Paris supported Cauchon's efforts. Most of the trial judges were doctors and theologians from the University. The Great Schism of the Catholic Church had been mended when Joan was only a young child. During the Schism, opposing factions within the Church supported either a pope residing in Rome, or one in Avignon, France (Pernoud 4). The Schism had allowed the University's faculty members to become a great independent political power because they had dominated the former councils called by the Avignon popes (Lucie-Smith 208). To preserve their position, the University supported the concept that a General Council should rule the Church together with the Pope. This was similar to the manner in which the English crown and parliament functioned (Pernoud 106). The University faculty was a dictatorial body that demanded that heritage and faith be accepted without question, that men only believe what their appointed authorities told them to believe, and that belief in the supernatural was not reasonable. The doctors at the University considered themselves to be the experts in these matters. If Joan's visions and voices were accepted to be fact, it would seriously undermine their authority and credibility. Additionally, Joan's unsuccessful assault on Paris in September of 1429 had scared them and caused them to consider her to be a great threat to their power base (Lucie-Smith 208-209). The trial began on January 9, 1431, and took five months to complete (Pernoud 105). To lend legitimacy to the event, Cauchon requested that an officer of the Inquisition help officiate at the proceedings (Michelet 73). The Inquisition was a special council established by the Catholic Church to discover and investigate heretics. It was necessary to have a representative of the Inquisition be present whenever a bishop conducted a trial for heresy (Lucie-Smith 226). However, the local vice-inquisitor, a Dominican friar named Jean Lemaitre, did not want to be involved in the trial. He argued that he did not have jurisdiction to preside since the alleged heresy had taken place in another diocese (Pernoud 108). After this problem had been resolved, he then claimed that he had doubts and did not want to jeopardize the proceedings. Although he continually argued against being a judge, he could not avoid it, and ended up being paid generously for his involvement (Michelet 73). The trial proceeded even though an ecclesiastical body in Poitiers had already examined Joan. The result of that interrogation had been to approve Joan and support her mission. That assembly of Church officials had accepted her voices and visions as coming from God. Unfortunately, the transcripts of the proceeding conveniently disappeared, and could not help Joan during her trial for heresy (Pernoud 30). Heresy could not necessarily be proven by facts. It was considered to be an "intellectual " crime. The judges were required to examine the heart and intent of the accused in order to decide whether there was an error in understanding, or that the heresy was deliberate and knowing. For this reason, the accused person was considered to be guilty until a determination otherwise was reached (Lucie-Smith 231-232). Cauchon began by presenting information he had been collecting about Joan to the judges in a closed session. Unfortunately, the investigation of her habits and morality near and around her home, did not produce the compelling evidence needed to try her for heresy. The judges could not find anything to accuse her on (Pernoud 107-108). In spite of this, they proceeded with the public phase of the trial. On February 21, 1431, Joan was brought before a room full of intimidating figures, with Cauchon presiding, to be tried on charges of heresy and witchcraft. Although Cauchon had brought together an impressive group of judges, most of them were Frenchmen, many from the University of Paris (Lucie-Smith 232). There were forty-four people, including nine doctors of theology and four doctors of canon law in attendance. Established procedures for the Inquisition permitted a lawyer to represent the accused, but Joan stood alone without a lawyer to help her (Pernaud 109). The trial began with Joan refusing to swear to tell the truth since she did not know what they intended to ask her. She was finally persuaded to swear to tell the truth about her religious beliefs (Pernoud 109). For days she was asked questions about her youth, her voices, and her activities prior to her meeting with Charles. The judges continually badgered and tried to confuse and entrap her with trick questions (Thurston). There were six public interrogation sessions conducted by the court. Joan's strength, honesty, and her ability to remember the answers she had given previously to the questions she had been asked impressed witnesses to these sessions. Joan was a "tough nut to crack", and Cauchon became worried about the outcome of the trial. For this reason, he decided to stop the public sessions and continue the trial by conducting future interrogations in private (Lucie- Smith 241-242). There were nine interrogation sessions conducted behind the closed doors of the prison. The legal experts, after a review of the transcripts, were not impressed with these proceedings. There were criticisms that the proper procedures were not followed, sessions were held in secret, and the judges were not free to express their own opinions. They also felt that it was unfair to expect an uneducated peasant girl to answer the questions she was being asked without the benefit of a lawyer (Michelet 85-86). However the theologians saw things differently. A thorough review of the transcripts by them resulted in seventy propositions of Joan's crimes. These were extracted from the answers she had given to questions, but their meanings were twisted and most were taken out of context. These propositions were used as the basis for twelve accusations against her (Michelet 86-87). The twelve articles of accusation were not read to Joan and she was not given an opportunity to defend herself against them. Since they had been taken from her own statements she basically had no defense (Lucie-Smith 253). Joan's visions and voices were declared to be "false and diabolical", and she was told that she wold be turned over for sentencing if she did not retract her statements about them. Joan refused to submit to the demands of her judges even though she was threatened with torture. At one point, Joan finally did agreed to sign a retraction, but changed her mind when it was read back to her (Thurston). The University of Paris reviewed the articles of accusation. The theological faculty decided that Joan was the instrument of the Devil and approved them. The university's law school agreed but only if Joan continued to insist that her voices came from God, and she could be proven to be of sound mind. The university wrote letters to the Pope and the Cardinals praising the procedure and stating that it had been conducted in a fair, just, and holy manner (Michelet 100). On May 29, 1431 the court declared Joan to be a heretic and ordered her to be burned at the stake. The sentence was carried out the next day (Thurston). The authorities had wanted many witnesses to Joan's death, and it is believed that the spectacle was attended by as many as 10,000 people. Her death, at the age of nineteen, was the ultimate retaliation for her defeat of the English armies at Patay (Lucie-Smith). It also served to invalidate her claims that Charles was the true king of France, supported by God. She and her voices had been condemned and rejected by the Church that she loved (Michelet 119). Her death was meant to demonstrate the falseness of her claims. However, Joan's death at the stake caused great sympathy to be felt for her. Many people believed that she had not been fairly treated (Lucie-Smith 1-3). Her bravery and behavior in the face of the horror of being burned alive caused even her greatest enemies to shed tears (Thurston). For a year or so after Joan's conviction and death, the English cause in France grew stronger. But an alliance between Charles VII and Philip of Burgundy helped the French reclaim control of the Church in their own country. This was accomplished through the successful defeat of Paris in 1436 (Pernoud 139). Charles finally arrived in Rouen in 1450. After arriving, he began to hear the stories about Joan's trial, and had the records brought to him. Review of the transcripts resulted in his request that a new trial be conducted for Joan (Pernoud 149). The ordeal of Joan's trial and execution in the name of the Catholic Church had been an event engineered by powerful men with political motives. The preliminary findings of the investigation initiated by Charles supported the fact that Joan had been a prisoner of war who was convicted of heresy and executed for political reasons. But Joan had been tried and convicted by a tribunal of the Inquisition, which meant that only the Church could clear her of the charges (Pernoud 149-150). Finally, twenty-four years after her ashes had been scattered in the Seine River, proceedings were begun to overturn the findings of Pierre Cauchon and Joan's judges (Thurston). The treatment of Joan at the hands of her captors in the name of the Church became a serious issue to be properly investigated and corrected. The initial inquiry was turned into twenty-seven specific articles that became the basis for future proceedings and the interrogation of the witnesses (Pernoud 153). These articles specifically mentioned and dealt with the hatred that the English had for Joan, and the bias of the trial. They identified the lack of freedom to act on the part of the judges. They addressed the fact that Joan was not given the benefit of counsel, and that she was kept in deplorable conditions. They also questioned the findings of her true feelings especially in regard to her submission to the Church and the Pope (Pernoud 155). Witnesses called to testify praised Joan's virtues and expressed the belief that she had been telling the truth about her visions and voices (Thurston). The proceedings were sincere in their determination to right the wrong that had been done. Blame for the illegal trial and its outcome were placed clearly on the King of France and the Church as a whole for allowing the situation to occur (Thurston). As a result, the first trial of Joan of Arc in which she was convicted of heresy was annulled by the Catholic Church on July 7, 1456 (Pernoud 156). Today Joan of Arc is remembered as a daughter and heroine of France. She is a canonized saint whose feast is celebrated on the day she was killed, May 30 (McBride 82). The injustices she suffered at the hands of the Church are now celebrated as proof of her martyrdom. Works Cited Lucie-Smith, Edward A. Joan of Arc. New York: W.W. Norton Company Inc., 1976 McBride, Alfred. and Praem, O. Saints Are People. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1981 Michelet, Jules. Joan of Arc. Ann Arbor: University Of Michigan Press, 1957 Pernoud, Regine. and Clin, Marie-Veronique. Joan of Arc: Her Story. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998 Reither, Joseph. World History: A Brief Introduction. New York: McGraw Hill, 1942 Thurston, Herbert. "St. Joan of Arc." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Electronic Version. 1996 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Trickster 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Trickster Karl Jung's explanation for the archetypes that surface in cultural and religious literature is that they are the product of what he calls the collective unconsciousness. That thread of consciousness that connects all human beings and cultures around the world. Yet it is not visible to the naked eye, one must look for the signs of it by researching cultures who are long gone and comparing them to each other and our own. Studying it reminds us that all humans are bound together by a common source. The "Trickster" is an archetype that surfaces in many cultural and religious stories. Each trickster is unique to it's own culture, but all tricksters are bound by certain characteristics no matter what religion they show up in. Anthropologists would argue that each trickster should be evaluated in it's own cultural setting, but in order to see their archetypal value they must be and can be evaluated as a group. Jung would say he is a manifestation of our own collective unconscious. Evidence to support such a claim was found by psychologist John Laynard. In his research on schizophrenia he found the qualities of the trickster surfacing in the disorder (p.54 Euba). This suggests that the Trickster is within all of us just sitting on the borderline of conscious and unconscious though. So who is this Trickster? He has many forms both human and animal. His physical form seems to be particular to each religion. The best way to view a trickster is by his personality. "[He is] Admired, Loved, venerated for his merits and virtues, he is represented as thievish, deceitful, parricidal, incestuous, and cannibalistic. The malicious practical joker is deceived by just about anybody; the inventor of ingenious stratagems is presented as an idiot; the master of magical power is sometimes powerless to extricate himself from quandaries." (p.67 Hynes and Doty). The trickster seems to be a comedy of opposites. For every good aspect of his persona there is an equal and opposite aspect. In religious stories his role is very diverse. He is the breaker if taboos. He provides comic relief to a religious myth. And he will pull off elaborate schemes to teach a moral lesson or expose the folly of men. The Trickster shares many attributes with man. In Native American stories he takes the form of the coyote. He is earthbound, like man, but is constantly trying to transcend this fate. He is always attempting to fly (which is the sign of a god to the Native Americans) with disastrous consequences. No matter how hard he tries he cannot escape the human condition. Perhaps these stories are meant to teach Native Americans not to aspire to be anything more than human. The Trickster can be seen as a parody of the Shaman, or the spiritual leader of the tribe. The Shaman looks to the supernatural for his strength while the coyote relies on his own wits. The coyote is always looking for the short cut. Through meditation the Shaman is said to be able to fly. This is a sign of his divinity. The coyote always has an elaborate scheme for flight, like hitching a ride with a buzzard, but the end is always the same.( p.87 Hynes and Doty) Does this character sound familiar? Millions of kids grew up with this very same character, but we knew him as Wile Coyote. The Looney Toons character that was always after the Road Runner. The creators of him were interested in the comedic value they saw in Native American stories and adapted him into a cartoon. Wile would come up with some elaborate schemes, but in the end the result was always the same. The long fall from the cliff to the ground. The Trickster of Greek mythology was a God by the name of Hermes. Once again we see a sort of bridge between the average man and the gods. Hermes is the only God in Greek mythology that is born to a nymph (a mortal) . Also with Hermes we see the recurring theme of flight. Hermes is said to have wings on either side of his head. In Greek culture Hermes is seen as a patron of facilitating roles as oppose to commanding roles (p.48 Hynes and Doty). Icons of Hermes were displayed in front of houses and where roads intersect. He is seen as guiding people in transition. Stories about him also provide comic relief and make him one of the Greeks favorite Gods. In Africa the Trickster we encounter goes by the name of Esu. Esu is a great satirist and is always blamed when life plays a trick on the African people. Esu is also great at exposing mans follies. In one story two farmers who live next to each other decide to make a pact that they will never argue with each other again since they are such good friends. One day Esu put on a hat that is black on one side and white on the other. He then walks between the two farmers. The farmers then proceed to argue about the color of the hat that Esu is wearing. After the have fought for a while Esu returns and shows them that they are both wrong about the hat. He turns the hat inside out and shows them that it is red.(p.54 Euba) Esu, both symbolically and through ridicule shows the farmers their error. Once again we see the trickster (either by example or by tricking humans) telling people not to become too full of themselves or think that they are somehow invulnerable in one way or another. After reading about these three tricksters I wondered if modern culture had any of it's own original tricksters. Then I found one in one of my favorite TV shows; Star Trek the next generation. The character by the name of 'Q' played by John DeLancey is a classic trickster and a good specimen for the archetype. In Star Trek man is a constant voyage to better himself through knowledge, using science and reason as their Gods (like Freud, they are a product of the enlightenment philosophy). Q is as close as one can get to a God in the eyes of the 24th century human. He is a being that exists in a different continuum than man, but in the human continuum Q's powers are nearly omnipotent. Here once again we see the not quite God, not quite human nature of the trickster. Q, as you would expect from a trickster, loves putting the arrogance of humans in it's place. In one episode he does just that. Seeing what he thinks is too much arrogance from the starship Enterprise, Q decides to take the big fish in the little pond (the Enterprise) and put it in a massive pond. Q teleports the ship to the other end of the universe to meet some of the enemies they can look forward to meeting. This is when they meet the Borg. The Borg are much stronger than the humans and just when it seems that the Borg will destroy the Enterprise he teleports them back to their end of the universe. Here we see again how the trickster reminds humans that there are many greater powers than them in the universe. Now that we have seen several examples of the trickster and his ways we have a good way to identify him and understand him. In many ways he is a reflection of the human desire to become more than human. He is also a reminder that humans are just that, humans. The trickster's satire and ridicule serve as both comic relief and reminders of our own obvious limitations as humans. He represents all those parts of our psyche from wishing to fly like a bird to those that wish to rule like a God. It is fascinating to study his attributes with in a collective and within ourselves. Bibliography 1. "Mythical Trickster Figures", William J. Hynes and William G. Doty 1993 The University of Alabama Press ; Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2. "Archetypes, Imprecators, and Victims of Fate", Femi Euba 1989 Greenwood Press ; New York, New York f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Trickster.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Trickster Karl Jung's explanation for the archetypes that surface in cultural and religious literature is that they are the product of what he calls the collective unconsciousness. That thread of consciousness that connects all human beings and cultures around the world. Yet it is not visible to the naked eye, one must look for the signs of it by researching cultures who are long gone and comparing them to each other and our own. Studying it reminds us that all humans are bound together by a common source. The "Trickster" is an archetype that surfaces in many cultural and religious stories. Each trickster is unique to it's own culture, but all tricksters are bound by certain characteristics no matter what religion they show up in. Anthropologists would argue that each trickster should be evaluated in it's own cultural setting, but in order to see their archetypal value they must be and can be evaluated as a group. Jung would say he is a manifestation of our own collective unconscious. Evidence to support such a claim was found by psychologist John Laynard. In his research on schizophrenia he found the qualities of the trickster surfacing in the disorder (p.54 Euba). This suggests that the Trickster is within all of us just sitting on the borderline of conscious and unconscious though. So who is this Trickster? He has many forms both human and animal. His physical form seems to be particular to each religion. The best way to view a trickster is by his personality. "[He is] Admired, Loved, venerated for his merits and virtues, he is represented as thievish, deceitful, parricidal, incestuous, and cannibalistic. The malicious practical joker is deceived by just about anybody; the inventor of ingenious stratagems is presented as an idiot; the master of magical power is sometimes powerless to extricate himself from quandaries." (p.67 Hynes and Doty). The trickster seems to be a comedy of opposites. For every good aspect of his persona there is an equal and opposite aspect. In religious stories his role is very diverse. He is the breaker if taboos. He provides comic relief to a religious myth. And he will pull off elaborate schemes to teach a moral lesson or expose the folly of men. The Trickster shares many attributes with man. In Native American stories he takes the form of the coyote. He is earthbound, like man, but is constantly trying to transcend this fate. He is always attempting to fly (which is the sign of a god to the Native Americans) with disastrous consequences. No matter how hard he tries he cannot escape the human condition. Perhaps these stories are meant to teach Native Americans not to aspire to be anything more than human. The Trickster can be seen as a parody of the Shaman, or the spiritual leader of the tribe. The Shaman looks to the supernatural for his strength while the coyote relies on his own wits. The coyote is always looking for the short cut. Through meditation the Shaman is said to be able to fly. This is a sign of his divinity. The coyote always has an elaborate scheme for flight, like hitching a ride with a buzzard, but the end is always the same.( p.87 Hynes and Doty) Does this character sound familiar? Millions of kids grew up with this very same character, but we knew him as Wile Coyote. The Looney Toons character that was always after the Road Runner. The creators of him were interested in the comedic value they saw in Native American stories and adapted him into a cartoon. Wile would come up with some elaborate schemes, but in the end the result was always the same. The long fall from the cliff to the ground. The Trickster of Greek mythology was a God by the name of Hermes. Once again we see a sort of bridge between the average man and the gods. Hermes is the only God in Greek mythology that is born to a nymph (a mortal) . Also with Hermes we see the recurring theme of flight. Hermes is said to have wings on either side of his head. In Greek culture Hermes is seen as a patron of facilitating roles as oppose to commanding roles (p.48 Hynes and Doty). Icons of Hermes were displayed in front of houses and where roads intersect. He is seen as guiding people in transition. Stories about him also provide comic relief and make him one of the Greeks favorite Gods. In Africa the Trickster we encounter goes by the name of Esu. Esu is a great satirist and is always blamed when life plays a trick on the African people. Esu is also great at exposing mans follies. In one story two farmers who live next to each other decide to make a pact that they will never argue with each other again since they are such good friends. One day Esu put on a hat that is black on one side and white on the other. He then walks between the two farmers. The farmers then proceed to argue about the color of the hat that Esu is wearing. After the have fought for a while Esu returns and shows them that they are both wrong about the hat. He turns the hat inside out and shows them that it is red.(p.54 Euba) Esu, both symbolically and through ridicule shows the farmers their error. Once again we see the trickster (either by example or by tricking humans) telling people not to become too full of themselves or think that they are somehow invulnerable in one way or another. After reading about these three tricksters I wondered if modern culture had any of it's own original tricksters. Then I found one in one of my favorite TV shows; Star Trek the next generation. The character by the name of 'Q' played by John DeLancey is a classic trickster and a good specimen for the archetype. In Star Trek man is a constant voyage to better himself through knowledge, using science and reason as their Gods (like Freud, they are a product of the enlightenment philosophy). Q is as close as one can get to a God in the eyes of the 24th century human. He is a being that exists in a different continuum than man, but in the human continuum Q's powers are nearly omnipotent. Here once again we see the not quite God, not quite human nature of the trickster. Q, as you would expect from a trickster, loves putting the arrogance of humans in it's place. In one episode he does just that. Seeing what he thinks is too much arrogance from the starship Enterprise, Q decides to take the big fish in the little pond (the Enterprise) and put it in a massive pond. Q teleports the ship to the other end of the universe to meet some of the enemies they can look forward to meeting. This is when they meet the Borg. The Borg are much stronger than the humans and just when it seems that the Borg will destroy the Enterprise he teleports them back to their end of the universe. Here we see again how the trickster reminds humans that there are many greater powers than them in the universe. Now that we have seen several examples of the trickster and his ways we have a good way to identify him and understand him. In many ways he is a reflection of the human desire to become more than human. He is also a reminder that humans are just that, humans. The trickster's satire and ridicule serve as both comic relief and reminders of our own obvious limitations as humans. He represents all those parts of our psyche from wishing to fly like a bird to those that wish to rule like a God. It is fascinating to study his attributes with in a collective and within ourselves. Bibliography 1. "Mythical Trickster Figures", William J. Hynes and William G. Doty (c) 1993 The University of Alabama Press ; Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2. "Archetypes, Imprecators, and Victims of Fate", Femi Euba (c) 1989 Greenwood Press ; New York, New York f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Wiccan Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Wiccan Religion The word "Witchcraft" dates back many hundred of years and means literally "The craft of the wise". This is because the Witches of the old were the wise ones of their village, knowledgeable in the art of healing, legal matters and spiritual fulfillment. A Witch had to not only be a religious leader, but also the doctor, lawyer, and psychologist of the village. Today, people have reclaimed this word in their pursuit of Wiccan religion. A With is an initiate of Wicca, one who has earned the right to call themselves Priest, or Priestess, through study, self evaluation, and spiritual living. Wicca itself, is an attempt to re-create European (mostly) Shamansistic Nature Religion, adapting it to fit our modern lives. Witches are worshippers of the Earth and it^?s many cycles. We believe that deity is found not only outside to our realm, or plane of existence, but that is found within every living thing and all that support it. Therefore, we attempt to live in harmony with the Earth and each of it's creatures. Wiccan tend to involve themselves with ecological pursuits. Wicca observe the holidays of Pagan Europe; Eight festivals spaced evenly about the wheel of the year, at the quarters (equinox^?s and solstices) and the cross-quarters (midpoints between the equinox^?s and solstices). They are called: Yule (Dec 21) Tmbolc (Feb2), Lady Day (March 21), Beltaine (May 1), Midsummer (June 21), Lugnassed (Aug 1), Mabon (Sept 21), and Samhain (Oct 31). Actual dates vary slightly from year to year, as they are based upon actual celestial events. Many Wiccans also celebrate the Full Moon, of which we have 13 per year. The basis for Wiccans moral conduct is found in the statement "An Ye Harm None, Do What Thou Wilt." This is a mock archaic phrase, suggesting that any behavior that harms none, is morally acceptable. Harm is defined by anything that takes away, or works against an individual^?s free will. It is, of course, impossible to exist, or even cease to exist, without causing harm, so Wiccans look to fulfill this as closely as possible. A Wiccan attempts to make choices based on what will cause the least harm, and promote the greatest overall positive effect. Wicca teaches self discipline, personal responsibility kinship ith our plant and its creatures, open-mindedness and the virtues of diversity. Wiccans do not proselytize, as we believe that each must find the path that is right for them, and that all religions are different paths to the same truths. We draw our beliefs and practices from our own experiences, and that of others, understanding that age does not makes a religion any more valid, not does political support, numbers of followers or material holdings of its temple. Religion is a very personal thing, one which can only be validated by the experience of the individual. Wicca provides a link for those who follow similar paths to share their experiences. Word Count: 469 f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The World.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The World's Longest War Where We Are Journals practice a laudable self-censorship of criticism of religions. The most vicious devil worship is mentioned with little comment and then only in crime reporting of the atrocities committed. This is a good thing. Religious hatreds are so easily inflamed, and there is so much history of religious persecution, that we are much better off with this self restraint. Furthermore the separation of church and state is spelled out in our constitution and is practiced in most countries of the world, even in the former USSR and China. In democracies it is legal for a political party to yearn for religious domination, but in all democratic countries such parties are very small and never reach the stage of challenging their constitutions. The name "Christian Democratic Party," common in Europe, refers to moral roots, not to theocratic ambitions. The consequence of this separation of church and state is that political contention is not poisoned by religious hatred. There is one exception, Islam, a theocracy which has savaged the world for over a thousand years. Its religious doctrine is that church and state are one and that canon law and civil law are one. It periodically believes that unbelievers must be converted or conquered and that hating infidels is a virtue and killing an infidel is a ticket to heaven. In many of the faithful this religious fanaticism has merged with the secular fanaticism of Marxism-Leninism to make a witch's brew of hate and savagery against Christendom and capitalism. ('America is the Great Satan.') The demise of Marxism-Leninism in Europe does not extend to the Middle East. Russian and Chinese weapons continue to be sold for Arab oil money. During centuries of warfare the western countries have become democracies. Even Eastern Europe is avalanching into democracy. But, except for present day Turkey and some Far Eastern countries which practice a mild form of Islam, the Moslem world is run by military dictators, theocratic oligarchies, or a combination of both. A short list of these contemporary dictators (most entitled "President" or "King") includes: Ghadaffi of Libya, Assad of Syria, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, the Mullahs of Iran, Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Hussein of Jordan, and the competing warlords in Lebanon and the PLO. This theocracy has conquered or converted much of the civilized world. It's conquests have been impeded more by internal factional wars, murders, and schisms than by resistance of its victims. It is now on the rising slope of its next onslaught. It can not yet attack the superpowers in open warfare. Israel is a salient of the West in the Middle East so open warfare has been repeatedly waged against it, so far unsuccessfully. Instead Islam fights on six fronts and prepares for more. The first front is terrorism. Moslems blow up airplanes and buildings. The car bomb is a favorite weapon. When the hand carried American Stingers from Afghanistan, and Russian SAM 7s from all over, are deployed near airports within the next few years, air travel will be utterly disrupted. Moslems hijacked airplanes until we installed, and continue to operate, expensive security equipment at airports. They kidnap hostages. They murder with guns and with bombs. Since killing infidels is entree to heaven, they are today's suicide Kamikazes. The second front is armament. Conventional warfare capability in guns, tanks, rockets, and airplanes from the former USSR and China, in large armies of men, now exists and is growing. Mustard gas and nerve gas are made in their own factories with equipment bought from European and American companies. (Lenin said 'The capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them with.') The third front is the development of nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them. (Kamikaze airplanes will do as well, as will smuggling.) Large, long range missiles are bought from China to deliver present poison gas, germs, and the future "Islamic bomb. "What will any American or European government do when threatened with a destroyed city? Cave in to the blackmailers, of course. The fourth front is the oil weapon, invented in 1973, and used on us ever since by OPEC. It drains the world economy, it finances terrorism, armament acquisition, and nuclear bomb development, and it is a continuing blackmail of western diplomacy under threat of restoring the panic of 1973-74. The fifth front is diplomacy, incremental conquest by the "Peace Process." It is based on the American internal political benefits of appearing as peace maker. We coerce Israel to retreat in stages and reward the Moslem countries with subsidies and debt cancellations to appear on the White House lawn and sign papers. The consequences will appear only after the American incumbents are safely out of office. The sixth front is immigration, legal and otherwise, into most of the Western democracies. How We Got Here Please examine this brief resume of the continuing war and then let us consider our options. The war started with the explosion of Mohammed's armies of conquest out of Arabia in 632 AD. In the west the theocracy, carried by its original Arab converts, spread across North Africa, which had been Christian, through Spain, and up into Europe as far as Tours in France. There it was stopped in battle by Charles Martel in 732. Ferdinand and Isabella drove it back down through Spain to North Africa in 1492, and then financed Columbus' search for a trade route to the East Indies which did not pass through Islamic control. In the Middle East Islam conquered all the land from Arabia to the Mediterranean by 635, it conquered and converted Iran from Zoroastrianism by 641, and it gradually conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire until it captured and sacked Constantinople itself in 1453. Christian slavery became an institution until the 19th century. Egyptian Mamelukes and Turkish Janissaries were slave armies of Christian children drafted and raised as Moslems. The black slave trade in the interior of Africa was always an Arab monopoly; black slavery in Arabia ended only after World War II. (American blacks have the dilemma of turning to Islam for salvation and knowing that Islam enslaved their ancestors for transportation to the Americas. Cognitive dissonance.) In the north the Turks conquered the Balkans and twice reached Vienna, first in 1529 and again in 1683 when it was turned back by King Sobieski of Poland and Duke Charles of Lorraine who literally galloped to the rescue with their armies. (The Turks left bags of coffee beans in their abandoned camp, whence our current beverage.) Forced conversion by the Turks left behind the tragic Bosnian Moslems now suffering a counterattack by the Eastern Orthodox Christian Serbs. During most of the Islamic conquests there has been both a religious and an ethnic difference between conqueror and conquered. In Bosnia there is no ethnic difference, the war is one of religious hatred only. In the east Islam reached the Indus river in India in 674 and gradually conquered northern India until the British drove them back and took India for themselves in the 18th century. North India was permanently converted, however, and the result was Pakistan and Bangladesh. Missionary conversion continued in the British and Dutch empires, which were tolerant of religions but not of hostile governments, with the result that a more benign form of the religion covers much of the Far East. The Moslem Conquest was not entirely one sided. The Crusades between 1096 and 1291 recaptured Jerusalem for brief periods, the longest being from 1099 to 1187. Between 1219 and 1258 the Mongol horde invaded and destroyed most of Arabic Islam before returning to Asia. They destroyed the civilized culture which had developed there and returned the area to the third world, where it remains. In 1803 President Thomas Jefferson sent Stephen Decatur with the USS Constitution to suppress the Moslem Barbary pirates of North Africa. He succeeded, although we were not exactly a superpower at the time. In the 19th century Britain incorporated Egypt into it's empire and in 1917 the British army under Allenby captured the Middle East from Turkey. England and France, in order to promote alliances in a desperate war not yet won, created a new set of Arab countries over the area, promising a good deal of the same land to different parties. The consequences are being fought out ever since. The islands of the Mediterranean, including Crete, Sicily, and Rhodes have been bloody battlegrounds for centuries, passing back and forth between Christendom and Islam. To this day, Cyprus is divided between Turkish troops and Greek troops. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Arabia, Egypt, the Balkan countries, and portions of the USSR have had alternating wars and peace treaties with each other, beyond counting, for centuries, punctuated with massacres of Armenians, Kurds, Jews, Greeks, etc. If there is any lesson to be learned from this bloody history it is the utter futility of peace treaties, "peace processes," and "international guarantees" in the presence of religious and ethnic hatred. Islam continues its attacks on the two eastern enclaves of the Judeo-Christian world, Israel and Lebanon. Israel defeated its invaders in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 but Christian Lebanon has been largely overrun by the army of Syria and by the terrorists of the PLO and the Iran backed Hezbollah. Preparations for the next onslaught against Israel are in high gear today in Syria and in Iraq; terrorist attacks continue by the PLO supported financially by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The principal limiter of Moslem conquest has always been the internal wars, murders, and schisms among Moslem sects and countries: Shi'ites vs. Sunnis, Iraq vs. Iran, etc. Moslems hate other Moslems as much as they hate Christians and Jews. (In Christianity, hatred is a sin; in Islam, hatred is a virtue.) Isn't it time to recognize history and to establish a policy other than impotent bluster at the latest murders? With the collapse of totalitarian communism in Eastern Europe, it is a current half joke to ask who the next enemy is. In the military, it is the serious question of what do they prepare for, next. The next enemy is the oldest enemy. It was wildly successful for 900 years and it conquered much of Europe; then it was stopped and became dormant for a few hundred years; and now it has awakened with a howl of millions of fanatics backed by billions of petro-dollars. It is totalitarian Islam and its holy war against unbelievers. It is the ultimate theocracy. There is no difference between civil and religious law. Where mullahs do not rule directly, as in Iran, military dictators rule, as in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. "Moderate" Islamic countries have hereditary kings or sheiks; they do their fighting with petro- dollar contributions to the overtly violent countries and the PLO. There is not a single democracy in the Islamic Middle East. The war is now at the guerrilla level: terrorist attacks on commercial aircraft, military ground installations, and random car bombing of civilian targets. The time bomb and the suicide bomb are the principal weapons at the moment. Meanwhile they are acquiring shoulder fired missiles to attack passenger airplanes, they manufacture poison gas, and disease germs, they are developing the "Islamic bomb" in Iraq and Pakistan, and they buy and develop long range missiles for their present poison gas and future nuclear warheads. Enormous armies with thousands of tanks and aircraft have been built and are still building, paid for by petro-dollars. These may be lunatics in our eyes, but there are too many of them to be called a lunatic fringe. When do we act and what should we do? How We Can Save Ourselves I suggest the following five point plan: 1. Recognize that Lebanon and Israel are the fighting fronts and reinforce them. Arm and support the Lebanese Christians. Stop the phony "peace process" pressure on Israel to give land to Islam "for peace." (There has been peace since 1973 when Israel defeated the last Arab attempt at genocide. It was created by the Israeli army and is maintained by fear of the Israeli army.) Establish an American naval base in Haifa and air force and marine corps bases elsewhere in Israel. Sign mutual defense treaties with Israel and a Christian government in Lebanon. 2. Destroy the poison gas, germs, and atom bomb factories and warehouses in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Cruise missiles will do the job nicely. Warn them that if they release any poison gas or germs their cities will follow. 3. Establish a permanent military base on the Persian Gulf in conquered Iraq to guard and control the oil supply. (Saudi Arabia will revoke permission as soon as the Iraq threat ends. Ignore them.) 4. Explain to the Islamic governments that giving either money or shelter to terrorists will have physical consequences much more severe than enduring the terrorists' displeasure. 5. Quarantine and blockade Iran. Eliminating their oil from the world market will have only a small effect on the world price and none on the world supply. Poverty will neutralize their poison without casualties. 6. Recognize that the directness of these measures is offensive to diplomats, but failure to execute these measures will bring death and tyranny to populations. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\The Worlds Longest War.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The World's Longest War Where We Are Journals practice a laudable self-censorship of criticism of religions. The most vicious devil worship is mentioned with little comment and then only in crime reporting of the atrocities committed. This is a good thing. Religious hatreds are so easily inflamed, and there is so much history of religious persecution, that we are much better off with this self restraint. Furthermore the separation of church and state is spelled out in our constitution and is practiced in most countries of the world, even in the former USSR and China. In democracies it is legal for a political party to yearn for religious domination, but in all democratic countries such parties are very small and never reach the stage of challenging their constitutions. The name "Christian Democratic Party," common in Europe, refers to moral roots, not to theocratic ambitions. The consequence of this separation of church and state is that political contention is not poisoned by religious hatred. There is one exception, Islam, a theocracy which has savaged the world for over a thousand years. Its religious doctrine is that church and state are one and that canon law and civil law are one. It periodically believes that unbelievers must be converted or conquered and that hating infidels is a virtue and killing an infidel is a ticket to heaven. In many of the faithful this religious fanaticism has merged with the secular fanaticism of Marxism-Leninism to make a witch's brew of hate and savagery against Christendom and capitalism. ('America is the Great Satan.') The demise of Marxism-Leninism in Europe does not extend to the Middle East. Russian and Chinese weapons continue to be sold for Arab oil money. During centuries of warfare the western countries have become democracies. Even Eastern Europe is avalanching into democracy. But, except for present day Turkey and some Far Eastern countries which practice a mild form of Islam, the Moslem world is run by military dictators, theocratic oligarchies, or a combination of both. A short list of these contemporary dictators (most entitled "President" or "King") includes: Ghadaffi of Libya, Assad of Syria, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, the Mullahs of Iran, Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Hussein of Jordan, and the competing warlords in Lebanon and the PLO. This theocracy has conquered or converted much of the civilized world. It's conquests have been impeded more by internal factional wars, murders, and schisms than by resistance of its victims. It is now on the rising slope of its next onslaught. It can not yet attack the superpowers in open warfare. Israel is a salient of the West in the Middle East so open warfare has been repeatedly waged against it, so far unsuccessfully. Instead Islam fights on six fronts and prepares for more. The first front is terrorism. Moslems blow up airplanes and buildings. The car bomb is a favorite weapon. When the hand carried American Stingers from Afghanistan, and Russian SAM 7s from all over, are deployed near airports within the next few years, air travel will be utterly disrupted. Moslems hijacked airplanes until we installed, and continue to operate, expensive security equipment at airports. They kidnap hostages. They murder with guns and with bombs. Since killing infidels is entree to heaven, they are today's suicide Kamikazes. The second front is armament. Conventional warfare capability in guns, tanks, rockets, and airplanes from the former USSR and China, in large armies of men, now exists and is growing. Mustard gas and nerve gas are made in their own factories with equipment bought from European and American companies. (Lenin said 'The capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them with.') The third front is the development of nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them. (Kamikaze airplanes will do as well, as will smuggling.) Large, long range missiles are bought from China to deliver present poison gas, germs, and the future "Islamic bomb. "What will any American or European government do when threatened with a destroyed city? Cave in to the blackmailers, of course. The fourth front is the oil weapon, invented in 1973, and used on us ever since by OPEC. It drains the world economy, it finances terrorism, armament acquisition, and nuclear bomb development, and it is a continuing blackmail of western diplomacy under threat of restoring the panic of 1973-74. The fifth front is diplomacy, incremental conquest by the "Peace Process." It is based on the American internal political benefits of appearing as peace maker. We coerce Israel to retreat in stages and reward the Moslem countries with subsidies and debt cancellations to appear on the White House lawn and sign papers. The consequences will appear only after the American incumbents are safely out of office. The sixth front is immigration, legal and otherwise, into most of the Western democracies. How We Got Here Please examine this brief resume of the continuing war and then let us consider our options. The war started with the explosion of Mohammed's armies of conquest out of Arabia in 632 AD. In the west the theocracy, carried by its original Arab converts, spread across North Africa, which had been Christian, through Spain, and up into Europe as far as Tours in France. There it was stopped in battle by Charles Martel in 732. Ferdinand and Isabella drove it back down through Spain to North Africa in 1492, and then financed Columbus' search for a trade route to the East Indies which did not pass through Islamic control. In the Middle East Islam conquered all the land from Arabia to the Mediterranean by 635, it conquered and converted Iran from Zoroastrianism by 641, and it gradually conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire until it captured and sacked Constantinople itself in 1453. Christian slavery became an institution until the 19th century. Egyptian Mamelukes and Turkish Janissaries were slave armies of Christian children drafted and raised as Moslems. The black slave trade in the interior of Africa was always an Arab monopoly; black slavery in Arabia ended only after World War II. (American blacks have the dilemma of turning to Islam for salvation and knowing that Islam enslaved their ancestors for transportation to the Americas. Cognitive dissonance.) In the north the Turks conquered the Balkans and twice reached Vienna, first in 1529 and again in 1683 when it was turned back by King Sobieski of Poland and Duke Charles of Lorraine who literally galloped to the rescue with their armies. (The Turks left bags of coffee beans in their abandoned camp, whence our current beverage.) Forced conversion by the Turks left behind the tragic Bosnian Moslems now suffering a counterattack by the Eastern Orthodox Christian Serbs. During most of the Islamic conquests there has been both a religious and an ethnic difference between conqueror and conquered. In Bosnia there is no ethnic difference, the war is one of religious hatred only. In the east Islam reached the Indus river in India in 674 and gradually conquered northern India until the British drove them back and took India for themselves in the 18th century. North India was permanently converted, however, and the result was Pakistan and Bangladesh. Missionary conversion continued in the British and Dutch empires, which were tolerant of religions but not of hostile governments, with the result that a more benign form of the religion covers much of the Far East. The Moslem Conquest was not entirely one sided. The Crusades between 1096 and 1291 recaptured Jerusalem for brief periods, the longest being from 1099 to 1187. Between 1219 and 1258 the Mongol horde invaded and destroyed most of Arabic Islam before returning to Asia. They destroyed the civilized culture which had developed there and returned the area to the third world, where it remains. In 1803 President Thomas Jefferson sent Stephen Decatur with the USS Constitution to suppress the Moslem Barbary pirates of North Africa. He succeeded, although we were not exactly a superpower at the time. In the 19th century Britain incorporated Egypt into it's empire and in 1917 the British army under Allenby captured the Middle East from Turkey. England and France, in order to promote alliances in a desperate war not yet won, created a new set of Arab countries over the area, promising a good deal of the same land to different parties. The consequences are being fought out ever since. The islands of the Mediterranean, including Crete, Sicily, and Rhodes have been bloody battlegrounds for centuries, passing back and forth between Christendom and Islam. To this day, Cyprus is divided between Turkish troops and Greek troops. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Arabia, Egypt, the Balkan countries, and portions of the USSR have had alternating wars and peace treaties with each other, beyond counting, for centuries, punctuated with massacres of Armenians, Kurds, Jews, Greeks, etc. If there is any lesson to be learned from this bloody history it is the utter futility of peace treaties, "peace processes," and "international guarantees" in the presence of religious and ethnic hatred. Islam continues its attacks on the two eastern enclaves of the Judeo-Christian world, Israel and Lebanon. Israel defeated its invaders in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 but Christian Lebanon has been largely overrun by the army of Syria and by the terrorists of the PLO and the Iran backed Hezbollah. Preparations for the next onslaught against Israel are in high gear today in Syria and in Iraq; terrorist attacks continue by the PLO supported financially by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The principal limiter of Moslem conquest has always been the internal wars, murders, and schisms among Moslem sects and countries: Shi'ites vs. Sunnis, Iraq vs. Iran, etc. Moslems hate other Moslems as much as they hate Christians and Jews. (In Christianity, hatred is a sin; in Islam, hatred is a virtue.) Isn't it time to recognize history and to establish a policy other than impotent bluster at the latest murders? With the collapse of totalitarian communism in Eastern Europe, it is a current half joke to ask who the next enemy is. In the military, it is the serious question of what do they prepare for, next. The next enemy is the oldest enemy. It was wildly successful for 900 years and it conquered much of Europe; then it was stopped and became dormant for a few hundred years; and now it has awakened with a howl of millions of fanatics backed by billions of petro-dollars. It is totalitarian Islam and its holy war against unbelievers. It is the ultimate theocracy. There is no difference between civil and religious law. Where mullahs do not rule directly, as in Iran, military dictators rule, as in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. "Moderate" Islamic countries have hereditary kings or sheiks; they do their fighting with petro-dollar contributions to the overtly violent countries and the PLO. There is not a single democracy in the Islamic Middle East. The war is now at the guerrilla level: terrorist attacks on commercial aircraft, military ground installations, and random car bombing of civilian targets. The time bomb and the suicide bomb are the principal weapons at the moment. Meanwhile they are acquiring shoulder fired missiles to attack passenger airplanes, they manufacture poison gas, and disease germs, they are developing the "Islamic bomb" in Iraq and Pakistan, and they buy and develop long range missiles for their present poison gas and future nuclear warheads. Enormous armies with thousands of tanks and aircraft have been built and are still building, paid for by petro-dollars. These may be lunatics in our eyes, but there are too many of them to be called a lunatic fringe. When do we act and what should we do? How We Can Save Ourselves I suggest the following five point plan: 1. Recognize that Lebanon and Israel are the fighting fronts and reinforce them. Arm and support the Lebanese Christians. Stop the phony "peace process" pressure on Israel to give land to Islam "for peace." (There has been peace since 1973 when Israel defeated the last Arab attempt at genocide. It was created by the Israeli army and is maintained by fear of the Israeli army.) Establish an American naval base in Haifa and air force and marine corps bases elsewhere in Israel. Sign mutual defense treaties with Israel and a Christian government in Lebanon. 2. Destroy the poison gas, germs, and atom bomb factories and warehouses in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Cruise missiles will do the job nicely. Warn them that if they release any poison gas or germs their cities will follow. 3. Establish a permanent military base on the Persian Gulf in conquered Iraq to guard and control the oil supply. (Saudi Arabia will revoke permission as soon as the Iraq threat ends. Ignore them.) 4. Explain to the Islamic governments that giving either money or shelter to terrorists will have physical consequences much more severe than enduring the terrorists' displeasure. 5. Quarantine and blockade Iran. Eliminating their oil from the world market will have only a small effect on the world price and none on the world supply. Poverty will neutralize their poison without casualties. 6. Recognize that the directness of these measures is offensive to diplomats, but failure to execute these measures will bring death and tyranny to populations. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Theravadan Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Theravadan Buddhism Theravadan Buddhism Throughout history there have been numerous religions and theologies that men and women have entrusted their lives and ways of living to. One of the most intriguing is that of Buddhism. The great Buddha referred to his way as the middle way, and he, as the "Enlightened One" began the teachings of the religion with his first five Ascetics who he shows his middle way. This great occasion is the start to what will be known as Theravadan Buddhism. Although Theravadan Buddhism would later be seen as the "small vehicle," it provides the first idea of the doctrine anatman or having no-self that shapes the ideas of every Buddhist today. Theravadan Buddhism which means "The teaching of the elders," is the teaching of the Buddha in its true traditional form. After attaining enlightenment under the Bohdi tree, the Buddha returns to five ascetic monks he had been associated with previously. He taught them the essential parts of Buddhism which include the vital Four Noble Truths. These teachings were taught by monks, and they give the fundamental truths on which the religion was founded. These are the Four Noble Truths: (1) all life is inevitably filled with sorrow; (2) sorrow is directly due to craving; (3) sorrow can only be stopped by stopping the craving; and (4) this can be done only by disciplined and moral conduct with meditation led by the Buddhist monk. These truths show that the Buddhists saw all things as transient, and being transient there is no eternal Self or soul, hence anatman or no true self. While the Theravadan Buddhist practiced the idea of anatman, there were other movements that practiced the idea of atman or true self. The Upanishadic movement, which started about 300 years before the Theravadan practice, revolves around a story of a boy who Yama tells there is a self in everyone. This true self or atman is covered up by the illusion of an individual. As this way of thinking was being taught, people began to uprise and question if religion is worth it. This leads to many ascetic movements in which people leave their homes to be scavengers. Because this could be done by any it began to get very popular. The many ascetic movements gave rise to many different individual movements, but the main one besides Buddhism was Jainism. Jainism was a movement that said in every thing there is a Jiva or soul which resembles the atman. Karma is the stuff or gunk that covers up the Jivas and makes things appear to be different. Even though a monk was the only one who could totally free Jivas, lay people could do good deeds and suffer willingly to dissipate karma from their atman. In this movement the final step for a monk to reach Nirvana was the starving to death of one's self. In a complete contrast to the teachings of the Jainic movement the Theravadan Buddhists saw there being no atman at all. Buddhists accepted the teaching of the doctrine of karma which causes all who have it to be reborn into a state of life according to the built up karma. The only way to stop this rebirth is to achieve Nirvana. The state of non-existence or annihilation. They also felt that when passing from one existence to another no permanent entity or atman transmigrated from body to body. The reason for there being no self is because self can not be found in the five basic aggregates or Skandhas. These being matter, feeling, perception, constructing activities, and consciousness were all made up of dharma or small atomic units. This seems to be contradictory because if there is no self then these dharma shouldn't be present because they would in a sense create a self, even if they just came in and left every second. The Theravadan Buddhists were very particular in what they practiced and what they worshipped. They were never found praising idols or human images, rather they took to praising the Bodhi trees, footprints, and stupas or burial mounds. Their worship centered around the continuous life and rebirth into one of the five levels of society. These were heavenly devas, humans, animals and plants, praeta, and hell beings. All of ones karma that he or she accumulates in their life determines the level they are reborn into. This is all tied into the seeing of existence as Dukka and the goal is to get out of Dukka into Nirvana. In almost a total contrast to the Theravadan way of thinking is the much earlier teaching of the Vedic religion of the Aryan people. According to Vedic thought, Brahman or the atman is a passenger of a chariot. The chariot is the body and the driver of the chariot is the mind which the atman is trying to escape from. In their religion there are numerous gods like Indra the god of war and Agni the god of fire. There are eventually four classes structured from the body of Purusa, these are Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. While people liked the idea of having gods watching over them, the fact that the Brahman class began to gain a monopoly on maintaining cosmic order and power made many uneasy. People begin to see the earth as a trap, and they doubt the greatness of Heaven and the oneness, unchanging unity in the world. From this is a rise to the Upanishads. These are speculative elaborations of the Vedas. While each of these movements has a very distinct meaning to it and path to follow, I feel that all of these ways of life are flawed. In most of the religions only the higher classes can reach the supreme way of life. The regular people are stuck, and they can only help the monks or Brahmans to attain their goal. This seems very unfair even if they are producing good karma. In the Vedic religion the Shudras don't even have the option of studying the holy text. They have no chance of gaining entrance to another level of being until their next life. Theravadan belief of the being no true self is all together mind boggling. If there was no self then how can karma pass from one existence to another. It can't. Each period in time has new ways of thinking and viewing the world. India has been a place of many movements in the field of religion. These early ideas and practices of Theravadan monks can be seen as one of the many religious ideas of the past, that has in some places lasted to the present day. As is the case with all religion, it will be subject to scrutiny, questioning, and slander. While many may not see the Theravadan way of anatman as being right or even sane, it is their way of life and they should be respected for it. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Time.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Time's Oldest Debate Raffikki Period 2 According to recent studies, planet earth formed approximately four and a half billion years ago. Since then, the earth has undergone many evolutionary changes. Earth began as a swirling gas which condensed to create an immense land mass. The ancient earth was basically the same as today's earth except for the environment. The atmosphere of the ancient earth was quite different, containing more carbon and nitrogen gases than oxygen. The former atmosphere is where much of present day organic molecules such as proteins, lipids, and enzymes were created in abundance. By chance or simply because of the laws of nature, those life producing compounds bonded together to create the oldest known life form on earth -- a bacterium. Other life forms evolved from the bacterium through natural selection. These microscopic organisms formed symbiotic relationships with each other and produced larger, multicellular organisms, such as man. It may seem like a gigantic leap, bacterium to man, but given billions of years, it is certainly possible. It is true that The Bible holds certain truths which would imply a reliable source of information; however, some parts of The Bible are not true at all. According to science, life evolved in the following order: bacterium to fish, fish to various land animals, and animals to man. Coincidentally or divinely, The Bible states that God said, "Let the waters teem with fish and other life...let the earth bring forth every kind of animal...Let us make man" (Genesis 1:20-26). The Bible accurately depicts the order in which life was established. But how could the primitive people who wrote The Bible know the order of which life was created without science to aid them? This evidence would stand to prove that The Bible truly is the word of God Himself. However, evolutionists would prefer to believe that the writer of The Bible was an incredible guesser. That is because many parts of The Bible seem to be written based on conjectures of what people of the time thought was correct. An example of this would be from Genesis, "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night" (Genesis 1:16). Obviously the greater light is the sun and the lesser light is the moon; however, the moon is not a light, it is a planet that reflects light. The people who wrote The Bible did not know that the moon was a planet; nor did they know that other planets even existed. So, they described the moon as a source of light just as the sun is a source of light. The writers of The Bible made a good guess; nevertheless, they were wrong. This is not to say that the entire Bible is completely inaccurate, but explanations concerning the creation are a little vague. Such an unclear source should not be held accountable to explain the origin of mankind. Other proof that the biblical account of creation is wrong lies within the process of carbon and uranium dating, and fossil records. Carbon dating is the process of determining age by counting the amount of radioactive carbon in a fossil or corpse. When a creature is living, it has a certain ratio of radioactive carbon in it. That radioactive material decays at a fixed rate when the creature dies. Scientists know the fixed rate and can therefore determine how old a carcass is by counting how much radioactive material remains inside the carcass. Carbon dating is useful for dating remains less than fifty thousand years old. Using carbon dating, scientists have discovered fossils of animals that lived five times as long ago as creationists say is possible. Uranium dating is similar to carbon dating except that it is used for dating things much older than fifty thousand years, such as the earth. Using uranium dating, scientists have accurately calculated the age of the earth to be four and a half billion years old and the age of the earliest living creature to be three and a half billion years old (Campbell 505). Carbon and uranium dating furnish indisputable evidence that the biblical account of creation is wrong and evolution has occurred. The most conclusive proof that man has evolved from lower life forms lies within the physical characteristics of man and his relation to other creatures. One physical example that man evolved is the various stages of a developing embryo. For example, while a human is still in early embryonic stages, it has gill slits. While the gill slits never fully mature, they serve as evidence that man's ancestors at one time had gills. During another period of embryonic development, a human has a tail. Sometimes, a human is actually born with a tail. The tail is evidence of a trait previously owned by an ancestor, but was discarded thousands of years ago. This is not to say that tails and other physical features are simply cast off, but after years of disuse, a feature will grow smaller and eventually disappear. This is also evident in the growth of certain animals as well. At certain stages of development, the embryos of various mammals, birds, fish, and humans are indistinguishable. Further evidence suggesting evolution is vestigial organs (organs that are of little or no use to the organism). For example, whales possess a pelvic bone which would serve a purpose for functioning legs, and yet they have no legs. Millions of years ago sea creatures came onto land, acquired legs, then returned to the sea where legs were not needed. The pelvic bone is vestigial in whales because it no longer serves a purpose. Another more familiar vestigial organ is the human appendix. It serves absolutely no purpose and, for some humans, is even removed. Embryonic proof, and vestigial organs are sufficient evidence that man has evolved from lower organisms. While creationists may believe evolution is wrong in defense of their belief in God, evolutionists have extensive evidence to strengthen their claim that man is the result of evolution. Evolutionists say that man is a highly evolved ape-like creature. There is scientific evidence to prove that claim. There is also proof that evolution is occurring today. Modern apes are a perfect example: they portray almost identical physical characteristics to that of man, use tools, and are learning to speak using sign language. Apes are not only similar to man physically and intellectually, but genetically as well. Human and ape DNA are ninety-nine percent identical. In fact, genetically, humans are more closely related to the ape than the ape is to the orangutan. Regardless of this scientific evidence, creationists will continue to believe that mankind was created by God. Of course, the creationist's view only holds if there is belief that The Bible is the true word of God. If mankind had no belief in The Bible's account of creation, the Book would remain a work of mythology. The Bible requires no ordinary belief, however, but a gigantic leap of faith because there is absolutely no evidence God created mankind. The only evidence of creation is in the opinions of millions of creationists. But if opinion or belief were to be the only basis for determining human origin, couldn't mankind believe in literally anything and claim it for fact? Humans could believe the mythical god, Zeus, created mankind! It's a sad truth, but creationism is a relic in a world where the concept of evolution logically explains the origin of mankind. Works Cited Campbell, Neil A. Biology Third Edition. California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1993. The Living Bible: Paraphrased. 1971 ed. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971. Wertheim, Margaret. "Science and Religion: Blurring the Boundaries." Omni Publications International, Ltd. October 1994: 36. Religion: SIRS, Vol. 4. 77. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Times Oldest Debate.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Raffikki Period 2 Time's Oldest Debate According to recent studies, planet earth formed approximately four and a half billion years ago. Since then, the earth has undergone many evolutionary changes. Earth began as a swirling gas which condensed to create an immense land mass. The ancient earth was basically the same as today's earth except for the environment. The atmosphere of the ancient earth was quite different, containing more carbon and nitrogen gases than oxygen. The former atmosphere is where much of present day organic molecules such as proteins, lipids, and enzymes were created in abundance. By chance or simply because of the laws of nature, those life producing compounds bonded together to create the oldest known life form on earth -- a bacterium. Other life forms evolved from the bacterium through natural selection. These microscopic organisms formed symbiotic relationships with each other and produced larger, multicellular organisms, such as man. It may seem like a gigantic leap, bacterium to man, but given billions of years, it is certainly possible. It is true that The Bible holds certain truths which would imply a reliable source of information; however, some parts of The Bible are not true at all. According to science, life evolved in the following order: bacterium to fish, fish to various land animals, and animals to man. Coincidentally or divinely, The Bible states that God said, "Let the waters teem with fish and other life...let the earth bring forth every kind of animal...Let us make man" (Genesis 1:20-26). The Bible accurately depicts the order in which life was established. But how could the primitive people who wrote The Bible know the order of which life was created without science to aid them? This evidence would stand to prove that The Bible truly is the word of God Himself. However, evolutionists would prefer to believe that the writer of The Bible was an incredible guesser. That is because many parts of The Bible seem to be written based on conjectures of what people of the time thought was correct. An example of this would be from Genesis, "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night" (Genesis 1:16). Obviously the greater light is the sun and the lesser light is the moon; however, the moon is not a light, it is a planet that reflects light. The people who wrote The Bible did not know that the moon was a planet; nor did they know that other planets even existed. So, they described the moon as a source of light just as the sun is a source of light. The writers of The Bible made a good guess; nevertheless, they were wrong. This is not to say that the entire Bible is completely inaccurate, but explanations concerning the creation are a little vague. Such an unclear source should not be held accountable to explain the origin of mankind. Other proof that the biblical account of creation is wrong lies within the process of carbon and uranium dating, and fossil records. Carbon dating is the process of determining age by counting the amount of radioactive carbon in a fossil or corpse. When a creature is living, it has a certain ratio of radioactive carbon in it. That radioactive material decays at a fixed rate when the creature dies. Scientists know the fixed rate and can therefore determine how old a carcass is by counting how much radioactive material remains inside the carcass. Carbon dating is useful for dating remains less than fifty thousand years old. Using carbon dating, scientists have discovered fossils of animals that lived five times as long ago as creationists say is possible. Uranium dating is similar to carbon dating except that it is used for dating things much older than fifty thousand years, such as the earth. Using uranium dating, scientists have accurately calculated the age of the earth to be four and a half billion years old and the age of the earliest living creature to be three and a half billion years old (Campbell 505). Carbon and uranium dating furnish indisputable evidence that the biblical account of creation is wrong and evolution has occurred. The most conclusive proof that man has evolved from lower life forms lies within the physical characteristics of man and his relation to other creatures. One physical example that man evolved is the various stages of a developing embryo. For example, while a human is still in early embryonic stages, it has gill slits. While the gill slits never fully mature, they serve as evidence that man's ancestors at one time had gills. During another period of embryonic development, a human has a tail. Sometimes, a human is actually born with a tail. The tail is evidence of a trait previously owned by an ancestor, but was discarded thousands of years ago. This is not to say that tails and other physical features are simply cast off, but after years of disuse, a feature will grow smaller and eventually disappear. This is also evident in the growth of certain animals as well. At certain stages of development, the embryos of various mammals, birds, fish, and humans are indistinguishable. Further evidence suggesting evolution is vestigial organs (organs that are of little or no use to the organism). For example, whales possess a pelvic bone which would serve a purpose for functioning legs, and yet they have no legs. Millions of years ago sea creatures came onto land, acquired legs, then returned to the sea where legs were not needed. The pelvic bone is vestigial in whales because it no longer serves a purpose. Another more familiar vestigial organ is the human appendix. It serves absolutely no purpose and, for some humans, is even removed. Embryonic proof, and vestigial organs are sufficient evidence that man has evolved from lower organisms. While creationists may believe evolution is wrong in defense of their belief in God, evolutionists have extensive evidence to strengthen their claim that man is the result of evolution. Evolutionists say that man is a highly evolved ape-like creature. There is scientific evidence to prove that claim. There is also proof that evolution is occurring today. Modern apes are a perfect example: they portray almost identical physical characteristics to that of man, use tools, and are learning to speak using sign language. Apes are not only similar to man physically and intellectually, but genetically as well. Human and ape DNA are ninety-nine percent identical. In fact, genetically, humans are more closely related to the ape than the ape is to the orangutan. Regardless of this scientific evidence, creationists will continue to believe that mankind was created by God. Of course, the creationist's view only holds if there is belief that The Bible is the true word of God. If mankind had no belief in The Bible's account of creation, the Book would remain a work of mythology. The Bible requires no ordinary belief, however, but a gigantic leap of faith because there is absolutely no evidence God created mankind. The only evidence of creation is in the opinions of millions of creationists. But if opinion or belief were to be the only basis for determining human origin, couldn't mankind believe in literally anything and claim it for fact? Humans could believe the mythical god, Zeus, created mankind! It's a sad truth, but creationism is a relic in a world where the concept of evolution logically explains the origin of mankind. Works Cited Campbell, Neil A. Biology Third Edition. California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1993. The Living Bible: Paraphrased. 1971 ed. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971. Wertheim, Margaret. "Science and Religion: Blurring the Boundaries." Omni Publications International, Ltd. October 1994: 36. Religion: SIRS, Vol. 4. 77. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Tradition Lost and Kept 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tradition: Lost and Kept Each culture in the world follows its own customs and traditions. These traditions, however, are sometimes broken to allow a compromise in their society, or are still kept throughout the culture's existence. In the story The Rain Came, an African tribe faces a harsh and desolate time because their tribe is experiencing a severe drought and as a result the livestock is dying from dehydration, the crops are drying out, and the tribe's Chief is called upon to remedy the situation. Following their tribe's tradition on asking the gods for assistance, the Chief discovered the only way to eliminate the drought is by sacrificing his daughter in a traditional ritual. The events that follow will show how the tribe's customs will be kept and lost. Tradition is shown in many parts of the story. The first example of tradition is evident in the scene where the Chief speaks to the ancestors to change the sacrifice; he loves his only daughter dearly and does not wish her to die. Unfortunately, he could not abandon his position as Chief and let the people die from the drought either. In the tribe, it was customary for the Chief to have several wives and children. The Chief married five wives and the fifth one brought him a daughter. Another tradition that was shown in the story was the explanation of how Oganda (the chief's only daughter) received her name. Her name meant "beans" because her skin was smooth, very much like the skins of beans. A last example of tradition is the sacrificing of Oganda. She is scheduled to be sacrificed to a lake monster in order for the tribal villages to receive precipitation and water. In modern days, we would check the local satellite forecast for the area and determine when to conserve water during a drought. However, in this story, tradition must be followed to allow the people to live and thrive, or does it? Revealing the parts of the story where tradition is kept is important in order to compare with the part where tradition is lost and compromised. The Chief keeps tradition when he arranges a meeting with all the family members except Oganda to discuss her sacrifice to better the chances of survival for everyone else. Oganda believes that her family is discussing her marriage and her morale and hopes increase until her family informs her of the situation. To the villagers, it was a great honor to let a woman's daughter to die for her country. To the Chief, it was a great and sad loss for his only daughter would be digested in the bowels of the great lake monster. Another pertinent example of how traditions are kept is how Oganda walks the path to her designated sacrificial area, the lake. Oganda had the choice of running away and hiding the rest of her life, but she believed strongly in her tradition and followed the path her ancestors chose. At that moment, she was a dead person walking. The section of the story, which involved the tribal traditions being lost and compromised, is the most interesting part. During the scene where Oganda thought her family gathered to discuss her marriage, she began thinking of all the possible suitors. The only person she believed that might become a good husband was Osinda (who originated from another tribe and he gave her a gift several years back). However, in the last section of the story, Oganda walks towards the sacred body of water and just before she reached the watery shores of the lake, a person in camouflage forces her upon the ground and speaks of a way to escape the fate her ancestors chose. He explained that he was Osinda and that the coat of bwombwe will seclude her from the prying eyes of her ancestors and the wrath of the monsters. She agreed to the plan and both sprinted far away from the sacred land and avoiding the path of the ancestors. That evening, rain poured out of the sky gallons by gallons, yet Oganda had not been sacrificed according to tradition. This was a great example of how the tribal traditions were completely lost and compromised by Osinda and Oganda. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Tradition Lost and Kept.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tradition: Lost and Kept Each culture in the world follows its own customs and traditions. These traditions, however, are sometimes broken to allow a compromise in their society, or are still kept throughout the culture's existence. In the story The Rain Came, an African tribe faces a harsh and desolate time because their tribe is experiencing a severe drought and as a result the livestock is dying from dehydration, the crops are drying out, and the tribe's Chief is called upon to remedy the situation. Following their tribe's tradition on asking the gods for assistance, the Chief discovered the only way to eliminate the drought is by sacrificing his daughter in a traditional ritual. The events that follow will show how the tribe's customs will be kept and lost. Tradition is shown in many parts of the story. The first example of tradition is evident in the scene where the Chief speaks to the ancestors to change the sacrifice; he loves his only daughter dearly and does not wish her to die. Unfortunately, he could not abandon his position as Chief and let the people die from the drought either. In the tribe, it was customary for the Chief to have several wives and children. The Chief married five wives and the fifth one brought him a daughter. Another tradition that was shown in the story was the explanation of how Oganda (the chief's only daughter) received her name. Her name meant "beans" because her skin was smooth, very much like the skins of beans. A last example of tradition is the sacrificing of Oganda. She is scheduled to be sacrificed to a lake monster in order for the tribal villages to receive precipitation and water. In modern days, we would check the local satellite forecast for the area and determine when to conserve water during a drought. However, in this story, tradition must be followed to allow the people to live and thrive, or does it? Revealing the parts of the story where tradition is kept is important in order to compare with the part where tradition is lost and compromised. The Chief keeps tradition when he arranges a meeting with all the family members except Oganda to discuss her sacrifice to better the chances of survival for everyone else. Oganda believes that her family is discussing her marriage and her morale and hopes increase until her family informs her of the situation. To the villagers, it was a great honor to let a woman's daughter to die for her country. To the Chief, it was a great and sad loss for his only daughter would be digested in the bowels of the great lake monster. Another pertinent example of how traditions are kept is how Oganda walks the path to her designated sacrificial area, the lake. Oganda had the choice of running away and hiding the rest of her life, but she believed strongly in her tradition and followed the path her ancestors chose. At that moment, she was a dead person walking. The section of the story, which involved the tribal traditions being lost and compromised, is the most interesting part. During the scene where Oganda thought her family gathered to discuss her marriage, she began thinking of all the possible suitors. The only person she believed that might become a good husband was Osinda (who originated from another tribe and he gave her a gift several years back). However, in the last section of the story, Oganda walks towards the sacred body of water and just before she reached the watery shores of the lake, a person in camouflage forces her upon the ground and speaks of a way to escape the fate her ancestors chose. He explained that he was Osinda and that the coat of bwombwe will seclude her from the prying eyes of her ancestors and the wrath of the monsters. She agreed to the plan and both sprinted far away from the sacred land and avoiding the path of the ancestors. That evening, rain poured out of the sky gallons by gallons, yet Oganda had not been sacrificed according to tradition. This was a great example of how the tribal traditions were completely lost and compromised by Osinda and Oganda. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Truth About God 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Truth About God "You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One." - Acts 7:51-52 The Jews have always been afraid of the radicals of God. They have always dwelled in the safety and understandings of the past and fear the effects of these radicals. But when these radicals like the prophets arrive, they persecute them because they are uncertain about the truth. An example is when the Jews didn't want to believe Stephen in Acts 7:56-58, " Look,' he said, I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.' At this they covered their ears and yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and stoned him." A lot of potshots have been taken at the Church over the years. In spite of its obvious imperfections, the Church is the means that has been chosen to carry the message of the Gospel to the world. One wonders why a better system could not have been devised. Then one realizes that any system that has people in it is going to be imperfect. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in the Gulag Archipelago that it was in prison where he learned that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, not through classes, not through political parties, either, but right through every human heart and through all human hearts. When we give ourselves serious evaluation, we find things hiding in our hearts that, if we could choose, we would remove. Our hearts have been described as "a zoo of lust, a bedlam of ambitions, a nursery of fears, a harem of fondled hatreds." Yet the Church, by its very nature, must be made up of the likes of us. "Imagine yourself as a living house," wrote C. S. Lewis. "God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of -- throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage; but He is building a palace." And thus is the message of the Church. The gospel is carried to imperfect people by imperfect people. Then those imperfect people are to band together to help one another grow to spiritual maturity, Salvation in Christ, and growth to Christian maturity. Warts and all. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Truth about God.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Religion Paper "You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One." - Acts 7:51-52 The Jews have always been afraid of the radicals of God. They have always dwelled in the safety and understandings of the past and fear the effects of these radicals. But when these radicals like the prophets arrive, they persecute them because they are uncertain about the truth. An example is when the Jews didn't want to believe Stephen in Acts 7:56-58, " Look,' he said, I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.' At this they covered their ears and yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and stoned him." A lot of potshots have been taken at the Church over the years. In spite of its obvious imperfections, the Church is the means that has been chosen to carry the message of the Gospel to the world. One wonders why a better system could not have been devised. Then one realizes that any system that has people in it is going to be imperfect. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in the Gulag Archipelago that it was in prison where he learned that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, not through classes, not through political parties, either, but right through every human heart and through all human hearts. When we give ourselves serious evaluation, we find things hiding in our hearts that, if we could choose, we would remove. Our hearts have been described as "a zoo of lust, a bedlam of ambitions, a nursery of fears, a harem of fondled hatreds." Yet the Church, by its very nature, must be made up of the likes of us. "Imagine yourself as a living house," wrote C. S. Lewis. "God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of -- throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage; but He is building a palace." And thus is the message of the Church. The gospel is carried to imperfect people by imperfect people. Then those imperfect people are to band together to help one another grow to spiritual maturity, Salvation in Christ, and growth to Christian maturity. Warts and all. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Vatican II.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Why is Vatican II so significant in the modern church? INTRODUCTION: VATICAN II Vatican II was the 21st ecumenical council recognized by the Roman Catholic church, which became the symbol of the church's openness to the modern world. The council was announced by Pope John XXIII on January 25, 1959, and held 178 meetings in the autumn of each of four successive years. The first gathering was on October 11, 1962, and the last on December 8, 1965. Of 2908 bishops and others eligible to attend, 2540 from all parts of the world participated in the opening meeting. The U.S. delegation of 241 members was second in size only to that of Italy. Asian and African bishops played a prominent role in the council's deliberations. Only Communist nations were sparsely represented, the result of government pressures. The average attendance at the meetings was 2200. ESSAY Vatican II, as we can clearly see from the above information, was a very large and important meeting in the Roman Catholic Church. Vatican II has altered the Roman Catholic Church more that any other council that took place. It has great significance as it made the church more reasonable and realistic. The Church, after the council, was much more down-to-earth and open-minded. One of Vatican II's changes that took place was that Mass became vernacular. This change was very important because it made people feel more at a personal level when mass was held seeing as though the priest was speaking their language. It made them feel more at home and increased their understanding and ability to respond. Another very major and important change that took place due to Vatican II was the relationship with the Church and the world. "The Church is a human organization steered by the Holy Spirit and composed of the gifts and talents of its members. It is acknowledged that at this time the Church community has not yet reached its highest potential and is faced with the limitations and of human shortcomings and temporal constrictions. With an understanding of its abilities and its boundaries, the Church seeks to work with the world community to come closer to the life to which God calls the world." As this quote from one of the Documents in Vatican II states, the Church need have a relationship with the "outside world" as the Church itself is comprised of humans. And that the Church having a good relationship with the outside world is necessary for the Church to reach its highest potential. These are some of the changes that took place in Vatican II and naming all of them would not be necessary. The modern Church is the way it is because most of what happened in Vatican II. Vatican II was what made the Church, what we know it as now. Vatican II has molded the modern Church and has had most influence on it. Therefore, it is explicitly obvious that Vatican II was what made Church what we know as the "Modern Church." If Vatican II did not take place, there would not be a "Modern Church." ----Bibliography: Information obtained from the following sources: 1) Encyclopedia Britannica 2) Roman Catholic Church History 3) Various handouts in Religion Class f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Violence is an appropriate response to racism .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I think that this statment is very negative, as it gives the impression that violence is the only way to solve things, and it is not.People need to talk about matters that concern them with the people that are causing the concerns, doing this wil make dealing with the problem of racism easier. The saying 'two wrongs don't make a right' is a very appropriate sayingto use in the issue of racism because racism towards people is wrong and so is violence. When one puts the two together, to deal with each other,it does not make the situation right. In fact, it will make the situatin worse because it will cause resentment between the racist and the victim. There is a quote in the bible, Matthew 5 38-39 where Jesus speaks about revenge. It reads, "You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But now I tell you do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too." What this means is, if someone hurts once, do not respond in a violent manner, turn the other cheek and let them do it again. It shows that Jesus was against violence. Gandhi said something similar: 'An eye for an eye and we shall all be blind'. Gandi meant that so mang people hurt other people that they would end up seriously hurt. Put this teaching into practise, if someone hurts you once let them do it a secong time is the message here. The other side to this statement is to agree that racists should be dealt with in a violent way. In some resects, this is correct because if people have the mentality to be racist towards another person, they need to be punished, and if violence fits this sort of punish mentment. People, whatever race they are have to choice to decide where they live. They deserve to feel comfortable in their home even if it is not where the majority of their race lives. No one has the right to speak badly about another human because of the colour of their skin. They need violence to show them racism is unfair. Racism is somthing very personal to people as it shows what they believe in Some people prefer to deal with it in a violent manner, and others prefer ot deal with it in a more subtle way, for example a discusion. Every person is born into the world as a child of God, whether they are black or white. It is unfair to discriminate against people because of the colour of their skin. Everyone is born equal. I have come to the conclusion that this statement is wrong, due to its negative approach. Violence does not solve anything, and even though racism is wrong, violence is just as wrong. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are people in the past who have acheived alot to cancel out racism without turning to violence. Although it took them longer to acheive it, in the end less people were hurt so violence does not pay off. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Violence is an Appropriate Response to Racism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Violence is an Appropriate Response to Racism I think that this statment is very negative, as it gives the impression that violence is the only way to solve things, and it is not.People need to talk about matters that concern them with the people that are causing the concerns, doing this wil make dealing with the problem of racism easier. The saying 'two wrongs don't make a right' is a very appropriate sayingto use in the issue of racism because racism towards people is wrong and so is violence. When one puts the two together, to deal with each other,it does not make the situation right. In fact, it will make the situatin worse because it will cause resentment between the racist and the victim. There is a quote in the bible, Matthew 5 38- 39 where Jesus speaks about revenge. It reads, "You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But now I tell you do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too." What this means is, if someone hurts once, do not respond in a violent manner, turn the other cheek and let them do it again. It shows that Jesus was against violence. Gandhi said something similar: 'An eye for an eye and we shall all be blind'. Gandi meant that so mang people hurt other people that they would end up seriously hurt. Put this teaching into practise, if someone hurts you once let them do it a secong time is the message here. The other side to this statement is to agree that racists should be dealt with in a violent way. In some resects, this is correct because if people have the mentality to be racist towards another person, they need to be punished, and if violence fits this sort of punish mentment. People, whatever race they are have to choice to decide where they live. They deserve to feel comfortable in their home even if it is not where the majority of their race lives. No one has the right to speak badly about another human because of the colour of their skin. They need violence to show them racism is unfair. Racism is somthing very personal to people as it shows what they believe in Some people prefer to deal with it in a violent manner, and others prefer ot deal with it in a more subtle way, for example a discusion. Every person is born into the world as a child of God, whether they are black or white. It is unfair to discriminate against people because of the colour of their skin. Everyone is born equal. I have come to the conclusion that this statement is wrong, due to its negative approach. Violence does not solve anything, and even though racism is wrong, violence is just as wrong. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are people in the past who have acheived alot to cancel out racism without turning to violence. Although it took them longer to acheive it, in the end less people were hurt so violence does not pay off. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What Are The Main Strengths and Weaknesses of The Rational Choice.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ pre> What Are The Main Strengths and Weaknesses of The Rational Choice Approach To Religions Behavior? One of the pioneers of the rational choice theory has been Gary Becker. He states that this approach can be applied to all human behaviour, including religion. This approach has three assumptions. It assumes that people engage in maximising behaviour. When applying this approach to religion we are not concerned with money. We are concerned with the maximisation of personal benefits. When we make a decision we weigh up the costs and benefits and choose the option which offers the most benefit. Secondly, there are 'markets that with varying degrees of efficiency allow the actions of different participants to function together efficiently.' Thirdly, prices and other market functions can affect demand and supply, controlling desires and affecting the actions of consumers. Becker explains that price is not described in money terms but as a shadow price. For example, muslims cannot drink alcohol. This approach involves four theorems. Firstly, a rise in price reduces the quantity demanded. The example he gives is if people have to put more time and effort into having children then less people will do so. Secondly, a rise in price increases the quantity supplied, the example given is women in the labour market. Thirdly, competitive markets are more efficient then monopolistic markets and lead to the diversity of a product. Fourthly, a tax on the output of a market reduces that output eg the punishment of criminals is a tax on crime. Finke and Iannaccone have applied this theory to religious behaviour and understand that the high degree of religion in America is attributed to the existence of a free market and therefore competition and diversification in religion. Finke argues that in a free market start up costs are low and this leads to new ideas and more diversity and therefore more chance of everyone finding a religion they like. Also in a competitive free market earning a living acts as an incentive to clergy to work harder and try to tailor their religion to suit the demands of the consumer. He also suggests that state monopolies are less efficient in the absence of competition and believes that state churches would therefore allow high costs. Bruce highlights some weaknesses of this theory. He states that the early Christian church had very high startup costs eg persecution and this did not prevent the recruitment of new followers. On the other hand, according to the maximisation theory, the benefits must have outweighed the cost of the threat of persecution or no-one would have joined. Bruce criticises the theorem that inefficiency exists in the absence of competition by pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church is a state supported monopoly in many countries and a hegemony in others yet it has been very efficient. Also, Roman Catholic success is not a result of a free market as it has done well in Poland and the Republic of Ireland where there is almost no competition. Bruce also states that as people moved away from the national church and competition increased in the middle ages, people became more invloved in religion. This suggests that competition does lead to religion but the free market model does not explain the decline in involvement in religion from the start of the century. Maybe this decline can be best described by the sociological theory of secularisation. Perhaps people feel that the costs of religion and the restrictions it imposes on their lifestyles outweigh the benefits or that religion would not benefit them at all. Iannaccone believes that economics can explain known facts about individual decision making with regards to religious behaviour. He believes economics can explain facts about denominational mobility, typical age of converts, typical patterns of inter-religious marriage and participation levels found in different marriages. The majority of Americans remain in the churches they were raised in and return to them if they drift away. If they do move it is likely to be to a similar church. Iannaccone explains these facts with reference to investment ie people have already spent a great deal of time and effort in their religion and to move to a new religion requires new investment and initial investment is wasted. Bruce suggests an alternative explanation would be that beliefs ' sediment', effecting our response to alternatives. He explains that beliefs which seem more plausible to us are beliefs which accord with residues of earlier stages of belief. The human capital model predicts religious switching will occur early in the life cycle as people search for the best match between their skills and the context in which they produce religious commodities. Over time diminishing marginal utility will occur ie gains from further switching will dimiinish as the potential for improvement decreases and the years left during which they can capitalise on that improvement decrease. Bruce suggests that socialisation with like-minded believers and how much of a satisfactory explanation of the world and our place in it is given is likey to increase plausibility over time and that there is no need for reference to economics. Iannaccone states that households peactice their beliefs more efficiently when husband and wife belong to the same religion. He believes they benefit from economies of scale as they can take the same car to church and avoid disputes over whcih religion the children are to practice etc. He states this is why tend to marry within the same denomination. Bruce suggests that an alternative explanation would be that the church is a place where people with similar backgrounds and beliefs come together. He also argues that the strength of a persons belief is reinforced by social interaction. Therefore a husband and wife reinforce each others beliefs and encourage church attendance. Also Iannaccone shows a correlation between couples sharing the same faith and being more than averagelt involved in their religion but his data does not show which causes which. It also seems likely that people who are highly committed to their religion will want to marry someone of the same faith. Bruce argues that there is a degree of indeterminacy in the economc approach and gives the example of the low start-up costs controversy explained above. He states that there can not be any way of proving the utility maximisation theory false because utility is a matter of social construction which is interpreted in different ways by different people. What is a cost to one person could be a benefit to another. The only way to identify what are costs and what are benefits is to look at the choices themselves. It is these choices that we wish to explain so we seem to be going round in circles. Another weakness highlighted by Bruce is that economising requires the ability to choose between items that are comparable. he argues if religion is not comparable on some scale then how can we decide which choices will maximise our utility? He argues that religions cannot be alternatives to each other in the sense that material goods are as religions demand and mostly achieve the complete faith of their followers. With the exception of Buddhism and modern liberal protestantism the great religions claim unique salvational truth. Other religions cannot be regarded as alternatives. On the other hand you have to choose the religion in the first place. A second requirement of economising is pricing. This is a neautral way of comparing costs, this is absent from the application of the economic approach to religious behaviour. Costs differ between people. On the other hand Iannoccone does not talk of price in money terms but in shadow price. Bruce argues that time for exampple cannot be used as a shadow price as the cost of the time spent on one persons religion does not equal another persons. There are cultural constraints on supply ie norms. Demand can have an effect on supply such that popularity can influence the recruitment of candidates for the ministry. However there are cultural constraints on what churches can do to become more popular. They cannot change there religion to meet popularity. Religious failures can attribute their failings as the 'price' of ideological purity. On the other hand, churches can tailor their religion to meet demand in other ways eg the introduction of the nine o'clock service. There are also cultural constraints on consumers, that is there exist a number of norms that constrain religious choice. For example, in a racially divided society the introduction of new black churches does not effect the choice of white people as a result of the social 'norm' of racial segregation. But can this not be interpreted by the weighing up of the costs and benefits of breaking norms? Here the costs certainly outweigh the benefits. Elster (1986:17) believes rational choice theory fails because it cannot tell us what rationality requires. He believes rational choice theory depends on us knowing what the rational choice is. In this way the economic model is not a good model for making predictions concerning overall religious behaviour but it still provides a good explanation of religious behaviour. I believe the word in itself tells us what rationality requires. Rationality is an act of reasoning and this is a very personal thing. When making decisions we reason as to what would be the best course of action for us ie the choice which maximises our satisfaction. People tailor their religions to meet the demands of their unique lifestyles. This points to the obvious fact that there can be no one simple explanation for an individuals choice of religion as we are all so very diffeerent. Bruce argues that we cannot talk of religion as we do commodities. He states that people in the modern world are not consumerist and those who do change their religion hope for and normally form an enduring attachment closer to tradition than rationality. He argues that only in a thoroughly secular society would religion be a commodity BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) G. Becker, 1986, 'The economic approach to human behaviour', pp. 108-22 in J. Elster (ed.), Rational Choice. Oxford: Blackwell. 2) L. Iannaccone, 1990, 'Religious practice: a human capital approach', Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29: 297-314. 3) S. Bruce, 'Religion and rational choice: a critique of economic explanations of religious behaviour', Sociology of Religion, 54: 193-205. 4) H. Bredemeier, 1978, 'Exchange theory', pp. 420-56 in T. Bottomore and R. Nisbet (eds), A History of Sociological Thought. New York: Basic Books. 5) Lecture Notes. 6) J. Sloman, 1996, Economics. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What do Buddhism and Christianity Teach About the Significance.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ pre> What do Buddhism and Christianity Teach About the Significance, Purpose And Value of Human Life? BUDDHISM " The concern of Buddhism is with man rather than with the material universe. The phenomenal world is held to be without substance and to be in a constant condition of flux. Man himself is no less impermanent than the material world."* 3/4 Human life is subject to Anicca, the law of impermanence. This means that nothing ever stays the same To be born human is a rare opportunity. Buddhists take this notion so seriously that a story was written for the sole purpose of illustrating it. It is called 'The Turtle and The Yoke'. A turtle is described, swimming around in the ocean, popping up for air every thousand years or so. It is claimed that the chance of being incarnated human are the same as that of the turtle putting his head through the yoke (which also floats around the ocean) on one of his trips to the top. It follows, therefore, that to waste it is to waste numberless lives spent trying to gain this precious rebirth and also the chance of enlightenment. The law of Karma says: All actions will entail consequences in the next life, so a Buddhist's freedom could be said to be somewhat compromised. This law means that, to be reincarnated human, you must live a near-perfect life. Any wrong doing on our part is foolish, because the condition experienced in present existence is regarded as having been caused by past deeds. It is beneficial, therefore, to use the golden opportunity wisely, as you are unlikely ever to get another `crack at the apple'. Buddhism and therefore human life is 'a quest to free us and the world from suffering and to promote happiness.' CHRISTIANITY "Human life is the basis of all values; it is the source and indispensable condition for every human activity and all society" Each human is made in the image of God, with power to reason and choose. Therefore every human life should be cherished and preserved and all lives, rich or poor, strong or weak, young or old. 'Society itself can be judged by its attitude towards its weaker members.' God `owns' our lives and bodies, or rather he gave them to us as a gift and we must not give it up or abuse it. "Do you know that your body is a temple of the holy spirit, which you have from God? You are not on your own, you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. Pope Jean Paul II summed up this idea in a statement he issued in 1980. He says we must 'render faithful' God's gift of life to us. Also (1) 'no one must attack the life of an innocent person' (2) that 'all humans must live their lives in accordance with God's plan' and (3) Intentional death or suicide is just as wrong as homicide', because it is a violation of God's will and can be interpreted as a rejection of God's supreme authority and loving plan. However he goes on to say: "At times, however, as everyone realises, psychological factors may lessen or even completely eliminate responsibility." The two religions are agreed on one theme. They both make it clear that you are planted on this planet to fulfil a purpose and that nobody can achieve that purpose unless they follow a clearly laid out path and obey a set of rules. The two sets of rules have much in common with each other. To us, most of them are common sense to us today. They, if obeyed, constitute the requirements of being a 'good' human being. The Buddhist rules are called 'The Five Precepts' and the Christian rules are the 'Ten Commandments'. Followers of both religions must follow their rules to attain their ultimate goals (Nirvana or Heaven) but they must also put in some extra. Buddhists must nurture their Karmas and Christians must ingratiate themselves to God. * Bryan Ronald Wilson in: Religious Toleration & Religious Diversity † Pope John Paul II in: The Value of Human Life f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What do Buddhists and christians teach about the significance.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What do Buddhism and Christianity teach about the significance, purpose and value of human life? BUDDHISM " The concern of Buddhism is with man rather than with the material universe. The phenomenal world is held to be without substance and to be in a constant condition of flux. Man himself is no less impermanent than the material world."* 3/4 Human life is subject to Anicca, the law of impermanence. This means that nothing ever stays the same To be born human is a rare opportunity. Buddhists take this notion so seriously that a story was written for the sole purpose of illustrating it. It is called 'The Turtle and The Yoke'. A turtle is described, swimming around in the ocean, popping up for air every thousand years or so. It is claimed that the chance of being incarnated human are the same as that of the turtle putting his head through the yoke (which also floats around the ocean) on one of his trips to the top. It follows, therefore, that to waste it is to waste numberless lives spent trying to gain this precious rebirth and also the chance of enlightenment. The law of Karma says: All actions will entail consequences in the next life, so a Buddhist's freedom could be said to be somewhat compromised. This law means that, to be reincarnated human, you must live a near-perfect life. Any wrong doing on our part is foolish, because the condition experienced in present existence is regarded as having been caused by past deeds. It is beneficial, therefore, to use the golden opportunity wisely, as you are unlikely ever to get another 'crack at the apple'. Buddhism and therefore human life is 'a quest to free us and the world from suffering and to promote happiness.' CHRISTIANITY "Human life is the basis of all values; it is the source and indispensable condition for every human activity and all society"† Each human is made in the image of God, with power to reason and choose. Therefore every human life should be cherished and preserved and all lives, rich or poor, strong or weak, young or old. 'Society itself can be judged by its attitude towards its weaker members.' God 'owns' our lives and bodies, or rather he gave them to us as a gift and we must not give it up or abuse it. "Do you know that your body is a temple of the holy spirit, which you have from God? You are not on your own, you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. Pope Jean Paul II summed up this idea in a statement he issued in 1980. He says we must 'render faithful' God's gift of life to us. Also (1) 'no one must attack the life of an innocent person' (2) that 'all humans must live their lives in accordance with God's plan' and (3) Intentional death or suicide is just as wrong as homicide', because it is a violation of God's will and can be interpreted as a rejection of God's supreme authority and loving plan. However he goes on to say: "At times, however, as everyone realises, psychological factors may lessen or even completely eliminate responsibility." The two religions are agreed on one theme. They both make it clear that you are planted on this planet to fulfil a purpose and that nobody can achieve that purpose unless they follow a clearly laid out path and obey a set of rules. The two sets of rules have much in common with each other. To us, most of them are common sense to us today. They, if obeyed, constitute the requirements of being a 'good' human being. The Buddhist rules are called 'The Five Precepts' and the Christian rules are the 'Ten Commandments'. Followers of both religions must follow their rules to attain their ultimate goals (Nirvana or Heaven) but they must also put in some extra. Buddhists must nurture their Karmas and Christians must ingratiate themselves to God. * Bryan Ronald Wilson in: Religious Toleration & Religious Diversity † Pope John Paul II in: The Value of Human Life f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What dreams may come.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What dreams may come What Dreams May Come, is there a life after death? The movie What Dreams May Come gives a rather positive view on the afterlife. I think most of the ideas and views shown in the film are related to many of society's main beliefs pertaining to death and the afterlife, but the views are left broad enough so they can relate to any specific religion. Personally, I have no concrete belief concerning the afterlife, or whether or not if there even is life after death, but I can see why many people would agree with many of the films perspectives. The movie is shown through Robin Williams's character, Chris Nielson who's first personal encounter with death is when his two children, Marie and Ian both die in a car accident. Four years later he dies himself after being hit by a car. After the accident, he sees himself on the ground from an outside perspective. The next thing he knows, he is able to see himself lying in a hospital bed, and at the same time there is a very gentle voice talking to him asking him if he understands the things happening to him, but at this point Chris is still very confused. In an instant, Chris is at his own funeral where he begins to see his physical body appearing around him. According to the voice means he is finally understanding that he has passed on. He then wanders his house, and is reluctant to leave his distraught wife Annie. Next, a blurry figure appears, speaking with the same gentle voice. The figure comforts him and tells him it is time to leave and basically helps him grasp his death and travel to the next world. Afterwards, Chris is willing to leave, and he suddenly finds himself running down a dark tunnel towards a light, and then he appears in a colorful world resembling one of his wife's paintings of where their dream house is supposed to be. Here, he is reunited with his dog who had died earlier in the movie. Also, the blurry figure becomes clear and turns out to be his old doctor friend Albert, who later turns out to be Chris's son Ian just masking himself in the physical body of Albert. This form is chosen by his son because the doctor was one of the only people Chris had ever listened to while he was alive. Albert(Ian) basically helps him understand that he is dead and that people have a soul or an identity that lives on after the physical body has passed. He learns that there is a God, and he learns of this new realm, and how everything within it is left to his power of imagination. He is told that where they are is supposed to be Chris's version of heaven. He also learns that after death, you can choose to be reborn. Chris later meets his daughter, who has taken the physical form of an Asian girl Chris had found attractive when they were alive, and the daughter is living in a place that is supposed to be her version of heaven. The turning point in the movie is when Chris learns that his wife Annie, who he learns is his soulmate, has committed suicide. He is told that in this world, all those that kill themselves do not go where he is, but instead to more or less a hell. Albert(Ian) and Chris get a tracker, who is the real Albert, to go and find Annie. It turns out that Annie is living in her own self denial, she believes she is at fault for her two children's deaths, and she is cursed for eternity to believe this and to never know or understand that she herself is dead. Chris manages to save her by being willing to spend an eternity with her in hell. In the end the whole family is reunited and then Chris and Annie decide to be reincarnated. I do not know what happens when we die. In this, I mean I have had no experience such as a near death experience, or have any physical proof that there is or not an afterlife. It is possible for me to comprehend the possibility of an afterlife, and understand in some aspects why many people both believe there is and is not an afterlife. Most of the movie is probably accepted by many viewers because the majority of America's population believes there is a God. I'm also sure that many of these people probably liked the ideas in the movie because of the idea that heaven is what you make of it. I am also pretty sure that many of the same people believe that the true afterlife is not as shown in the movie. For me if there is any part of the movie I could possibly believe, it would have to be the first half of the movie, but I question the rest of the film. The beginning of What Dreams May Come is very believable because of the similarities many documented near death experiences(NDE). Raymond Moody talks about these near death experiences in his book Life After Life. According to Moody many of the NDE's follow a similar pattern. After the person is clinically dead, they usually hear a loud sound, often a ringing. They suddenly travel through a dark tunnel towards a light. Then they see themselves from an outside view. Afterwards they are met by a deceased friend, relative or being of light that helps to calm and guide them. The being will asked them questions that make them reflect on their life. They then travel down a tunnel toward a light and feel peace and love throughout the time this experience is occurring. In the film after the car hits Chris, he is able to see himself lying on the ground, then the hospital bed. Much like a part of Moody's description of NDE, "...he suddenly finds himself outside of his own physical body, but still in the immediate physical environment, and he sees his own body from a distance, as though he is a spectator."(Moody p.21-22). Chris also hears Albert's voice when he is looking at himself in the hospital bed asking him questions about if he understands what is happening. He eventually sees Albert(Ian) who has come to guide him to the afterworld and help him understand everything. This goes along with Moody's description also, "...others come to meet and help him. He glimpses the spirits of relatives and friends who have already died, and a loving warm spirit of a kind he has never encountered before- a being of light-appears before him. This being asks him a question, nonverbally, to make him evaluate his life..."( Moody p.22). In the film, there was no being of light, but Albert(Ian), who was an old friend of Chris's, did come to help guide him and he did in fact ask a few questions. Chris eventually travels up a dark tunnel towards a light, which also occurs in many NDE's, but usually in the beginning opposed to the end of their experience. The last believable idea to me in this movie is that people who commit suicide go to hell (or at least some place worse than heaven). I believe this not only because killing yourself is bad in nearly every religion, but also according to Moody, a man who tried to commit suicide from a gunshot wound (after his wife died) stated, "I didn't go where [my wife] was. I went to an awful place....I immediately saw the mistake I had made....I thought, "I wish I hadn't done it."(Moody p.143). And in other NDE suicides, people have said that when they were dead they felt like they were in the wrong place, and that they were going to be there forever. Everything that occurs after William's character travels to heaven is questionable to me as I am not sure what the author based them upon(unlike the beginning of the movie, which could have at least been based on a NDE). The rest I am guessing the author based on his interpretation of the bible or any religion with God, but I still see many questions the movie left unanswered. One question I have is how are suicides decided? What if the person pays someone else to kill them? In Annie's case, what if she went insane and then killed herself, would she still go to hell? Also, after she is saved from hell by Chris, is the author saying anyone can be saved from hell if they have a loved one willing to sacrifice their souls, What is this based on? One of my big questions was if heaven is based on your perception and imagination, then what if your idea of heaven is being with a certain person? Then would that person be a fake or a copy? Showing that there is an afterlife, shows that we have souls, so can there be copies of souls? All this could mean, maybe you don't get everything you imagine in heaven. Another big question I was thinking of while watching the movie was that since the afterlife is based on personal experiences in the physical life, what happens if you die as a baby or while still in the womb? What experiences would your afterlife be based on if you have no idea of what heaven would be? Who would guide you there? This idea of an afterlife being based on many of your significant life experiences is constantly detectable throughout the entire film. Mainly after Chris goes to his version of heaven, and also when he sees his daughter and she has her heaven based on a toy model she had in her physical life. Another example is when she tells him her new physical appearance is based on what he had said when they were both alive. Overall, I thought this movie was pretty entertaining, especially with all the special effects. I even think the ideas about the afterlife are pretty idealistic, but I see no solid reason to believe any of it. Any part of this movie could be possible, because I(like everyone else) do not know for sure what happens after we die. However, if there is one part I can find believable, it is the first half. The part when Robin Williams first dies up to when he travels through the tunnel, because it relates to so many peoples' near death experiences. I still think this movie left too many questions, but I would like the afterlife to be like what the movie portrayed, because I don't plan on killing myself anytime soon, and it would be nice to know that I am going to still exist after I die and be reunited with my family. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What Drives A Man .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What Drives A Man What makes a successful man? This, in itself, is a culture bound question because it can vary from culture to culture. However, in the perception of Okonkwo, the main character in Chinua Achebe's novel, Things Fall Apart, the measure of a man's success is based on two elements, material acquisition and growth, and physical prowess. This is ironic for Okonkwo since his people's typical idea of success seems to be constructed of a complex, strong spiritual culture, seemingly able to deal in traditional ways with any challenge in nature and human experience. (Ravenscroft 9) Although Okonkwo is undoubtedly an important member of Umuofian society, he is not a typical representative of that society. (Taiwo 115) It is this basic dichotomy between Okonkwo and his own culture that directly lead to the tragic fall of Okonkwo, and ultimate disgrace. I feel that it is important to note at this time that Things Fall Apart is a tragedy, and Okonkwo is a tragic hero. For TFA to be a tragedy, it must follow the following pattern... "A tragedy .. is the imitation of an action that is erious, has magnitude, and is complete in itself; in language with pleasurable accessories, each kind brought in separately in the various parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish it catharsis of such emotions" Aristotle, Poetics Okonkwo is a tragic hero because he is superior to the regular people of the tribe, "Okonkwo was well known throughout the nine villages and even beyond" he's an extremist, ".whenever he was angry and could not get his words out quickly enough, he would use his fists" (Achebe 3), he imposes his own reality on people, "His wives, especially the youngest, lived in perpetual fear of his fiery temper" (Achebe 9), demands more of life than life can give, "When did you (Okonkwo) become an old woman?" (Achebe 45), and finally moves from a position of happiness to that of misery, "It is an abomination for a man to take his own life..." (Achebe 147). It is important to establish these facts because it exemplifies Okonkwo's journey, and ultimately that of the Ibo people (as Achebe intended), as tragic in nature. As stated earlier, Okonkwo was obsessed with success. This manifested itself in many materialistic ways. First, he started out with nothing since he inherited nothing from his debt ridden father. He was forced to borrow seeds from a wealthy man. This was something he hated doing, but realized it was the only way to begin to become the man he wanted to be. "I began to fend for myself at an age when most people still suck at their mothers' breasts. If you give me some yam seeds I shall not fail you." (Achebe 16) Here we can see that Okonkwo started adulthood, in fact supporting his family, at a very early age. He began to cultivate his farm before many of the other townspeople. This unfortunately lead to disaster the first year since the rains came early and much of his crop was destroyed. Okonkwo persisted. Okonkwo was a man possessed with succeeding. "'Since I survived that year,' he always said, 'I shall survive anything.' He put it down to his inflexible will." (Italics by me) This offers the reader a clear picture of the type of man Okonkwo was, very driven and determined to succeed. Okonkwo also valued physical strength as an element of success. He was known as the best wrestler in all the nine villages and was never beaten. He even beat The Cat who, up to that time, had never been beaten. "(Okonkwo) was tall and huge, and his bushy eyebrows and wide nose gave him a very severe look... When he walked, his heels hardly touched the ground and he seemed to walk on springs, as if he was going to pounce on somebody." (Achebe 3) Okonkwo also possessed great wealth, including two barns of yams and three wives. It was looked upon favorably if you took on more than one wife. This meant that you were rich enough to support them. It can be said that Okonkwo became a successful man because he diligently cultivated the energetic and aggressive qualities which were most admired in Umuofia. (Ravenscroft 9) Since Okonkwo is a tragic hero, he must have a tragic flaw. This flaw comes on two levels. The first of which is his fetish with war, fighting, and conquering. Okonkwo constantly must be engaged in some activity, and like a typical Star Trek "Klingon", this is physical exertion or combat. For Okonkwo, the desire to conquer and subdue is described as being, "...like the desire for woman'. (Achebe 30) He possessed a one-track mind that was focused on nothing, save success. His second tragic flaw is that he can show no other emotion, except anger. He never shows his fondness for the young hostage, Ikemefuna, who eventually regards Okonkwo as his father. Inside, Okonkwo wishes that Ikemefuna was his natural son instead of Nwoye. It is also his flaw that causes him to beat his wife during the weak of peace for, "...killing this banana tree." (Achebe 27) His anger almost causes him to kill his second wife with a gun. He feels very sorry for this, but cannot show his true emotions. The tantamount example of this is when the Oracle of the Hill deems that Ikemefuma must die, but not by Okonkwo's hand, since he calls him father. "As the man who had cleared his throat drew up and raised his matchet, Okonkwo looked away. He heard the blow. The pot fell and broke in the sand. He heard Ikemefuna cry, 'My father, they have killed me!' as he ran towards him. Dazed with fear, Okonkwo drew his matchet and cut him down. He was afraid of being thought weak." (Achebe 43) In Okonkwo's mind, he must not be seen by the other villagers as weak. Okonkwo felt love and pity for the boy, he feared that his manliness may be questioned. (Ravenscroft 12) Okonkwo's ultimate fear is becoming like his father, worthless, without honor, and buried above ground without honor and respect. Unfortunately for Okonkwo, the beginning of the end was nearing. During the funeral ceremony for Ezeudu, Okonkwo's gun exploded, killing Ezeudu's 16 year old son. Ironically, Okonkwo had committed the female portion of this particular crime and was banished to his mother's homeland for seven years. This banishment filled Okonkwo with sorrow. His worst nightmare was becoming reality. Okonkwo cannot see the purposeful balance in the tribal arrangements by which the female principle is felt to be simultaneously weak and sustaining. (Ravenscroft 13) It is also during this exile that the people of the Mbanta allowed the first Christian missionaries to establish a church, win over people of the tribe, and defy the powers of their gods. Okonkwo's own son was one of the first to convert to the new religion. This infuriated Okonkwo. Unfortunately for Okonkwo, his homecoming wasn't what he thought it would be. He found that the missionaries had established a church there too. "The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act as one. He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart." (Achebe 124-5) For Okonkwo, his return was not the triumphant homecoming that he anticipated. He had returned to find that the warlike Umuofia people had become soft like women. The climax of the novel comes when Enoch, a converted Ibo, interrupted the annual worship ceremony of the earth goddess. By doing so, Enoch had killed an ancestral spirit, and Umuofia, and its very foundation, was thrown into chaos. Infuriated, Okonkwo kills a messenger of the white man, sent to stop a meeting. Unfortunately for Okonkwo, the leaders of Umuofia are too divided to follow Okonkwo's warlike lead. (Ravenscroft 14-5) Okonkwo then commits the ultimate abomination, he kills himself. Okonkwo hung himself because he was unable to maintain a particular faith, and he takes the easiest way out, the way of the coward. Okonkwo killed himself because he refused to change and take in both experiences. He is the one who hung himself, not the society. (Serumaga 76) On the surface it would seem that Okonkwo was driven by success, however, it is my opinion that Okonkwo was driven by fear, fear of becoming like his father, and in that absolute fear he made it happen. Okonkwo's society will continue to exist, in fact it exists today, but not in the shape that Okonkwo would recognize. This is the tragedy that Achebe wrote about and is summed up perfectly in the last lines of the book when an entire culture, all of its oral traditions, customs, ceremonies, lives, the very essence of the Ibo people merited a "reasonable paragraph" in the white man's book, The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Publishers, 1986. 2. Aristotle. Aristotle: The Poetics. "The Longinus: On the Sublime." Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1960. 3. Ravenscroft, A. Chinua Achebe. Great Britain: Longmans, Green & CO LTD, 1969. 4. Serumaga, Robert. "A Mirror of Integration." Protest and Conflict in African Literature (1969) 76 5. Taiwo, Oladele. Culture and the Nigerian Novel. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1976. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What Drives A Man.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What Drives A Man What makes a successful man? This, in itself, is a culture bound question because it can vary from culture to culture. However, in the perception of Okonkwo, the main character in Chinua Achebe's novel, Things Fall Apart, the measure of a man's success is based on two elements, material acquisition and growth, and physical prowess. This is ironic for Okonkwo since his people's typical idea of success seems to be constructed of a complex, strong spiritual culture, seemingly able to deal in traditional ways with any challenge in nature and human experience. (Ravenscroft 9) Although Okonkwo is undoubtedly an important member of Umuofian society, he is not a typical representative of that society. (Taiwo 115) It is this basic dichotomy between Okonkwo and his own culture that directly lead to the tragic fall of Okonkwo, and ultimate disgrace. I feel that it is important to note at this time that Things Fall Apart is a tragedy, and Okonkwo is a tragic hero. For TFA to be a tragedy, it must follow the following pattern... "A tragedy .. is the imitation of an action that is erious, has magnitude, and is complete in itself; in language with pleasurable accessories, each kind brought in separately in the various parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish it catharsis of such emotions" Aristotle, Poetics Okonkwo is a tragic hero because he is superior to the regular people of the tribe, "Okonkwo was well known throughout the nine villages and even beyond" he's an extremist, ".whenever he was angry and could not get his words out quickly enough, he would use his fists" (Achebe 3), he imposes his own reality on people, "His wives, especially the youngest, lived in perpetual fear of his fiery temper" (Achebe 9), demands more of life than life can give, "When did you (Okonkwo) become an old woman?" (Achebe 45), and finally moves from a position of happiness to that of misery, "It is an abomination for a man to take his own life..." (Achebe 147). It is important to establish these facts because it exemplifies Okonkwo's journey, and ultimately that of the Ibo people (as Achebe intended), as tragic in nature. As stated earlier, Okonkwo was obsessed with success. This manifested itself in many materialistic ways. First, he started out with nothing since he inherited nothing from his debt ridden father. He was forced to borrow seeds from a wealthy man. This was something he hated doing, but realized it was the only way to begin to become the man he wanted to be. "I began to fend for myself at an age when most people still suck at their mothers' breasts. If you give me some yam seeds I shall not fail you." (Achebe 16) Here we can see that Okonkwo started adulthood, in fact supporting his family, at a very early age. He began to cultivate his farm before many of the other townspeople. This unfortunately lead to disaster the first year since the rains came early and much of his crop was destroyed. Okonkwo persisted. Okonkwo was a man possessed with succeeding. "'Since I survived that year,' he always said, 'I shall survive anything.' He put it down to his inflexible will." (Italics by me) This offers the reader a clear picture of the type of man Okonkwo was, very driven and determined to succeed. Okonkwo also valued physical strength as an element of success. He was known as the best wrestler in all the nine villages and was never beaten. He even beat The Cat who, up to that time, had never been beaten. "(Okonkwo) was tall and huge, and his bushy eyebrows and wide nose gave him a very severe look... When he walked, his heels hardly touched the ground and he seemed to walk on springs, as if he was going to pounce on somebody." (Achebe 3) Okonkwo also possessed great wealth, including two barns of yams and three wives. It was looked upon favorably if you took on more than one wife. This meant that you were rich enough to support them. It can be said that Okonkwo became a successful man because he diligently cultivated the energetic and aggressive qualities which were most admired in Umuofia. (Ravenscroft 9) Since Okonkwo is a tragic hero, he must have a tragic flaw. This flaw comes on two levels. The first of which is his fetish with war, fighting, and conquering. Okonkwo constantly must be engaged in some activity, and like a typical Star Trek "Klingon", this is physical exertion or combat. For Okonkwo, the desire to conquer and subdue is described as being, "...like the desire for woman'. (Achebe 30) He possessed a one-track mind that was focused on nothing, save success. His second tragic flaw is that he can show no other emotion, except anger. He never shows his fondness for the young hostage, Ikemefuna, who eventually regards Okonkwo as his father. Inside, Okonkwo wishes that Ikemefuna was his natural son instead of Nwoye. It is also his flaw that causes him to beat his wife during the weak of peace for, "...killing this banana tree." (Achebe 27) His anger almost causes him to kill his second wife with a gun. He feels very sorry for this, but cannot show his true emotions. The tantamount example of this is when the Oracle of the Hill deems that Ikemefuma must die, but not by Okonkwo's hand, since he calls him father. "As the man who had cleared his throat drew up and raised his matchet, Okonkwo looked away. He heard the blow. The pot fell and broke in the sand. He heard Ikemefuna cry, ' My father, they have killed me!' as he ran towards him. Dazed with fear, Okonkwo drew his matchet and cut him down. He was afraid of being thought weak." (Achebe 43) In Okonkwo's mind, he must not be seen by the other villagers as weak. Okonkwo felt love and pity for the boy, he feared that his manliness may be questioned. (Ravenscroft 12) Okonkwo's ultimate fear is becoming like his father, worthless, without honor, and buried above ground without honor and respect. Unfortunately for Okonkwo, the beginning of the end was nearing. During the funeral ceremony for Ezeudu, Okonkwo's gun exploded, killing Ezeudu's 16 year old son. Ironically, Okonkwo had committed the female portion of this particular crime and was banished to his mother's homeland for seven years. This banishment filled Okonkwo with sorrow. His worst nightmare was becoming reality. Okonkwo cannot see the purposeful balance in the tribal arrangements by which the female principle is felt to be simultaneously weak and sustaining. (Ravenscroft 13) It is also during this exile that the people of the Mbanta allowed the first Christian missionaries to establish a church, win over people of the tribe, and defy the powers of their gods. Okonkwo's own son was one of the first to convert to the new religion. This infuriated Okonkwo. Unfortunately for Okonkwo, his homecoming wasn't what he thought it would be. He found that the missionaries had established a church there too. "The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act as one. He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart." (Achebe 124-5) For Okonkwo, his return was not the triumphant homecoming that he anticipated. He had returned to find that the warlike Umuofia people had become soft like women. The climax of the novel comes when Enoch, a converted Ibo, interrupted the annual worship ceremony of the earth goddess. By doing so, Enoch had killed an ancestral spirit, and Umuofia, and its very foundation, was thrown into chaos. Infuriated, Okonkwo kills a messenger of the white man, sent to stop a meeting. Unfortunately for Okonkwo, the leaders of Umuofia are too divided to follow Okonkwo's warlike lead. (Ravenscroft 14-5) Okonkwo then commits the ultimate abomination, he kills himself. Okonkwo hung himself because he was unable to maintain a particular faith, and he takes the easiest way out, the way of the coward. Okonkwo killed himself because he refused to change and take in both experiences. He is the one who hung himself, not the society. (Serumaga 76) On the surface it would seem that Okonkwo was driven by success, however, it is my opinion that Okonkwo was driven by fear, fear of becoming like his father, and in that absolute fear he made it happen. Okonkwo's society will continue to exist, in fact it exists today, but not in the shape that Okonkwo would recognize. This is the tragedy that Achebe wrote about and is summed up perfectly in the last lines of the book when an entire culture, all of its oral traditions, customs, ceremonies, lives, the very essence of the Ibo people merited a "reasonable paragraph" in the white man's book, The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Publishers, 1986. 2. Aristotle. Aristotle: The Poetics. "The Longinus: On the Sublime." Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1960. 3. Ravenscroft, A. Chinua Achebe. Great Britain: Longmans, Green & CO LTD, 1969. 4. Serumaga, Robert. "A Mirror of Integration." Protest and Conflict in African Literature (1969) 76 5. Taiwo, Oladele. Culture and the Nigerian Novel. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1976. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What is a Witch.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What is a Witch? "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!" The Wicked Witch of the West... One of the most notorious and stereotypical witches in all literature. She had green skin, a big wart- covered nose, and a wide-brimmed black hat. She summoned a legion of monsters, stirred evil brews in her black cauldron, and generally made life difficult for the fun-loving citizens of Oz. She, and her fellow "hags" tend to be seen in a rather comic light, despite their appearance, and are usually seen around Halloween. They are one of the two ideas that most people hold of who witches are and what they do. The other is that of the " devil's whore" of Medieval Europe and Colonial Salem who were charged with killing babies, celebrating "black masses," and having sex orgies with Satan. The modern Wiccan; a practitioner of the religion known as Wicca, Witchcraft, or simply The Craft; resembles these "Witches" as much as a straw broom resembles the Dirt Devil Upright. The Craft is a religion based on the worship of a supreme divine creator, the practice of magic, and a reverence for the earth and all her inhabitants. Deity Concepts and Worship Practices "All religions are structures built on reverence of Deity. Wicca is no exception. The Wicca acknowledge a supreme divine power, unknowable, ultimate, from which the entire universe sprang," (Cunningham, 9). This is a Witch's concept of the Divine. However, it is a distant, powerful image that is not easily understood. For the purpose of worship, the Wicca recognize the duality of this power. It is both male and female, good and evil, and therefore is worshipped in the form of a Goddess and a God. These are the primeval gods of the ancient world, worshipped under names in many cultures: Odin, Freya, Ra, Ma'at, Zeus, Diana, Apollo, Kali, Shiva, Pele, and countless others. Wiccans believe that these are all, in reality, simply individual aspects of one God and one Goddess, rather than individual Deities. Just as there are numerous names for the Divine, so do Wiccans worship them in just as many ways. There are many different branches, called "traditions", of The Craft, most of which are based on the religious practices of one or more ancient cultures. There are Celtic Wiccans, Egyptian Wiccans, and Greek Wiccans. One of the newest traditions is a hybrid of Celtic Shamanism and the tribal religions of Ancient America. There is, however, a basic outline for conducting worship services that is followed by all covens and solitaries. A standard Wiccan worship service, or ritual, which takes place on one of the eight yearly sabbats (the solstices, equinoxes, and four Ancient Celtic agricultural festivals) or at an esbat (full moon), consists of the creation of sacred space (called "casting the circle;" this is done through visualization), prayers, and offerings (these are usually material possessions, plants, or handmade items; Wiccans never sacrifice animals or people), and a sharing of a simple meal with fellow witches (if a member of a coven) and the Deities. Worship services have many important purposes, but the main reason Wiccans perform rituals is to gain understanding of the energies of the divine and, ultimately, the energies contained in the witch himself/herself. The harnessing and directing of this natural, personal energy is what witches call magic (or magick). Magic "Magic is a basic part of The Craft, but it does not have to be the same as the religious aspect. In other words, Wicca may be considered a religion with a Goddess and a God that uses magic in a religious framework," (Moura, 91). There are two types of magic practiced by Wiccans: Religious (ritual) magic, and non- religious (folk) magic. When casting folk magic spells, Wiccans combine the energies within crystals, herbs, stones, and candles with their own personal energies to bring about a desired effect. After the ingredients are gathered, the energies are united and sent out to do their work. This sending out of energy is accomplished through intense visualization that can take a few short minutes or a few hours, depending on the skill and patience of the witch. Wiccans feel that this visualization is the most important part of a spell. All the other components of the spell are simply to assist the witch in raising energy and to place him/her in the correct mindset for visualization. The other type of spellcasting, ritual magic, is quite different. A ritual spell is only done during a worship service and uses none of the "assistants of the folk spell. A ritual spell is simply the gathering of personal energy in the presence of the God and Goddess. The Wiccan raises this energy through dance, music, or other physical exercise. When the spellcasters feel they can hold no more energy, they visualize the intent of their spell and release the energy to do its work. Witches cast spells for many different reasons, but they never use magic to hurt, control, or destroy. Wicca has no written laws of what is right or wrong, no huge books of ancient dogma, but it does have one essential rule of thumb: the Witches' Rede. Simplified, it says: Do what you want, but harm none. "None" includes people, animals, Mother Earth, and one's self. In fact, the majority of Wiccan spells are to heal friends, pets, fellow coven members, and even the Earth. Environmentalism in Wicca In a religion that sees the Earth as a physical manifestation of the Goddess and God, a reverence for nature is a natural extension of reverence for the divine. Most Wiccans are involved in a number of environmental causes, and many belong to political action groups such as P.E.T.A., The National Arbor Day Foundation, or GreenPeace. Wiccans never kill needlessly or take something form nature without an offering or thanks. A witch never sacrifices a living thing to the Goddess or God and whenever a branch must be cut from a tree or a crop picked, the witch will thank the plant and leave a gift such as a crystal or a coin. This "gift" is not actually for the plant, but to remind the Wiccan that whenever we take, we must give in something in return. This maintains a balance in the natural, and spiritual, world. Conclusion All of these aspects together--worship of the God and Goddess, the practice of magic, and a reverence for nature--define the modern witch. Witchcraft is not devil worship or a cult of sex orgies and drug abuse, but is simply "...a way of life for hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions--of well adjusted adults who simply share a view of nature that is different from that of the majority," (Cunningham, xi). This is who witches are and what they do. Witches are good, moral, law-abiding people. Even those from the west. Works Cited Cunningham, Scott. The Truth About Witchcraft Today. St. Paul, Minn.: Llewellyn Publications, 1994. Cunningham, Scott. Wicca: A Guide of the Solitary Practitioner. St. Paul, Minn.: Llewellyn Publications, 1988. Moura, Ann. Green Witchcraft. St. Paul, Minn.: Llewellyn Publications, 1996. Walker, Barbra G. The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1988. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What is Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What is Buddhism? Buddhism is a path of teaching and practice. Buddhist practices such as meditation are means of changing oneself in order to develop the qualities of awareness, kindness, and wisdom. The experience developed within the Buddhist tradition over thousands of years has created an incomparable resource for all those who wish to follow the path of spiritual development. Ultimately, the Buddhist path culminates in Enlightenment or Buddhahood. Who was the Buddha? The word Buddha is a title not a name. It means 'one who is awake' in the sense of having 'woken up to reality'. The title was first given to a man called Siddharta Guatemala, who lived about 2,500 years ago in Northern India. When he was 35 he found Enlightenment whist in profound mediation, after searching for years. In the next 45 years of his life he spent it traveling through India teaching his way of life. His teaching is known as Buddha-dharma. Traveling from place to place, the Buddha gained many disciples. They also taught of the enlightment, and the chain has continued on to this present day. The Buddha was not a God, and he made no claim to divinity. There is no concept of a creator in Buddhism. He was a human being who, thought tremendous efforts, transformed himself. The state of Enlightenment which he reached has three main facets. It is a state of wisdom, of insight into the true nature of things. It is also a source or boundless compassion, manifesting itself in activity for the benefit of all beings. and it the total liberation of all the energies of the mind and the body so they are at the service of the fully conscious mind. What Happened After the Buddha's Death? Buddhism died out in India a thousand years ago, though it has recently revived. In the last century Buddhism has emphatically arrived in the West and up to one million westerners have become Buddhists. What Does Buddhism Teach? Buddhism sees life as being in process of constant change and its practices aim to take advantage of this fact. It means that one can change for the better. The decisive factor in changing ourselves is the mind and Buddhism has developed many methods for working on the mind. Most importantly, Buddhists practice meditation which is a way of developing more positive states of mind which are characterized by calm, concentration, awareness, and emotions such as friendliness. How do you become a Buddhist? To become a Buddhist in the full sense means committing oneself to the central ideas of Buddhism. The Buddhist path is open to all equally: men and women, young and old, people of all nationalities, races and backgrounds. Rebirth Rebirth in the Six Realms Buddhism teaches that birth, death and rebirth are part of the continuing process of change. The is similar to the continuous process of growth, decay, and replacement of cells in ones' body. According to medical experts, after every seven years, all the cells in one's body are replaced by new ones. At the moment of death, and the body can no longer survive, the mind is separated from the body. At that time, the craving for lives causes one to seek a new existence, and the karma done previously determine the place of one's rebirth. There are six realms which one may be reborn after death. They are the realms of gods, the demigods, human beings, animals, hungry ghosts, and the hells. In general, wholesome actions like good conduct, charity, a and mental development, are the cause of rebirth in the happy realms of gods, demigods, and human beings. On the other hand, unwholesome actions like immoral conduct, miserliness and cruelty cause rebirth in the unhappy realm of animals, hungry ghosts and the hells. Of all the six realms, the realm of human beings is considered the most desirable. In the realm of human beings, the conditions for attaining Nirvana are better. In general, in the unhappy realms, the suffering of living beings is so intense and their ignorance so great that they are unable to recognize the Truth and follow the path to attain freedom. Alternatively, living beings in the realms of the gods and demigods experience so much happiness and have so many distractions that they do not think of rebirth until it is too late. Then they may be reborn in one of the lower realms of suffering. In the realm of human beings, however, people experience both happiness and suffering, and are intelligent enough to recognize the Truth and follow the path to attain freedom from the cycle of birth and death. Therefore, one is indeed fortunate to be born as a human being, and should remember that the principal cause of birth in the realm is Good Conduct. The Cycle of Birth and Death The Buddha pointed out that whenever one is reborn, whether as a human being, as an animal, or as a god, non of these states of exticence is permanent. The average life span of the living beings in the six realms of existence differ but none of them lasts forever. Eventually, rebirth will take place. The realm into which one is reborn and one's conditions of rebirth are determined by ones' past and present actions. This is the law of Karma at work. Because of the force of their karma, people are born are reborn endlessly, in one realm of existence or in another. The Buddha declared that there is no permanent rest in the cycle of birth and death. It is only when one follows the Noble Eightfold path taught by the Buddha and eventually attains Nirvana, that one finally becomes free from the ceaseless cycle and gains supreme and permanent happiness. Karma Karma is the law of moral causation. It is action and reaction in the ethical realm. It is natural law that every action produces a certain effect. So if one performs wholesome actions, one will experience happiness. on the other hand, if one performs unwholesome actions, one will experience suffering. The is the law of cause and effect at work. In this way, the effect of one's past karma determine that nature of one's present situation in life. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What Is Religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What Is Religion What is religion? According to an Oxford dictionary, religion is the belief in the existence of a supernatural ruling power, the creator and controller of the universe, who has given to man a spirtual nature which continues to exist after the death of the body. Religion appears to be a simple idea on the surface, but in reality it is a very complex system of ideas that many base their lives upon. There are many religions in the world. Christianity seems to be the one religion believed widely in the modern world. However, this is not the case in a group of five people in a World Religion class. These five people share common knowledge on several aspects of religion, yet they have some major conflicts. The focus of this paper is to explore the ideas and beliefs of the group, analyze the importance of religions dialogue, and to discuss the challenge of religious pluralism in the contemporary world. The first group member states her firm Christian views. Melissa recognizes all the religions of the world, but she holds Christanity to be the only true religion. To her, Christianity is the only way one person can attain salvation. All other religions are false and those who do not follow Christanity are misguided and will not attain salvation. It is only through Jesus Christ's death on the cross that one can repent, be forgiven, and attain salvation. Melissa feels that others who are non-Christians believe that their religion is true. Afterall everyone is brought up to believe in the faith or religion they are taught. If this was not the case, no one would have any beliefs. Although their religions are not true religions Melissa respects their views of being true. Quite similar to Melissa's opinion, Jason feels that there is only one true religion in the world, which is Christianity. However, he recognizes that there are many other religions in the world in which their followers believe are true. He does not believe that one should criticize others for their beliefs, and that they should respect each person's beliefs even if they are different from his. For Jason, Christianity is the true religion. It is the only religion that he believes Has the right answers for life, and the correct way to salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. So his position is that there is only one true religion in the world, but that there are other religions in the world that people follow and their followers hold their religion to be true. Jason feels that other religions of the world are important and are held true by their followers. If this were not so, then why would anyone follow a religion that they did not believe was true. Michele believes Christianity is the one true religion. However, she recognizes that other religions exist, and they are held true by their respective adherents. She does not believe that non-Christian religions are right, but she respects other people's rights to choose whatever faith they want to follow. Michele has been raised a Roman Catholic and is checking out other Christian religions to see what they offer. She still believes that Christianity is the one true religion, but she is curious to learn more about the other Christian denominations. Lori believes that since there are so many diverse religions today that it is impossible to say that only one religion is correct. Lori feels that if she said there was only one true religion she would be forcing her religion onto others. For her, religion is an opinion. If you were to ask almost anyone which religion was the one true religion of the world, they would say their religion. She also feels that there are so many unanswered questions in every religion therefore, she can not justify saying there is only one that is right. She does believe that there is only one true God. Overall, she believes in one true God, while recognizing the fact that there are other religions besides the one of which she is a part. Finally, Tony expresses his views which are quite different from the rest of the group members. A few years ago Tony was a Christian and believed that the god he worshiped was the one and only true god. He not only had a strong faith in his relgious beliefs, but also felt that all the other religions in the world were false, and that the followers of these teachings were misfortunately misguided. He was going to heaven because he was right and they (those of other faiths) were wrong and unfortunately going to hell. In the past few years Tony questined his Christian faith and the holy writings upon which they were based. Now he is an agnostic. Although Tony does not believe or have evidence that there is any true religion or religions, he now gives equal credibility to all religions to which previously he had not. He has concluded that those persons of the various religions show just as much fervor in their faith as do their religious counterparts of opposing faiths. It is apparent that there are many persons and just as may religious perspectives. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a true religion and a false religion(s), but that religion is an entirely subjective experience whose truth is decided by its value to its adherents. Further discussion on other aspects of religion took place as well. For example, the topic of the Christian Bible posed conflict among two of the group members. Jason boldly stated his opinion of the Bible. He believes every word in the Bible to be true. He thinks that everything in life should be based on how the Bible tells you to live. He feels that the Bible is the true word of God. He also feels that the Bible has told the past and fortells the future as well. According to the Bible, Israel is God's chosen nation and that any country that goes against this nation, they will be punished by God. He relates this to the recent incident of Israel's Prime Minister being assassinated. He believes that if this was a direct act of a certain nation, then there will be other events to follow. However, Tony has different beliefs which controdict Jason's completely. Tony has no belief in Christianity, therefore, he has no belief in the Bible. He feels there is no way the Bible can be the word of God because there is no proof and there is no foundation. Tony also questions the presence of a heaven and hell. For Tony, Christianity is nothing but brainwashing. He thinks one's beliefs are determined by the way one is raised. If one is brought up a certain way, then he will only believe a certain way. The group came to a meeting point from this statement. We all agreed that one's religion is his or her own personal belief built from the foundation of one's upbringing. The group also discussed how we as a society are supposed to handle the problems that religious pluralism causes. There is no greater enemy to humankind than fear. It is undoubtedly the germ of hatred, contempt, disdain, resentment, disapproval and therefore all forms of discrimiantion. When we are unable to understand or encounter the unfamiliar, we fear. The only way to understand amd become familiar with the source of our fears is through exposure. This is imperative to mutual understanding in any matter. This is especially true in religion, where those of the various faiths are adamant in the belief of the superiority of their relgious faith. An invaluable means of coming to terms with those of differing faiths is the process of dialogue. The importance of interreligious dialogue cannot be understated. In our discussion group of five members (consisting of four Christians and one agnostic), the majority is of the opinion that their religion is the only one true religion in the world. This majority simply beleives that those of other faiths are misfortunately misguided. Nonetheless, there is unanimous agreement that there is considerable importance in intereligious dialouge amongst the religions of the world. This dialogue will bring understanding and hopefully promote tolerance and acceptance of those beliefs not similar to one's own. The idea is not to bring about conformity, but to exploit the benefits of religious diversity. Our group agrees on how the challenge of religious pluralism is to be met in contemporary world. The most important tool to help deal with religious pluralism is dialogue. People of different religions need to communicate and listen to each other. Because of all the diversity in the world, we feel people need to be open-minded and non-judgemental of other people's views, especially if their views do not necessarily agree with someone else's views. We think trying to understand different religions takes compassion and understanding. Often, people fear the "unknown." So, another way to meet the challenge of religious pluralism is through education. People can learn about different religions and respect the diversity that exists. Further, to help understand a different religion, our group thinks that going to check out different religion services will give people personal experience of that different faith. People do not have to feel they have to accept the other religion, but going to visit another service will broaden their horizons. We believe that if society can respect the religious diversity in the world, the challenge of relgious pluralism can be met. W.C. Smith says it best, "Unless men can learn to understand and to be loyal to each other across religious frontiers, unless we can build a world in which people profoundly of different faiths can live together and work together, then the prospects for our planets future are not bright" ("The Christian in a Religiously Plural World" 11). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What Is Satanism .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What is Satanism? Satanism is the religion of the flesh. Happiness, to the Satanist must be found here and now. No heaven exists to go to after death and no Hell of burning punishment awaits the sinner. Strongly attached to our family and close associations, we make excellent friends. Satanists do not believe that you can love everyone and treat every person the same. By failing to hate you make yourself unable to love. Feared by their enemies and loved by their friends, Satanist's build their stronghold in the community. The term occult means "hidden" or those things or teachings that are unknown information, knowledge that is gained beyond the five senses. Therefore, knowledge is received by some supernatural involvement or connection. Anton LaVey of the first church of Satan in San Francisco, California, says that "Satanism is a blatantly selfish brutal religion- It is based on the belief that man is inherently a selfish, violent creature... that the earth will be ruled by those who fight and win." Satanism challenges the biblical teachings regarding mans relationship to others. Young Satanist's believe that the strong will rule with Satan. Power has become an obsession with young Satanists. It is sought after on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels. Gaining knowledge that others do not posses is another aspect of the occult. When an individual has more knowledge it allows them a degree of power over those who do not have access to that knowledge. The Ouija Board has proven particularly useful. The Ouija Board is an instrument for communication with the spirits of the dead. The Ouija Board is an open door into the world of the occult and demonic activity. Disembodied speak to the living through the medium of the Ouija Board. This information is believed to be truth from the other side; Lucifer's delusion to gain our allegiance. Most cases are with people who have used the Ouija Board. The Ouija Board is the easiest way to become possessed. The greatest danger of the Ouija is that an individual begins to place his trust and future hope in the message the board brings. Christians can offer several reasons as to why one should not be involved in the use of the Ouija Board. One is simply that the bible condemns it as being involvement in the occult. And then theirs the fact that the message received is often false and misleading. According to scripture (Matt 4:9, Rev, 12:19) "Satan's goal is to deceive man by blinding him to the truth of the gospel and to receive worship for himself. Satan desires to alter an individuals values and turn them against themselves, their beliefs, family, God and society. Initiation plays a major role in group activity. Through initiation an individual is given a chance to declare total allegiance to Satan by participation. Often one will sever a portion of a finger or a toe to indicate their commitment. Other acts include being a participant ritual where mutilation of an animal or person part of the activity. In some cases a criminal act is perpetrated where the initiate is involved in a key role. An unholy communion of sorts is taken during the initiatory rituals where a cup or chalice (usually stolen from the church) is used containing a mixture of wine, blood (human or animal) and urine. Other methods of initiation include body markings. An inverted cross may be burned into ones forearm or chest. Commonly used markings include a goathead, inverted crosses, skulls, pentagrams, mena(Amen), or a black rose. Anton Szandor LaVey formed the church of Satan in 1966. LaVey, the author of the Satanic bible is probably the most common source of satanic ritual and understanding available. Modern Satanism really begins with Anton Szandor LaVey. On Walpurgisnacht, April 30, 1966 he created the Church of Satan. Anton drew on his previous experience as a lion tamer and side show barker.. And on his readings into the psychology, magick etc., and wrote the Satanic Bible in 1966. It can be found in most large bookstores. The Satanic Bible has sold more than 600, 000 thousand copies since it was published by Avon books in 1969. This was followed by the Compleat Witch(1970) later republished as the Satanic Witch, and the Satanic Rituals in 1972. These are essentially the only available books that accurately describe Satanism. At the core of the Church are nine Satanic statements written by Anton LaVey, they state that Satan represents: 1. indulgence, not abstinence 2. vital existence, not spiritual pipe dreams 3. undefiled wisdom, not hypocrisy self-deceit 4. kindness to those deserving it, not love wasted on ingrates 5. Vengeance, not turning the other cheek 6. Responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires 7. Man as just another animal, the most vicious of all 8. Gratification of all ones desires 9. The best friend the Christian Church has had as he kept it in business for centuries LaVey's rituals and ceremonies are pageants used to celebrate a person or element of faith. Magick rituals consist of three types. Sex magic (include materbation), healing or happiness rituals and destruction rituals. Destruction rituals may include sticking pins in a doll; drawing a picture or writing of a victim's death; delivering a soliloquy etc. Destruction rituals are best performed by a group. Male Satanists wear full length black robes, with or without a hood. Young women wear sexually suggestive clothing; older women wear all black. All Satanists wear amulets with a symbol of Baphomet, a goat's head drawn within an inverted pentagram. When the Satanic Bible was written in 1969 a nude woman was customarily used as an altar, since Satanism is regarded as the religion of the flesh, not the spirit. A live altar is rarely used today. One candle is placed to the right of the altar; it symbolizes the belief of Satanists in the hypocrisy of "White Magicians" insistence to do no harm to others. At least one black candle, representing the Power of Darkness, is placed to the left of the altar, A bell is rung nine times at the beginning and at the end or a ritual. The Satanic priest rotates counter-clockwise as he rings the bell. A chalice is ideally made of silver, it may be not be formed of gold because that is a metal Wiccans use, and Satanists want to distance themselves as much possible from Wicca. Other ritual tools include a gong, sword, elixir (usually wine), phallus, and parchment. They and the chalice and bell are placed on a small table near the altar. The language used during magical ritual is Enochian, whose words variously sound similar to Arabic, Hebrew or Latin. Its origin is unknown. The church or Satanic rules of Behavior include: · Prayer is useless; it distracts people from useful activity · Enjoy indulgence instead of abstinence, practice with joy all the seven deadly Christian sins (greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust and sloth). · If a man smites you on one cheek, smash him on the other · Do unto others as they do onto you · Engage in sexual activity freely · Suicide is frowned on The Satanist needs no elaborate, detailed list of rules of behavior. Most religions like Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam have well-defined meanings. Satanism is the exception. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What is Satanism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What is Satanism? Satanism is the religion of the flesh. Happiness, to the Satanist must be found here and now. No heaven exists to go to after death and no Hell of burning punishment awaits the sinner. Strongly attached to our family and close associations, we make excellent friends. Satanists do not believe that you can love everyone and treat every person the same. By failing to hate you make yourself unable to love. Feared by their enemies and loved by their friends, Satanist's build their stronghold in the community. The term occult means "hidden" or those things or teachings that are unknown information, knowledge that is gained beyond the five senses. Therefore, knowledge is received by some supernatural involvement or connection. Anton LaVey of the first church of Satan in San Francisco, California, says that "Satanism is a blatantly selfish brutal religion- It is based on the belief that man is inherently a selfish, violent creature... that the earth will be ruled by those who fight and win." Satanism challenges the biblical teachings regarding mans relationship to others. Young Satanist's believe that the strong will rule with Satan. Power has become an obsession with young Satanists. It is sought after on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels. Gaining knowledge that others do not posses is another aspect of the occult. When an individual has more knowledge it allows them a degree of power over those who do not have access to that knowledge. The Ouija Board has proven particularly useful. The Ouija Board is an instrument for communication with the spirits of the dead. The Ouija Board is an open door into the world of the occult and demonic activity. Disembodied speak to the living through the medium of the Ouija Board. This information is believed to be truth from the other side; Lucifer's delusion to gain our allegiance. Most cases are with people who have used the Ouija Board. The Ouija Board is the easiest way to become possessed. The greatest danger of the Ouija is that an individual begins to place his trust and future hope in the message the board brings. Christians can offer several reasons as to why one should not be involved in the use of the Ouija Board. One is simply that the bible condemns it as being involvement in the occult. And then theirs the fact that the message received is often false and misleading. According to scripture (Matt 4:9, Rev, 12:19) "Satan's goal is to deceive man by blinding him to the truth of the gospel and to receive worship for himself. Satan desires to alter an individuals values and turn them against themselves, their beliefs, family, God and society. Initiation plays a major role in group activity. Through initiation an individual is given a chance to declare total allegiance to Satan by participation. Often one will sever a portion of a finger or a toe to indicate their commitment. Other acts include being a participant ritual where mutilation of an animal or person part of the activity. In some cases a criminal act is perpetrated where the initiate is involved in a key role. An unholy communion of sorts is taken during the initiatory rituals where a cup or chalice (usually stolen from the church) is used containing a mixture of wine, blood (human or animal) and urine. Other methods of initiation include body markings. An inverted cross may be burned into ones forearm or chest. Commonly used markings include a goathead, inverted crosses, skulls, pentagrams, mena(Amen), or a black rose. Anton Szandor LaVey formed the church of Satan in 1966. LaVey, the author of the Satanic bible is probably the most common source of satanic ritual and understanding available. Modern Satanism really begins with Anton Szandor LaVey. On Walpurgisnacht, April 30, 1966 he created the Church of Satan. Anton drew on his previous experience as a lion tamer and side show barker.. And on his readings into the psychology, magick etc., and wrote the Satanic Bible in 1966. It can be found in most large bookstores. The Satanic Bible has sold more than 600, 000 thousand copies since it was published by Avon books in 1969. This was followed by the Compleat Witch(1970) later republished as the Satanic Witch, and the Satanic Rituals in 1972. These are essentially the only available books that accurately describe Satanism. At the core of the Church are nine Satanic statements written by Anton LaVey, they state that Satan represents: 1. indulgence, not abstinence 2. vital existence, not spiritual pipe dreams 3. undefiled wisdom, not hypocrisy self-deceit 4. kindness to those deserving it, not love wasted on ingrates 5. Vengeance, not turning the other cheek 6. Responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires 7. Man as just another animal, the most vicious of all 8. Gratification of all ones desires 9. The best friend the Christian Church has had as he kept it in business for centuries LaVey's rituals and ceremonies are pageants used to celebrate a person or element of faith. Magick rituals consist of three types. Sex magic (include materbation), healing or happiness rituals and destruction rituals. Destruction rituals may include sticking pins in a doll; drawing a picture or writing of a victim's death; delivering a soliloquy etc. Destruction rituals are best performed by a group. Male Satanists wear full length black robes, with or without a hood. Young women wear sexually suggestive clothing; older women wear all black. All Satanists wear amulets with a symbol of Baphomet, a goat's head drawn within an inverted pentagram. When the Satanic Bible was written in 1969 a nude woman was customarily used as an altar, since Satanism is regarded as the religion of the flesh, not the spirit. A live altar is rarely used today. One candle is placed to the right of the altar; it symbolizes the belief of Satanists in the hypocrisy of "White Magicians" insistence to do no harm to others. At least one black candle, representing the Power of Darkness, is placed to the left of the altar, A bell is rung nine times at the beginning and at the end or a ritual. The Satanic priest rotates counter-clockwise as he rings the bell. A chalice is ideally made of silver, it may be not be formed of gold because that is a metal Wiccans use, and Satanists want to distance themselves as much possible from Wicca. Other ritual tools include a gong, sword, elixir (usually wine), phallus, and parchment. They and the chalice and bell are placed on a small table near the altar. The language used during magical ritual is Enochian, whose words variously sound similar to Arabic, Hebrew or Latin. Its origin is unknown. The church or Satanic rules of Behavior include: - Prayer is useless; it distracts people from useful activity - Enjoy indulgence instead of abstinence, practice with joy all the seven deadly Christian sins (greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust and sloth). - If a man smites you on one cheek, smash him on the other - Do unto others as they do onto you - Engage in sexual activity freely - Suicide is frowned on The Satanist needs no elaborate, detailed list of rules of behavior. Most religions like Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam have well- -defined meanings. Satanism is the exception. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\WHAT THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE STUDY OF JUDAISM ARE RAISED BY THE HOLOCAUST.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WHAT THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE STUDY OF JUDAISM ARE RAISED BY THE HOLOCAUST? The Jewish people have always considered themselves as God's chosen people and have undergone a lot of traumatic oppression throughout their life. Evolving out of a common religion, they have developed customs, culture and an ethical system which identified them as Jews regardless of their individual religious attitudes. There is a pattern evident in which the Jews have been cast as victims. The first sign of oppression noted in Jewish history according to the Hebrew scriptures, was the time in ancient years when the Jews were held in captivity by the Egyptians as slaves. Moses's escape with the children of Israel marked the crucial transition in the history of Judaism. This event is known as the Exodus. The Exodus experience can be called the 'key event' both in Jewish history and theology. To understand the relevant details raised by the Holocaust one needs to understand how Jewish people have a strong devotion to God and have an ongoing respect for people in other religions. This is established by understanding the intention of the holy laws given to Moses for the people from God. These laws are known as the ten commandments which illustrates a list of obligations that there theology is firmly established. Their theology is based on a closeness between tradition and their moral precepts, which became conflicting for them during the time of World War II. Such is evident when they were persecuted, traumatized and de-humanized in the concentration camps. Similarly the Holocaust would be regarded as a very important event. It is this crucial experience that the Jewish people have had to query their very existence through their theological questioning. As an effect of the economic and political upheavals of the time, the Jews were seen as endangering the purity of the Aryan race which was Hitler's impression of the superior people consisting of only the Germans. During the horrid times of the war the Jews were deported to concentration camps in Europe, where many were tortured, gassed and Jewish women as young as 13 and onwards were kept and raped by the German soldiers. It was noted that over six million Jews were slaughtered by the Germans and their collaborators. This outrage was called the Holocaust. The Holocaust was not just an event. It was a process that continued for over a decade and involved the deaths of many innocent Jews. The Holocaust (1942-45) was the effort of Hitler to eradicate the Jews and other people that were considered as inferior. It has been called the most terrible catastrophe in modern history and in Hebrew terms it is known as Shoah meaning "a whirlwind of destruction". This outrage in history left the Jewish people in complete awe as they wondered about the many theological questions that were never answered, one of which would be "Why did God abandoned his people throughout great times of their sufferings?" Below, an extraction from a summary by Margaret Schwartz at the time of the war. "Why don't you pray to your God?" a man dressed in a fur coat told the girls. "He helped you in the past, he split the Red Sea for you and gave you manna from heaven for forty years. Ask him, he can surely spare a few crumbs of bread and a few drops of water. There are only a few of you Jews left by now. Where is your God? Why doesn't he help you? (St. Michael's text handout p.163) Such questions from this extract would move the understanding of people to ask 'Why did God allow his chosen people to suffer' and 'If God and humanity are so spiritually connected, how could one group of people inflict so much pain on another race?'. 2/3 The Holocaust therefore was not just about the experience of the Jews in a detention camp. It was about the hardship of life through the anxiety of other Jews. Being defenseless in there actions and having to die with each other. The living nightmare was seen as one that had no end. There are no logical truths to the theological answers the Holocaust presents on the people. One cannot comment on a right or wrong answer, as the Holocaust is purely a matter of human supremacy and destruction. What happened in the past is their legacy to the future that cannot be erased or taken away from them. Questions that would arose after the war, would conflict with the connection they have with God. For victims of the Holocaust, the effects of this terror did not end the way in which they had hoped God will save them. The trauma of abuse and mistreatment remain as scars in Jewish history that will not heal. As one Jewish victim stated, "To be a survivor of the Holocaust means that your heart is broken. It might mend a little bit, but it could never be complete." This statement speaks for the entire Jewish community who have had some connection with the Holocaust. Whatever happened as a result of the Holocaust, God is still the savior of the Jewish people. Whatever they perceive as being abandoned by God may not be in a sense of real abandonment but a way that God should not be accountable for someone's actions and that in itself would have to be a question raised by the theological questioning of the Holocaust. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What went wrong An examination of Separation of Church and s.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By the middle of the 20th Century, the United States had emerged as a world power. It accomplished this through its leadership in defeating Germany and Japan in World War II. These two countries' main objective was to enslave the world and destroy political, religious, and economic freedom. In Germany or Japan, anyone who disagreed with these goals, or was different was destroyed. This was a common practice in these two fascist countries. Unfortunately, at the same time of its emergence as a world power, the United States began to slip into a form of judicial fascism. This slide began when the U.S. Supreme Court began to abandon the religious principles on which this nation was founded. The abandonment officially began in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education, when the court announced, "The 1st amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." (Barton, Original... p.13) This exact case began the reversal of Supreme Court trends and opinions that had lasted for one hundred and fifty years. Now, for almost fifty years, the Supreme Court , and the United States population in general, has used the phrase "separation of church and state" when referring to the religion clause of the 1st Amendment. The 1st amendment's actual wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (Barton, America: To... p.15) But, because of the Supreme Court's continuous citing of a "wall of separation" and "separation of church and state", the public's idea of the 1st amendment's religion clause has been shaped by phrases which do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The First Congress, which passed this Amendment in 1789, intended to prohibit the establishment of a national religion. In fact, they didn't mind the establishment of "official" religions by states. At the start of the American Revolution, nine of the thirteen colonies had established religions, so obviously no one was opposed to the coupling of church and state. Unfortunately, this separation talk has been so furiously pounded into our heads, that a picture is painted falsely into our heads; a picture of a roomful of godless atheists, agnostics, and deists framing our Constitution in 1789. This picture is gruesomely distorted. Most of the Founders belonged to orthodox Christian religions, and some were even evangelical Christian ministers. (Barton, America's p.3) The Supreme Court says that these men's intent was to keep religion and politics separate. John Quincy Adams, in a speech on July 4,1837 asked the crowd, "Why is it, that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and venerated festival returns on this day?" He goes on to explain the important ties between the birthday of the nation and the birthday of Jesus Christ. He says that the Declaration of Independence was first organized on the foundation of Jesus' mission on Earth, and that the Declaration "laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. Adams stressed that the major impact of the Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government were connected in an "indissoluble" bond. (Barton, America's p.17) Why is the Supreme Court blind to such evidence as this? John Quincy Adams was an extremely well educated man, so he is a very reliable source. Other Founding Fathers were very outspoken about Christian beliefs. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and one of the men most responsible for the Constitution declared, "Providence(heaven) has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christian rulers." (Barton, America's p.8) Doesn't this tell our Supreme Court anything? Shouldn't they follow the suit of their predecessor? Tragically, the group that suffers the most from these "separation of church and state " rulings are the children of America. We are headed into the third generation of people that do not know what it's like to pray in school in the morning. Luckily, Catholic and private schools aren't affected by this legislature, so some children can be free. School prayer and religious liberty became hot debates following the 1962 supreme court case Engel v. Vitale. Following this case, the Supreme Court began attacks on the traditional practice of praying at the start of a school day.(Barton, America: To... ,p.14) Since 1962, lessons which were commonplace in school texts have vanished, because of their religious nature. For example, history textbooks for 150 years contained a story about George Washington that most adults today have never heard. It takes place during the French and Indian War, and a young colonel of the Virginia militia, by the name of George Washington, had joined forces with the British General Braddock. Their Goal was to march on Fort Duquesne, which is now Pittsburgh. On their way, they were attacked by the French and the Indians. These men were used to European war tactics, and were slaughtered by the guerilla warfare tactics of the French and the Indians. It is a story of how Washington's life hung in the balance for two hours and that only by the direct intervention of God was his life spared. Washington wrote home, explaining that his coat had four bullet holes, but he was untouched. Fifteen years after the bloodbath, Washington went back to those woods, and he met an Indian Chief who had fought that day. He said that he had ordered his braves to shoot down all of the officers, but after the Chief himself had shot at Washington seventeen different times, he ordered his men to ignore Washington, believing him to be under the care of the Great Spirit.(Barton, America's... ,p.3,4) Students today aren't told much about Washington's "Farewell Address", they are told it is hard to find, and that it is rarely seen printed. When the teacher does mention it, it is taught that Washington warned America about getting involved in foreign affairs, and the growth of political parties. This speech was commonplace in history texts prior to the 1960s. The problem with Washington's famous speech was that out of the twelve warnings he gave, four were overly religious, and therefore unsuitable for students to be exposed to.(Barton America's..., p.8) Washington said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." He also states, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." How blatant can you get? The first president of the United States, the man that the Founders unanimously chose as their leader, says that religious principles and morality are vital to the success of a government! How could the Supreme Court ignore this evidence? Nobody knows.("George Washington") In the cases of Everson v. Board of Education and Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court uses Jefferson and Madison's Virginia Statute, a bill that both men pushed in Virginia legislature, as a basis for the intent of the 1st Amendment. This, of course is wrong. In Virginia, the Anglican Church was the only legal religion, despite the fact that Quakers, Lutherans, and Baptists outnumbered the Anglicans. Jefferson and Madison pushed for the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, also called the Virginia Statute. This occurred in 1786. This was not the first example of this, other states had Religious Liberty bills, including New Jersey, North Carolina, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, and Vermont. (Barton, Original... p.202) Jefferson and Madison did not consider themselves to be authorities on the 1st Amendment, or the Constitution as a whole. The Supreme Court insists that they are the only men responsible for the Religion Clauses of the 1st amendment. Jefferson was not even in the country when the Constitution was written, and he himself said that he had nothing to do with it. Madison told a close friend that he did not like being called the "writer of the Constitution", and that it was "the work of many heads and many hands. Madison, although very influential during the framing of the Constitution could hardly be considered the spokesman for the entire group of Founders. 40 of his 71 proposals failed, and his original idea of the document was completely different from the final draft. (Barton, Original..., p.204) Many state courts and schools have considered it their duty to follow the Supreme Court's example regarding religious liberty. Because of this, many odd decisions have been delivered, some of which make people wonder, were these people serious? In Commonwealth v. Chambers, a case heard by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, a prosecuting attorney mentioned seven words from the Bible in the Courtroom.. Because of this, the jury sentence was overturned for a man convicted of brutally clubbing a 71 year-old woman to death. (Barton, Original..., p.16) In Alaska Public Schools, students were prohibited from using the word "Christmas" in school, from exchanging Christmas cards or presents, or from displaying anything with the word "Christmas" because it contains the word "Christ"(Barton, Original..., p.16) The Supreme Court has overlooked the 150 years prior to 1947, in which religious expression was encouraged in public, and a case such as Commonwealth v. Chambers would be unheard of. Before Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court made countless decisions regarding religion that directly contradict the past 50 years of religious oppression. Some of these decisions refer to the U.S. as a Christian country. One, Davis v. Beason, in 1889, strikes down bigamy and polygamy, rejecting arguments that they were religious exercises. The Court states Davis, a Mormon, was wrong, and that his actions were crimes by "the laws of all civilized and Christian countries." This decision clearly shows the intent of the legislators of the era.(Barton, Original.. p.64-65) The solution to this problem lies in educating the people of this great republic as to the intent of the Founders. In the evidence presented, it can be clearly seen that the judicial fascism being practiced today and now, is clearly not what the Founding Fathers intended for our country. The solution to the religious liberty/school prayer debate lies in the hands of Congress.(Barton, A guide.. p.36) The media portrays supporters of a school prayer amendment as a radical fringe minority, when recent studies and surveys have shown that 71% of people favor an amendment for school prayer. We cannot be r f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\What Went Wrong An Examination of Separation of Church.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What Went Wrong: An Examination of Separation of Church and State By the middle of the 20th Century, the United States had emerged as a world power. It accomplished this through its leadership in defeating Germany and Japan in World War II. These two countries' main objective was to enslave the world and destroy political, religious, and economic freedom. In Germany or Japan, anyone who disagreed with these goals, or was different was destroyed. This was a common practice in these two fascist countries. Unfortunately, at the same time of its emergence as a world power, the United States began to slip into a form of judicial fascism. This slide began when the U.S. Supreme Court began to abandon the religious principles on which this nation was founded. The abandonment officially began in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education, when the court announced, "The 1st amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." (Barton, Original... p.13) This exact case began the reversal of Supreme Court trends and opinions that had lasted for one hundred and fifty years. Now, for almost fifty years, the Supreme Court , and the United States population in general, has used the phrase "separation of church and state" when referring to the religion clause of the 1st Amendment. The 1st amendment's actual wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (Barton, America: To... p.15) But, because of the Supreme Court's continuous citing of a " wall of separation" and "separation of church and state", the public's idea of the 1st amendment's religion clause has been shaped by phrases which do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The First Congress, which passed this Amendment in 1789, intended to prohibit the establishment of a national religion. In fact, they didn't mind the establishment of "official" religions by states. At the start of the American Revolution, nine of the thirteen colonies had established religions, so obviously no one was opposed to the coupling of church and state. Unfortunately, this separation talk has been so furiously pounded into our heads, that a picture is painted falsely into our heads; a picture of a roomful of godless atheists, agnostics, and deists framing our Constitution in 1789. This picture is gruesomely distorted. Most of the Founders belonged to orthodox Christian religions, and some were even evangelical Christian ministers. (Barton, America's p.3) The Supreme Court says that these men's intent was to keep religion and politics separate. John Quincy Adams, in a speech on July 4,1837 asked the crowd, "Why is it, that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and venerated festival returns on this day?" He goes on to explain the important ties between the birthday of the nation and the birthday of Jesus Christ. He says that the Declaration of Independence was first organized on the foundation of Jesus' mission on Earth, and that the Declaration "laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. Adams stressed that the major impact of the Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government were connected in an "indissoluble" bond. (Barton, America's p.17) Why is the Supreme Court blind to such evidence as this? John Quincy Adams was an extremely well educated man, so he is a very reliable source. Other Founding Fathers were very outspoken about Christian beliefs. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and one of the men most responsible for the Constitution declared, "Providence(heaven) has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christian rulers." (Barton, America's p.8) Doesn't this tell our Supreme Court anything? Shouldn't they follow the suit of their predecessor? Tragically, the group that suffers the most from these "separation of church and state " rulings are the children of America. We are headed into the third generation of people that do not know what it's like to pray in school in the morning. Luckily, Catholic and private schools aren't affected by this legislature, so some children can be free. School prayer and religious liberty became hot debates following the 1962 supreme court case Engel v. Vitale. Following this case, the Supreme Court began attacks on the traditional practice of praying at the start of a school day.(Barton, America: To... ,p.14) Since 1962, lessons which were commonplace in school texts have vanished, because of their religious nature. For example, history textbooks for 150 years contained a story about George Washington that most adults today have never heard. It takes place during the French and Indian War, and a young colonel of the Virginia militia, by the name of George Washington, had joined forces with the British General Braddock. Their Goal was to march on Fort Duquesne, which is now Pittsburgh. On their way, they were attacked by the French and the Indians. These men were used to European war tactics, and were slaughtered by the guerilla warfare tactics of the French and the Indians. It is a story of how Washington's life hung in the balance for two hours and that only by the direct intervention of God was his life spared. Washington wrote home, explaining that his coat had four bullet holes, but he was untouched. Fifteen years after the bloodbath, Washington went back to those woods, and he met an Indian Chief who had fought that day. He said that he had ordered his braves to shoot down all of the officers, but after the Chief himself had shot at Washington seventeen different times, he ordered his men to ignore Washington, believing him to be under the care of the Great Spirit.(Barton, America's... , p.3,4) Students today aren't told much about Washington's "Farewell Address", they are told it is hard to find, and that it is rarely seen printed. When the teacher does mention it, it is taught that Washington warned America about getting involved in foreign affairs, and the growth of political parties. This speech was commonplace in history texts prior to the 1960s. The problem with Washington's famous speech was that out of the twelve warnings he gave, four were overly religious, and therefore unsuitable for students to be exposed to.(Barton America's..., p.8) Washington said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." He also states, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." How blatant can you get? The first president of the United States, the man that the Founders unanimously chose as their leader, says that religious principles and morality are vital to the success of a government! How could the Supreme Court ignore this evidence? Nobody knows.("George Washington") In the cases of Everson v. Board of Education and Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court uses Jefferson and Madison's Virginia Statute, a bill that both men pushed in Virginia legislature, as a basis for the intent of the 1st Amendment. This, of course is wrong. In Virginia, the Anglican Church was the only legal religion, despite the fact that Quakers, Lutherans, and Baptists outnumbered the Anglicans. Jefferson and Madison pushed for the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, also called the Virginia Statute. This occurred in 1786. This was not the first example of this, other states had Religious Liberty bills, including New Jersey, North Carolina, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, and Vermont. (Barton, Original... p.202) Jefferson and Madison did not consider themselves to be authorities on the 1st Amendment, or the Constitution as a whole. The Supreme Court insists that they are the only men responsible for the Religion Clauses of the 1st amendment. Jefferson was not even in the country when the Constitution was written, and he himself said that he had nothing to do with it. Madison told a close friend that he did not like being called the "writer of the Constitution", and that it was "the work of many heads and many hands. Madison, although very influential during the framing of the Constitution could hardly be considered the spokesman for the entire group of Founders. 40 of his 71 proposals failed, and his original idea of the document was completely different from the final draft. (Barton, Original..., p.204) Many state courts and schools have considered it their duty to follow the Supreme Court's example regarding religious liberty. Because of this, many odd decisions have been delivered, some of which make people wonder, were these people serious? In Commonwealth v. Chambers, a case heard by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, a prosecuting attorney mentioned seven words from the Bible in the Courtroom.. Because of this, the jury sentence was overturned for a man convicted of brutally clubbing a 71 year-old woman to death. (Barton, Original..., p.16) In Alaska Public Schools, students were prohibited from using the word " Christmas" in school, from exchanging Christmas cards or presents, or from displaying anything with the word "Christmas" because it contains the word " Christ"(Barton, Original..., p.16) The Supreme Court has overlooked the 150 years prior to 1947, in which religious expression was encouraged in public, and a case such as Commonwealth v. Chambers would be unheard of. Before Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court made countless decisions regarding religion that directly contradict the past 50 years of religious oppression. Some of these decisions refer to the U.S. as a Christian country. One, Davis v. Beason, in 1889, strikes down bigamy and polygamy, rejecting arguments that they were religious exercises. The Court states Davis, a Mormon, was wrong, and that his actions were crimes by "the laws of all civilized and Christian countries." This decision clearly shows the intent of the legislators of the era.(Barton, Original.. p.64-65) The solution to this problem lies in educating the people of this great republic as to the intent of the Founders. In the evidence presented, it can be clearly seen that the judicial fascism being practiced today and now, is clearly not what the Founding Fathers intended for our country. The solution to the religious liberty/school prayer debate lies in the hands of Congress.(Barton, A guide.. p.36) The media portrays supporters of a school prayer amendment as a radical fringe minority, when recent studies and surveys have shown that 71% of people favor an amendment for school prayer. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Who is a True Christian.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Who is a True Christian? It appears that Jane has had a strong belief in God, but she seems to have a more wholesome and wholehearted belief than some other characters in the novel. In the beginning of the novel young Jane is painfully rejected by her aunt, as well as her son and daughter.She is unable to alter the daily pattern of abuse and neglect. This makes it obvious that she did not live as a member of a truly Christian family, but she was mature enough to develop her own beliefs through daily prayers and biblical readings. Further in the story, she meets Mr. Brocklehurst for the first time and interviews Jane about sin, hell and the Bible. At one point in the conversation he asks her if she knows any psalms, she replies that "Psalms are not interesting (Bronte,490). This proves to Mr. Brocklehurst that she has a wicked heart, and must pray to God to change it and give her a new and clean one. Why must Mr. Brocklehurst be so harsh with such a young child? Would a truely Christian man ever be so quick to condemn someone he doesn't know anything about? Eventually Jane moves to Lowood Institution, an old, drafty, dreary place. It is there that Jane comes to realize that although Mr. Brocklehurst was able to put on a good show at Gateshead Hall about his religious beliefs, he is lacking in basic human necessities. The meals that were served were meager portions; during some occasions it was burned. Her knowledge of the shortcomings at Lowood were supported when she over heard the teachers whisper "Abominable stuff! How Shameful!"(Bronte,499). This situation along with the dreadfully cold sleeping quarters show that Mr. Brocklehurst although knowledgeable in biblical psalms and parables had no concern with the conditions these children lived in. Also, when Jane accidentally breaks her slate he punishes her by making her stand on a high stool as punishment. From this point onward in the novel, it is clear that Mr. Brocklehurst symbolizes hypocrisy and insensitivity. In particular, Mr. Brocklehurst was complaining about holes in stockings and expounding the virtues of a good Christian, he is interrupted by his fashionably dressed wife and two daughters. Their ostrich plumes, beaver hats and false French curls contrast with the cold, underdressed children huddling over a fire to keep warm. Obviously most of the donated money is used to spoil his family, and not being used for what it was given for. Is this the behavior of a true Christian? Jane doesn't not think so, but she is smart enough to disregard things she can not change and is able to find a few role models that influence her development. Jane's relationship with Helen Burns seems to strengthen her belief in God. Helen tells Jane that she is happy, and that she doesn't want Jane to grieve her death. By dying she is escaping great sufferings, and that she has strong faith in God. Helen also tells Jane about her beliefs in heaven. She says, "I am sure there is a future state; I believe God is god; I can resign my immortal part to him without any misgivings. God is my father; God is my friend: I love him; I believe he loves me"(525). After Helen tells her this she feels dearer to her, the reader can feel an emotional bond between the two girls and the sense of a developing of strong faith. Eventually, Jane meets a man named St. John Rivers who takes her in as a poor, helpless woman. Later they feel an attraction toward each other that must be avoided because they learn that they are distant relations. She notices that St. John is a good-hearted, caring man with strong faith in God. She appreciates those qualities and almost falls in love with him. St. John asks her to join him on a religious mission in India. Think that she was not a woman with a mind of her own he tries to convince her by saying "God and Nature intended you for a missionary's wife... A missionary's wife you must-shall be. You shall be mine: I claim you-nor for my pleasure, but for my Sovereign's service".(749) She almost accepts but comes to realize that he wants her to be his wife not his companion to spread the word of God. She feels a brotherly bond with St.John which would make marrying him a seem an incestuous activity which maybe a condemnatory offense in the eyes of God whom she does not want to offend. Also she begins to realize that his religious missions are not done from the heart, he feels it is his job. She is confused that a self- proclaimed man of God could overlook such a situation.Jane makes it clear that she does not want to be a part of his proposal. After comparing these two characters the reader can see that there are major differences in their belief or beliefs in God. Both Mr. Brocklehurst and St.John Rivers have a very narrow-minded view of God. They believe that memorization and recitation of psalms and Scripture readings will get you to heaven, but they don't realize that human neglect is looked down upon by God. While Jane on the other hand has a more worldly, open-minded view of God. That not only must a person be knowledgeable of what He has done and what He expects of us, but that we must care for each other as we care for ourselves. Jane believes that God accepts people by what is in their heart He will not be fooled by the masks or religious fronts that people wear and build. Also, note that she does not hate them because of their hypocritical ways she hopes that their eyes open to what they are doing, and chooses not to get to involved. Jane is a very intelligent woman, and though she has had a hard life she still knows to lead with her mind and love with her heart.She exemplifies a true christian. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Who is God 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Who is God? Worshipping is a way to communicate beliefs and feelings of individuals and religious communities. Every society I have every studied from the American Indians to the Ancient Greek have all believed in some form of worship or religion. Altars have been and are in existence in several if not all forms of region. Robert Farris Thompson depicts this for the African population in " Overture: The Concept 'Altar,' " and " With the Assurance of Infinity: Yoruba Atlantic Altars," Face of the Gods: Art and Altars of Africa and the African Americas, through pictures he and others have taken, has well as evidence from assorted books, articles, poems and songs, Thompson shows the meaningful role the Altar had in self expression of the Africans. "The aim is to view black Atlantic art, especially in the New World, in terms of thoughtfully selected [altar] objects belonging to specific philosophic constellations which help to define the face of divinity." Through the oppression of the salve trade, the Yoruba Africans worked to keep there own conception of region intact. "Even under slavery, and under post slavery persecution in the late nineteenth century, the Yoruba of Cuba and Brazil managed to maintain sporadic but precious contact with Africa through networks of friends and traders. They sought the sacred cowries, seeds, and beads of Africa for their religion." This example of perseverance of their native ritual and worship practices, shows the magnitude that region held for many Yoruba Africans. They kept their own religion alive through many hidden tactics such as unsuspected culinary art, by giving the gods the food they needed to be strong. "But these were more than foods: they were writings in code. African system of logic and belief flowed unsuspected from the kitchen, giving the gods the dishes they craved." The Altar was also maintained by many-shelved cabinets called canastillerd, as Thompson showed in plate 175, the cabinet would hide the religious essence of the Alter inside, when police or strangers came. Thompson shows that anything from a empty room to a plate of food can be an alter, an altar is just a place that you realize and express your believe. From Afro-Cuba Yoruba painting their doors red for the god of thunder to the Afro-Brazilian Yoruba Altar of a bow-tried tree the Yoruba religion survived through slavery. Unfortunately the Yoruba did not learn through the prosecution of their race. As documented in plate 174, a photo Thompson took in 1965 of a sculpture, which depicts a Egba Yoruba solder who has captured a Ijebu solder and is leading the bonded man, with a rope, to be sold as a salve. This coincides with the old saying do on to others has you would want, them to do to you. I have learned that the better man is the one who licks his wounds and walks away. I was taught that religion teaches' love and acceptance of everyone. It seems to me that human beings all want the mostly the same basic things, freedom to believe what we want to, live how and where we chose, and have a safe and happy life for us and for are children. I believe that god and region is to, love and cherish what make us different. History seems to prosecute people for their religious and cultural differences from the reformation, to Hitler's killing of the Jews and even the American Indians because they did not believe in the Europeans Christian ways. I believe that region should teach us to embrace each other's differences. I have tried to depict this in the Alter I have created of brown, black, and red holding hands in harmony along with the Jewish, Muslims and Christian religions all in one peaceful setting. I have put the mora together with the Christian angles and a town setting that looks Muslims along with people of all different colors embracing. Because I strongly believe that all of are differences should be cherished not prosecuted. The whole meaning of region for me is acceptance. For my Altar I used wrapping paper that I had save from my fathers last Christmas present. My father died Last February of cancer. He probably used rapping paper from the hospital because of the many representations of religious symbols from different faiths. I known acceptance of differences comes easy at the end of our lives and I just think I should start at the beginning. This is what I hope to get across in my altar. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Who is God.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Who is God? Worshipping is a way to communicate beliefs and feelings of individuals and religious communities. Every society I have every studied from the American Indians to the Ancient Greek have all believed in some form of worship or religion. Altars have been and are in existence in several if not all forms of region. Robert Farris Thompson depicts this for the African population in " Overture: The Concept 'Altar,' " and " With the Assurance of Infinity: Yoruba Atlantic Altars," Face of the Gods: Art and Altars of Africa and the African Americas, through pictures he and others have taken, has well as evidence from assorted books, articles, poems and songs, Thompson shows the meaningful role the Altar had in self expression of the Africans. ³The aim is to view black Atlantic art, especially in the New World, in terms of thoughtfully selected [altar] objects belonging to specific philosophic constellations which help to define the face of divinity.² Through the oppression of the salve trade, the Yoruba Africans worked to keep there own conception of region intact. "Even under slavery, and under post slavery persecution in the late nineteenth century, the Yoruba of Cuba and Brazil managed to maintain sporadic but precious contact with Africa through networks of friends and traders. They sought the sacred cowries, seeds, and beads of Africa for their religion." This example of perseverance of their native ritual and worship practices, shows the magnitude that region held for many Yoruba Africans. They kept their own religion alive through many hidden tactics such as unsuspected culinary art, by giving the gods the food they needed to be strong. "But these were more than foods: they were writings in code. African system of logic and belief flowed unsuspected from the kitchen, giving the gods the dishes they craved." The Altar was also maintained by many-shelved cabinets called canastillerd, as Thompson showed in plate 175, the cabinet would hide the religious essence of the Alter inside, when police or strangers came. Thompson shows that anything from a empty room to a plate of food can be an alter, an altar is just a place that you realize and express your believe. From Afro-Cuba Yoruba painting their doors red for the god of thunder to the Afro-Brazilian Yoruba Altar of a bow-tried tree the Yoruba religion survived through slavery. Unfortunately the Yoruba did not learn through the prosecution of their race. As documented in plate 174, a photo Thompson took in 1965 of a sculpture, which depicts a Egba Yoruba solder who has captured a Ijebu solder and is leading the bonded man, with a rope, to be sold as a salve. This coincides with the old saying do on to others has you would want, them to do to you. I have learned that the better man is the one who licks his wounds and walks away. I was taught that religion teaches' love and acceptance of everyone. It seems to me that human beings all want the mostly the same basic things, freedom to believe what we want to, live how and where we chose, and have a safe and happy life for us and for are children. I believe that god and region is to, love and cherish what make us different. History seems to prosecute people for their religious and cultural differences from the reformation, to Hitler's killing of the Jews and even the American Indians because they did not believe in the Europeans Christian ways. I believe that region should teach us to embrace each other's differences. I have tried to depict this in the Alter I have created of brown, black, and red holding hands in harmony along with the Jewish, Muslims and Christian religions all in one peaceful setting. I have put the mora together with the Christian angles and a town setting that looks Muslims along with people of all different colors embracing. Because I strongly believe that all of are differences should be cherished not prosecuted. The whole meaning of region for me is acceptance. For my Altar I used wrapping paper that I had save from my fathers last Christmas present. My father died Last February of cancer. He probably used rapping paper from the hospital because of the many representations of religious symbols from different faiths. I known acceptance of differences comes easy at the end of our lives and I just think I should start at the beginning. This is what I hope to get across in my altar. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Who was Jesus 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Who Was Jesus? A Humanities Essay That Teaches The Study of The Bible As A Historical Document I felt a very positive impression of who Jesus was after finishing the Book of Matthew. I had a new image of someone who was a down-to- earth, caring individual. I did not find quotes of Jesus that claimed being superior to the common man, of whom sinners could not look upon (a view that most people had of their Gods for centuries before). Matthew 12:49-50, Jesus announces to multitudes that they are his mother and brothers. In that way, he puts himself at an equal level to the people, rather than claiming to be a God above them. This reflects the whole attitude of the book. Chapters 6-7 of Matthew quote Jesus as he is presenting rules to live by to the multitudes. To me, all of these sounded like hints to leading a happy life for yourself. Jesus reflects a God that does not expect virgins or animals to be sacrificed in His name; but, a God that is pleased by followers that love not only God, but each other also. These seem like simple, logical rules to live by. But, they reflected a time in history where that kind of love for one another was hard to find because of the hardships inflicted upon the people. I find some conflict in Jesus' actions, however. Jesus never (as far as I know) says to ignore to commandments of God in the Hebrew Scriptures; however, constantly breaks the Sabbath (Matt 12:13 and others), and gives VERY flimsy and unconvincing explanations for it. I am not sure what his message was in those actions. Perhaps he didn't care? In general, Matthew was a good, entertaining story to read, with a very dramatic ending, and great character development (a little sarcastic humor here)! I was very surprised to find much of the Book of Mark a repeat of what was written in Matthew, but with a little less detail, and a few stories omitted. Jesus goes a little overboard on the parables! Most of the parables needed to be explained to his disciples, and some of them I wasn't able to understand either! Although many parables have a good, inspiring morals to them, I would question Jesus as to if they were an effective way to witness to common people. Even today, too many people read parables as TRUTH, rather than "just a story." Plus, they are misinterpreted. But, I have to tell you that an amazing coincidence happened to me after I finished reading the Parable of "The Pearl of Great Price." A couple of hours later, I was watching an old episode of Star Trek on TV, and 'Scotty' had actually quoted the same, exact parable at the end of the show! Funny that the writers of Star Trek predict the future to still hold the same religion as now, and 2000 years ago. Both Matthew and Mark write about the part of Pilate in His crucifixion. It seems to me that Pilate was a "good-guy", and did not really want to have Jesus killed because he did not see anything that He did wrong (as compared to Barabbas, the murderer). (Mark 15:1-15) As a matter of fact, I see that Pilate tried to give Jesus another chance by asking the crowd to choose to punish the Murderer, or Jesus. Then, 'washed his hands' of this crucifixion after the decision was made. Why is Pilate portrayed as a 'Good-Guy' in these books while we know, historically, that Pilate was NOT a friend to the Jews? After reading these books, I get the feeling that Jesus was here to save the Jewish people, not the gentiles (like most of today's Christians). I can't find the spot, but Jesus seemed reluctant to pay attention to a sick gentile, but finally healed her because of her faith. Yes, he is the king of the Jews, that is said in many places. But, was Jesus here to save only Jews, or the people in all the world (like Rome, the Sumarites, etc.)? That kind of makes me feel unsure of why Christianity has become the primary religion of Non-Jewish people. My God, the expansion of the Church was incredible from the time of Jesus! After reading Matthew and Mark during the time of Jesus on earth, and then reading Acts, I was shocked at the change! A few things that happen in Acts are strangely different than what I had expected after reading about Jesus and His religion. As I said before, I felt good about what Jesus had said in the previous books. But, it seems that things that happen in Acts are like a contradiction to Jesus. The biggest example is the administration of Punishment to people. Some particularly bothersome stories are: (Acts 5:1-11) The death of the husband and wife for not presenting 100% of their possessions to the Church. And, (Acts 12:23) the violent death of Herod. Also, (Acts 13:11) blindness to Bar-Jesus. Although my Bible, in all three cases, tells that Angels or God had punished these people, I could believe that a different translation could accurately suggest that the deaths were caused by people of the church (the translation is fuzzy in that sense). Either way, no matter who caused the death(s), it seems that these kinds of punishments would not happen if Jesus were around; He always seemed to bless those who did wrong to Him. From stories in Acts, I can see how the power of the Catholic Church had progressed to where it was in the 1400's. I had always felt that many of Catholic acts in history were direct mis-translations of the teachings of Jesus. Now I see, things like The Crusades could be backed by all of the punishments I previously talked about; also, The Rich Catholic Church claiming all the possessions of poor followers can be backed by the Apostles' re-distribution of wealth in chapter 4 of Acts. Another thing that I thought was a mis-translation by the Catholics was the use of confession to priests by the Catholic followers (I felt that each indiv. should confess only to God, not to a Man); however, throughout Acts, you see the power increasing for certain Apostles, until they were regarded very highly to everyone. And, supposedly, the Apostles say that Angels come to them often, and tell them who to go out and convert. The Pope, and other priests could easily put themselves in the places of the Apostles to say that Angels directly command them to do things that aren't necessarily written in the Bible. I got a very different impression of Jesus and his religion than Paul, after I read Jesus' written words. However, Paul's letter in Philippians reminded me of the attitude from the Christian religion churches that I have been accustomed to for years. Versus like: 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me' (P 4:13), and '..not look out for your own interests, but the interests of others' (P 2:4). However, I felt that P 2:10 showed a direct contradiction to Hebrew Scripture or any sayings from Jesus. '...Name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth.' If Paul is implying that people are living under the earth, in hell, then he is adopting that belief without any backup, for there is no one in hell now. People who are dead must wait for the coming of God and Judgement day. Anyway, that is what +ü always thought. The strongest, overall impression that I got after reading Matthew, Mark, Acts and Philippians, was that the teachings of Jesus were not very well understood/followed during the formation of The Church years later. Issues I discussed before, like 'punishment and Fearing God's wrath', 'wealth re-distribution' (Jesus lived as a peasant), 'the position assumed by certain influential apostles' seem very foreign to Jesus. It seems that many of the new beliefs in the New Testament can only be backed-up if you belive that Angels really did come to men on earth as often as the N.T. says, rather than looking to the Hebrew Scripture for validation. The rest of this class should be interesting. I expect some big changes in my religious beliefs to come from it. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Who Was Jesus 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Who Was Jesus? A Humanities Essay That Teaches The Study of The Bible As A Historical Document I felt a very positive impression of who Jesus was after finishing the Book of Matthew. I had a new image of someone who was a down-to-earth, caring individual. I did not find quotes of Jesus that claimed being superior to the common man, of whom sinners could not look upon (a view that most people had of their Gods for centuries before). Matthew 12:49-50, Jesus announces to multitudes that they are his mother and brothers. In that way, he puts himself at an equal level to the people, rather than claiming to be a God above them. This reflects the whole attitude of the book. Chapters 6-7 of Matthew quote Jesus as he is presenting rules to live by to the multitudes. To me, all of these sounded like hints to leading a happy life for yourself. Jesus reflects a God that does not expect virgins or animals to be sacrificed in His name; but, a God that is pleased by followers that love not only God, but each other also. These seem like simple, logical rules to live by. But, they reflected a time in history where that kind of love for one another was hard to find because of the hardships inflicted upon the people. I find some conflict in Jesus' actions, however. Jesus never (as far as I know) says to ignore to commandments of God in the Hebrew Scriptures; however, constantly breaks the Sabbath (Matt 12:13 and others), and gives VERY flimsy and unconvincing explanations for it. I am not sure what his message was in those actions. Perhaps he didn't care? In general, Matthew was a good, entertaining story to read, with a very dramatic ending, and great character development (a little sarcastic humor here)! I was very surprised to find much of the Book of Mark a repeat of what was written in Matthew, but with a little less detail, and a few stories omitted. Jesus goes a little overboard on the parables! Most of the parables needed to be explained to his disciples, and some of them I wasn't able to understand either! Although many parables have a good, inspiring morals to them, I would question Jesus as to if they were an effective way to witness to common people. Even today, too many people read parables as TRUTH, rather than "just a story." Plus, they are misinterpreted. But, I have to tell you that an amazing coincidence happened to me after I finished reading the Parable of "The Pearl of Great Price." A couple of hours later, I was watching an old episode of Star Trek on TV, and 'Scotty' had actually quoted the same, exact parable at the end of the show! Funny that the writers of Star Trek predict the future to still hold the same religion as now, and 2000 years ago. Both Matthew and Mark write about the part of Pilate in His crucifixion. It seems to me that Pilate was a "good-guy", and did not really want to have Jesus killed because he did not see anything that He did wrong (as compared to Barabbas, the murderer). (Mark 15:1-15) As a matter of fact, I see that Pilate tried to give Jesus another chance by asking the crowd to choose to punish the Murderer, or Jesus. Then, 'washed his hands' of this crucifixion after the decision was made. Why is Pilate portrayed as a 'Good-Guy' in these books while we know, historically, that Pilate was NOT a friend to the Jews? After reading these books, I get the feeling that Jesus was here to save the Jewish people, not the gentiles (like most of today's Christians). I can't find the spot, but Jesus seemed reluctant to pay attention to a sick gentile, but finally healed her because of her faith. Yes, he is the king of the Jews, that is said in many places. But, was Jesus here to save only Jews, or the people in all the world (like Rome, the Sumarites, etc.)? That kind of makes me feel unsure of why Christianity has become the primary religion of Non-Jewish people. My God, the expansion of the Church was incredible from the time of Jesus! After reading Matthew and Mark during the time of Jesus on earth, and then reading Acts, I was shocked at the change! A few things that happen in Acts are strangely different than what I had expected after reading about Jesus and His religion. As I said before, I felt good about what Jesus had said in the previous books. But, it seems that things that happen in Acts are like a contradiction to Jesus. The biggest example is the administration of Punishment to people. Some particularly bothersome stories are: (Acts 5:1-11) The death of the husband and wife for not presenting 100% of their possessions to the Church. And, (Acts 12:23) the violent death of Herod. Also, (Acts 13:11) blindness to Bar-Jesus. Although my Bible, in all three cases, tells that Angels or God had punished these people, I could believe that a different translation could accurately suggest that the deaths were caused by people of the church (the translation is fuzzy in that sense). Either way, no matter who caused the death(s), it seems that these kinds of punishments would not happen if Jesus were around; He always seemed to bless those who did wrong to Him. From stories in Acts, I can see how the power of the Catholic Church had progressed to where it was in the 1400's. I had always felt that many of Catholic acts in history were direct mis-translations of the teachings of Jesus. Now I see, things like The Crusades could be backed by all of the punishments I previously talked about; also, The Rich Catholic Church claiming all the possessions of poor followers can be backed by the Apostles' re-distribution of wealth in chapter 4 of Acts. Another thing that I thought was a mis-translation by the Catholics was the use of confession to priests by the Catholic followers (I felt that each indiv. should confess only to God, not to a Man); however, throughout Acts, you see the power increasing for certain Apostles, until they were regarded very highly to everyone. And, supposedly, the Apostles say that Angels come to them often, and tell them who to go out and convert. The Pope, and other priests could easily put themselves in the places of the Apostles to say that Angels directly command them to do things that aren't necessarily written in the Bible. I got a very different impression of Jesus and his religion than Paul, after I read Jesus' written words. However, Paul's letter in Philippians reminded me of the attitude from the Christian religion churches that I have been accustomed to for years. Versus like: 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me' (P 4:13), and '..not look out for your own interests, but the interests of others' (P 2:4). However, I felt that P 2:10 showed a direct contradiction to Hebrew Scripture or any sayings from Jesus. '...Name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth.' If Paul is implying that people are living under the earth, in hell, then he is adopting that belief without any backup, for there is no one in hell now. People who are dead must wait for the coming of God and Judgement day. Anyway, that is what +ü always thought. The strongest, overall impression that I got after reading Matthew, Mark, Acts and Philippians, was that the teachings of Jesus were not very well understood/followed during the formation of The Church years later. Issues I discussed before, like 'punishment and Fearing God's wrath', 'wealth re- distribution' (Jesus lived as a peasant), 'the position assumed by certain influential apostles' seem very foreign to Jesus. It seems that many of the new beliefs in the New Testament can only be backed-up if you belive that Angels really did come to men on earth as often as the N.T. says, rather than looking to the Hebrew Scripture for validation. The rest of this class should be interesting. I expect some big changes in my religious beliefs to come from it. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Who was Jesus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Who Was Jesus? A Humanities Essay That Teaches The Study of The Bible As A Historical Document I felt a very positive impression of who Jesus was after finishing the Book of Matthew. I had a new image of someone who was a down-to- earth, caring individual. I did not find quotes of Jesus that claimed being superior to the common man, of whom sinners could not look upon (a view that most people had of their Gods for centuries before). Matthew 12:49-50, Jesus announces to multitudes that they are his mother and brothers. In that way, he puts himself at an equal level to the people, rather than claiming to be a God above them. This reflects the whole attitude of the book. Chapters 6-7 of Matthew quote Jesus as he is presenting rules to live by to the multitudes. To me, all of these sounded like hints to leading a happy life for yourself. Jesus reflects a God that does not expect virgins or animals to be sacrificed in His name; but, a God that is pleased by followers that love not only God, but each other also. These seem like simple, logical rules to live by. But, they reflected a time in history where that kind of love for one another was hard to find because of the hardships inflicted upon the people. I find some conflict in Jesus' actions, however. Jesus never (as far as I know) says to ignore to commandments of God in the Hebrew Scriptures; however, constantly breaks the Sabbath (Matt 12:13 and others), and gives VERY flimsy and unconvincing explanations for it. I am not sure what his message was in those actions. Perhaps he didn't care? In general, Matthew was a good, entertaining story to read, with a very dramatic ending, and great character development (a little sarcastic humor here)! I was very surprised to find much of the Book of Mark a repeat of what was written in Matthew, but with a little less detail, and a few stories omitted. Jesus goes a little overboard on the parables! Most of the parables needed to be explained to his disciples, and some of them I wasn't able to understand either! Although many parables have a good, inspiring morals to them, I would question Jesus as to if they were an effective way to witness to common people. Even today, too many people read parables as TRUTH, rather than "just a story." Plus, they are misinterpreted. But, I have to tell you that an amazing coincidence happened to me after I finished reading the Parable of "The Pearl of Great Price." A couple of hours later, I was watching an old episode of Star Trek on TV, and 'Scotty' had actually quoted the same, exact parable at the end of the show! Funny that the writers of Star Trek predict the future to still hold the same religion as now, and 2000 years ago. Both Matthew and Mark write about the part of Pilate in His crucifixion. It seems to me that Pilate was a "good-guy", and did not really want to have Jesus killed because he did not see anything that He did wrong (as compared to Barabbas, the murderer). (Mark 15:1-15) As a matter of fact, I see that Pilate tried to give Jesus another chance by asking the crowd to choose to punish the Murderer, or Jesus. Then, 'washed his hands' of this crucifixion after the decision was made. Why is Pilate portrayed as a 'Good-Guy' in these books while we know, historically, that Pilate was NOT a friend to the Jews? After reading these books, I get the feeling that Jesus was here to save the Jewish people, not the gentiles (like most of today's Christians). I can't find the spot, but Jesus seemed reluctant to pay attention to a sick gentile, but finally healed her because of her faith. Yes, he is the king of the Jews, that is said in many places. But, was Jesus here to save only Jews, or the people in all the world (like Rome, the Sumarites, etc.)? That kind of makes me feel unsure of why Christianity has become the primary religion of Non-Jewish people. My God, the expansion of the Church was incredible from the time of Jesus! After reading Matthew and Mark during the time of Jesus on earth, and then reading Acts, I was shocked at the change! A few things that happen in Acts are strangely different than what I had expected after reading about Jesus and His religion. As I said before, I felt good about what Jesus had said in the previous books. But, it seems that things that happen in Acts are like a contradiction to Jesus. The biggest example is the administration of Punishment to people. Some particularly bothersome stories are: (Acts 5:1-11) The death of the husband and wife for not presenting 100% of their possessions to the Church. And, (Acts 12:23) the violent death of Herod. Also, (Acts 13:11) blindness to Bar-Jesus. Although my Bible, in all three cases, tells that Angels or God had punished these people, I could believe that a different translation could accurately suggest that the deaths were caused by people of the church (the translation is fuzzy in that sense). Either way, no matter who caused the death(s), it seems that these kinds of punishments would not happen if Jesus were around; He always seemed to bless those who did wrong to Him. From stories in Acts, I can see how the power of the Catholic Church had progressed to where it was in the 1400's. I had always felt that many of Catholic acts in history were direct mis-translations of the teachings of Jesus. Now I see, things like The Crusades could be backed by all of the punishments I previously talked about; also, The Rich Catholic Church claiming all the possessions of poor followers can be backed by the Apostles' re-distribution of wealth in chapter 4 of Acts. Another thing that I thought was a mis-translation by the Catholics was the use of confession to priests by the Catholic followers (I felt that each indiv. should confess only to God, not to a Man); however, throughout Acts, you see the power increasing for certain Apostles, until they were regarded very highly to everyone. And, supposedly, the Apostles say that Angels come to them often, and tell them who to go out and convert. The Pope, and other priests could easily put themselves in the places of the Apostles to say that Angels directly command them to do things that aren't necessarily written in the Bible. I got a very different impression of Jesus and his religion than Paul, after I read Jesus' written words. However, Paul's letter in Philippians reminded me of the attitude from the Christian religion churches that I have been accustomed to for years. Versus like: 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me' (P 4:13), and '..not look out for your own interests, but the interests of others' (P 2:4). However, I felt that P 2:10 showed a direct contradiction to Hebrew Scripture or any sayings from Jesus. '...Name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth.' If Paul is implying that people are living under the earth, in hell, then he is adopting that belief without any backup, for there is no one in hell now. People who are dead must wait for the coming of God and Judgement day. Anyway, that is what +ü always thought. The strongest, overall impression that I got after reading Matthew, Mark, Acts and Philippians, was that the teachings of Jesus were not very well understood/followed during the formation of The Church years later. Issues I discussed before, like 'punishment and Fearing God's wrath', 'wealth re-distribution' (Jesus lived as a peasant), 'the position assumed by certain influential apostles' seem very foreign to Jesus. It seems that many of the new beliefs in the New Testament can only be backed-up if you belive that Angels really did come to men on earth as often as the N.T. says, rather than looking to the Hebrew Scripture for validation. The rest of this class should be interesting. I expect some big changes in my religious beliefs to come from it. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Why is Vatican II so Significant in the Modern Church.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Why is Vatican II so Significant in the Modern Church? INTRODUCTION: VATICAN II Vatican II was the 21st ecumenical council recognized by the Roman Catholic church, which became the symbol of the church's openness to the modern world. The council was announced by Pope John XXIII on January 25, 1959, and held 178 meetings in the autumn of each of four successive years. The first gathering was on October 11, 1962, and the last on December 8, 1965. Of 2908 bishops and others eligible to attend, 2540 from all parts of the world participated in the opening meeting. The U.S. delegation of 241 members was second in size only to that of Italy. Asian and African bishops played a prominent role in the council's deliberations. Only Communist nations were sparsely represented, the result of government pressures. The average attendance at the meetings was 2200. ESSAY Vatican II, as we can clearly see from the above information, was a very large and important meeting in the Roman Catholic Church. Vatican II has altered the Roman Catholic Church more that any other council that took place. It has great significance as it made the church more reasonable and realistic. The Church, after the council, was much more down-to-earth and open-minded. One of Vatican II's changes that took place was that Mass became vernacular. This change was very important because it made people feel more at a personal level when mass was held seeing as though the priest was speaking their language. It made them feel more at home and increased their understanding and ability to respond. Another very major and important change that took place due to Vatican II was the relationship with the Church and the world. "The Church is a human organization steered by the Holy Spirit and composed of the gifts and talents of its members. It is acknowledged that at this time the Church community has not yet reached its highest potential and is faced with the limitations and of human shortcomings and temporal constrictions. With an understanding of its abilities and its boundaries, the Church seeks to work with the world community to come closer to the life to which God calls the world." As this quote from one of the Documents in Vatican II states, the Church need have a relationship with the "outside world" as the Church itself is comprised of humans. And that the Church having a good relationship with the outside world is necessary for the Church to reach its highest potential. These are some of the changes that took place in Vatican II and naming all of them would not be necessary. The modern Church is the way it is because most of what happened in Vatican II. Vatican II was what made the Church, what we know it as now. Vatican II has molded the modern Church and has had most influence on it. Therefore, it is explicitly obvious that Vatican II was what made Church what we know as the "Modern Church." If Vatican II did not take place, there would not be a "Modern Church." Bibliography: Information obtained from the following sources: 1) Encyclopedia Britannica 2) Roman Catholic Church History 3) Various handouts in Religion Class f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Why the Makah Indians hunt whales.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Why the Makah Indians hunt whales? "Whales provide us with the food for our bodies, bones for our tools and implements and spirits for our souls." "We haven't hunted the whale for 70 years but have hunted them in our hearts and in our minds." "Whales are a central focus of our culture today as they have been from the beginning of time." This has been a tradition of the Makah Indians for more than 2000 years. They had to stop in 1926 due to the scarcity of gray whales. But their abundance now makes it possible to resume their ancient practice of the hunt. They have had an intensification of interest in there own history and culture since the archeological dig at their village of Ozette in 1970, which uncovered thousands of artifacts bearing witness to their whaling tradition. Whaling and whales have remained central to Makah culture. They are in their songs, dances, designs, and basketry. Their social structure is based on traditional whaling families. The conduct of a whale hunt requires rituals and ceremonies, which are deeply spiritual. And they believe hunting imposes a purpose and a discipline, which they believe, will benefit their entire community, especially the young, whom the Makahs believe to be suffering from lack of self-discipline and pride. Why the Makahs have they right to hunt gray whales? Before entering into negotiations with the Makah for cessions of their extensive lands on the Olympic peninsula in 1855, the United States government was fully aware that the Makahs lived primarily on whale, seal and fish. When the United States Territorial Governor, Isaac Stevens, arrived at Neah bay in December of 1855 to enter into negotiations with the Makah leaders, he was met with strong declarations from them that in exchange for ceding Makah lands to the United States they would be allowed to hunt whale. They demanded guarantees of their rights on the ocean and specifically, of the right to take whale. The treaty minutes show Governor Stevens saying to the Makahs: "The Great Father knows what whalers you are--- how you go far to sea to take whale. Far from wanting to stop you, he will help you - sending implements and barrels to try the oil." He went on to promise U.S. assistance in promoting Makah whaling commerce. He then presented a treaty containing the specific guarantee of the United States securing the right of the Makahs to continue whaling. Article 4 of the treaty of Neah Bay, 1855 states " the right of taking fish and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians." This treaty was ratified by Congress in 1855 and has since been upheld by all Courts and the Supreme Court. Will whaling by the Makah affect the gray whale population? Whale scientists have closely observed this species for many years and in 1993 determined that the gray whale population had exceeded the numbers existing before industrial whaling on this species began. In 1994 the gray whale was removed from the endangered species list. The 1996 population estimate was 22,263 whales. This population continues to increase at a rate of about 2.5% per year, despite continuous harvesting of about 165 gray whales a year by Russian Aborigines - the Chukotki, for the last 30 or 40 years. The Makah hunt would be an infinitesimal expansion of global whaling - up to five a year out of approximately 1,000 killed worldwide. No reputable biologist or whale scientist has suggested that the Makahs taking five whales a year will present any conservation threat whatsoever to the gray whale stock. In fact no one can legitimately argue that this is a conservation threat, which is one of the primary reasons why two of America's leading conservation organizations have refused to join in the attack on Makah whaling: The Sierra Club and Greenpeace. There are animal rights activists within those organizations who are trying to get them to come out against makah whaling. But they have steadfastly refused because they do not see this as a conservation issue, they refuse to be drawn into the animal rights issue and will not oppose indigenous people's rights. The Domino Effect. Animal rights groups have been scaring each other and pumping up the claim that if the Makah whale than it will mean the collapse of all restrictions against commercial whaling and whaling will be resumed everywhere. This is all hype. If there are other indigenous peoples who have a legitimate whaling culture and a whaling tradition than they should be allowed to whale just as the Makah. The rest is all hype started by anti-whaling organizations to try to stop the Makah from killing a single whale. Why they use modern methods? The Makahs use modern methods because it is more humane. Their ancient methods required them to shoot numerous harpoons into the whale and could take many hours and even up to days to accomplish. Sea Shepherd propaganda. The leader of the pack attacking the Makahs is the Sea Shepherd Conservation society. They have been responsible for a steady stream of propaganda designed to inflame the public. This propaganda is often misleading, bigoted and usually an out and out lie. "Sea Shepherd is ardently opposed to the killing of all whales. Particularly in the transparent justification of bringing back traditional rituals and ceremonial values." Now if I were a Makah I would find that statement extremely bigoted and offensive. Especially coming from the same liberals who are teaching our kids to embrace multiculturalism and celebrate our differences. To understand and tolerate those with different cultures, ideas, customs, and religions. Yet at the same time they refer to Makah traditions and values as "immoral", "outdated" and even "barbaric". "The Makah proposal is part of an international trend in using aboriginal justification to circumvent the moratorium against the commercial trade in whale meat." White people have been enjoying beef since the beginning of time and nobody seems to mind and I sure haven't heard those swash buckling saviors of the sea complaining about that. Why should a whale deserve special rights over a cow? Since it is obviously not a conservation issue. The fact is sea shepherd is trying to romanticize the whale and ascribe almost human characteristics to it. And the truth is the only right either of these two animals has is to be eaten. "Their own elders, the traditional leadership of this historically matrilineal society, are convinced that the push for whaling is being led by a few money-hungry corporate-savvy businessmen who do not represent the tribe at large." That is a lie. Whaling is supported by the overwhelming majority of the tribe. In 1995, there was a tribal referendum on this issue and 85% of those voting favored whaling. In the most recent tribal election for a seat on the five-member council. One of the most steadfast opponents of whaling ran for office, but received only 35 votes out of 360 cast. "Additionally, the precedent that whaling by the Makah would set on the lower north American continent is a dire threat to recovering whale stocks throughout the hemisphere." Yeah, these guys must be using some of that new math. It is ridiculous to say that the Makahs taking a couple of whales a year will somehow destroy the whole population in this hemisphere. " The problem is that in the course of landing one whale, three others, at least, are killed or injured during similar aboriginal hunts." I wonder if these people even think before they talk. I don't seem to recall anything about at least three whales being injured or killed the last time the Makahs caught a whale. In fact I don't recall any other whales being injured or killed except for the one they chopped up and ate. "It will come as no surprise to learn that Japanese whaling interest representatives have visited Neah Bay, promising to buy any whale meant the Makah can catch. The Japanese say they'll pay anywhere from $50 to $200 a kilo. Depending on the supply." That's absurd because first of all the Makahs aren't doing this for commercial purposes and second of all, its illegal. Not just by the international community but they Makahs have voluntarily outlawed it as well. "I have information suggesting the Makah also have plans to capture Orcas to sell to aquariums. And again U.S. fisheries officers insist there is nothing they can do when it comes to Indians." That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard because the Makahs only have a permit to hunt gray whales. Another reason that Sea Shepherd opposes the Makahs is because their permit to hunt whales was given to them by the U.S. and not the I.W.C. which sets international rules for whaling. They contend that their treaty was between the Makah and the U.S. and not between them and the I.W.C. and that the whales belong to the international community and are not the property of the U.S. to be given away. But since the Makahs are their own sovereign nation and are not a singed member of the I.W.C they are not subject to their rulings on whaling. Conclusion. Whenever Indians had something we wanted or did something we didn't like we tried to impose our values on them. The Federal government even tried to stamp out their potlatch tradition because they thought it was backward and impoverishing. Too often society has demonstrated this kind of cultural arrogance. I doubt they don't take well to Sea Shepherd or P.A.W.S. telling them they should rise to a "higher" level of culture by not whaling. Whether or not you like what they are doing or not you should respect their culture and their traditions. The Makahs are just trying to keep their culture alive. Bibliography: "Makah Indians may become pirate whaling nation." www.eye.net/news/enviro/1995/env0803.htm "Whales die, a culture lives." www.seattle-times.com/extra/browse/html/altwhal_101396.html "An open letter to the public from the President of the Makah Whaling Commission." www.Conbio.rice.edu/nae/docs/makaheditorial.html "Makah whaling: questions and answers." www.makah.com/whales.htm "Edsanders.com - Politics - The new bigots." www.edwanders.com/pol.bigots.htm "Treaty of Neah Bay, 1855." www.nwifc.wa.gov/tribes/treaties/neahbay.htm "U.S. Indians plea to kill whale." www.whale.wheelock.edu/archives/whalenet96/0247.html "Makah management plan for the Makah treaty Gray whale hunting for the years 1998 - 2002." www.nwifc.wa.gov/whaling/whaleplan.html "How this happened - the Treaty." www.seashepherd.org/wh/us/mktreaty.html "Indian tribe gets OK to resume whaling." www.japan.cnn.com/earth/9710/23/whales.indian.tribe/index.html< <> f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Wicca 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Wicca Jan Phillips article The Craft of the Wise tells of how she came to learn of one of her ancestors who was hung during the Salem Witch Hunts. This lit an interest in her mind to further research the subject of Wicca, the craft of the wise. By consulting many books about witchcraft, she learned that Wicca is more of a nature and imagination based religion than the spellcasting voodoo practicing stereotype it has been made out to be in the past. Through her research, she finds out that Wicca and Paganism have become the fastest growing religions in the United States. She then goes on to tell the differences between magic and the supernatural. She closes by stating that we should try to see ourselves in other people instead of focusing in on our differences. The second article I found concerning Wicca emphasizes Jan Phillips that despite peoples personal preferences we are all human beings. The article Do You Believe In Magic tells the plight of two practicing witches, the Riley's, who chose to open a pagan shop in a predominantly Christian town. Due to differences in religious views, their land lord refused to renew their lease. Many townspeople, including several town ministers, publicly voiced their objections to the couples business venture. The Riley's gathered fellow Pagans from surrounding areas and marched down the towns main street publicly displaying their beliefs. People began to compare this incident to the Salem Witch Hunts. Just as Jan Phillips ancestor was tortured because of she allegedly chose to practice her beliefs, so were the Riley's for choosing to go public with their beliefs. The third article I read was about an average American woman who is also a High Priestess of a Boston area coven. She tells of how traditional Protestant beliefs were not for her, and how Wicca seemed to fit her ideals better. Like the Riley's, she too has been the victim to discriminations due to her religious choice. Ms. Ralph, the witch mentioned above, describes an incident when a coworker was bothered so much by her religion that she went to Ms. Ralph's superiors. The coworker claimed that Ms. Ralph was performing animal sacrifices and was threatening to cast a spell on her family. Ms. Ralph couldn't understand how someone could be so opposed to another's personal beliefs. In the end of the article she goes on to say that her boss saw through the whole scheme, and listened to what her religion really entailed. To her surprise he was very open-minded to her religious practices, and she wondered why others couldn't be the same. Unlike the previous article, Ms Ralph was not made to give up her career. Her main point was that just because she was a woman and a practicing Wiccan that she wasn't evil or to be feared. This final article has to do with an author who was researching for her next book, and came across an interesting reference book. She came across a book titled Malleus Maleficarum. The book was an old reference guide for the church in the late 16th and 17th century. This very book may have been one of the pieces of evidence used to prosecute Jan Phillips ancestor. It used the words woman and witch synonymously. She then began to look into how women were perceived as the creators of evil. Everything listed in this book blamed women for the evil in the world. It also gave guidelines for the criteria needed to burn someone at the stake and publicly hang convicted witches. The article basically showed how people perceived witchcraft in the past compared to now, and that even now, people still refuse to believe that evil is not created it just is. This article basically combines the problems of the previous three articles. The fear and unacceptance of the religion called Wicca is an age old one. It can be seen in almost any part of our nation. Though we no longer burnpeople at the stake or hang witches in the town square, people today still try to segregate Pagan followers and persecute them for their religious choice. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Wicca.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What is a Witch? "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!" The Wicked Witch of the West... One of the most notorious and stereotypical witches in all literature. She had green skin, a big wart- covered nose, and a wide-brimmed black hat. She summoned a legion of monsters, stirred evil brews in her black cauldron, and generally made life difficult for the fun-loving citizens of Oz. She, and her fellow "hags" tend to be seen in a rather comic light, despite their appearance, and are usually seen around Halloween. They are one of the two ideas that most people hold of who witches are and what they do. The other is that of the "devil's whore" of Medieval Europe and Colonial Salem who were charged with killing babies, celebrating "black masses," and having sex orgies with Satan. The modern Wiccan; a practitioner of the religion known as Wicca, Witchcraft, or simply The Craft; resembles these "Witches" as much as a straw broom resembles the Dirt Devil Upright. The Craft is a religion based on the worship of a supreme divine creator, the practice of magic, and a reverence for the earth and all her inhabitants. Deity Concepts and Worship Practices "All religions are structures built on reverence of Deity. Wicca is no exception. The Wicca acknowledge a supreme divine power, unknowable, ultimate, from which the entire universe sprang," (Cunningham, 9). This is a Witch's concept of the Divine. However, it is a distant, powerful image that is not easily understood. For the purpose of worship, the Wicca recognize the duality of this power. It is both male and female, good and evil, and therefore is worshipped in the form of a Goddess and a God. These are the primeval gods of the ancient world, worshipped under names in many cultures: Odin, Freya, Ra, Ma'at, Zeus, Diana, Apollo, Kali, Shiva, Pele, and countless others. Wiccans believe that these are all, in reality, simply individual aspects of one God and one Goddess, rather than individual Deities. Just as there are numerous names for the Divine, so do Wiccans worship them in just as many ways. There are many different branches, called "traditions", of The Craft, most of which are based on the religious practices of one or more ancient cultures. There are Celtic Wiccans, Egyptian Wiccans, and Greek Wiccans. One of the newest traditions is a hybrid of Celtic Shamanism and the tribal religions of Ancient America. There is, however, a basic outline for conducting worship services that is followed by all covens and solitaries. A standard Wiccan worship service, or ritual, which takes place on one of the eight yearly sabbats (the solstices, equinoxes, and four Ancient Celtic agricultural festivals) or at an esbat (full moon), consists of the creation of sacred space (called "casting the circle;" this is done through visualization), prayers, and offerings (these are usually material possessions, plants, or handmade items; Wiccans never sacrifice animals or people), and a sharing of a simple meal with fellow witches (if a member of a coven) and the Deities. Worship services have many important purposes, but the main reason Wiccans perform rituals is to gain understanding of the energies of the divine and, ultimately, the energies contained in the witch himself/herself. The harnessing and directing of this natural, personal energy is what witches call magic (or magick). Magic "Magic is a basic part of The Craft, but it does not have to be the same as the religious aspect. In other words, Wicca may be considered a religion with a Goddess and a God that uses magic in a religious framework," (Moura, 91). There are two types of magic practiced by Wiccans: Religious (ritual) magic, and non-religious (folk) magic. When casting folk magic spells, Wiccans combine the energies within crystals, herbs, stones, and candles with their own personal energies to bring about a desired effect. After the ingredients are gathered, the energies are united and sent out to do their work. This sending out of energy is accomplished through intense visualization that can take a few short minutes or a few hours, depending on the skill and patience of the witch. Wiccans feel that this visualization is the most important part of a spell. All the other components of the spell are simply to assist the witch in raising energy and to place him/her in the correct mindset for visualization. The other type of spellcasting, ritual magic, is quite different. A ritual spell is only done during a worship service and uses none of the "assistants of the folk spell. A ritual spell is simply the gathering of personal energy in the presence of the God and Goddess. The Wiccan raises this energy through dance, music, or other physical exercise. When the spellcasters feel they can hold no more energy, they visualize the intent of their spell and release the energy to do its work. Witches cast spells for many different reasons, but they never use magic to hurt, control, or destroy. Wicca has no written laws of what is right or wrong, no huge books of ancient dogma, but it does have one essential rule of thumb: the Witches' Rede. Simplified, it says: Do what you want, but harm none. "None" includes people, animals, Mother Earth, and one's self. In fact, the majority of Wiccan spells are to heal friends, pets, fellow coven members, and even the Earth. Environmentalism in Wicca In a religion that sees the Earth as a physical manifestation of the Goddess and God, a reverence for nature is a natural extension of reverence for the divine. Most Wiccans are involved in a number of environmental causes, and many belong to political action groups such as P.E.T.A., The National Arbor Day Foundation, or GreenPeace. Wiccans never kill needlessly or take something form nature without an offering or thanks. A witch never sacrifices a living thing to the Goddess or God and whenever a branch must be cut from a tree or a crop picked, the witch will thank the plant and leave a gift such as a crystal or a coin. This "gift" is not actually for the plant, but to remind the Wiccan that whenever we take, we must give in something in return. This maintains a balance in the natural, and spiritual, world. Conclusion All of these aspects together--worship of the God and Goddess, the practice of magic, and a reverence for nature--define the modern witch. Witchcraft is not devil worship or a cult of sex orgies and drug abuse, but is simply "...a way of life for hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions--of well adjusted adults who simply share a view of nature that is different from that of the majority," (Cunningham, xi). This is who witches are and what they do. Witches are good, moral, law-abiding people. Even those from the west. Works Cited Cunningham, Scott. The Truth About Witchcraft Today. St. Paul, Minn.: Llewellyn Publications, 1994. Cunningham, Scott. Wicca: A Guide of the Solitary Practitioner. St. Paul, Minn.: Llewellyn Publications, 1988. Moura, Ann. Green Witchcraft. St. Paul, Minn.: Llewellyn Publications, 1996. Walker, Barbra G. The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1988. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Wiccan and other pagan religions.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jan Phillips article The Craft of the Wise tells of how she came to learn of one of her ancestors who was hung during the Salem Witch Hunts. This lit an interest in her mind to further research the subject of Wicca, the craft of the wise. By consulting many books about witchcraft, she learned that Wicca is more of a nature and imagination based religion than the spellcasting voodoo practicing stereotype it has been made out to be in the past. Through her research, she finds out that Wicca and Paganism have become the fastest growing religions in the United States. She then goes on to tell the differences between magic and the supernatural. She closes by stating that we should try to see ourselves in other people instead of focusing in on our differences. The second article I found concerning Wicca emphasizes Jan Phillips that despite peoples personal preferences we are all human beings. The article Do You Believe In Magic tells the plight of two practicing witches, the Riley's, who chose to open a pagan shop in a predominantly Christian town. Due to differences in religious views, their land lord refused to renew their lease. Many townspeople, including several town ministers, publicly voiced their objections to the couples business venture. The Riley's gathered fellow Pagans from surrounding areas and marched down the towns main street publicly displaying their beliefs. People began to compare this incident to the Salem Witch Hunts. Just as Jan Phillips ancestor was tortured because of she allegedly chose to practice her beliefs, so were the Riley's for choosing to go public with their beliefs. The third article I read was about an average American woman who is also a High Priestess of a Boston area coven. She tells of how traditional Protestant beliefs were not for her, and how Wicca seemed to fit her ideals better. Like the Riley's, she too has been the victim to discriminations due to her religious choice. Ms. Ralph, the witch mentioned above, describes an incident when a coworker was bothered so much by her religion that she went to Ms. Ralph's superiors. The coworker claimed that Ms. Ralph was performing animal sacrifices and was threatening to cast a spell on her family. Ms. Ralph couldn't understand how someone could be so opposed to another's personal beliefs. In the end of the article she goes on to say that her boss saw through the whole scheme, and listened to what her religion really entailed. To her surprise he was very open-minded to her religious practices, and she wondered why others couldn't be the same. Unlike the previous article, Ms Ralph was not made to give up her career. Her main point was that just because she was a woman and a practicing Wiccan that she wasn't evil or to be feared. This final article has to do with an author who was researching for her next book, and came across an interesting reference book. She came across a book titled Malleus Maleficarum. The book was an old reference guide for the church in the late 16th and 17th century. This very book may have been one of the pieces of evidence used to prosecute Jan Phillips ancestor. It used the words woman and witch synonymously. She then began to look into how women were perceived as the creators of evil. Everything listed in this book blamed women for the evil in the world. It also gave guidelines for the criteria needed to burn someone at the stake and publicly hang convicted witches. The article basically showed how people perceived witchcraft in the past compared to now, and that even now, people still refuse to believe that evil is not created it just is. This article basically combines the problems of the previous three articles. The fear and unacceptance of the religion called Wicca is an age old one. It can be seen in almost any part of our nation. Though we no longer burn people at the stake or hang witches in the town square, people today still try to segregate Pagan followers and persecute them for their religious choice. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\William Tyndale.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ William Tyndale (MLA FORMAT) The smell over whelming in the air. The brunt flesh cast a shadow with the dark smoke that the fire created. Some people cheered, some people cried, and yet others smiled greedily under hidden cloaks. The people of England had decided to burn one man that stood up and translated the bible from the original manuscripts into what we have today. William Tyndale cried out with his last breath, " O Lord, open the King of England's eyes." The executioner first strangled Tyndale in order to keep him quiet about "his" word of God. William Tyndale has since become known as "The Father of the English Bible." Without Tyndale and his translation of the original manuscripts later versions of the English bible would not be available. William Hutchinson, later changed to Tyndale, was born around the date of 1494 AD. Tyndale had an exceptional gift of speaking over seven known languages. Tyndale attended Oxford University and in 1512 he received his Bachelors Degree. After another three years at Oxford University Tyndale graduated with a Masters Degree. In order to support his education William Tyndale tutored students from the higher class society. Tyndale joined the group called "the White Horse Society." This group gathered together in order to discuss the teachings of Erasmus and Luther. Then Tyndale was learned and well practiced in God's matters, spared not to show unto them simply and plainly his judgment, and when they at any time did vary from Tyndale in opinions, he would show them in the Book, and lay plainly before them the open and manifest places of the Scriptures, to confute their errors, and confirm his sayings. And thus continued they for a certain season, reasoning and contending together divers times, until at length they waxed weary, and bare a secret grudge in their hearts against him. As this grew on, the priests of the country, clustering together, began to grudge and storm against Tyndale, railing against him in 2 alehouses and other places, affirming that his sayings were heresy; and accused him secretly to the chancellor, and others of the bishop's officers. After a few short years Tyndale left "the White Horse Society" and moved back home to teach children. Tyndale preached at Saint Austen's Green which resided in front of the Cathedral of Bristol. During Tyndale's stay at home he caused a commotion that consisted charging him with heresy. All of this was due to the teachings of the "Lollardry." These people were followers of John Whitcliffe that sent themselves on missions to teach God's word to the people of the nations. The main "crime" of these people was that they believed that the pope was not the sole agent of God and only the word of God was the doctrine that could be held for people. Not long after, Tyndale happened to be in the company of another man of God communing and disputing with him, he drove him to that issue, that the said great doctor burst out into these blasphemous words, "We were better to be without God's laws than the pope's." Tyndale, hearing this, full of Godly zeal, and not bearing that blasphemous saying, replied, "I defy the pope, and all his laws;" In 1523 Tyndale moved to London where he met the Bishop of London (who happened to be a close friend of Erasmus). With Tyndale being a "Lollardry" he asked the Bishop for a letter of introduction, but Bishop Tusntal refused to grant the request that Tyndale asked for. Even though Bishop Tusntal was believed to be supportive of the Lollardry cause he still would not grant the letter. Tyndale referred to the Bishop as "a ducking hypocrite." Even with this minor set back Tyndale would not give his quest of giving God's word out to the nation. Being refused of the bishop he came to Humphrey Mummuth, alderman of London, and besought him to help him: who the same time took him into his house, where Tyndale lived (as Mummuth said) like a good priest, studying both night and day. He would not eat meat or drink 3 but small single beer. He was never seen in the house to wear linen about him, all the time he lived there. Each day Tyndale increased his knowledge of the word and continually extended his knowledge of God's great word. Tyndale gave up his old life, along with his friends, by moving to Germany so that he could continually follow his mission and translate the Bible Settling in Wittenburg (the city of Martin Luther) Tyndale translated the new testament. After a short time Tyndale moved to the city Cologne. At Cologne, Tyndale finished translating the new testament and began printing the first copies of his Bible. Tyndale printed copies of his Bible throughout the lands. After the copies of Tyndale's Bible began to sky rocket the church started to worry about the power that Tyndale had gathered. During this time the Tyndale translation became ever more popular the church went to great lengths to discredit and destroy Tyndale's Bible. The church claimed that the Bible was full of errors and the book should be burned. Churches went as far as buying copies of the book in order to take the Bibles out of the common wealth's hands. Tyndale himself sold Bibles to the church at one time so that he could print twice as many Bibles with the money he received. During Tyndale's time he printed many copies and the church placed the charge or heresy on Tyndale. So that the church could validate their claim they placed Tyndale on trial, had him strangled, and burned at the stake. Tyndale became one of God's martyrs in his early 40's. To insure that Tyndale would not preach to the people he was first strangled to death before being burned for his illegitimate crime. Tyndale's translation gave a pathway for all the future translations to follow. The King James version came from Tyndale's Translation. Tyndale's translation survived other translations 4 such as the Coverdale Bible and the Great Bible. Tyndale holds credit to about ninety percent of the Bible we use today. Through Tyndale's great accomplishments during his time every English speaking country now could have a Bible in their home. Tyndale was a great man who throughout his life face struggles and always turned toward God's book for answers to his life. Tyndale would use the Bible to denounce the Pope and every Church official who would try to discredit him. Tyndale was put to test after test by each person he encountered in his life. Without support from the Bishop of England and a few followers Tyndale translated the entire Bible into modern times English. Tyndale listened to what God was calling him to do and by this he translated successfully the Bible for the English speaking nations. Through their cries he answered them in English from God's word. In doing this feat Tyndale managed to make the possibility for all Englishman to read the word of God at home and away from the church. Tyndale changed countless lives during his short life span but even though Tyndale was killed by the church they later repented and accepted Tyndale's work using it for the translation of the King James version of the Bible. Tyndale set himself up as a great man but remained humble under the power of God. Tyndale did not boast of his translation but merely he wanted every English man, woman, and child to have one of his Bibles so that they may be able to read it in their own tongue. William Tyndale died a martyr but lives as a hero today. Without the men like Tyndale every nation would be at the mercy of the church. Tyndale did not want only a select few to be able to pass the word of God out to the people. During Tyndale's time the people had to attend church in order to hear the word of God. Less people 5 could read Latin (the main translation of the Bible during those times). While even less people could read and understand Greek and Hebrew. Tyndale accomplish both feats and translated the Greek and Hebrew into English. With Tyndale's power of the spirit he made it possible for each person after him to read the Bible in away that was easy for them, in their own native tongue, English. Knauss 6 Geisler, Normal L., and Nix, William E., A General Introduction to the Bible, Revised and Expanded, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press) 1986. http://units.ox.ac.uk/colleges/hertford/alumni/tyndale.htm http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13170.html http://www.opengroup.com/babooks/030/0300061323.shtml Paul S. Karleen, The Handbook to Bible Study, (New York: Oxford University Press) 1987. f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Women in Religion 6.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Women in Religion Religion has existed for as long as man has. Both men, and women believed in a superior being to explain the existence of life. Now with the different varieties of religions, men and women play different roles that are permitted by each one of them. Men are allowed to do as they please in the church as far as the worshipping of god is concerned, but women have been and still are restricted from performing some of the same task. Women are expected to follow and obey the word of God just as much as men are, but they still are denied the privilege of spreading the word of God. The male gender has dominated the world for the past hundreds of years, but times have changed and women are seeking equality. Even in the church, men are categorized as superior to women. Since it is difficult to actually know what God wants from his followers, the Bible is one source that has been used as reference to determine superiority of genders in the church. "Jesus was a man who chose 12 male apostles to carry on his work, therefore only men could be priest" (Connel A1), is a common reference used to the scriptures found in the Bible. This attitude labeled tradition is still around today and is being taught today throughout the world, basically in the Roman Catholic religion. The Bible states "Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law" (I Corinthians 14:34). When a person receives the calling, whether man or woman, it usually means that God is asking to become one of hisdisciples and spread his word. Women receive this calling just like men, but because women have been denied that privilege for so many years, they have no choice, but to serve only between the boundaries that have been given to them. Since many churches have finally given in to allowing women into the ministry, they now believe that God does not have a gender, and there are a number of ways God can be addressed without calling God a he or she. Another argument is that Jesus asked his followers to "take up your cross, deny yourself , and follow me" (Ostling, 55): he did not say whether it should be man or women. Supporters of women's ordination believe that what is important is that Jesus came to earth as a human, not a male. One more argument stated stories that Christ was a carpenter, which dictate that only those skilled with hand tools shall be called to the priesthood. Besides a numerous amount of evidence in favor of women's ordinations, there are plenty of church officials, and religions that do believe that women should not remain in silent prayer. Others feel that women ministers would be more nurturing and caring. Many religions have given into the argument of women's ordination. The Catholic religion is one that still stands firm in its decision. It will keep recognizing women's gifts and full spiritual equality but wants to preserve distinct roles for each gender. Catholic schools and hospitals are run by women. Because of the 1983 revised canon law and Vatican II, women are allowed to lead music and read parts of the Bible during parish worship. They can also serve as extraordinary eucharistic ministers. This means only after the male minister has blessed the bread and wine, they can distribute it. Women are not allowed to give the actual mass or allow any sacraments to be performed, such as confession, matrimony, or anointment. Women find the responsibilities given to them are inadequate; they feel they can do much more to serve there God. The Catholic women have felt the need for preaching so much that they are driven to convert to other religions. For some women, who feel irresistibly called to do more, the only choice is to find a vocation outside Catholicism. There are those who still have hope that women will be ordained in the catholic religion. The grandniece of the famous Susan B. Anthony says, "There will always be people who oppose women in any type of spiritual role. But I believe women will be ordained-maybe not in my lifetime, but someday. I am just as sure of it as my great-aunt was sure that women someday would gain the right to vote" (Davis, 3E). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\women in religion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Women in Religion Religion has existed for as long as man has. Both men, and women believed in a superior being to explain the existence of life. Now with the different varieties of religions, men and women play different roles that are permitted by each one of them. Men are allowed to do as they please in the church as far as the worshipping of god is concerned, but women have been and still are restricted from performing some of the same task. Women are expected to follow and obey the word of God just as much as men are, but they still are denied the privilege of spreading the word of God. The male gender has dominated the world for the past hundreds of years, but times have changed and women are seeking equality. Even in the church, men are categorized as superior to women. Since it is difficult to actually know what God wants from his followers, the Bible is one source that has been used as reference to determine superiority of genders in the church. "Jesus was a man who chose 12 male apostles to carry on his work, therefore only men could be priest" (Connel A1), is a common reference used to the scriptures found in the Bible. This attitude labeled tradition is still around today and is being taught today throughout the world, basically in the Roman Catholic religion. The Bible states "Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law" (I Corinthians 14:34). When a person receives the calling, whether man or woman, it usually means that God is asking to become one of his disciples and spread his word. Women receive this calling just like men, but because women have been denied that privilege for so many years, they have no choice, but to serve only between the boundaries that have been given to them. Since many churches have finally given in to allowing women into the ministry, they now believe that God does not have a gender, and there are a number of ways God can be addressed without calling God a he or she. Another argument is that Jesus asked his followers to "take up your cross, deny yourself , and follow me" (Ostling, 55): he did not say whether it should be man or women. Supporters of women's ordination believe that what is important is that Jesus came to earth as a human, not a male. One more argument stated stories that Christ was a carpenter, which dictate that only those skilled with hand tools shall be called to the priesthood. Besides a numerous amount of evidence in favor of women's ordinations, there are plenty of church officials, and religions that do believe that women should not remain in silent prayer. Others feel that women ministers would be more nurturing and caring. Many religions have given into the argument of women's ordination. The Catholic religion is one that still stands firm in its decision. It will keep recognizing women's gifts and full spiritual equality but wants to preserve distinct roles for each gender. Catholic schools and hospitals are run by women. Because of the 1983 revised canon law and Vatican II, women are allowed to lead music and read parts of the Bible during parish worship. They can also serve as extraordinary eucharistic ministers. This means only after the male minister has blessed the bread and wine, they can distribute it. Women are not allowed to give the actual mass or allow any sacraments to be performed, such as confession, matrimony, or anointment. Women find the responsibilities given to them are inadequate; they feel they can do much more to serve there God. The Catholic women have felt the need for preaching so much that they are driven to convert to other religions. For some women, who feel irresistibly called to do more, the only choice is to find a vocation outside Catholicism. There are those who still have hope that women will be ordained in the catholic religion. The grandniece of the famous Susan B. Anthony says, "There will always be people who oppose women in any type of spiritual role. But I believe women will be ordained-maybe not in my lifetime, but someday. I am just as sure of it as my great-aunt was sure that women someday would gain the right to vote" (Davis, 3E). f:\12000 essays\religion & faith (442)\Yom Kippur.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yom Kippur Yom Kippur is the most important holidays for the Jewish. It is a time for people to seek forgiveness from others. Yom Kippur is important because it comes just before the Jewish new year so that people can have a fresh start for the new year. Yom Kippur also gives people a chance to look back on the past year and plan for the upcoming year. Yom Kippur dates back to biblical times when animals were used to transfer sins to. The first animal that was used was a goat, but soon roosters for males and hens for females were used. The sins were transferred from people to the animals by tying a rope to the fowl's legs and then spinning around the head of the person who was transferring their sins. While the fowl was being spun the person who was transferring their sins would begin chanting. When the ceremony was finished the animal would be sent away into the dessert. Yom Kippur is practiced very differently today. Instead of transferring their sins to animals people donate money to charities and throw stones into ponds. On the night before Yom Kippur, people prepare for the following day's fast by eating an enourmous meal. Following the meal candles are lit and the Shehecheyanu is recited to bless the candles. The following day is spent at the synogauge where services are conducted all day long. The most important part of the services is when the rabbi asks everyone to take time to seek forgiveness of anyone whom they may have hurt in some way in the past year. People must seek forgiveness because the Jewish feel that forgiveness is not something that may be given, it is something that must be sought after. Not wanting to start the new year with any grudges, the entire congregation gets up and begins seeking forgiveness. At sundown the fast is over. The congregation leaves the synagouge and goes home. When they get home the break the fast by eating a huge meal. This meal marks the end of Yom Kippur. Timeline of The Hebrews 922 B.C. Isreal breaks up after the death of Solomon. Splits into a northern and southern kingdom with Shechm the capital of the northern half and Jerusalem as the capital of the southern half. 876 B.C. King Omri makes Samariai new capital. 842 B.C. Queen Jezebel imposes the cult of Baal. The people revolt and the Aramaeans take advantage of this oppertunity and captures some land from Isreal. 786 B.C.-746 B.C. Renaissance of Isreal under Jerobam II. 783 B.C.-742 B.C. Renaissance of Judah under Uzziah. 750 B.C. The prophets Amos and Hosea speak out against the exploitation of the poor by the rich. 738 B.C. The Assyrians force Isreal to pay a large tribute. 721 B.C. The Assyrians manage to capture Isreal and deport the Jews. Judah becomes a vassal state of Assyria. 715 B.C. Hezekiah becomes King of Judah and rids the religion of Assyrian influence. 687 B.C. Assyrians attack Jereusalem. 640 B.C.-609 B.C. King Josiah of Judah wins back some land from the Assyrians. 597 B.C. The Babylonians capture Jerusalem and deport King Jehoiadin causing the end of the Kingdom of Judah. 587 B.C.-539 B.C. The Babylonians destroy Jerusalem and cause the collapse of the Kingdom of Judah. 587 marks the begining of the Babylonian exile which ended through the Edict of Liberation of Cyrus the Persian 538 B.C.-400 B.C. The Jews return to the Holy Land. Joshua and Zerubbabel are the religious heads of Judea. Haggai adn Zechariah are the prophets in Judea. 332 B.C. Alexander the Great conquers Jerusalem. 167 B.C.-164 B.C. The Jews are persecuted and the cult of Zeus is established in their temples. 104 B.C.-37 B.C. Hasmoneans rule Judea. 63 B.C. Pompey captures Jerusalem stretching the Roman power to the Holy Land. 26 A.D.-36 A.D. Pontius Pilate is the govenor of Judea. 66 A.D.-73 A.D. The Jews revolt for the first time against Rome. 70 A.D. Romans destroy the temple. 132 A.D.-135 A.D. The second Jewish revolt against Rome. Also known as Bar Kokhba. The Jews are destroyed in battle and the Jews are dispersed. 351 A.D. The Revolt of Patricius takes place. 637 A.D. The Arabs capture the city of Jerusalem. 1095 A.D.-1270 A.D. Crusades occour in a Christian attemptto regain the holy lond which was also sacred to them. 1492 A.D. The Jews are expulted from Spain and Ghettos are formed. 1917 A.D. Pogroms begin occouring in Russia. The rise of antisemitism. 1936 A.D. Hitler commands Nazis to destroy Jewish towns and blames it on hoodlums. 1939 A.D.-1945 World War II. 1948 A.D. Isreal becomes a country. Military Life The Hebrews viewed war as a holy act. War was thought of in this way because they believed that it was God's will that they fight and that they would win if he wanted them to. In their early days the Hebrews had no permanent army and relied on all Hebrew men over 20 to fight whenever there was a threat to the Hebrews. Military service was viewed as a religious obligation so men would always be willing to serve in the army. Before they established a full time army the Hebrews also relied on mercenaries and bandits to help them fight. When Saul became king he saw that it was necessary to set up a full time army. He gathered all of the men he could find into an unorganized group. Later, Solomon turned the army into a large highly organized group. Solomon also set up a recruiting office so that in times of danger temporary help could be gotten in addition to the regular army. However, by 700 B.C. the citizens army had replaced the regular army because there was no need for a regular army with the tremendous amount of volunteers. The Hebrew's army consisted mainly of their infantry which served as the backbone of the army. The infantry was equipped with only bronze helmets and coats of mail also made of bronze. Bronze was the metal that was chiefly used in the Hebrew's armor even though iron was discovered to be much stronger. The infantry was equipped with either swords, or lances for hand to hand combat, with lances being the weapon of choice. Either bows, slings or spears were used for artillery with bows being used much more than slings or spears. A second important part of the Hebrew army were the chariots they used. Solomon was the first to realize the important role that chariots could play in war and implemented them into the Hebrew army. The chariots could dominate a battle taking place on flat land, but on the other hand were rendered useless on hills and mountains. Because the Hebrews believed that war was a holy act the Hebrews had to prepare for the battle spiritually as well as physically. Before every battle sacrifices were made accompanied by prayers. Before any campaign was started a priest would be consulted on the precise time for which the campaign would be started. The priest would also be brought along on the campaign so he cold be consulted at crucial points during the campaign. All of these were done to gain God's will and determine his wishes. The main form of battle the Hebrews engaged in was siege warfare. They first would attempt to capture the city's water supply. Once they controlled the water they would cut of the supply of food from outside the city. Once they had accomplished these the would wait for months and sometimes years. This would cause the city to resort to it's stored food. Once the stored food ran out, people either died of malnutrition, paid high prices for food on the black market, or resorted to cannibalism. This method of battle proved to be highly effective for the Hebrews. The reason for much of the Hebrews success was their attitude toward war. Because of their belief that war was holy they got an enormous amount of support from their people. Also, believing that the result of the wars they were fighting was determined by what their God wanted had to have given the Hebrews some hope even when they were losing. Without their attitude towards was the Hebrews would have been a much weaker opponent.