Portrayal of the Gods Essay

Portrayal of the Gods Essay.

Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern Iraq. It revolves around the relationship between Gilgamesh, who has become distracted and disheartened by his rule, and a friend, Enkidu, who is half-wild and who undertakes dangerous quests with him. In the epic of Gilgamesh and in the lives of the Mesopotamian the gods where portrayed as self-serving arrogant beings. These beings created the human race as slaves for the gods and so a human in the view of an early Mesopotamian had better do what the gods said if they wanted to live a happy life.

We see gods that that do not really care about the lives of the Mesopotamian. The Mesopotamian could not depend on the safety of a strong government. The lack of a strong government was caused by many different factors and one of the main factors that brought about a weak government in the land of the Mesopotamia, was the lack of a reliable food source.

The unreliable food source was due to the lack of a reliable source of farmland. Moreover, this lack of farmland was due mostly to the ever-changing rivers that surrounded the early civilizations that believed in these harsh gods.

These peoples could not depend on a predictable flood pattern from the Tigris or the Euphrates. This fact above all, is the reason that the view of mean uncaring gods came about for the lives of these early people. One year a village could be right next to the Tigris but in the next year, they’ll be a mile away from the river thus destroying the type of economy that the village had in the previous year. Living with this, the people of the early civilizations blamed this hardship on the gods.

These people did not think that the gods were all bad though, but just thought that they did not care about human existence because, as they believed, humans were created by many gods and for the sole service of these gods that created them. We conclude that these gods are always out to get the humans in whatever endeavor they may take up. Gilgamesh and Enkidu learn all too well that the gods are dangerous for mortals. Gods live by their own laws and frequently behave as emotionally and irrationally as children. Piety is important to the gods, and they expect obedience and flattery whenever possible.

They can often be helpful, but angering them is sheer madness, and a character’s reverence for the gods is no guarantee of safety. He is rich in religious symbolism. Religious rituals in Mesopotamia involved sacrifices, festivals, sex, dream interpretation, and shamanic magic. The walls of Uruk symbolize the great accomplishments of which mortals are capable. The epic of Gilgamesh differs markedly from that of the Judeo-Christian tradition, in which God is both a partner in a covenant and a stern but loving parent to his people.

The covenant promises that people will receive an earthly or heavenly inheritance if they behave well. The Judeo-Christian God represents not just what is most powerful but what is morally best, humans should aspire to imitate him. These differences are noteworthy because Gilgamesh also shares certain common elements with the Judeo-Christian Bible. The bible and Gilgamesh are written in both languages. In Oedipus Tyrannus, it talks about the Ancient Greece where a lot was not understood; science was merely an infant and everything that happened was explained as an act of the gods or fate.

Gods were the pinnacle of power; existing since the dawn of time. They were immortal, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Different gods had different personalities. In this sense, the gods were anthropomorphic. Having such mastery of the world would enable them to control man’s behavior. Fate is the idea that people’s lives are predetermined and that no matter what is done, fate cannot be changed. With the gods it was used to explore events that seemed unexplainable. It is clear that a betrayal of the god’s dominance resulted in Laius and Jocasta’s education. Oedipus is the victim of both fate and circumstance.

Apollo is the God behind the nebulous conspiration involving Oedipus. Oracular god hides what he reveals through his oracles. Here is evidence of the Greek theories, which contempt for the gods leads to pain and suffering. As a result he is punished in a way that is more severe than even death. There is also the fact of knowing that his mother is suffering terrible pain. In the embattle of Oedipus, fighting for his own life, the god is present as an old prediction, inescapable for sure, but acting as background for the development of facts, or better, for the discovery of what had already happened.

Oedipus experiences great grief when he looks back and realizes how much he has fallen from his former perch of power. This end is not only ironic but also cruel. Arachne was so apt at weaving that she challenged the god Athene to a contest. Oedipus certainly is not one without flaws. His pride, ignorance, insolence and disbelief in the gods, and unrelenting quest for the truth ultimately contributed to his destruction. The tragedy brought this evolution in the way of analyzing the relationship between the Greek gods and man, giving the latter more freedom of action.

When Oedipus was told that he was responsible for the murder of Laius, he became enraged and calls the old oracle a liar. He ran away from his home, Corinth, in hopes of outsmarting the gods divine will. Like his father, he also sought ways to escape the horrible destiny told by the oracle of Apollo. The chorus warns us of man’s need to have reverence for the gods, and the dangers of too much pride. “If a man walks with haughtiness of hand or word and gives no heed to Justice and the shrines of Gods despises, may an evil doom smite him for his ill, starred pride of heart.

If he reaps gains without justice and will not hold from impiety and his fingers itch for untouchable things. When such things are done, what man shall contrive to shield his soul from the shafts of the God? ”(pp. 452). Finally, the Greeks are warned that the only way to happiness is through humility and respect towards the gods. In the book “Monkey” by Wu Cheng, Sun Wukong, realized that despite his power over the monkeys, he was just like them, and was not beyond mortality. His determination to find immortality made him to travel on a raft to civilized lands where he was made the disciple of a Buddhist.

Through his travels, he was able to acquire human speech and manners. He established himself as one of the most powerful and influential demons in the world and traveled into the ocean where he got the weapons that suited him. Hoping that a promotion and a rank amongst the gods would make him more manageable, the Jade emperor invited Wukong to Heaven, where the monkey believed he would receive an honorable place as one of the gods. Instead, he was made the head of heavenly stables to watch over horses.

He went against the gods when he discovered what he was doing, and proclaimed himself as the great sage, and teamed up with the most powerful demons on earth. Although the heavens recognized the title of the monkey, their attempt to subdue the monkey king was unsuccessful. Wukong’s indignation turned into open defiance when he realized that he was excluded from a royal meeting that included that god and the goddess. After stealing the empress Xi Wangmu’s peaches of immortality and the Jade Emperor’s royal wine, he escaped back to his kingdom in preparation for his rebellion.

Finally he proved himself equal to the best of Heaven’s generals when he defeated the army of heavens. Conclusion In the three books, it’s evident that the gods were caring and if one goes against their will, there was a repercussion for that. The gods are the pinnacle of power who takes control of all the things in the world. Different gods have different personalities and deeds. Gilgamesh learns that the gods are dangerous for mortals. Gods live by their own laws and frequently behave as emotionally and irrationally as children. Piety is important to the gods, and they expect obedience and flattery whenever possible.

Portrayal of the Gods Essay

Posted in God

Pre-Destination V.S Free Will Essay

Pre-Destination V.S Free Will Essay.

For years Christians have argued about what role God has in humans attaining salvation. The most popular belief in American culture is the concept of free will. Free will is the belief that coming to Christ and being saved is a freewill choice of the person. Most churches believe this concept to be true at least to some degree. The other belief is the concept of Predestination. Predestination is the belief that God chooses who to save and who to damn.

The biggest denomination in the United States that believes this is the Calvinists or more commonly known as the Reformed denomination.

The debate will probably continue for many years to come. By reading Romans 9:1-29 we can tell clearly which concept Paul believes to be true. While I read Romans 9:1-29 I kept clearly in my mind the two beliefs of freewill and predestination. After reading it was apparent to me that Paul believes strongly in predestination. This, in my opinion, goes against human nature.

I, at least, find it very hard to believe that if God chooses not to extend grace to a person that person cannot attain salvation no matter what they believe or what they do.

Paul uses an example about Jacob and Esau. In Romans 9: 10-13 Paul uses Malachi 1:2-3 that says that “ I have loved Jacob, but I have loved Jacob” Paul then says that God had decided that before they were even born so as it says in verse 11-12 “ that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works, but by his call. ” If Paul is right about this and you interpret the Bible literally than predestination has to be true. It is completely possible that Paul is biased though when writing about predestination. Paul believes strongly in salvation by faith not works.

In Romans 3: 27- 28 Paul says “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. ” This is just one of many examples of how much Paul hates the idea of faith by works. There are many other examples of this in books written by Paul outside of Romans that convey the same message. Since Paul believes strongly in salvation by faith this would, in theory, make him lean towards predestination.

Freewill means that we as humans make a choice to believe in God and be saved. Paul would see this as an example of justification by works and he clearly states in Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. ” Paul believes that nothing we can do nothing to save ourselves which is the main idea of freewill. This makes Paul potentially biased toward predestination.

I believe that this passage isn’t trying to address personal salvation as a main point, but I think we infer Paul’s view on personal salvation through the verse. I believe that Paul was more trying to point out that we can do nothing to save ourselves. It is completely up to God. Paul was trying to stress that firstly, but then through that seems to make a case, as far as personal salvation goes, for predestination. He specifically mentions how he picked Jacob over Esau. If God chooses individually like that then I, at least, deduce from this passage according to Paul that God must choose who to save on a personal level.

My rational human side tells me that predestination cannot be right, but then I read Romans and Paul says that predestination is right and freewill is wrong. The question then is if I believe Paul just because that is his opinion, even though it is most likely biased, or do I believe what seems right to me? I’m still torn between the two because what I want to believe is contradicted by Paul. Maybe we’ll never know for sure because the concept of God is impossible for our minds to completely understand in the first place.

Pre-Destination V.S Free Will Essay

Posted in God

Human Free Will and Gods Foreknowledge Essay

Human Free Will and Gods Foreknowledge Essay.

The argument of the compatibility and incompatibility of God’s foreknowledge and human free will have been going on for hundreds of years. Concerning the definition of freedom, to get a better understanding, can be described as an act that an individual can do freely without being restrained or force. Philosophers that are well known in this subject matter are Alvin Plantiga and Nelson Pike. Pike will argue that human freedom is incompatible with God’s foreknowledge based upon facts such as God being omniscient.

Whereas, Plantiga argues that Pike’s theory is based upon confusion and that human free will can coexist with God’s foreknowledge.

Let’s get in to the differences in predictability and God’s foreknowledge pertaining to free will to give a bit more understanding in the argument. Shook’s example is as follows, “What justification is available for our [predictability claim] that a wind-up toy, for example, my “Thomas the Train” toy, does not freely choose its behavior? ” (Shook 142) This is to say that we as human beings can predict that this wind-up toy will move forward after we wind it up just as God might.

However, this prediction is merely based on our knowledge of the past in using this toy.

When we try to predict such an event, it has the possibility not working and we had no idea that this would happen, whereas, God would have predicted this as He is omniscient. It’s obvious in both of these arguments it is accepted that God is omniscient in all possible worlds. Pike states that “… it is part of the essence of God to be omniscient… any person who is not omniscient could not be the person we [call] God. ” (Pojman & Rea 97) He goes on to point out that if this were false, in that any person can be called “God” if one was not omniscient, then we can call anyone God.

Furthermore, this means to say that at any given time in the past, present or future an omniscient and existing God would know what would happen. This, I would argue is something that can be compatible with human freedom; In that if God believes, at a certain time (T1), that Peter will eat an orange (X) in the future T2 is necessarily true. At T2 Peter eats an apple (X2) will not go against the omniscience of God. God would have believed that at T2 it was with Peter’s free will that he will do X2.

That is to say that, according to Plantiga,“ It was within Peter’s power at T2 to do something that if he had done it,then God would not have held a belief that in fact he did hold. ” (Pojman & Rea 110) Though Peter had two choices in either eating the orange or the apple the fact that God knows that he would have eaten the latter does not take away the freedom of Peter.

Pike will argue that God will have known at a certain time (T1) that an event will be foreseen as soon as the human being is born such as T2. Pertaining to this situation Pike states, “ … if God held such a belief eighty years [T1] prior to [T2], Peter did not have the power on [T2] to do something that would have made it the case that God did not hold this belief eighty years later.

” (Pojman & Rea 99) This fact goes on to say that it is with the omniscience of God that, no matter what, His belief will not have changed in between [T1] and [T2]. The argument can still be accepted in an statement made by St. Augustine, “… it is not necessary to deny that God foreknows all things while at the same time our wills are our own. God has foreknowledge of our will, so that of which he has foreknowledge must come to pass. In other words, we shall exercise our will in the future because he has foreknowledge that we shall do so; and there can be no will or voluntary action unless it will be in our power.

” (Hopkins 112) The argument here is that, even though God foreknows that Peter will eat the apple does not require Him to limit the humans free will; It was with knowledge and not restraint that Peter made his choice. Another claim that has to deal to this argument is that which Molina says, “… it is not because God foreknows what He foreknows that men act as they do: it is because men act as they do that God foreknows what He foreknows. ” (Pojman & Rea 102) Meaning that the reason why God foresees an event is based upon the action of the humans’ free will.

This goes back to the differences in prediction and free will, however, now we are dealing with something other than an inanimate object. The differences in this claim are argued as follows by Shook, “If God possesses justified divine knowledge, his capacity for perfectly predicting future human actions is incompatible with the free will of alternative possibilities. ” (Shook 157) For reasons already explained, it is impossible for God to have made a claim based on the consistency for his omniscient knowledge gave him the belief before the event occurred.

This concept would be similar to me making a prediction of a friend who will wake up at five in the morning and take a shower every Tuesday because he is consistent in doing so. I can make this prediction, but it won’t be necessarily true. The consistency can always change, due to free will. To assume God’s cognitions to be similar is untrue. This would also be to say that if God’s beliefs are due to a humans freedom of will that, when the individual refrains from a certain action that he was going to do, that God’s belief is false.

This cannot be true as well due to the acceptance of God’s omniscience. There is also a difference in free will and necessity too. An example can be that it is necessary for one to live by breathing which is arguably our will to do so. It is our will to live, therefore, we must breathe. Augustine explains further that, “… if there is necessity there is no voluntary choice… but rather fixed and unavoidable necessity. ” (Pojman & Rea 101) This could be an argument that it is with necessary actions where God’s foreknowledge is indeed true.

It is possible for us to not breathe, thus ending our life which is a necessary truth and God would foreknow as well. Molina writes, “He would foreknow the opposite if the opposite was to happen. ” (Pojman & Rea) This argument coincides with the claim that was made above on the choices that were made by Peter. Pike is under the claim that it is incompatible for there to be human free will along with God’s foreknowledge. This is backed up by stating that God is omniscient and because of that the action by the human is not, in fact, under his will.

Due to the belief of the event occurring before the time it does occur does not allow the human any other choices. This cannot be compared to anything that is predicted as it would falsify the omniscience of God. To compare the belief of a situation occurring to the prediction a human might make of a wind-up toy or close friend is also untrue as it would then allow for anyone to be called “God” because anyone is able to make such a prediction. The previous statement would negate that only an omniscient being can be called “God” since the human that can predict is not omniscient.

The compatible claim of human free will and God’s foreknowledge is explained by Plantiga. He goes on to say that it is compatible as the person would have choices and be able to choose based on one’s own will. Explaining further that the foreknowledge of God does not require a restraint on the choice with which the human chooses. Whether or not the individual makes one choice over another God will still foresee it due to His omniscience, therefore, being an action of human free will. Though an action may be out of necessity (i. e.breathing) it is possible for us to still make another choice based on our own will. Works Cited Hopkins, Jasper.

“Augustine On Foreknowledge And Free Will. ” International Journal For Philosophy Of Religion 8. 2 (1977): 111-126. ATLA Religion Database. Web. 5 Nov. 2012. Pojman, Louis & Rea, Michael. Philosophy of Religion. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2012 Shook, John. “God’s Divinely Justified Knowledge Is Incompatible With Human Free Will. “Forum Philosophicum: International Journal For Philosophy 15. 1 (2010): 141-159. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2012.

Human Free Will and Gods Foreknowledge Essay

Posted in God

The House of God by Samuel Shem Essay

The House of God by Samuel Shem Essay.

The House of God, by Samuel Shem is a satirical novel that represents the lives of young interns interning at a hospital nicknamed “The House of God.” The came from the top of their medical school class to the bottom of the hospital staff to serve a year performing distasteful work, experiencing poor working conditions, and losing close contact with family and friends. But only the Fat Man, the all-knowing resident, could sustain them in their struggle to survive, to stay sane, and to be doctors.

It is a four hundred and thirty-two page novel illustrated with numerous medical references and college level diction. The book fits well with the current AP English literature curriculum because it is known to be the Catch-22 of medical professions and offers the same themes and character conflicts found in other suggested readings.

The House of God is a must read for all students enrolled in AP English. It expresses irony, humor, conflict, character development and many themes.

The novel allows students to read a book similar to Catch-22 without having to deal with another war novel, like A Farewell to Arms. It captures interest through a chronological flashback, unlike Catch-22, where the order of events is unclear. It also offers students an insight of the cruelties and realities of the medical profession that parallel the military profession. In the end the reader learns the effects of oppression, fatigue, and the psychological development of each intern. These understanding will further enhance a students knowledge of theme and conflict.

However, introducing the novel to the curriculum has some disadvantage. It is constructed with vulgar language through the last page. The language is especially explicit during the numerous sexual intercourses between the interns and nurses. Students should be mature enough to get past the crudeness but some teachers and students may not be open to the vivid voice and scenes. Also many of the characters are stock characters and confusion arises about whether or not they are important to the central plot. Lastly, some students will not be familiar with the medical references of diseases and symptoms stated throughout the novel. Nevertheless, this is only a minor disadvantage since some terms are explained as doctors ridicule the interns knowledge.

Despite the disadvantages, the novel fits well within the curriculum. It has offers a difficult reading level that challenges students reading, a strong use of literary techniques, and a psychological understanding of dynamic characters. It is the same length as Catch- 22 but it is easier to understand and expresses a clearer message on the realties and psychological tolls of a profession.

The House of God by Samuel Shem Essay

Posted in God

Theogony: Greek Mythology and Zeus Essay

Theogony: Greek Mythology and Zeus Essay.

Theogony is all about anything of the “ birth of the gods” which is what the title means. In this early creation-time, the gods are synonymous with the universe and the order of the universe. I think that Hesiod’s Theogony is a large-scale synthesis of Greek traditions concerning the gods and it organized as a narrative that tells about the origin of the cosmos and about the gods that shaped cosmos. Also, the gods behave in a very disorderly fashion throughout the Theogony.

The poem presents the creation of the gods and the universe and the struggle between fathers and sons and between male force and female birth. Hesiod shows a clear bias for the eventual winner of the fathers-sons struggle, the male sky-god Zeus, and a bias for the male against the female. Hesiod distorts parts of some stories in order to make Zeus and the male powers look good and to make some of the female powers focused around the natural cycle of birth and death look bad.

On the other hand, Hesiod’s Theogony delivers to us the traditional stories of the Greek gods as well as ancient Greek conceptions of the world. I think that the section of Prometheus is the particular well known aspect of the Theogony, the section that tells the tale of Prometheus; it is able to enhance other stories and conceptions. The story of Prometheus shows us two purposes in Hesiod’s Theogony. First, it solidifies Zeus’s position as king of the gods, providing one of the first characterizations of his temperament.

Second, it serves as a mode of explanation for those evils in the world which plague mankind. Hesiod’s description of Zeus is the admiration for the god’s power, which makes it ultimately more effective when we finally realize that Zeus was outsmarted by Prometheus.

The organizational tools implemented by Hesiod in the delivery of the story of Prometheus set us up for a more tangible comprehension of the outcome. In lines 523-28, Hesiod presents the ultimate fate of Prometheus, i. e. the individualized punishment for his actions, and then follows with a detailed description of the early stages of his conflict with Zeus.

In these early stages, the audience begins to comprehend Zeus’s attitudes and quick temper, achieving a slightly better understanding of Prometheus’s punishment; clearly it is the result of Zeus’s vengeful anger. Finally, Hesiod reveals the missing section of the story of Prometheus: “Thus Zeus, angry, whose wisdom never wears out…” (Hesiod 563) became infuriated at being outwitted by the son of Iapetos, who delivered fire to mortals.

The audience, after being acquainted with the short temper of Zeus and his infinite wisdom as well as the eternal effects of his punishment, achieves an understanding of the causality of this anger and ultimately, a better understanding of Zeus the god. In fact, the true value of the tale of Prometheus lies in its ability to characterize Zeus as the furious king of the gods and its ability to produce a cause for the ills in the world. Prometheus was an intermediary himself, between gods and men, attempting to aid human beings by providing them with fire and treating them with general favoritism.

The story of Prometheus acts as simply a means by which certain elaborations and explanations can be made. Just as Prometheus, son of Iapetos provides fire to man, Hesiod’s tale of Prometheus provides a deeper comprehension of the attitudes of Zeus, king of the gods, and an acceptable cause for the evils that plague mankind. Prometheus has no value in himself; even his rescue by Herakles was achieved for the “glory of Theban-born Herakles”. Prometheus’s identity is entirely dependent on Zeus’s punishment delivered to mankind as a result and in turn, the explanation of these two things is entirely dependent on Prometheus.

Theogony: Greek Mythology and Zeus Essay

Posted in God

Greek Mythology and Hades Essay

Greek Mythology and Hades Essay.

The ancient Greek people wrote stories about characters known as gods in order to explain things in the world. For example, the story of Hades and Persephone explains why plants do not grow in the winter. The story of Hades and Persephone is only one story however, and they are only two gods out of the large number of immortal characters that the Greeks created. Hades is the god of the underworld, goes by many different names, was extremely protective of his posessions, and was married to the beautiful God, Persephone.

The Underworld (Image from Medea’s Greek Lair; painting by Kythera Ann) Greek gods have many different names, and different spellings. For example, Greek Gods all have different names they can be called. Hades goes by many names, such as Aides, Lord of the darkness, Pluto, and god of the dead (www. theoi. com). Hades is most commonly known as the god of the underworld, and Aides is another Greek spelling of Hades.

Lord of the Darkness is from his most prized posession, his helmet from the Titanomachy war. Pluto is his Roman name.

Pluto is the easiest to remember, however I have found that most texts refer to him as Hades. Lord of the Dead is not to be confused with god of death or the devil, as the god of death is called Thanatos, a less popular god (www. helium. com). While Thanatos is a God, I think that Hades is a more important figure in the Greek world. Although, Hades protects things such as funerals and burial ceremonies, Hades is a completely different person than Thanatos. Hades’ Helmet of Darkness (Image from Medea’s Greek Lair) In the time of Greek Gods and Goddesses, there was a ten-year war called the Titanomachy.

In addition, to win the war, the Cyclops gave the three brothers special weapons (www. helium. com). Hades was given the Helmet of Darkness; therefore, allowing him to become invisible. This invisibility allowed him to sneak on to enemy territory, which is a nifty ability. After winning the war against the Titans, the brothers were rightfully deemed their regions; Hades won the Underworld (www. helium. com). The Underworld is not depicted as hell in the Christian society, but as an island in the west ocean. However, Hades’ land, the Underworld, was thought of as under Greece as time passed.

One of the Greek gods’ favorite activities was to get married. For example, Hades had a wife named Persephone, daughter of Demeter and Zeus. Hades married Persephone after abducting her (www. netplaces. com); sweeping beneath Demeter’s careful eye and stealing her most prized posession. Persephone, in my opinion, is the most beautiful of all the Gods. However, this inconsiderate action is a display of his relentless power.

Despite Demeter’s wishes, Persephone stays with Hades during the winter only, and she is returned to her mother for the other eight months of the year (www.netplaces. com). At a time, Persephone was about to leave the Underworld entirely, but she ate pomegranate seeds at a banquet that Hades threw for her, which chained her to the Underworld forever. After eating food from the Underworld, the eater must always be forced to return eventually.

With time, Persephone grew to like her husband more and became content with her life. Hades is the powerful God of the Underworld, husband of Persephone and goes by many different names, and is feared by all mortals. Hades is not to be confused with Thatamos, God of Death.

He also participated in the Titanomachy, winning the Underworld and his helmet of darkness, Persephone, image by Marta Dahlig which he cherishes even more than his abducted wife, Persephone. Hades is one of the most powerful Gods, right next to Zeus and Poseidon. However, Hades is my favorite God. Works Cited Ann, Kythera. “Tales of Hades. ” Hades. Medea’s Lair of Greek Mythology, n. d. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. <http://www. medeaslair. net/hades. html>. Atsuma, Aaron J. “HADES : Greek King of the Underworld, God of the Dead ; Mythology ; Pictures : HAIDES, PLUTO.

” HADES : Greek King of the Underworld, God of the Dead ; Mythology ; Pictures : HAIDES, PLUTO. Amazon, n. d. Web. 31 Oct. 2012. <http://www. theoi. com/Khthonios/Haides. html>. Conner, Nancy. “Classical Mythology. ” The Abduction of Persephone. The New York Times Company, n. d. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. <http://www. netplaces. com/classical-mythology/the-dark-prince/the-abduction-of-persephone. htm>. Harry, Tim. “Greek Mythology: Hades, the God of the Dead. ” Helium. Helium, 01 Apr. 2008. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. <http://www. helium. com/items/907087-greek-mythology-hades-the-god-of-the-dead>.

Greek Mythology and Hades Essay

Posted in God

Gods: Greek Mythology and Thor Essay

Gods: Greek Mythology and Thor Essay.

Zeus and Thor are both respected gods in Norse and Greek mythology. Both have amazing strength and powers and were feared by many because of this. While both were the all mighty gods of their time, one huge difference was that Zeus was the god of all gods. In Greek mythology there was no one who ruled over Zeus and ultimately Zeus was in control of all the gods and people. While Thor was the strongest god of Norse mythology, his father Odin was the supreme ruler of the gods like Zeus was in Greek mythology.

While both had amazing strength, Zeus still had the power over all the gods which Thor did not. One of the huge similarities is that both Thor and Zeus were gods of the sky and thunder. Zeus would use a thunderbolt as his weapon and Thor would use his hammer in which only he was able to lift. Both of these gods also had a similar appearance.

Both were muscular built and had long hair and also a long beard. Thor and Odin also both had children outside of their marriage. While Thor had children with two women, Zeus was known for his lust for women and sex and had a very large number of children.

Zeus’s lust for women was one of his biggest weaknesses and also got him in a lot of trouble with his wife. While Zeus was the God of all gods and the common man respected him, Thor seemed to be more worshipped and liked as a god. Thor was the protector of the people and did not require any form of sacrifice from the people for his help. This is one of the reasons Thor surpassed even his father Odin in popularity. Odin required human sacrifices since he needs warriors on his side to fight with him at the Ragnarok, while Thor did not since he is practically a one-man army.

These made him more liked then even his father Odin who was the god of all gods in Norse mythology. Another large difference between Thor and Zeus was the fact that Zeus was immortal and Thor was not and would eventually die. The Greek Gods were immortal, and were never depicted as in danger of “dying”. While most pantheons were immortal, the exception to that rule was the Norse Gods, who could die from injury or old age. Thor and other Norse gods would eventually die in the battle of Ragnarok. He fought the Midgard serpent, which surrounds the whole world.

While he did succeed in killing this serpent, he walked about nine paces from its dead corpse and died from the poison it had spewed out onto him. While Thor was the mightiest God of his time just as Zeus, He was unable to avoid the faith of dying during this battle. Zeus is meant to rule Mount Olympus for all eternity amongst the rest of the Greek gods. Zeus had a hatred for his father unlike Thor. Thor fought alongside of his father while Zeus was the destruction of his. Zeus could not actually kill his father because his father Cronus was immortal just like Zeus.

Instead, Zeus used his father’s own weapon to slice Cronus into a thousand pieces. Zeus then tossed all the pieces into Tartarus, the deepest crater in the underworld, and Cronus never escaped. Cronus was still alive because he was immortal, but he was harmless since his body was scattered in Tartarus. Thor had nothing but respect for his father and would do anything to help him. While Zeus did destroy and hate his father, he had plenty of reason to since his father was not what most would consider a good father.

Cronos would have eaten Zeus like he did to the rest of his brothers and sisters, since he had a fear that one day one of them will rule over him. If it was not for Zeus’s mother Rhea creating a plan to save him, Zeus would have been eaten by his father and not have overthrown him and become the ruler of the gods. Overall both gods possess exceptional power and are the strongest of their times. Both gods are extremely dangerous and getting on their “bad side” is not generally a good idea. To me is seemed Thor was liked a lot more by the people then Zeus was.

But with Zeus’s affairs and also the fact that he was the most revered god of his time, while Thor was not really the most revered god since Odin was, Zeus had a lot more criticism. I liked how Thor had his special weapon (Mjollnir Hammer), but I felt as if Zeus using the thunderbolt as his main weapon made him just appear more as a “Sky God” even though Thor does use thunder as a weapon as well. Both gods have many differences and similarities but one thing everyone can agree with is that no one wants to get into a battle with either of these mighty gods.

Gods: Greek Mythology and Thor Essay

Posted in God

Main differences and similarities between God and human according to Hebrew Scriptures Essay

Main differences and similarities between God and human according to Hebrew Scriptures Essay.

The first man was perfect, Made in the image of God and likeness (Genesis 1:26). Image in this case can not refer to the body; God is a spirit while man is earthly. Image here would mean the divine attributes that God endued man with, separating mankind from other animals. Short gives six God like qualities that man posses. These are language, creativity intellectual ability, dominion over the earth, love holiness, immortality and freedom (5). Some of these attributes are arguably not possible without including the body in the image.

Man stands apart from all other living creatures because of his relationship with God. Grudem gives five aspects of our likeness to God. These aspects of human existence shows man to be more like God than the rest of creation. The aspects are: • Moral aspect: Human has an inner sense of right and wrong that set him part from animals. • Spiritual aspects: Man’s spiritual lives enable him to relate to God as persons, to pray and hear him speaking his word to him.

• Mental aspect: man has the ability to reason and think logically.

• Relational aspect: despite the fact that animal too relate to each other, the depth of interpersonal harmony in human relations; in marriage, church is much greater and function in accordance to God’s principles. • Man’s great dignity as bearers of God’s image. Despite the fact that man is in the image of God, God has no the physical form but is a spirit. b) Similarities and differences between the gods and humans, according to the Iliad Greek gods are not spiritual beings but are anthropomorphic. They resemble human beings and tend to act in human ways.

They portray human emotions, virtues and vices. They further are organized into divine family, which imitates the patriarchy of human society. Iliad gods are much concerned with human affairs. Many goddesses would mate with human beings, sire children who would favor them in times of war. The Iliad presents an action on two planes, the human and the divine. The gods serves to emphasize the limitation of man, his short life, and the ultimate meaningless of human affairs. Work cited Short J. R, The image of God. Viewed on 09/07/10 from http://www.

answersingenesis. org/creation/v4/i1/man. asphttp://www. answersingenesis. org/creation/v4/i1/man. asp Dunkle R, classic origin of western culture. Viewed on 09/07/2010 from http://ablemedia. com/ctcweb/netshots/homer. htm Grudem. W, the Uniqueness of Human Beings: “In the Image of God viewed on 9/7/10 from http://www. creationbc. org/index. php? option=com_content&view=article&id=131&Itemid=5 Question 2: What is the covenant? (Gen: 12 and 15) The covenant refers to the Abraham covenant. Abraham is told to leave his people, take his wife and move to Canaan.

The covenant found in Genesis 12:1-3 reads: “and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great and you shall be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless you, and curse them that curse you: and in you all families of the earth are blessed. ” Abraham would receive the seven physical blessings only if he would obey God. Nations in Abraham day would be blessed through Abraham .The covenant has four basic provisions, these are: • Special favor with God. • Land provision • Special favor to Abrahams physical offspring’s, and ,

• Special favor to Abraham’s spiritual seeds Relationship between Abraham Covenant and Mosaic Ten Commands of Exodus 20 The Mosaic Law was a bilateral covenant made specifically for Israel to govern her life in the Promised Land. From the Abrahamic covenant, Israel was a chosen nation, an instrument through which God would bless all other nations. Yahweh was her Theocratic king to rule and guide the nation to her destiny, protect the nation from pollution and contaminations by other nations hence fulfill the God’s intended purpose.

The Mosaic nation was hence instituted to direct Israel as a nation in all spheres of her life- morally, socially, politically, economically and religiously. Work cited Grudem. W, the Uniqueness of Human Beings: “In the on 9/7/10 from Image of God viewed http://www. creationbc. org/index. php? option=com_content&view=article&id=131&Itemid=5 Keathley H. j The Mosaic Law. Viewed on 09/07/10 from http://bible. org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament Question 3 The origin of evil and human suffering according to:

• Hebrew scriptures According to Rhodes, evil is something that is not an existence of its own: it rather is corruption of that which already exists. It is absence or privation of something good (3). Evil exist either as natural evil or moral evil. Moral evil is evil that we human beings originate: cruel, unjust, vicious and perverse thoughts and deeds. Natural evil is evil that originates independently human actions: in disease, earthquakes, storms, droughts etc. In Gen1:31, the original creation was very good. No sin, no evil and no death.

The turn down come after Adam and Eve choose to use their God given free will and violently chose to disobey him. Created in the image of God, man was given the risky gift of free will. Based on the above fact, it would be right to argue that God had the potential for evil, when he bestowed upon man the freedom of choice but the origin of evil came s result of man’s who disobeyed God for his own selfish personal desires. • Sayings of Buddha According to Buddha, craving is the root cause of all human suffering. To him craving is the central evil that reduced life into a bundle of painful despair.

As long as there were delightful and pleasurable things, the craving would persist. Craving takes root in the sense, in the eye, in the ear, in the nose, in the tongue in the mind and in the body. Sensuous craving causes accumulation of present and future suffering. These accumulated craving then leads people to various form of conflicts and quarrels or wicked acts like stealing robbery or seducing other men’s wives which results in deadly pain or death ( the noble truth of the origin of suffering). • Hesiod in Works and Days According to Hesiod, gods keep secretes of an easy life away from men.

From Hesiod’s work, Prometheus was able to snatch the gift of fire from man, pilfering it from the gods; this angered Zeus who vowed to curse men. He sent the evil seductress Pandora them “all gifts” like diseases, pain and evil. Hesiod believes that all women are wily, wiggling traps to lead men to destruction. God keep men helpless, men then live lives of toil to avoid starvation. Work cited Rhodes. R, Notes on the Problem of Evil. Viewed on 09/07/10 from http://ldolphin. org/evil. html Question 4 Meanings of the Hebrew words for prophet The common word for prophet in Hebrew is nabi and meaning spokesman.

Other Hebrew words associated with prophetic figures are hozeh and ro’eh, both meaning some one that sees. Nabi and Hozeh are close synonyms. The roles a prophet filled during the period of the Hebrew Kingdom, from Saul to the exile and return from Babylon Prophets played an important role in Israel political life. In the monarchy and rise to power of Saul, Samuel played an important role in the decision and action. Samuel was at the frontline in the appointment of David (1sam 8-12; 15-16). Even prophets who had a strong burden to correct false religious practice like Hosea addressed political issues strongly.

Prophets would be consulted about the future. They were powerful to bless or curse, like in the Moabite prophet Balaam illustrates (nun 22). Prophets would also perform miraculous or symbolic acts like; Showing unusual power over nature (1 Kgs 17:1-8, 41-46) ,Feeding people by miraculous means (1 Kgs 17:8-16; 2 Kgs 4:1-7; 4:38-44), Healing people (2 Kgs 5:1-19) or causing others to fall ill (2 Kgs 5:20-27), Rising the dead (1 Kgs 17:17-24; 2 Kgs 4:8-37) and Performing other miraculous and/or symbolic actions (1 Kgs 18; 2 Kgs 6)

“Prophet’s reward” in Old Testament times In the Old Testament times, each prophet had to pass through pain of rejection, self doubt, persecution, and ultimately vindication only after the unfolding of history validates their prophetic utterances. Jeremiah, after many years of warning his people of unidentified evil coming from north, wearied by the non fulfillment of his prophecies, even his family members plotted against him to take his life in order to silence him.

Differences between visions and messages of the prophets Prophet in the bible were not were not primarily foretellers, they in addition seeing would criticize the present wrong doing, injustice, oppression, and rich , luxurious worship while the poor starved. Amos, for instance looked at the future often to warn. He warned against disobedience and its repercussions. Bible dictionary: Prophets, viewed on 11/07/10 from file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/User/Desktop/prophets. htm

Main differences and similarities between God and human according to Hebrew Scriptures Essay

Posted in God

Marcionism & God Essay

Marcionism & God Essay.

Marcionism is a dual belief system that originated from Marcion of Sinope in Rome teachings in the year 144. It affirmed that Jesus was a savior who was sent by God and Paul was his principal apostle but Marcion himself rejected Yahweh and the Hebrew Bible. It was referred to as heresy by those who opposed it and wrote a five book treatise against it. Marcionism teachings affirmed that Christianity was different from and opposition Judaism. It opposed the whole of the Hebrew Bible, and declared Hebrews Bible God was a minor demiurge, who created the earth and was the source of evil.

The principles of Marcionism are that many teachings of Jesus Christ are incompatible with those of the god of the Jewish Religion. Referring to Pauline traditions in the Gospel, Marcionism believed that the Gospel, opposed to teachings from the old testament that were believed to be misleading from the truth. Paul’s arguments in respect to the gospel and law, grace and wrath, faith and works, spirit and flesh, righteousness and sin, life and death were the base of religious truth.

Marcionites holds maltheistic perception of the God of Hebrew Bible as (Yaltabaoth) inconsistent, wrathful, jealous and genocidal, and created a defective world, a site of suffering and term such a God as a malicious demiurge whom they refer to as Yaltabaoth. Montanus was the founder of Montanism, an early Christian sector founded in the mid 2nd century AD in Phrygia region and its followers are referred to as Cataphrygians. Tertullian was the most widely known Montanist.

Montanus claimed to have received a number of revelations from the Holy Ghost beside and strolled in the settlement in Asia where he preached what he claimed to be the Words of God but those who opposed him especially the Orthodox claimed his teaching as but those who opposed him especially the Orthodox claimed his teaching as hearsay. He traveled along with two women who claimed to have received some revelations too, and they urged their follower to pray and fast so that they could receive revelations too. The teachings of Montanism spread from Phrygia, to Africa, Gaul and the rest of the world.

Christians also agree with the some teachings of Marcionism like the opposition of murder and genocide that were employed in the Old Testament. Marcionism imposed a high degree of morality to its followers and those who were immoral were some times persecuted. The early encouraged the positive teachings of Montanism and Marcionism; however there existed clear differences in the teachings between different sects Donatism was an unorthodox sect of the early Christianity that was founded by Donatus Magnus and believed that holiness was a mandatory for church members and essential in administration of sacraments.

Donatists lived originally in Roman Africa and attained their biggest number in the 4th to 5th centuries. One of the central issues in the Donatists controversy is that at some levels, the church is normally called into the communion with God and that is not breakable from human being point of view given by the grace of God in Christ therefore, leaving the church is like leaving grace and questioning Gods power and adding a semi Pelagian realization of the salvation.

The Council of Arles in the A. D. 314 criticized the Donatists although the Donatists flourished. The Donatists and Orthodox Catholics in Africa were against each other as a result in 393 A. D, St. Augustine codified the Catholic teachings concerning baptism founded on controversy between Orthodox Catholics and Donatists. His diplomatic efforts and teachings didn’t terminate the fighting and bickering, the government powers were called upon and in 411 A.

D. an imperial commission banned Donatism by making its practices illegal (Robert E. Van Voorst (Readings in Christianity, US, Wadsworth/Thomson publishers, 2000) p 136-136. Constantine’s conversion to Christianity lead to the Edict of Milan and Christianity became legalized; he became a committed member of the church and set precedence for the post of the Christian Emperors in the Church that would be pursued for centuries.

This was a turning point for Christianity because he supported the church with all available resources and that marked the beginning of Christendom Diocletian was one of the four documents of Constantine that brought to an end may decades of anarchy and crisis when Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus became the Roman emperor in 284, other documents include licinius, Maxentius and Maximianus Herculius.

Arius beliefs that became part of Arianism included the fact that he believed that god was not the father all the time and gods words were not eternal but were merely made out of nothing, he also believed that god made all the creatures including himself hence he was also susceptible to change like other creatures he had created and there was the belief that the Son was created on other creatures accounts and does not understand his nature and could other creature not have been created, the son would not have been created too.

the result of the Nicaea- Constantinople council was that the, after reading of several Arius documents, they were termed as blasphemous and the end result was that Arius were sent to exile along with some of his followers. ( Jane M. McCabe, The Single Story of Divine Prophecy to Abraham, (US, Xlibris,2001Corporation publishers, 2001) p182-211) REFERENCES Robert E. Van Voorst, Readings in Christianity, US, Wadsworth/Thomson publishers, 2000 Jane M. McCabe, The Single Story of Divine Prophecy to Abraham, US, Xlibris,2001Corporation publishers, 2001

Marcionism & God Essay

Posted in God

Uncle Tom’s Cabin Essay

Uncle Tom’s Cabin Essay.

This paper tends to seek and analyze the character of a certain story into which Uncle Tom’s Cabin is the story chosen. The aim of this paper is to choose one of this story’s characters and discuss him/her as a subject to Bildungsroman. In order to understand this paper, Bildungsroman is said to be a kind of novel or a novel with a youthful character who depicts his growth turning into a matured one. This serves as a book report; character analysis regarding a certain character of a story depicted as a Bildungsroman and narrate his or he dramatically narration of maturing development.

Bildungsroman Depicted by Tom Tom is the protagonist who depicts a Bildungsroman narration in the story Uncle Tom’s Cabin. This is depicted through his maturity growth from being just a slave, thinking like a slave through his development to his belief to Christianity and Christ. Onwards to Tom’s continuous journey in life, he became a devotee as well as a person whom others relied on.

At the end of the story, Tom died but his maturity towards love of God and faith touched the life of all those people around him.

His life is dramatically narrated as full of fleshly pains brought by the cruelty of his last master but still Tom struggled for his faith and held on to it until his very last breathe. At the end, he became a role model of goodness and faith conviction. Uncle Tom’s Cabin Tom as the main character in the story of Uncle Tom’s Cabin is said to be a slave; literally, and by heart, he has no other intention of being something else but is contented with what he is until the day that other slave buyers tended to purchase him from his owner.

This is where his maturity development turns in; from his travel from his former owner, the Shelby; to his purchaser, Mr. Haley (Stowe). Uncle Tom was forced to leave his family and was taken by Mr. Haley into the slave market. This is where he gets to meet a little girl whom he became fond of and eventually became his dearest friend. The incident when Eva accidentally fell to the river was the start when Tom became a part of the St. Clare family, basically for saving the daughter (Stowe).

On and on eventually, Tom is not required to work harder on the household but became a seemingly partner or a devotee of Christianity together with Eva. Tom’s life made another change when the little girl Eva became ill and eventually died. People around the St. Clare family changed and decided to let Tom alone for his freedom. Radically, St. Claire died and Tom was sold to a plantation owner named Legree (Stowe). The new owner of Tom is said to be cruel and evil, he tends to buy slaves and pick one to be his sex slave.

Tom was punished by his evil owner once he did not comply with Legree’s order which is to whip one of the slaves (Stowe). Because of the said action of Tom in which he disobeyed to the command of his owner, he was being beaten up so hard; Legree intended Tom to lose his faith on God by simply making him suffer from the pain that the beating that has done to the latter (Stowe). After he was beaten up, he gets to meet the former sex slave of his owner where he noticed that the lady was being separated from her daughter. Cassy’s child was taken away from her due to slavery (Stowe).

After some time, Tom was changed after the Quakers healed him. In the place of Louisiana, Tom’s beliefs on his faith almost fade away, but still, he counted on and held on to his faith in which he has two different views of (Stowe). Toms Faith is determined by two important inspirations; first is an inspiration of Christ and the second one is an inspiration of Eva. These two said inspirations are the ones who made him courageously and fearless of his experienced torment over the hands of his Evil master Legree (Stowe).

Uncle Tom is the one who eventually encouraged Cassy to seek for her freedom and the latter did obey his suggestion and took Emmeline with her. In this part of the story, Uncle Tom changed another people’s life by simply encouraging them with the help of his faith and stand on Christianity and Christ (Stowe). Legree, noticing about the escape of the two slaves, punished Tom and beat him all the time as for a change because he did not want to tell his master where the two escaped people have gone. On the time that Tom notice that he is near death, he gave forgiveness to all those who have committed sin unto him and died a martyr death (Stowe).

His former owner, Shelby, was too late to buy for his freedom from the cruel master. At the end of the story, all the people whom were a part of Tom’s journey and experiences became happy. They all realized the essence of Tom in their lives and decided to live a life as Tom did to his. Analysis Uncle Tom’s maturity does not pertain particularly to the youthful growth until his old days, but therefore, it pertains to the growth of faith and love which Tom shared with all the people around him; from his very first master until his last master even tough his last owner is cruel to him.

His faith’s intent became stronger and stronger with its conviction as he experienced all the pain that he endured during his life and for that he became more determined with his belief. With the help of Eva and those other people whom he took courage and strength from, Tom continued being a person full of life, hope, and heaven even during being on earth. Works Cited Stowe, Harriet Beecher. Uncle Tom’s Cabin or, Life among the Lowly. Modern Library, 1996.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin Essay

Posted in God