The Present Environmental Ecological Crisis Theology Religion Essay

There is the worldwide recognition of the present environmental/ecological crisis and there is a central belief amongst the religions that nature was created by God and should be protected. As environmental degradation has occurred, we begin to ask ourselves about the relationship between human beings and nature.

The focus on religion and the environment has grown in recent years. Researchers have looked specifically at the role of religion and ecology. Taylor defines the field of religion and ecology as one that focuses on:

Identifying the obstacles that the worlds mainstream religions may pose to environmental sustainability, and secondly the resources such religions may have available for promoting environmentally beneficent behaviors, (992).

There is the recognition that the Earth is in danger from human activity and use and changes need to be made in order to sustain life on the Earth (Taylor 998).

Why is it important to use religion as a means for environmental action?

Berry states that it is human carelessness and greed that caused the environmental problems that we are faced with today (30).

With this in mind, we look to religion as this is what some individuals believe holds a large degree of responsibility for the start of our environmental problems.

Lynn Whites 1967 essay, The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis suggested a link between religion and the environment. White singled out Christian attitudes as a reason for the environmental crisis. He proposed that the attitudes of individuals who do not regard nature as a central importance need to be changed. The earth needs to be respected and used in a manner that will help to preserve it for future generations, rather than exploit it for the present.

White suggested that it was when the Industrial Revolution began that the human concern for the environment was lost to a greater degree than had been seen in the past.

White interpreted the Bible as presenting human dominance over nature, leading individuals to care about themselves and industrial progress rather than about environmental matters and the ultimate effects of their actions on the earth.

Besides Whites interpretation, there are many other suggested explanations for how humans viewed the world, and their resulting actions.

From the philosophy of Rene Descartes, the universe was seen as a machine. It was from this time that economic progress was a priority and the long-term effects from the development and use of nature was not regarded as an issue (Sevier, 41).

This is a view similar to that held by White, in that human progress and development has led to the environmental effects. However, this view does not specifically mention the role of religion.

Carters interpretation of this issue suggests that the ecological crisis is not a result of Judeo-Christian traditions, but rather stems from the interpretation of the Bible and giving human beings dominance over other life forms (animals, plants) (358). This led to the exploitation of natural resources and ultimately to where we are today with the issue.

Regardless of how it initially happened, we have to face reality and realize that as a society we have caused considerable damage to our planet.

The role of religion

Anthropologists suggest that religion persists because it has value to us, and such value can be either intrinsic, instrumental, or a combination thereof, (Strada 59).

Sevier writes that, Traditionally, religion used to play an integral role in linking people to the natural world, imbuing people with the knowledge and values that make caring for it a priority, (38).

Six major religions

Buddhism

Christianity

Hinduism

Islam

Judaism

Indigenous Religious

Buddhism

There is a universality of suffering.

Being aware of suffering and produces compassion.

Though traditional Buddhism regarded human life over that of animals, there is presently the recognition that all life forms should be respected equally.

As humans we got ourselves into this ecological/environmental crisis and we are the ones that need to get ourselves out.

Source: Swearer

Christianity

There is often seen to be a failure on the part of Christians in how they had interpreted the Bible and used the resources that God made available to them. Lynn Whites 1967 essay is an example of this.

However, this is not the belief of all individuals.

There recently has been an increased awareness of the environment in the United States as churches are initiating responsibility towards environmental protection.

Hinduism

Hindu images relate to the powerful natural world.

Ecological sensitivity is based on the relationship between humans and how they respect the gods and goddesses related to the earth.

In South Asia, the effects of pollution, both in the air and water, have been felt, particularly in recent years.

With the values that Hinduism has towards the environment, reflection is starting to occur on how individuals can best approach the ecological challenges that are occurring.

Islam

An environmental ethic is in the Quran, but leaves an opening for Muslims to incorporate creative and innovative solutions in the contemporary context.

A green jihad has recently begun. This is a common term for the green movement that promotes environmental protection.

Source: Denny

Judaism

Ecological issues were never a central focus of Judaism, but rather were dealt with as they came about.

An environmental perspective suggests that a belief of Judaism is that we are only tenants on this earth. The earth must then be cared for as there are other inhabitants, both presently as well as in the future, that will be living here.

Source: Fink

Indigenous Religions

For individuals following indigenous religions, there is an understanding of their place in the local environment.

Native Americans have believed that there are spirits in nature and the environment needs to be taken care of.

Grim writes that in indigenous beliefs, to analyze religion as a separate system of beliefs and ritual practices apart from subsistence, kinship, language, governance, and landscape is to misunderstand indigenous religion.

The respect for nature and the environment is still present amongst the Indigenous peoples.

What is evident, however, is wherever indigenous peoples have endured, they have maintained a loving experience of place and an understanding that spiritual forces capable of leading humans into both utilitarian and self-understandings abide in all of these places, (Grim).

Source: Grim

How do we create a solution?

An environmental crisis is here. It is recognized throughout the world, and its presence is agreed upon by the major religions. But what is the next step? How do we go about creating a solution?

Can there be a common ground for science and religion in that both work together towards a solution?

Bouma-Prediger quotes Edward O. Wilson in saying that religion and science are the two most powerful forces in the world todayif religion and science could be united on the common ground of biological conservation, the problem [of biological catastrophe] would soon be solved (1392).

Can religion and science work together?

Hossein Nasr writes, The environmental crisis now encompasses the entire Earth, (3).

He suggests that there is a crisis of values and that as humans, we have participated in creating the destruction of the environment.

A need exists to develop a path across religious frontiers without destroying the significance of religion itself and to carry out a comparative study of the “Earths” of various religions as has been carried out for their “Heavens,” if these terms are understood in their traditional metaphysical and cosmological sense, (Hossein Nasr 3).

We need to regain the loss of a moral and social awareness as ecology becomes more individualistic and systems based.

Many researchers recognize that a global stance needs to be taken by religions, with them working together to create a more comprehensive worldview and ethics to assist in reversing this trend, (Tucker and Grim). This is along similar lines with what Hossein Nasr writes, that dialogue on the environment must take place between religions on a global scale.

Tucker and Grim continue by writing that, This is critical because the attitudes and values that shape peoples concepts of nature come primarily from religious worldviews and ethical practices. The moral imperative and value systems of religions are indispensable in mobilizing the sensibilities of people toward preserving the environment for future generations.

Religious factors and environmental behaviors and attitudes

Sherkat and Ellison analyzed data from a 1993 General Social Survey to look at religious factors and environmental behaviors and attitudes.

Their study revealed that contradictory findings on the connection between religion and environmental concern and activism are the result of varied influences of religious schemata and resource interactions on different indicators of environmental concern and activism, (83).

Sherkat and Ellison were not able to conclude specific religious influences on the environment, but suggested that Whites 1967 essay had the possibility of being a primary influence for religious leaders to take a pro-environment stance and actions (83).

Religion and the environment are intertwined in that they have had a history and will continue to have a role together in the future. This may be one area where science and religion can find a common ground both have the environment in their best interest and can work together to find a solution to the current environmental crisis. As religious traditions and beliefs have shaped human values and behaviors towards the environment in the past, this is one possibility for working toward positive environmental attitudes for the future.

The Philosophy Of God And Religion Theology Religion Essay

Beings and Human Beings are born in nature. Religion and caste are the creations of men. The need of the millennium is human integration across religions, races and countries by the pursuit of right knowledge about Man, Nature and Society.

Religion is the derivative of ancient myths and beliefs passed on from one generation to the other(another) thereby being elucidated into faiths, rituals and traditions.”

Around 2000-2200 million people believe in Christianity, making it by far the single largest religion in the world. Around 1300-1650 million people believe in Islam, making it the second most followed religion in the world. Around 828-1000 million people follow Hinduism. Around 1000 million people do not have any religion or notion of ‘God’, also referred to as atheists. 400 million people follow Buddhism.

Irrespective of what these people follow or what ‘notion they hold of ‘God’. Religion is something, which was created for the betterment of human society as a whole. But In the 21st century religion has more or less become an instrument of war creating unrest amongst countries and people. Many of the major problems in the present millennia can be attributed to these religious conflicts.

These conflicts between major world religions can become a detrimental recipe for disaster wherein they can threaten the very existence of the dominant species on this planet i.e. Homo sapiens sapiens .

The reason why I lay emphasis on the genus and sub-genus is that, across the population people may differ on the basis of colour, caste, race, height, weight, gender and religion but what unites them is the sense of belonging to one species i.e. Homo sapiens.

My father, a philosopher cum visionary would always say that:

“Beings and Human Beings are born out of the same bowl called nature. Religion and caste are the creations of man. The need of the millennium is to bridge this void and bring about human integration across religions, races and countries by the pursuit of true knowledge about Man, Nature and Society.”

Conflict Resolution-

“Conflict Resolution” is the need of the hour and should therefore be given extensive thought and time, following which it should be implemented at a Micro as well as a Macro Level. Envisioning and bringing forth a society whereby individuals and communities work and make decisions for the greater good of mankind on the basis of facts rather than on myths and beliefs. “Conflict Resolution” amongst world religions in its literary sense cannot be achieved, nonetheless a difference in perception exists about the notion of ‘God/Gods’ amongst the believers. Human beings should rise against these odds towards greater enlightenment forging ahead a new era of peace and progress.

On the flip side, one should also be aware of the origin and fate of the vast expanse known as the universe comprising of millions of galaxies, stars, planets and what is the energy which is keeping all of this intact and that too in a predetermined and fixed path.

One should also be aware of the conscious and subconscious state of mind through which we possess this knowledge about each and everything.

If the above mentioned points were made clear, all the mere believers in this world will become true rationalists.

If one Global Religion were to be followed, it would be on the basis of scientific thinking rather than on blind beliefs. All actions and texts of this religion would be based upon the scientific knowledge and literature available at the time. The theory would be self-evolving in nature to the advancements in science and technology.

People should come to an understanding that all Human Beings are created as equals. Nature does not discriminate while nurturing. So as human beings we cannot be discriminative towards the way we look, approach and act towards others belonging to different castes, religions, races, colours etc.

I strongly believe “Knowledge is a driving force.” Knowledge possessed by a certain individual is detrimental towards the way he/she acts in a certain manner. Therefore it becomes imperative to inculcate the right knowledge and values. Being ignorant of the world around is far better than being misinformed. ‘Terrorism’ is also the outgrowth of this misinformation and the misconceptions about ‘God’ and his preaching. This is where we need to play a role whereby we expel all the misinformation and bring about a sense of belonging.

Human Beings are said to be the building blocks of societies. The kind of knowledge an individual possesses has a direct impact on the way he/she acts or behaves. The way one behaves thereby has an impact on the society as a whole. Knowledge and Behaviour play in tandem and therefore it becomes imperative “to give the right Knowledge and eliminate wrong Knowledge.”

To do this, there are certain prerequisites,

Firstly, one should know how to judge between the right knowledge and the wrong knowledge. To do this one should be aware of philosophy and its constituents especially the branch of philosophy which deals with epistemology, logic and origin of the Universe and its existence.

But in this world, which has so far existed, every great society has had its fair share of myths ranging from the creation of the world to how it will eventually end. Tales of wonder and imagination abound wherein each myth is filled with magic, mystery, heroism, treachery, courage and faith. These myths are so widely accepted that they have even managed to permeate in the 21st century. Hence it is our responsibility to differentiate between a myth and a tenet.

Somehow or the other the terms like ‘god’ and ‘religion’ are attributed to philosophy ‘philosophy’; Hence we will now discuss regarding the philosophy and what is the origin and fate of the god and religion.

Different questions in philosophy which made a strong emphasis for the existence of God and religion:-

We each exist but for a very short time.

The actions that we do during the tenure of our life and the fruits which we bear from them is considered as life.

My father used to tell me , ‘Life is real, simple and short’.

Humans, being a curious species explore and question everything, we develop theories, we seek answers , we think, we justify things, we have the ability to communicate all these things which in turn makes us the most dominant species on planet earth.

After coming through different perceptions of the universe from the earlier times to today, we might have a multitude of questions -:

How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?

How does universe behave?

What is the nature of reality?

Where did all this come from?

Did the universe need a creator?

What are the different ways of obtaining knowledge ?

How many types of matter exist in the universe?

What is philosophy?

What are the qualities of the different things in the universe?

What is reality?

What is the ultimate goal of human beings?

What are beliefs?

What are atoms?

How do we know things?

What is is a cause?

How to explain the properties of a thing?

What is space and time?

What is justice?

What is the truth?

What is goodness?

How language came in to existense and what is language?

What are the reasons behind different things?

What is beauty and art?

What is perception,inference,verbal testimony?

What is mind?

What is the origin of religion?

Who invented the first god?

And countless othersaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..

Traditionally these are the prime questions of ‘Philosophy’ . Many indian and western schools of philosophy which gave appropriate answers to many of the above questions and near appropriate answers to some of the questions since ancient times , due to lack of availability of means and scope, like instruments and science and technology., but these days however, these questions are answered by the other schools like different branches of Physical sciences and chemical sciences. But during the earlier times these questions were answered by various religions in many different ways.

Opinions of Some major Philospohers and Scientists –

Western Schools of Philsopohy:-

When it comes to religion, there are six major figures who have done extensive research on Religions and gods, Namely

1.Friedrich max Muller(1823-1900 – He is often called the father of the comparitive religion, Friedrich Max Muller was the son of a German Romantic poet. He studied in Leipzing and in Paris, where he began his first major work, a monumental edition of the Sanskrit text of the Rig Veda, published in four volumes between 1849 and 1862. He settled in England in 1846 and spent most of the remainder of his life in Oxford, becoming Professor of Comparative Philology in 1868. A prolific writer, his later books included Comparative Mythology (1856), Introduction to the Science of Religion (1873) India, What can it teach us? (1883), and many other works, including three series of Gifford Lectures and two volumes of personal reminiscences. He was alo responsible for editing the fifty-volume series of Sacred Books of the East-still an invaluable source for the study of religion.

Max Muller brought the religions of the world for the first time to the notice of the English-speaking public, interpreted to the West the ancient and modern religions of India, in a vital, if sometimes idiosyncratic, way. His theories that religion arose through the personification of natural phenomena have, on the other hand, been wholly superseded.

2.Edward Burnett Taylor (1832-1917)

In its early years , the study of comparative religion was much concerned with the origin and evolution of religion as a universal human phenomenon. E.B. Tylor, who in 1896 became Britain’s first professor of anthropology, in the 1860 s coined the term ‘animism’ to describe what he believed to be the earliest stage in this evolutionary process, a simple ‘belief in spiritual beings’. Tylor studied in Mexico; this visit resulted in his first book, Anahuac (1861). He subsequently published Researches into the Early History of Mankind (1865), and his most important work, Primitive Culture (1871), in which the ‘animism’ theory is cleary stated. Briefly, it is that early man’s experiences of dream and trance that led him first to a belief in a separate ‘soul’ (anima) in himself, and later to postulate the existence of surviving souls (ghosts), and of many such ‘souls’ in animals, plants, the atmosphere, etc. Out of this belief in souls or spirits, there eventually developed belief in gods.

As an evolutionary theory, this is of very little value, but it does represent accurately the way in which primal (and other) peoples (people) look on the unseen world. Tylor’s example, provided for the first time a way of understanding religion at a basic level, served to point anthropology along a path which it still to some extent follows.

WILLIAM JAMES (1842-1910)

William James, the brother of the celebrated American novelist Henry James, was chiefly responsible, in the years around the turn of the century, for popularizing the new subject of the psychology of religion. His book The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) is a classic, and widely read even today. Trained in medicine, he taught both physiology and psychology at Harvard as early as the 1870s, and in1890 published a celebrated textbook, The Principles of Psychology. Most of his others books , including The Will to Believe (1896), Pragmatism (1907) and Human Immortality (1908), were originally courses of lectures.

In his Varieties he drew many valuable distinctions between types of religious experience, the best known being that between the optimistic ‘religion of healthy mindedness’ (typified by Christian Science) and the pessimistic ‘religion of the sick soul’ (traditional Calvinism). He also had much to say on mysticism, and discussed ‘altered states of consciousness’ many years before the subject became fashionable. He came from a Swedenborgina background, and his own religon was an indistinct theism, far removed from orhtodox Christiantity. Although he is still worth reading;his approach was too individualistic, and he had little to say about the corporate aspects of religon. His methods, too, were seriously called in question by the depth psychologists (Freud, Jung and their followers), and are hardly applicable today.

WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH (1846-1894)

Robertson Smith , best known for his magisterial book – Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (1889), was a minister of the Free Church of Scotland. In 1870 he became Professor of Old Testament Studies at the Free Church Colloge in Aberdeen. In the early 1880 he was dismissed from his chair for ‘unscriptural’ teaching,and in 1883 was elected Professor of Arabic at Cambridge. A liberal evangelical, he was responsible for bringing together traditional philological study of the Bible and the new insights of anthropology.

He first visited North Africa in 1879, and was impressed by the existence of ‘totemism’ among the Sinai Bedouin: this resulted in his first major work, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia(1885). In his later Lectures, he concentrated on the concept of sacririce, which he saw less as a legal transaction than as a practical means of establishing communion with deity. He also recognized that in religion, customs and rituals are often more significant than systems of belief, and that it is vitally important that the student be an accurate and sympathetic observer of the practical side of religon. His influence was widespreadd: he inspired J.G. Frazer to study ‘totemism’, and was a forerunner of the sociological study of religion- for which reason he, almost alone among his contemporaries, is still respected among sociologists and anthropologists. Despite his brush with ecclesiastical authority, he remained warmly evangelical in his personal beliefs.

NATHAN SODERBLOM (1866-1931)

The link between comparative religion and Christian theology was firmly established in the early part of the twentieth century by a group of scholars of whom Nathan Soderblom was perthaps the most outstanding.

Born the son of a Lutheran country minister in Sweden, from 1894 to 1901 he was Swedish legation pastor in Parus; in 1901 he bacame Professor of Comparative Religion in Uppsala in 1914, a post he occupied until his death in 1931. His scholarly work spanned many fields, among them are Iranian studies, Luther studies, mysticism, and General comparative religion.

Though few of his many books were translated into English, his Gifford Lectures The Living God (published posthumously in 1931) were widely read in those days. He endeavored to locate historica Protestantism within Christiantiy, and Christianity within the religions of the world. He drew valuable distinctions between mystical and ‘revealed’ forms of religon, and later between two forms of mysticism, ‘mysticism of personality (Paul, Luther) and ‘mysticism of the infinite’ (indian religon). As well as this academic work, Soderblom made an invaluable contribution to twentieth-century Christianity as one of the fathers of the ‘ecumenical movement’.

RUDOLF OTTO (1869-1937)

Educated at Ealanged and Gottingen, most of Otto’s career was spent in teaching posts at Gottingen, Breslau and Marburg. After early work in Luther studies, he turned his attention to the philosophy of religion, and after 1911 to the philosophy of religion, and after 1911 to the study of Indian religions.His best known and most important work, The Idea of the Holy, first appeared in German in 1917, and in English in 1923. In it, he attempted to show that religion begins with ‘the sense of the numinous’, that is, of a mysteriously ‘other’ deity both fearsome and fascinating (numen=deity). This book became a religious classic.

His later Indian studies included -Mysticism East and West (1932) and- India’s Religion of Grace (1930), and a critical edition of the Bhagavad Gita (The Original Gita, 1939). In 1921, convinced of the importance of living, inter-religious dialogue, he inaugurated the Inter-Religious League, which was not a success. In his last years his internationalism caused him to fall foul of the Nazi government in Germany, and he died in 1937.

Otto’s most lasting contribution to the study of religion lay in his insistence on the importance of -immediate, non-rational experience to any estimate of the nature of religion. Although -The Idea of the Holy was not always well understood, it spoke directly to the mind of the twentieth century, and helped lay the foundations for much later work in the area of personal religious experience and of mysticism.

Williams James(1842-1910),William Robertson Smith(1846-94),Nathan s(S)oderblom(1866-1931,Rudolf Otta)1869-1937),When ever we speak regarding religions these people should be remebered by the world.Thier works are really needed for the mankind.They have done a major research in the field of god and religion.

At the same time some scientists cum philsophers have also given their valuable opinions on God and religion. Now we shall discuss some of the valuable opinions and some misconceptions.

Many people didn’t develop theories on practical basis (Quantitative Predictions) .Aristotle and others, made the priniciples that appealed to him intellectually, most people suppressed the facts that they found unappealing. No matter how severely their theories deviated from reality ; they used to alter and never removed the concept.

For example -The Greek Christian successors rejected the idea that the universe is governed by indifferent natural law.

Some religious dogmas like Epicurus (341Bc-270Bc) opposed atomism on the grounds that it is “Better to follow the myths about God than to become a slave to the destiny of natural Philosophers”.

Aristotle too rejected the concept of atoms because he could not accept that human beings were composed of soulless inanimate objects.But the Indian Philsophers considered Atoms as a kind of matter and there are many concepts and theories developed by ‘Kannada’ on atoms ; but even the concept of atoms has been curbed in India by Adi Shankara.It is not the context of this essay to discuss more on atoms.(remove the last sentence)

Most of the theories developed in the Great India with clear cut concepts of Atoms, Body, Matter, Space ( were destroyed with time and circumstances)what not everything, were just went into wrong hands, either. They were changed and some still lay. Unapproachable to the humans as they were destroyed. ( remove everything after circumstances)

The Christian philosopher Thomas Aquiras said, “It is clear that inanimate bodies reach their end not by chance but by intention”-There is therefore an intelligent personal being whom everything in nature is ordered to its end” and that intelligent person is nothing but god.

Even as late as in the 16th century the great German astronomer Johanes Kepler belived that planets had sense perception and consciously followed laws of movement that were grasped by their ‘mind’.

Indeed in 1277 Bishop of Temple of Paris,acting on the instructions of Pope John XXI published a list of 219 errors or heresies that were to be condemned.Among the heresies was the idea that nature follows laws.Because this conflicts with the gods omnipotence, unfortunately Pope John was killed by the effect of the law of gravity a few months later when the roof of his place fell on him due to the gravitations pull of earth.

According to Descartes- ‘God could at will alter the truth or falsity of ethical proposition or mathematical theorems but not nature. He believed that God ordained the laws of nature but had no choice in the laws; rather he picked them because the laws we experience are the only possible laws. Moreover Descartes felt – once God set the world going ,he left it entirely alone.

If nature is governed by laws ,then we all have a set of questions like :-

1-From where did these laws were originate?

2-How can you understand these laws?

3-Do these laws need a creator?

4-Are these laws final ?

5-Can there be exceptions to these laws?

These important questions have been addressed by different philosophers ,scientists and visionaries in many different ways.

The answer to the first question has been given by the great scientists like Kepler,Galileo,Descartes and Newton. It is that the laws were Designed by God. However, this is no more than a definition of god as the embodiment of the laws of nature ;unless one endows God with some other attributes such as being the god of the old testament .

If we consider god as the answer to the first question then the real crunch comes in the fifth question-Are there any exceptions to the laws?

Opinions about the answer to the fifth question is quite interesting .

Aristotle,the great Greek philosopher clearly mentioned that there can be no exeptions to the laws.But according to the Bibilical view God not only created the laws but also has the power to make changes to those laws ,which contradicts Aristotle. In opposition to the views of Decscartes,according to Bible -by praying one can heal the terminally ill, an enormous cyclone can be just stopped by his signs, premature ends to droughts.

In opposition to the views of Decscartes;God has the ability to do any thing in the universe.Even Newton believed in miracles of a sort,he thought that god must be resetting the orbits to avoid the falling of planets into Sun!

But there was a rationalist during the time of Napoleon.A scientific law is not a scientific law if it holds when some super natural being decides not to intervene.Here Napolean asked Laplace- How god will fit in to this picture?

Laplace replied that- “I have not needed that hypothesis”.In the same way we also do not need the hypothesis of god and religion;but today religion is made a major point in the hypothesis of the human beings.

We can clearly sense that Laplace is a kind of rationalist.,even Albert Einstein is a rationalist, he said that:

“I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind.”

Indian schools of philosophy:-

India sub -continent is having a catholic theories on the God and religion and Above mentioned concepts.(remove this sentence)

Different schools of Indian Philsopohy deal the above questions in many different ways. The six orthodox schools of the Indian Philsophy are :- 1.Nyaya,2.Vaishesika,3.Purva mimamasa,4.Uttaara mimasa or vedanta5.Sankahya,&6.Yoga were altered in many ways in Ancient India. We do not yet know whether these schools are orthodox or rational;However the concepts which they taught are undoubtedly rational but the crunch comes when these laws are altered in order to protect the religion and god.

By the advent of new laws from Kannada,Gautama and many other Philsophers and with the renewed belief in the laws, there were attempts to reconcile these laws along with God.

The path of the true philosophy was bifurcated by many religious dogmas in Ancient India and even in the western world. The countries which were the bearer’s of the torch of discovery, invention, & innovation had become calm.The religious dogmas diverted the path of true philosophy and used if for their own selfishness.

The quest for knowledge in Ancient India was put off by the religious dogmas from there on great text’s literature which are essential for mankind for it’s progress and development were interpreted in many Unscientific ways.

The Great theories like Nyaya-Vaishesika,Astronomy, Mathematics & Philosophy, which were developed in India in a course of time were held in very high esteem.If it were allowed to follow it’s original course unimpeded by the religious dogmas then there might have been be a lot of development

In India all the theoeries are somehow or the other attributed to the god’s and vedas.

But by the advent of the Budhhists,Charvaka,Jain the heteredox schools of the India Philsopohy;there was a big change in the human society but it was again curbed by some religious dogmas in ancient India.Most of the people believe that Nyaya and vaishesika are also the heterodox schools of the indian philosophy.

All the orthodox schools of the Indian Philosophy believe in god and Veda’s, while Heterodox schools have a rational tendency towards the things.

Hence it is clear that each philosopher, scientist, revolutionary, and guru has had a strong craving to change the society of the time to a better one. They have always had a deep insight on the days to come but due to lack of scope many misconceptions have crept into their theories.

Now we shall discuss the role of god and religion

Role Of God and religion-

Day by day we are getting knowledge and we are getting enriched because of it . In the same way each and every text may it be religious or of any other subject should stick totally to recent discoveries and inventions.

We know that we get knowledge through our sensory organs. The nerves impulses are carried from each sensory organ to the brain and it is getting processed in our brains. The brain interprets the input from our sensory organs and by that we develop our concepts and develop our own theories ( religions). But there may be difference in which one could perceive the same physical situation, with each employing different fundamental elements and concepts.

If all the religions which are developed are totally dependent on the truths ,we are free to follow whichever religion that is most convenient. But this is not happening-different religions teach different things and are based on different concepts. In this sequence of the history of mankind we had found better and better theories(religions). There were gods of love and war, Sun, Earth, Sky, Oceans, Rivers, Rain, Thunder Storms even Earth Quakes and Volcanoes. Ignorance of the people in Ancient time made them to invent gods to seek answers as told before. As we are acurious species ,wherever the answer was not found or finding an answer was difficult a new god was invented and it became as if god came into every aspect of Human life.

When the gods were pleased, mankind was treated to good weather, peace and freedom from natural disaster and disease and on the flip side when they are displeased there came drought, war, pestilence and epidemics since the relativity between cause and effect in nature was not in their perception( is beyond their perceptions). The gods became superior and our species was self dragged into the mercy of gods. Hence gods became inscrutable but with Kannada, Gautama and by the thoughts of Buddha about 2600 years ago. The idea arose that nature follows a set of laws and laws and epistemology and the theories of atomicity had came into practice. They developed their system of thought, matter, ways we acquire knowledge, atoms etc.

Here it is clear that from the beginning of the mankind till now there have been a number of defintions of god and so many concepts and beliefs were have been developed on god by different scientists philosophers and priests.Some people of the Ancient times didn’t develop scientific inquiry in their theories and hence invented false gods and wrong concept based religions.

Hence in the 21st century, we the Universsal citizens who belong to the same species Homo Sapiens must enact by assuring the dignity of the Individual and Unity and Integrity of the Universe.

Unless and until an(replace an with a)universal Religion and God are established,there cannot be peace in the this universe.I would like to mention one more thing – The need of this millennium is human integration with right knowledge about man nature and society.

As said by my father All the people on this planet earth should have a Healthy , Happy , Purposeful long life. This is only possible through synchronisation of global religions.

The Passion Of The Christ Theology Religion Essay

For the past 2000 years the Jewish people have been persecuted with extreme prejudice. They have been murdered for countless different reasons over the course of two millennia. The underlying reason for this hatred and racism has always been a belief that their ancestors were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This racism is literally an ongoing punishment for the supposed sins of the early Hebrews.

In at least three of the gospels in the Christian bible there are differing accounts of the roles the early Jews played in the actual trial and execution of Christ. Needless to say, these passages remained controversial for as long as they have been committed to paper. There is speculation as to the validity of their claims as historical proof. A recent film about the final twelve hours of Jesus Christ’s life and death places these inconsistencies and the mistreatment of the modern Jews back into the spotlight. This alleged literal translation caused many contemporary Jews to cry out in protest over the hard-line depiction in Mel Gibson’s new film The Passion of the Christ.

Part of the reason this new film is causing so much controversy is because of Gibson’s blatant reinterpretations and artistic license taken throughout the film. He tends to go out of bounds with the already tough Jewish public sentiment in regard to Christ’s death and creates a completely anti-Semitic work. Artistic license is acceptable when creating, but when the claim is made that the work will be a literal translation of the gospels, one looses the ability to fabricate and enters into a new realm of scrutiny.

Mel took a copious amount of artistic license with this film, but he does not see it that way. In 1965, the Catholic Church via the pope in the Vatican declared, among other things, that the Jews were not responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. This declaration is formally entitled Vatican II. It exonerates the Jews and condemns all those still seeking Jewish suffering. It directly affects the Catholics, which means that Gibson and his family, who are not Catholics, are not required to abide by these new dictates.

Mel, his family and a group of others called The Holy Family, have decided that their particular form of Catholicism needed to be further amended and conservatively redefined. They practice the Trinitine Mass, an extremely conservative form of Christianity based on traditional Catholicism, and they openly reject the changes of Vatican II. In short, they still hold present and past Jews responsible in particular for the death of Christ.

Mel’s father, Hutton Gibson, stated “all the popes since John XXIII are illegitimate anti-popes, the Second Vatican Council was a ‘Masonic plot backed by Jews’, and the Holocaust figure of 6 million Jews killed was an exaggeration” (Schroth 2). He himself is a full-fledged member of this ultra conservative right wing theology and did nothing but illustrate their prejudiced philosophies to the media and an interested society at large. He is an accurate reflection of the ideals that helped to form the interpretations governing this film.

Mel’s self-professed goals for this film were simple. ” Gibson claimed that his account would be historically truthful because it would be based on the Gospels” (Schroth 3). He was unimpressed with previous attempts to depict the passion in film so he embarked on the journey of telling this story. He wanted to depict the scriptures literally and show the events the way they truly happened. Gibson funded his attempt with his own 25 million dollars and the rest was history. This is an attempt to influence his audience to believe that the sacrifice Christ made for humanity happened the way he and his “Holy Family” see it. By creating a flashy high-profile film he makes this subject popular and accessible to the secular world as well as the established Christian community.

No matter what Gibson claimed to begin with he fell short of his publicly stated intentions. After viewing his finished product one can easily walk away with the notion that this is actually an Anti-Semitic film and not the truthful enlightenment of the Scriptures originally purported. First, because Gibson stated the film would be ‘Scripturaly truthful’ one must stay alert, knowing that the film starts off on shaky ground. The bible is a huge collection of literal contradictions and potentially inaccurate historical events, “the Gospels themselves, written between A.D. 70 and 100, are not reliable historical documents. They contradict one another on detailsaˆ¦” (Schroth 3). These inconsistencies can and do become a damning problem when one begins to make claims using the bible as infallible support as Gibson does for the film.

Second, people interpret the bible’s same passages in many different ways. This is part of the reason that Christianity separated into so many factions at different times throughout history. It is the reason so many people believe they are acting within spiritual grace. While other Christians may think the same action would be deviating from the correct path. These differing interpretations have been a source of constant confusion for two millennia, with no end in sight. So when Gibson makes a movie based on the scripture it could contain almost anything, slanted and yet still hold validity and accuracy. However this does not mean it was the way the true events occurred in history. It means he is trying to make truth from what can be anecdotal metaphors without any real support for actual fact regardless of Scripture.

Perhaps most intriguing here is that the bible is actually at odds, within itself, as to the actual culpability of the Jews. The four gospels do not agree with the role the Jews played in Jesus’ execution, the amount of Jews present during the entire ordeal and ultimately whether or not they are guilty at all. Gibson in his film removes all the bibles messy inconsistencies and forces the Jews to shoulder the responsibility themselves; all the while operating under the pretense that this is the most faithful rendition of Scripture yet. This is a condemnable offence by itself on Gibson’s behalf.

Gibson’s film boasts several inconsistencies with the Bible. This is a rough point for a film, which was purported to be a truthful translation of the Scripture. If we accept the Bible as fact, as faithful Christians do, then we are instantly exposed to many small changes and artistic licensing. These new interpretations singularly may not present an offence, but collectively within the span of a two-hour film become impossible to ignore.

Among the more prominent of these points in dispute with the facts as the bible presents them are the inclusion of the devil as a supporting character. He, or she in the film, does not enter even once into Christ’s final twelve hours at all. No matter how great Satan is as a metaphor for evil in general, he had no place here. The portrayal of Harrod as an unbelievably self-consumed man is acceptable. The problem there was removing a classic sense of blame which can be interpreted as guilt in the role he played in sending Christ to a certain death at the hands of Pilate. He became a nonentity that only slowed the progression of the story. The depiction of the irrational high court’s evaluation and sentencing of Christ is not congruent with the scriptures as well. The court actually speaks words directly from scripture but acts in a way that makes them seem to be just a well-dressed addition to the radically insane Jewish mob. There is a thoroughly unbelievable Jewish mob, which defies both scripture in most cases and also reality throughout the entire film. With the exception of Jesus’ inner circle there is no scene in this film that does not feature throngs of Jews acting horribly by spitting, beating and ridiculing Christ. It losses effect after fifteen minutes and just becomes farcical. Jesus and his inner circle are not portrayed as Jews in this film. They read as something else entirely, but the truth is they were Jews and just the sign above Christ’s cross was not enough to show that. This subtle technique only further pushed the Jews into a corner of singular guilt. This was particularly ridiculous. The outright destruction of the throne and the Jewish temple with the high priests falling all over themselves was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The Bible’s account only shows the sacred curtain being ripped down. Again, this is a real strike against the Jews with nothing to back it in terms of scriptural fact. Last, and very important to these minor arguments was the extreme brutification of the criminal Barrabas. His role in the film is taken out of chronological order from the scriptures in all cases. This would seem minuscule, but it becomes profound, when in the film the Jewish mob chooses a disgusting known killer of Jews over a scourged and mutilated Jesus Christ. As opposed to how it actually takes place in scripture before the whipping. Again, all of these points are inconsistent with the Bible as a fact, and most of them are used to make the Jews look horrible, so that their sole blame can be easily established.

The next and possibly most important point illustrating Mel’s disdain for the Jews is his treatment of the crucifixion, whipping and flogging in the film. In all four of the Gospels there is a description of the torture and execution of Jesus, but in only two of these accounts is he ever flogged. When mention of his flogging appears it is only included as an unelaborated fragment of another sentence. There is substantial doubt as to whether or not the scourging ever happened, let alone the flogging, but this is not how Gibson portrays this event. Gibson uses the bible’s lack of detail as a green light to insert his own interpretations as he sees fit. He literally takes the sentence fragment from the two Gospels which mentioning a whipping, and recreates a seriously significant new transgression in Christ’s final trials. This newfound trial is then portrayed to be even more severe than the actual crucifixion itself, finally becoming Christ’s horrific true sacrifice. Gibson only had to reinsert the Jews as the scapegoat decision makers and in the audience’s eyes they would automatically take the blame for this horrifying act. This is a very subtle and true masterstroke on Gibson’s part and it shows his deliberate intent completely.

Gibson’s doctoring of the Gospel’s accounts, reinterpretations of their clear passages and wholesale elaborations on their context becomes damning. It changes the movie from a literal interpretation of the Bible and creates a propaganda piece outlining one fanatical but skillful director’s point of view: the Jews are not only responsible for Christ’s death but are guilty of an execution so brutal and a torture so heinous that it is literally unparalleled in human history. Furthermore, they should still be held accountable even now 2000 years later. Not only are these concepts ridiculous, but they became so polarized before the movie even released, that Gibson, probably realizing he had gone to far, cut out several lines from the film directly accusing the Jews of wrong doing. He knew he had crossed the line and would have an increasingly serious problem on his hands because the script pieces he removed were literal text from the Bible, not speculative fodder like many of his other treatments of the events. He must have truly understood that what he was doing was deplorable if he felt that cutting actual, literal text was acceptable when his goal was to make a truthful version of the Gospel in film.

In order to understand how deeply Gibson’s desire to defame the Jews runs, we need only examine the treatment of one of the movies main characters. Gibson’s cruel intent is ironically tied to his saintly portrayal of the man Pontius Pilate. It is first important to note that all four of the Gospels are uniquely in unison on one thing: Pilate killed Jesus. Pilate made it his final decision to crucify Christ. If the whipping and scourging happened at all the way it did in the film, Pilate made that so. A small group of Jews 2000 years ago called for Christ’s execution, but it was Pilate who ordered it. Pilate is a monster, and he has always carried that reputation so fiercely that it is and has been common knowledge to Christians for 2000 years. It is Pilate who is responsible for Christ’s demise and not the Jews, but Gibson has another idea.

For one very specific reason Gibson sees fit to take extreme artistic license once again with the facts as presented in the Bible and utilizes revisionist history to reinvent the monster Pilate into a good man. In his film Pilate is presented almost as a hero. He is the voice of reason and personifies logic. He is completed with a cliche good-guy demeanor that is not at all the standard template for this dubious historical figure. Gibson plays him out in the film as a fine, moral Roman Tribune possessed of extraordinary logic and sympathy, struggling with a profound unwillingness to execute Christ amidst throngs of blood-hungry, insane Jews. Gibson manufactured Pilate into deity from an evil human being, and by doing that absolved Pilate of guilt.

Pilate’s absolution was paramount to Gibson because it drives the nail home on the Jews. Gibson has carefully crafted many inconsistencies with the scriptures in order to create an even more terrifying version of Christ’s ordeals. With Pilate he removed any and all others associated with the wrongful death of Christ so that the burden would fall squarely on the Jews. There literally remains no third party to convolute the picture of now clearly established blame.

Finally Gibson’s grand-masterstroke can be revealed. The audience’s horror with his extreme violent depictions of scourging and crucifixion will subconsciously transform into a basis of hatred against the Jews. This hatred of the character Jews in the film is probably intended to further proliferate a continuing Anti Semitic sentiment in both Christian and global Culture, perpetuating a 2000-year-old racial prejudice

Gibson is an experienced master of his craft, which means that he acted deliberately. Nothing could have appeared in a film he produced, directed, financed and helped to write without his knowing and approval of every small detail. He can point no fingers here; there is nowhere to hide. All of his ugly subtleties were in the end, all to apparent to people with an open mind and an understanding of the facts as presented in the Bible. This is Gibson’s true intent for this film, not historic truth based on the Gospels at all.

Gibson’s attempt to slander and blame the Jews either shows a profound lack of understanding or a scalding ignorance of the Christian faith on his part. He thinks he is a very devout Christian, but Christians believe in one very important thing: Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he sacrificed himself to atone for all of man’s sins. Gibson’s film does not reflect this ideal. He blames the Jews directly, but they could not be directly responsible at all. This shows either his inability to accept the fact, or just a simple prejudice. The Jews are not guilty because all mankind is guilty. A true follower of the teachings of Christ knows this and acts accordingly. After all, Jews helped Christ to fulfill the prophecies needed in order to die for all mankind’s sin. This could serve to shed a fresh, new, and positive light on the Jews; in the end they are God’s chosen people.

Gibson’s extremist mincing throughout the film works against his established intentions. His interpretations are shallow and transparent. They clearly show his prejudice towards the Jewish people, and he can only come off as an ugly person in the end. Intelligent people and open-minded Christians will not be swayed by the coercive piece of propaganda that The Passion Of The Christ is. It will insult them and their intelligence. Gibson’s only stroke of brilliance involved with this project was displaying that he understood the psyche of the religious-right in the US. He knew how to strike up the publicity on this film. Not only did he get the hard-core right wing Christian community to back it without question, he drummed up an overwhelming amount of raw curiosity throughout the secular world. His story, the publicity, the controversy, the disagreements, the inconsistencies, earned him notoriety, acclaim and over 300 million dollars. That money may be the only true success he earns with this film, because anyone ignorant of Christ’s story will not be converted by this nonsense. They will just be confused about how his portrayal of Jesus could measure up to the man so many people worship as God.

The Parable Of The Lost Son Theology Religion Essay

The Parable of the Prodigal Son, or the Lost Son, is known to most within the sphere of Christianity, but few are aware that a very similar parable exists within one of the most important texts of Mahayana Buddhism, The Lotus Sutra. Both parables share a common structure and plot consisting of a son who leaves home, returns, and is received by his father. Where the two differ however is in the specific details of the three broad plot sections, and what those details mean within the context of their respective religion. For example, the son leaves home in both parables, but parable found in Luke, in the New Testament, is used to teach Christians something completely different than what the parable found in Chapter Four of The Lotus Sutra teaches Buddhists. Another point in which the two parables differ is in who the characters represent within the parable. It could also be argued however that the characters are actually quite similar in their representations, the father representing the figurehead of the religion, God in Christianity and the Buddha, or more specifically the Buddha nature, in Buddhism and the son representing the practitioner. Despite their differences, cross-examining the two versions of the parable offer an insightful look into both Christianity and Buddhism, and any similarities between the two, while taking the time to fully understand the differences offers a deeper knowledge of each religion as well. Both parables are similar in structure and plot, but vary greatly in meaning, especially within the context of their respective religion.

In both versions of the parable, the story begins with a sin leaving home. In the Christian version, a son asks his father for his share of the inheritance early, and leaves home with his small fortune, only to squander it all until he is forced to work in filth, feeding swine, while barely keeping himself fed. “He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything” (Luke 15:16). The pigs the son was seeding were fed better than he. In the Buddhist version, a son secretly runs away from his father and wanders for a great many years, living a poor life of menial labor, but still keeping himself afloat, clothed and fed. He wanders from village to village, place to place. Meanwhile, his father had been earnestly searching for him, and decided to take up residence in a city where he built up an enormous fortune upon an impressive estate. Within the Christian parable, the son leaving and squandering his inheritance symbolizes man leaving God’s grace for a life spent in sin. Even the son’s actions very clearly represent a sinful lifestyle. Asking his father or his share of the inheritance while his father still lives is a way of wishing his father were dead. This first part of the Christian version represents the first in a series of events that leads to returning to the light of God, that of turning from the grace of God to lead a life of sin. In the Buddhist version, the son runs away without any wealth from his father, and spends many years wandering in a miserable condition. This symbolizes the fact that wealth or privilege plays no role in spiritual development, the only “inheritance” man possesses is what he takes with him from one life to the next, and that is karma which is mismanaged, can lead to endless wandering from life to life until a permanent, positive growth towards nirvana is established.

The second part of the parable, present in both versions, is the son’s return home. In the Christian version, the son finally comes to his senses and asks himself “How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death” (Luke 15:17)! He plans to return to his father, beg for forgiveness of his sins, and ask to be put to work, and so goes home. The son in the Buddhist version makes no such conscious decision to go home; instead his wandering takes him to a magnificent estate where he sees a king-like figure being tended to by servants, he cannot recognize his own father amongst his father’s wealth. The son runs away in fear and his father, “recognized him immediately. His heart was filled with great joy and at once he thought: Now I have someone to entrust my storehouses of wealth and possessions to” (Lotus, 2)! So he sends one of his messengers to fetch his son. The messenger ends of scaring the son and the father lets his son go, becoming aware of his son’s desire to live a self-abasing life. He then sends out to servants in dirty garb to offer him work removing excrement at twice the regular wage, and the son accepts, returning home to his father, unbeknownst of course. In the Christian parable, the process of the son coming to his senses and wanting to come home to beg forgiveness for his sins, despite whatever humiliation he would go through at the hands of his other brother, is symbolic of the process of repentance. That is, confessing and coming to terms with ones sin and asking forgiveness of god. This represents the second event in man’s return to the light of god, recognizing his sin and repenting. In the Buddhist version, the son’s wandering is symbolic of the cycle of samsara, of birth and rebirth, or reincarnation. An individual will wander the stages of life, gaining or losing merit with every lifetime, until it culminates with the realization that leads to enlightenment and nirvana.

The last part of both parables is the reception of the son back home. In the Christian parable, the father runs out to embrace his son who was lost and is now found. He dresses his son in the best robes, gives him sandals, and slaughters the fattened calf to have a feast. Instead of the son humiliating himself by returning to the shame he received upon his departure, the father runs out to embrace his returning son, saving his son the humiliation. The son does not even finish repenting and confessing his sorrow over his sins before his father interrupts and brings all the gifts out to him. In the Buddhist version, his son’s reaction to the messenger suggests to the father that any sort of instant father-son reestablishment is not going to happen, and, understanding his son’s attitude, offers him work removing excrement through two of his other servants. The father often disguises himself and goes to the son who is working and encourages him to work hard. He promises to increase his salary and offers to cover his basic needs like food and shelter. This process goes on for twenty years; all the while the son is living in a small hut performing menial labor, until the father become ill and makes the son a sort of accountant over all his wealth. The son does not lose sight of his inferiority and beings to familiarize himself with the wealth, what goes in and out of the storehouses. It is not until the son comes to improve his outlook and despise his former lifestyle of menial tasks that the father feels he is ready and gathers all the relatives, the ministers, and administrators of the region and confesses that the son is in fact his son and entrusts all of his wealth to him. This process symbolizes the process by which the Buddha guides those who listen to the Dharma along the path towards nirvana and Buddhahood. With every passing life, one must gain merit to deserve his position in the coming life, working little by little towards enlightenment. It is not an instantaneous happening; it is something that must occur over thousands of lifetimes. The father’s reception of the son in the Christian version symbolizes God’s loving embrace of those who repent and confess their sins to him. Repentance allows one to return to God’s grace from sin. Coming back to God represents the third and final part in the process of returning to God’s grace. It is an emphasis on the fact that although no one strives for sin, that lifestyle is all too attractive and most fall victim to sin, but it is not the end of the road. Recognizing one’s wrongdoing, confessing one’s sins, and repenting to God can overcome any obstacles created by sin.

There is one very major difference between the two versions of the parable however, that of the presence of a second son in the Christian version. This second son spent his whole life working for his father, obeying him always, and when he approaches the house after his brother had returned and he hears music and laughter he becomes upset. He asks his father why he was celebrating his son who left and threw away his entire inheritance, but his father assures him that all that he owns will be his someday, but he must celebrate the return of his brother who was lost and is now found again. This character almost certainly reflects Jesus’ attitude toward the Pharisees, the “religious elites” of the time who were criticizing Jesus from delighting in the company of sinners. They considered themselves above people like that, too pure to spend time with defilers. But Jesus’ message was about love for all, embracing all who come to repent of their sins, regardless of the severity, and that is what the father is trying to tell the second brother, that despite his brother’s sins, he has come to ask forgiveness for them and they must show him love for it. Why the Buddhist version does not include a character like this is quite simple in that the two parables are meant to deliver two very different messages. The Christian version emphasizes that although sin is tempting and all fall to it occasionally, one can be cleansed through repentance and restored to God’s grace. The Buddhist version emphasizes the process of merit gaining from lifetime to lifetime and the fact that reaching the status of bodhisattva or even buddha takes many thousands of lifetimes. Humility is not as important in the Buddhist version and thus does not need the second brother.

While these two parables may seem to differ significantly on the surface, a brief examination of both versions of the Parable of the Lost Son can reveal some striking similarities and offers an insightful look into the values of beliefs of both religions. Cross-examining literature and teachings from two different religions is a very effective tool for further understanding each religion, it can also raise awareness of some commonalities between the two that were unheard of prior.

The Objective Of Zakat Theology – Essay

The socket has been introduced in pre-colonial Malaysia. Before the British colonial Malaysia, the village in the country, as in other parts of the world developed through land settlement or colonization. One of the popular methods was the “collective Pondok system”, which was particularly common in the Muda Region of Kedah. By this system, a group of settlers would gather around and a person who is well -versed in Islamic Knowledge or who had already established himself as a religious teacher .After the they found a suitable place , they will build their “Pondok” (huts) around a Madras; a religious center for worship as well as teaching. In the case where the group has been established, they would invite a religious teacher from elsewhere to set up a Madras among them.This religious teacher was also the “Imam” of the community, in the sense that he led five prayers daily in the mosque or “madsarah.”

The group of peasant will be going out to open land around the clusters of their “Pondok”, leaving their children to the teacher for religious education at day time. For those wives who are unable to work with their spouse in the land also will obtained religious instruction from the teacher. The peasants will receive religious at least one or twice a week and longer on Friday because it was a day of rest. They will spend more time in the mosque than the field.

As an appreciation for the service provided by the teacher, the peasants usually will collectively clear a piece of land and cultivate if for the teacher. Slowly, as the land become more productive and the production level of each peasant family exceeds the “nisab of 480 Gantang” [1] for each harvesting, the peasant family would pay skate at their 10 % of the gross yield of the paddy. According to “Afifudin”, those early days all the skate form a specific group in the Pondok system would go to the teacher. If a group of 50 sacked paying peasants would contribute a minimum of 2400 Gantang each year .As time goes by, the wealth of the teacher can be accumulated. The teacher can use the socket for the expansion of Madras.

During the colonial period in Malaysia especially Kelantan, zakat was administered by imam,who is is the local religious leader managed the zakat collection and surpervised by the division of inherited party.In order to finance the intensified activities ,the state required imams to surrender part of the zakat they collected at the village level.However,this menthod is only partially successful due to the British regime replaced Grahman’s ,the “Islamic administration” .The Grahman took charge of civil administration ,he divested the imams of their “civil” function .which were transfer to the headman (ketua kampong) .

According to secret institution in Malaysia .During British Colonial Period , The segregation between religion, custom and temporal matters took place during this period. All Islamic and Malay customs related matters were administered by a special body known as Majlis Agama Islam Negeri (MAIN). Other than that, the rest came under the purview of the British civil and criminal law system (Matters associated with socket were administered by MAIN. Accordingly, in Zakat Satu Tinjauan, Kelantan was the first state to establish the body which later became a model to other Malay States. Under this model, the Imam (spiritual leader) has been empowered to govern skate related matters and a portion of zakat collection would be delivered to the state government as a financial resource for Islamic affairs. That was how the administration of soaked developed until today which remain under the supervision of State Islamic Councils.

After the independence of Malaysia, New Economic Policy has been introduced.The zakat fund is use for investment purpose .In the early 1970s ,the minister of National and Rural Development ,Encik Ghaffae Baba,who was also the chairman of Mara ,urged all the state Religious Councils to invested substantial portion of their money (mostly derived from the collection of zakat) in Amanah Saham Mara .The objective is to eliminate the income gap between the ethnic group in Malaysia,especially the Muslim and Chinese.

The objective of Zakat

The primary objective of Zakat is to elevate the spirit of human being above the material acquisition.Consequently, Islam does not view the zakat payer as a mere of sore of funds,but as a person who always needs purification and cleansing, both spiritually and materially. The prophet (p) summaries this purpose in the ayat ,”sadaqa from hier wealth by which you might purify and cleanse them.

Zakat, when paid out of submission to the commad of Allah ,is a mean of purifying the soul of a Muslim from greed and miserliness.The vices of selfishness and greed must be controlled in order for human beings to elevate their spirits ,to succed in their social realtions in his life ,and gain admittance to paradise .Allah Almighty says, “Truly man is niggardly! (17:100) and “But people are prone to selfish greed.)Zakat is a purifier that trains Muslims to give and spend selflessly .It liberates their souls from the love of wealth and slavery to materials gains and acquisitions.

On top of that, zakat is a mean of training Muslims on virtues of generosity as much as it is a means of purificarion from greed .Being paid in repetitive pattern year after year ,regular zakat as well as zakat al-fitr train Muslims to give and spend for charitable purpose. The Qur’an describes believers as the righteous who have the virtue of spending for good reasons.The very second sura of the Qur’an begins, “Alif .Lam .Mim.That is the Book with no doubt .In it is guidance for the godfearing :those who believe in Unseen and establish the prayer and give of what we have provided for them.”This exhortation is reiterated many times in the Qur’an ,such as “Those who give away their wealth by night and by day ,secretly and openly ,”: “Those who give in times of both ease and hardship” and “The steadfast ,the truthful ,the obedient ,the givers ,and those who seek forgivness before dawn.”

Also ,once a person is trained to spend on public interests and to give to his brethren out of his own wealth, he is most likely to be freed from any urge to transgress on other people’s wealth and possessions.

Besides that, zakat trains people to acquire divine characteristic.If man purified of miserliness and greed and becomes accustomed to the habit of giving and spending, his soul is elevated abouve low human trait of covetousness, “Truly man is niggardly!” (17:100) and aspire to the height of Divine perfection, since one of the characteristic of Allah is absolute and unlimited mercy, powers, theoretical and practical .Allah obliges zakat in order to perfect human souls in graciousness to oher people ,as the prophet says, Train yourselves to attributes of Allah.This encouragement to spend throught zakat and voluntary charity resulted with time,u in the emergence of charitable trusts all over Muslim world,trusts devoted not only to helping the poor and needy but to all causes for human beings as well as animals.

In addition ,zakat is to shows expression of thankfulness to Allah .Gratitude and thankfulness are among the best characteristics of human beings.Zakat is an expression of thankfulness to Allah for the bouties .He gives on us .Allah, says al-Ghazali, has gives on human spiritual and materials bounties.Prayers and other acts of physical worship express gratitude for the blessing of creation, while zakat and other acts of donator worship express gratitude for the material blessings of Allah .The concept that zakat is thanks Allah for His bounties is s widespread and deeply rooted in the consciousness of Muslims that it is common to say that one must give zakat in thanks for the grace of sight ,hearing,health ,knowledge, etc.

Also, zakat stimulates personality growth in those who pay it .Through helping others overcome their financial difficulties , zakat payers are enriched by feelings of self-worth and fufilment . Zakat also helps offer the payer’s self to others and grow throught helping them and gives the payer a noble sense of victory over his base desires and material drives-over his owns shaytan.

Last but not least, zakat is to purifies wealth.This is because zakat is a right to the poor , not paying it means keeping something that belongs to others intermingled worth one’s wealth and this brings Allah’s wrath on the whole wealth. The Prophet (p) says, “If you pay zakat on your wealth ,you have taken away its evil.”

Types of zakat

Zakat is divided into several types :

Zakat of Income
Zakat of Savings
Zakat of Business
Zakat of KWSP/LTAT
Zakat of Share
Zakat of Livestock
Zakat of Gold and Silver
Zakat of Crops
Zakat of Income

Extra payment received by an individual from their employer or individual itself in the form of physical energy or physically or professional employment for specific day, month and yearly also been required to pay zakat.

Employment income includes: –

1) The annual salary

2) Other allowances

3) Unpaid wages

4) Other remuneration such as bonuses, etc.

Method Of Calculation

First Method

Using gross income (without deduction) 2.5% on gross income per year.

Example :

Total gross income per year : RM 25,000.00

Amount of zakat (2.5%) : RM 625.00

Monthly Payment : RM 625.00 /12 = RM 52.08

Second Method

Using the net income (Income year less allowable expenses per year) x 2.5%

Expenses allowed deduction (per year): -:-

Self : RM 8,000.00

Wife : RM 5,000.00

Children : RM 1,000.00

KWSP : 11% from gross income workers

Parents Contribution : RM (amount given) per month x 12 months

Contributions to organizations that pay the zakat (for example: Lembaga Tabung Haji, Takaful)

Zakat of savings

Contribution of workers and employer’s to KWSP People Provident Fund , Soldiers Provident Fund (LTAT) are also required to pay zakat as the concept is similar to savings but the different is savings of KWSP and LTAT could not be withdraws anytime wherenever they like and it is subject the rules.

Fixed Deposit

Fixed deposit of RM 100,000 was kept for a year without the excluded (assumed nisab charity at that RM 9430.00)

Then charity is required to produce are: RM 100,000 x 2.5% = RM 2.500

Regular Deposit

Method Of Calculation

(Duration haul is January 5, 1999 until February 7, 2000) (Assuming nisab of charity at that RM 3,323.50)

So zakat are :

(Balances with lower interest bank refused WITH) X 2.5%

(RM 9,115.00 – RM 115.00) x 2.5% = RM 225.00

Zakat of Business

Zakat been given out by Sole Propirate, Partnership, Cooperative Society, Societies and Organization which had reached one year and the time limit.

Method Of Calcutions

[ ( Current Assets – Current Liability ) + Coordination x Percentage of Muslims Share x ZAKAT ABILITY ( 2.5 % ) ].

Zakat of KWSP

Contributions of employees and employers into the Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Army (LTAT),or the like imposed zakat as conceptually the same as saving money, but with the difference amount of savings, LTAT and so on shall not be issued at anytime because and subject to regulations that is fixed.

CALCULATION METHOD :

METHOD 1

2.5% of the contribution that issued once money issued.

METHOD 2

2.5% of contribution every employee is based on the annual statement

Zakat of shares

Zakat which is given out for investment which hasreachedh its time limit and minimum value.

METHOD OF CALCULATION

2.5 % the value of lowest share – share which is own for one year minus for shared borrowed.

If the lowest value is not determined, use the value beginning early in the year or in the year or whichever is the lowest.

For shareholders which must be owned by investors. Muslims in the long term to gain control a company or firm so his payment for zakat will be based on the calculations that it will not affect the the importance of other Muslims to get hold of the company.

If any of the owner’s shares has not reached one year, but the whole property being changed for a number of time for one year from shares to cash and vice versa, so use the lowest value with the mixture of money and shares,shares with basic to count zakat multiply 2.5 %.

Zakat of Livestock

Livestock zakat is property zakat that required to be taken out in perfect the conditions. Domestic animal that obliged to pay zakat is among them such as goat, , cattle , camel, sheep, buffalo. Prophet S.A.W said ” From Muaz Ibnu Jabal, had said, RasulullahS.A.W was sending me to Yaman and ask me to collect zakat from each of 30 cows, 1 lamb musinnah (1 female cattle aged up to 3 years ) and every 30 cows, tabi’ or tabiah ( 1 male or female cattle aged up to 2 years).” The livestock that we would like to give a zakat must be perfect and no defects such as missing the foot or hand and so on.

COWS/BUFFALOES

Quantities

Zakat Amount / Sex

30-39 tail

1 tail, age 1 year / male

40-59 tail

1 tail, age 2 year / female

60-69 tail

2 tail, age 1 year / male

70-79 tail

1 tail, age 1 year / male

and 2 tail, age 2 year / male

80-89 tail

2 tail, age 2 year / female

90-99 tail

3 tail, age 1 year / male

100-109 tail

1 tail, age 2 year / female

and 2 tail, age 1 year / male

110-119 tail

2 tail, age 2 year / female

and 1 tail, age 1 year / male

120 tail above

tail, age 2 year / female

and 3 tail, age 1 year / male

GOATS

Quantities

Zakat Amount / Sex

40-120 tail

1 tail, age 2 year / male or female

121-200 tail

2 tail, age 2 year / male or female

201-399 tail

3 tail, age 2 year / male or female

Subsequent additions : Every of 100 tail plus

plus 1 tail, age 2 year / male or female

SHEEP

Quantities

Zakat Amount / Sex

40-120 tail

1 tail, age 1 year/ male @ female

121-200 tail

2 tail , age 1 year / male @ female

201-399 tail

3 tail, age 1 year/ male @ female

Subsequent additions : every 100 tail

increased by 1 tail,age 1 year / male @ female.

Zakat of Silver and Gold

Gold and silver is a mineral that is required to charity. This is because these metals are very useful as it uses an exchange value of all things. As for other jewelry than gold and silver like diamond, pearl, silk, copper, are not obligatory zakat on it.

Nisab zakat gold used = 200gram

Gold zakat Nisab unused = 85gram

Zakat Of Crops

Zakat which is upon basic food which has reached the stage of satisfaction for the state which has 363 gantang / 1300 kg like paddy, wheat, cereals and so on.

The Nature Of Pastoral Care Theology

Pastoral care in ministry is one of the most critical ministries found within the Church. Churches are full of individuals who have or are experiencing crisis, anxiety, devoiced, loneliness, lost, grief, sadness, and family issues. These prevailing crises make available to pastors opportunities to assist these individuals mostly by just encouraging and listening to those within their faith community. In many cases, pastors’ involvement in these crises may only require of them to listen whereas in other the need for trained pastors in specialized ministry of counseling is required.

Many individuals now-a-days continue to turn to their pastors as a first source when face with a crisis. Pastors are usually more immediately and directly accessible than some other counseling professionals they do not charge a fee, and they are every so often known and trusted within a community. Since pastors are perceived as generalist, parishioners as well as community residents often look to them for assistance in a wide range of needs, including counseling. A skill acquired by pastors from some useful classes in the area of counseling during their training in seminary as well as an important basic quarter in C.P.E. (Clinical Pastoral Education).

Personally, my study in pastoral counseling has given me the necessary tools to effectively counsel my congregants. Such training has led me into the following concepts: Clinical Pastoral Periderm, which focuses on relationship and individuals; the different kinds of Listening Skill introduced by Salvage; the dynamics of Loss & Grief with grief being the emotional reaction to loss; Family System Theory a self-regulatory system maintaining its own status, as well as the Family as an Emotional System along with the Eight Concepts of Bowen Theory; Congregational System Pastoral Care; Crisis Counseling which includes the A-B-C Method; Pastoral Issues in Illness; Pastoral for Domestic Violence and Child Abuse; Multi-Cultural Pastoral Care; Gender Difference in Pastoral Care; and finally, Pastoral Intimacy, Power and Professional Boundaries.

Pastoral care is the foremost task of ministry by most pastors as well as a majority of congregants, yet, there is a difference relating to pastoral care and the professional discipline of counseling. Some pastors are members of the American Association of Pastoral Counseling which has what one may refer to as an expressed Code of Ethics. The same is true of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, American Psychological Association, etc.

There are certainly many potential similarities in the relationship between pastors and professional counselors and the people they serve. All these relationships involve issues of exposure, familiarity and trust. There is an intrinsic disparity of control which some, particularly pastors, is uncomfortable acknowledging, but which exists whenever a person in distress seeks help from one viewed as more experienced. Healing is mostly a main concentration in any aiding relationship.

Likewise, borderline concerns must be taken care of so as to construct the safest likely environment in which a counselee or congregant can deal with his or her pain. Nevertheless, there are a number of possible distinctions between pastoral care and professional counseling. Professional counselors are trained to understand the transference and countertransference phenomena, double task tensions, and the boundaries of our trained competency.

Like professional counselors, pastors also have codes of conduct to guide our activities, which are spiritual in origin. These codes are based on religious beliefs except for exclusions concerning sexual wrongdoing; pastoral codes usually are more generalized in nature than professional counseling ethical codes of behavior.

In contrast to professional counselors, pastors often engage in their ministries in a variety of informal settings with a multiplicity of roles with parishioners. Our core functions as pastors are embedded in a spiritual restraint that touches on many facets of life and society. Although training in counseling can aid pastors to work more effectively with church members, yet our calling to such profession is very distinct. In one of his many writings, Eugene Peterson called on pastors to return to our distinctive, ancient calling which states that our pastoral work is a “ministry of Word and Sacrament.” [1]

People believe counseling is a great remedy. Yet many are reluctant says Hansen to see a professional counselor. Perhaps their reluctance is due to the costs of such visit besides, professional counselors ask hard questions.” He continues, “For me, trying to be a counselor is a mean of saving time and effort. It is a go between my people’s needs to have me do unspecific things for them rather than cautioning them to live through the thick forests of their lives by following Christ in discipleship.” [2]

This means that pastoral care is rooted in ‘word and sacrament’ not having its origins in various scientifically grounded personality theories but prayer, proclamation, and the word of God. Again, Eugene Peterson emphasizes, “pastor’s responsibility is to keep the community attentive to God.” [3]

Like pastoral care, professional counseling by a pastor is a serious business. Pastors who engage in professional counseling without being trained are treading on dangerous ground, because such is not included within the authority of their ordination. When we do away with what is the ancient activities of pastoral care and engage in professional counseling methods without the necessary training, we are then held to the same standard to that of a licensed counseling professional. Standing before the law, pastors will not have the benefit or protection they have within the ancient practice of pastoral care.

Here are several shielding legal guidelines for the practice of ministry: Pastors are to be clear about the expertise offered. We are to refer to our activities in clearly religious terms, not professional counseling terms. Unless we are trained and are willing to adhere to all of the professional standards of licensed professional counselors, pastors are to stay with practices that we can identify as pastoral care. For if we hold ourselves out as “professional” or “psychological” counselor, the law of the land will treat us as one. Pastors are not to assume broader duties, which are not part of our competence or calling.

Although, the distinction amid pastoral care and professional counseling are clear in many situations, in others they appear less distinct. Yet a process of reflection and discernment is needed most to identify the pastoral role. So the following need to be addressed: Whom am I called to be in this particular ministry setting? What are my sacred functions as one who has a “set-apart” ministry? What distinguishes my role and relationships from those of psychologists, family therapists, and specialists in pastoral counseling? Where do I set the limits and boundaries to my pastoral activities? [4]

Pastoral Care in ministry in my estimate is the most important ministry next to the ministry of preaching of the Gospel. People who are hurting is seeking through the pastor from the Gospel a healing balm for their wounds. The Gospel itself addresses the totality of humanity: spiritual and body. When one part is addressed to the negligence of the other the total needs of that person will not be met. Pastors who are sensitive to, and addresses the hurts of members in their congregation through the appropriate counseling technique, are more likely to be successful in ministry then those who neglect these needs.

To conclude, Pastoral care is a vital resource that extends to a broader spectrum of individuals with a variation of needs. This opportunity comes with what I will refer to as a “wonderful challenge”, however; it is necessary for those ministering to such needs, to reflect wisely on their gifts as well as to recognize their limits of their profession.

Bibliography

Clinebell, Jr., Howard J. Basic Types of Pastoral Counseling (New York: Abingdon press 1984)

Hansen, David The Art of Pastoring ( Inter Varsity Press Downer Grove, Illinois 1994)

Paterson, Eugene H. Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1992)

Lynch, Gordon Clinical Counseling in Pastoral Settings ( Routledge New York, NY 1999)

Paterson, Eugene H. Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1987)

Ross, Kenneth. Hearing Confessions (London: SPCK Publishing, 1974)

Salvage, John Listening & Caring Skills (Abingdon Press, Nashville 1996)

An Incident in Ministry that illustrates my Approach to Pastoral Care

Luke and Nancy was the first inter-racial couple that sought membership at my present pastoral appointment, Spencer Memorial United Methodist Church. For eight years of being their pastor, I have watched them grow diligently in their spiritual walk with the Lord, but something always seems to be lacking within their relationship especially around the Thanksgiving holiday, something that they couldn’t get around to talk about but was bothering them. On one Wednesday after Bible Study Nancy asked if she could schedule an appointment so that she could meet with me. Sure I responded to her, so we went ahead and set an appointment to meet an hour earlier on the next Wednesday before Bible Study.

When we met following prayers on that Wednesday, Nancy begins by saying that they came to see me to discuss about the death of her father which loss she cannot seem to get rid of. The presenting problem is one in which Nancy’s father passed away almost immediately when she became a member of Spencer. This occurred rather suddenly after her father was diagnosed of cancer. When word reached her that her father was terminal and the doctors have given him up, she immediately went to be with her mother to assist her while they prepared for the inevitable. Two weeks later after her arrival on Thanksgiving Day, her father passed away leaving her with a sudden stricken grief that after seven years she is finding it very difficult to dealing with her feeling of loss.

Recently Nancy went back home to visit her mother because her visit back home had been infrequent since her father passed away. During her visit she was beset with her feelings of loss and now she tells me that she it has been such a long since the death of her father but the pain do not seem to go away. She and her father became close after a long period of estrangement between them and she describes their relationship developing over the years into more unique friendship than that of father and daughter. She tells me that the mode of her grief varies from day to day. On those days when she is so stressed up, she feels the pain of her loss strongly especially when she cannot pick up the phone and dial her father; for her father had grown to become her best friend in spite of their past history and he had been there for her over the last few years of his life. During this whole session, Nancy pattern of speech appears normal yet she wept throughout it. But what was helpful is that we kept good eye contact during our discussion until she became emotional which minimize it. Below are statements showing that during one point of the session empathy was for the most part effective:

Nancy: I guess this may sound crazy, but this past Thanksgiving, I went home and my Mom was able to convince me so that we can get rid of his clothes. Something that I said out loud to Mom that we were never ever going to get rid of his clothes because it was the only physical memory that I had of him. On Thanksgiving Day while going through his closet I could smell his distinct cologne (Kouros) on his clothes. It was too difficult; I broke down in the closet crying.

Pastor: I know that it must have been hard for you, because I also lost my father to sudden stroke.

Nancy: Pastor Morris, it was the hardest thing for me to do.

Pastor: It takes a lot of strength to carry that through.

Nancy: You can say that, it does. I break down whenever I begin to talk about him.

Pastor: You miss him

Nancy: Yes Pastor, I miss him so much (she begins to openly sob).

Nancy was referring to the feelings of her loss that never seems to go away after seven years. My intent during this session was to reflect on those feelings. In addition, she was critical of herself in the early part of our session for not having moved beyond her feelings of loss.

At this point in the session, I became aware of how much she was hurting. It is very important that pastoral wisdom include some general knowledge of grief and mourning process that is informed by those who have done researched and written about it. One of the most influential interpretations of the grief process for me has been Erich Lindemann’s study called “Symptomatology and Management of Acute Grief,” [5] in it he affirmed grief as “work,” something necessary for life rather than something pathological that should be avoided. He also described five things that he had observed in acute grief: (1) guilt, (2) anger, (3) bodily distress, (4) being preoccupy with the deceased image and, (5) loss of customary of patterns of conduct. [6]

Lindermann theorized that there are discernible stages in the grief process that the grieving person and those who care for that person should be aware of. Recently when Nancy visited her parent home she was overwhelmed with renewed emotions of loss, perhaps as new as they were seven years ago when her father passed away. Furthermore, she expressed her frustration in still undergoing such strong feeling of grief when so much time has passed. This displeasure could be viewed as her inclination to move in an affirmative direction toward healing, and it was her self-actualizing tendency that was seeking to express it.

A likely hypothesis as to why Nancy has not moved past her present stage of grief might be that in her societal system the essential conditions that would allow her to discover the know-how in order to process her grief does not exist. She may also have family members in her family that deal with pain differently by discouraging open expression of emotions. If such be the case, then providing empathy might permit her to move past most of the pain that she was experiencing.

The below example shows during the session, where the grief focus was shifted:

Nancy: I was in denial when the news first hit me that my father was terminal. I got on the next available flight for Dallas. I went down immediately to be with him. Two weeks after my arrival he passed away.

Pastor: That was fast. And it seems that you possess lots of pleasant memories of your father

Nancy: Yes I do have a lot of good memories, but the hardest thing is the emptiness brought about by the loss.

In this example, she described her experience of losing her father. In response, I attempted to direct her focus on the good memories that she had of her father, rather than she dwelling on her loss. However, it seems to me that her focus was on her feelings of emptiness; it was when I regain control of the situation and saidaˆ¦.

Pastor: Nancy, as a pastoral counselor, I certainly am open to the grieving process for those who had lost a loved one but not for such a long period. However, I must honestly say that there is more to the grief that you are undergoing. Even though you have not explain what brought about your estrangement with your parents which may have something to do with prolonged grief.

Nancy: (Sobbing againaˆ¦) you are right pastor. 17 years ago after falling in love with Luke in College I took him to ask for my parents blessing because we had decided to get married since we were three months pregnant. Not telling them that he is an African American, we drove to my home time in Dallas Texas during our Christmas break. When we arrived, my parents did not receive Luke and forbid me to get marry to him. Because we love each other and were caring a child I went against their decision and got married to Luke thus being banished or ostracized by my parents. In view of this new revelation, I decided to reference the family- systems theory which offers better ways to understand and resolve such problem.

For instance: From a Bowenian family-systems perspective, there have been some key emotional cutoffs [7] in Nancy family system when she was banished. It’s not entirely clear how these things work, but family-therapy research indicates that Nancy present dilemma is somehow connected to this cutoff; moreover, it is only by repairing it and reconnecting with the long-lost, left-behind, and thrown-out members of her family that her “presenting problem” [8] will resolve itself. Therefore, one aspect of a “treatment plan” recommended would involve my “counseling” her toward a “self-differentiated” [9] balance between these two extremes (guilt and grief).

Finally, Nancy realized that her prolonged grief was because of her guilt after shifting her guilt back and fro. [10] I believe my ability to provide empathy [11] through reflection was my strength. What was of greater substance was my ability to offer advanced empathy, moving away from her stated words to the indirect emotions beyond her words.

The Movie Ae Fond Kiss Theology Religion Essay

Quite a few films have been produced by now which focus on the interracial, intercultural and interethnic issues between couples and a relationship can be made or marred in the process. Ae Fond Kiss directed by Ken Loach, starred Atta Yaqub as Casim and Eva Birthistle as Roisin. This movie is an intricate demonstration of religion, culture and self-identity in all spheres of life. Loach has tactfully painted a love story in the premises of Glasgow, showing the collective problems from a Pakistani family background to a Catholic religion. Ina nutshell, the movie ends uniting the lovers when Casim leaves his family and prefers Roisin as the love of his life.

The movie can be viewed critically from many aspects it highlights indirectly through various characters. Firstly, we will analyze how Islam and West have been portrayed generally in comparison to each other. The father, Tariq and Mrs. Khan have been portrayed as devout Muslims who carry out their religious obligations on an individual and community level as well. However, they as parents have been unable to inculcate the same values in their children despite their wishes. Casim, Tahara and Rukhsana have core Islamic beliefs but each child varies in religious practice. Islam in the West is looked down at by British; the reputation of Islam has been mucked by the unfortunate aftermath of 9/11. The true message of Islam has been distorted in the West due to the practices of weak Muslims. The Westerner’s have made sure that they pinpoint Islamic controversies in the context of these practices instead of going by the book. Islam is a code of life which takes into consideration emotional, social, political, economic, psychological and spiritual needs of a human being. It does not differentiate between society and religion whereas in the West, society and culture are distinct entities. The second generation immigrants in foreign countries end up in an identity crisis due aforementioned issues. For them, religion is not clearly defined neither acted on according to the Sunnah perfectly. Tahara and Casim in Ae Fond Kiss, were definitely suffering from an identity crisis on a personal and social level. The reasons for this do not lie in Islam being intolerant of other cultures and religions rather the reason is in the youth and the parents in not having scientifically concrete knowledge about all practices in Islam (Richardson, 4-8).

Casim’s father and mother tried somehow in making their children God-conscious and fearing. Analysis of the movie suggests that Roisin was not as religious as the Pakistani family. She belonged to a Catholic background however; she was not in a state of stereotypical regret that Christian women are after being divorced. When Casim and Roisin were on the Spanish coast trip, they talked about the similarities that existed between their religions. However, Casim’s verbatim demonstrates that he had spiritual values in bits as compared to Roisin. Casim’s family firmly believed in the Oneness of God Almighty where as Roisin was detached from religious activities. The only main link that has been shown is when Roisin was uncertain about the relationship as for a full-employment job, she was asked by the Parish Priest to give up on Casim. Roisin coming from an individualist society did not believe whole-heartedly in God as the Creator and Sustainer of the people on the planet. Rather, to her in a relationship, self-respect and dignity were more important than anything else. Casim, had a more perpetual view of the relationship as per his belief in God. He wanted a life partner who he could grow old with. It has always been seen that Muslim authorities are called the bad cops rather than any other religious authorities. By writing about the cruelty and arrogance of Parish Priest, Paul Lavetry intended to show that it’s not always the perceived misconceptions about Islam that complicate a predicament, figures from the other culture or religion can equally worsen community relations and reputation. It is not just Muslims who are prohibited to marry people from another religion; vice versa should also be considering before stigmatizing Islamic teachings of forced marriages. Building his opinion in a historical context, Harold Coward says, “Muslims probably have a far greater knowledge of all other religions than any other groupaˆ¦”. Perhaps it can be said that second-generation immigrants or other Muslim youth and parents in various parts of the world do not know the potential they have as Muslims. In tolerating and respecting other religions, Prophet Mohammad p.b.u.h. set a paradigm for the believers and the non-believers to follow despite the fact that his main aim in life was to spread the light of Islam to non-Muslims (Schimdt-Leukal & Ridgeon, 17-60).

Islam values universal beliefs until they are in relation to Quran and Sunnah. The Muslims have to implement Shahadah, Salat, Zakat, Fasting and Hajj as the four pillars of Islam. They have to believe in the prophets who brought messages to humanity at various junctures in history. The socio-economic issues in a Muslim community are solved according to Shariah and handed by the Ulema and Fuqaha. However, the Catholic beliefs are dissimilar in some ways. The common grounds are fasting, charity and belief in the unity of God. Beliefs related to humanity that spring out of Islam and Muslim practice can be concluded as follows:

No matter which religion or race, human beings have to respect and tolerate each other.

Religion cannot be forced on anyone under any circumstance.

God Almighty will determine what is right and wrong in the Hereafter. In this life, the believers are commanded to search for the truth and fulfill their spiritual needs which will ultimately lead them to the Quran as the Last Scripture.

The Muslims should employ principle of reciprocity when it comes to intercultural dealings; however, Islam always teaches piety and goodness hence, forgiveness has to be practiced.

There is no enmity between believers and non-believers in daily life encounters; the differences should be embraced and the right to equal citizenship awarded in any part of the world. God says in the Quran, “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do” (The Noble Quran 5:8).

The Muslim British Pakistani family did not want a goree for their son as marriage with a non-Muslim is not allowed in Islam. However, religious beliefs are blurred into cultural beliefs. The second immigrant youth viewed this forced arranged marriage. Casim when frustrated with life could only think of ‘should, should and should. . .’ requirements that were exacted on him. Seen from a pristine, Islamic point of view, Casim’s parents had promised the Jasmine’s parents back in Pakistan that their son will marry their daughter. Casim under religious obligations only had to listen to his parents for an eternal reward if he could. However, Islam does not mandate marrying the partner parents choose. Tariq and Mrs. Khan were more worried about the social consequences i.e. the name of the family when they found out that their son liked an Irish teacher. This movie is set out to challenge the prejudiced and gendered beliefs that Muslims and Christians alike hold.

The concept of Muslim masculinity and femininity are often discussed through heated arguments. Liberal and progressive Muslims, in the light of their limited knowledge and insight of comparative religion tend to favor other religions. The liberty and freedom Islam gave to women 1400 years ago cannot be denied. Islam still teaches those values to the believers which can heal the ills of the society. Divorce is disliked and harmony is preferred. Casim’s father was shown to be an authoritative figure in the house while in Casim, British Pakistani lover has been portrayed. The way Casim disapproved of her sister going to Edinburgh and the way her father refused the offer outright cannot only be judged from a religious lens. Boys by no means have more freedom than girls in Islam when it comes to inter-gender mingling, clubbing and outdoor gatherings. Prejudice cannot be generalized as a weak point of Islam as these are not typical teachings rather stereotypical practices of weak Muslims (Shira,).

Islam takes a very logical towards art and music. The argument on music can be traced back to Islam’s birth. Anything which has a tendency to make the believer go astray or distract him from obedience to God is not allowed in Islam. Perhaps, one of the main reasons why Tariq hated Kasim’s choice was that she was a pianist in Tahara’s school. Poetry in Islam has an exalted level; the Prophet Mohammad allowed only that poetry which talked about the wonders of Islam and the magnificence of God Almighty. Many a traditions have been reported in Sahih Muslim, one of the most authentic sources after the Quran, which validate the existence of poetry but which are done to seek the pleasure of God.

To conclude, Ae Fond Kiss has represented the real-life problems that come with an inter-cultural relationship that too with different backgrounds. Loach ended the movie in a very thought-provoking manner; the audience has been forced to redefine the boundaries of culture and see religion as a whole rather than sum of the parts of culture. Islam can be seen a civilization which serves as revolutionary religion throughout the history. Perhaps, the audience and the critics of Ae Fond Kiss now know that they have to look into their prejudiced perceptions again as Asad Fyzee puts it that Islam has to ‘interpreted afresh and understood anew’ with respect to time, place and people (Omid, 98).

The Morality Play Everyman Theology Religion Essay

The autonomous author portrays several human conditions in the morality play, Everyman. The human characteristics are rendered by the character, Everyman, who is a representative of mankind. Everyman soon learns of God’s plan when he meets the messenger Death, who has come to claim his soul in order to bring him for final judgment. Everyman’s portrayal of ignorance is evident when Death says, “Full little he thinketh on my coming; His mind is on fleshy lusts and his treasure, And great pain it shall cause him to endure Before the Lord, Heaven-King” (lines 81-84). Death’s adherence to his tasking from God is evident in “For before God thou shalt answer and shew, Thy many bad deeds and good but a few – How thou hast spent thy life in what wise Before the Chief Lord of Paradise” (lines 107-10).

Society as a whole often divulges in a life of sin whereas at that time the sin is being committed, it seems innocently enough and not as bad. Humans try to rationalize sins as being ok but do not realize that it leads them to damnation in the end on judgment day and in the eyes of God. The messenger Death best captures this by what he had said, “Ye think sin in the beginning full sweet, Which in the end causeth the soul to weep (lines 12-14).

Humanity is called upon to come forth once his journey from birth to death commences in order to see God and stand for judgment. In the beginning of the play, God instructs his messenger, Death, to find Everyman and take him on his pilgrimage to judgment. No man can escape God’s judgment and accountability. God says, “Go thou to Everyman, And show him, in my name, A pilgrimage he must on him take, Which he in no wise may escape; And that he bring with him a sure reckoning Without delay or any tarrying (lines 66-71).

In capturing society’s penitence and repentance, we see Knowledge assisting Everyman in the cleansing of his soul while he undergoes a physical and mental change by playing out the enduring contrast of the earthly and divine worlds. His body suffers for the sins of the flesh and lust while his soul is redeemed while undergoing a worldly pain which leads him to a spiritual salvation. “In the name of the Holy Trinity My body sore punished shall be; Take this, body, for the sin of the flesh (lines 611-13)! “Therefore suffer now strokes of punishing! Now penance I will wade the water clear, To save me from purgatory, that sharp fire (lines 616-18).

In recent events and aggressive reporting by the social media, our society has become aware of the impending misbehaviors of certain church officials around the world that suggests that the Church has swept these reports of misconduct under the table. As seen with the newly appointed Pope, he inherited a church facing serious challenges and allegations. In this story, there is a debate between Knowledge and Five Wits concerning priests. Five Wits praises the priests while Knowledge denigrates certain priests as being too concerned with earthly pleasures and forgetting the pilgrimage of spiritual growth. Here we see another example of the constant battle between the “earthly” and “divine” worlds. Knowledge says, “Sinful priests giveth the sinners example bad; Their children sitteth by other men’s fires, I have heard, And some haunteth women’s company, With unclean life, as lusts of lechery (lines 759-63). Five Wits fires back with, “I trust to God no such may we find. Therefore let us priesthood honor, And follow their doctrine for our souls’ succor. We be their sheep and they shepherds be, By whom we all be kept in surety (lines 764-86).

The morality play, Everyman, depicts mankind and anthropomorphizes their constant plight of relationships, devotion, and responsibility until their pending death. Everyman is represented by almost every character except for God, Death, the Angel and the Doctor. I think that most societies of today can relate with this play in some way. Everyman was written when people’s lives centered on the ideals of the traditional medieval church. Upon a Christian’s death their lifelong activities, achievements, sufferings, and problems are reviewed in front of God on judgment day. The characters in this story represent the many elements of a society’s existence and personified discernments. During the Medieval Age, it was common for people to try to survive life’s obstacles and hindrances while maintaining an ethical or divine growth as a Christian disciple. This piece captures and humanizes a society’s fight in achieving true salvation and preparation of one’s soul for impending death. Upon facing death, most people usually find themselves authenticating their lives and trying to ensure that their life meant something good. Most people do not tend face death with open arms. Everyman represents mankind in their cleansing of one’s sins before he can transcend into their afterlife. The medieval Christian believed that the only way to achieve salvation was through the Seven Holy Sacraments, priests, and the medieval church.

The Message Of Islam Theology

The word Islam is derived from the root word “salaama” means peace, obedience, purity, and submissions. Islam means abiding peace and obedience to the will of God. While other religions derive their name from either a tribe, or a geographical area or a founder, and Islam derives its name from the central ides of peace and submission to god. The followers of Islam call them as Muslims or Musalmans. The word “Hindu” is derived from the Sanskrit root word “Sindhu” and used by Persians, ancient Greeks and many foreigners to denote the people who lived beyond the river Indus. The word Hinduism was invented by the british scholars in 1830s to denote the religious traditions of the native Indians to distinguish them from the other recognized religions.

The message of Islam came to Muhammad for the first time through the angel Gabriel in 610 A.D., in a cave on Mount Hira. He kept on receiving the answers to his questions rest of his life and then he put all together in the book called Qur’an, which is the only holy book of Islam. Qur’an is the only book in the world which cannot be ever translated. Hinduism considers Vedas as their teachings of God. The Vedas are the earliest sacred books of Hinduism. The end part of Upanishads, which constitutes the philosophical base of Hinduism known as Vedanta and contains the elements of monotheism and description of God as the supreme deity of universe. Other important sources of Hinduism are the Vedanta’s, the Puranas, the Bhagavad Gita, Tantric texts, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. As Aldous Huxley once said “The Bhagavad-Gita is the most systematic statement of spiritual evolution of endowing value to mankind. It is one of the most clear and comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed; hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to all of humanity.”

The muslims practices the following so called Five Pillars, which are mentioned in the Qur’an. Shahadah is also known as the daily recitation of “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger” (Qur’an). Salat is the rituals performed Five times a day: dawn, at midday, mid afternoon, sunset, and nighttime. Zakat which is the amount of money from a person’s total income donated to the poor and the needy. Sawn which is a period of fasting from dawn to dusk in the ninth month of muslim calendar. During this fasting muslims avoid all food, liquid, sex and tobacco. The final pillar is called Hajj which is the pilgrimage to a sacred city of Mecca once in their lifetime. In Hinduism God is worshipped in many different ways. The daily rituals are performed by an individual several times a day in which offerings are made to gods, the elements, ancestors, animals and the humans. Many people also worship by visiting the temple everyday in the morning. Ramayana states that “Wealth springs from dharma, from dharma comes happiness and one gets everything from dharma. Dharma is the essence of this world”(Valmiki). Pooja is the popular form of worship in which prayers, chants, flowers, incense sticks, and others things are offered to gods, like said in Ramayana “Whatever is one’s food, the same food shall be offered to one’s gods” (Valmiki 2.103.30)Some Hindus also participate in satsangs or religious gatherings and perform the singing and chanting of the names of gods. Many Hindus practice fasting on specific days of the weeks or on some festivals. Hindus also visits certain sacred places and temples for their own beings. A visit to Varanasi for a dip in Ganges is considered very purifying and spiritual uplifting. There are many festivals celebrated by hindus out of which some are Diwali, Navaratri, Uttarayan, Ganesh Chaturthi and many more.

Muslims deny believing or worshiping any other god but Allah, who is their almighty. He is not only the highest god of muslims, but also of all the people in the world. He is close to his loyal worshippers, whom he forgives their sins and blesses them with peace and happiness. They believe in free will and fate. According to muslims, Allah knows everything that happened, that has been happening and that will happen. He made humans responsible for their actions and choices. Anyone can convert to Islam easily. According to their traditions, anyone who follows Allah and takes Muhammad as his messenger becomes a muslim because Qur’an says that “He who obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah” (al-Nisa’ 4.80). Hinduism believes in existence of Brahman, the supreme Lord of the universe who is eternal and stable. Three gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are his three main forms which are endowed with their work of creation, preservation and destruction. According to Hindus, god can be worshipped in too many different ways. Many Hindus worship gods into their personal forms chosen by themselves. Hinduism believes in worshipping god as in the image or the statue or an object. They also believe in peaceful life lived with truth and honor, like once said in Mahabharata, “Should even one’s enemy arrive at the doorstep, he should be attended upon with respect. A tree does not withdraw its cooling shade even from the one who has come to cut it” (12.146.5). And Mahatma Gandhi also said “I have no other wish in this world but to find light and joy and peace through Hinduism.”

Hinduism and Islam believe in the God as a supreme Lord of the universe, and as a creator of the whole system. Both religions believe that god has blessed humans with free will which make themselves responsible for their actions and choices. Allah is known by 99 names and the person who learns them all by heart goes in the heaven. The Brahman of Hinduism also has many names and by chanting them a person can attain him. Both believe that god responds to all the people who worship him and blesses them. Hinduism believes in karma. Islam believes that good rewards for good deeds and punishment for bad dreams. And Qur’an states “Whoever does good deed, he shall be repaid ten-fold; and whoever does evil, and he shall be repaid with evil” (5.32). Both religions believe in non-violence and killing no human life. In Hinduism the path of truth is far more important than the belief or disbelief in god. Islam does not recognize any other religions other than they are specifically mentioned in Qur’an. ” We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to him do we submit” (29.46). Muslims believe that they in something that is been revealed to them and believe that everybody’s god is same. Both religions believe in praying gods and reciting their name and ask for god’s forgiveness.

Muslims believe in praying only one god Allah, where as Hindus pray to one god but in different forms and incarnations. A person can be converted to Islam by praying to Allah or by taking Muhammad as their own messenger. Whereas in Hinduism a person becomes a Hindu by birth or by personal choice, without taking any messenger or following particular god permanently. Islam does not accept anyone between humans and god and in Hinduism there is a presence of priest for the right directions. Islam does not have any high priest or gurus, whereas Hindus has like the highly respected gurus who people follow and seek for more knowledge from them. Islam does not believe in rebirth. Hindus believe going in heaven or hell but they believe that the soul gets its freedom back through rebirth. Hinduism does not have the concept of messengers like Muslims have Muhammad as their messengers to god. Muslims laws are well versed in Qur’an as to punish the one who oppose the commands of Allah, and in Hinduism the laws are not imposed by the religious groups or people but are through the government. Islam does not accepts god as his own creation where as Hindus accept that god is a supreme Lord of his creation and also as an individual as atman in every human-being as it is stated in The Bhagwad Gita, “The power of God is with you at all times; through the activities of mind, senses, breathing, and emotions; and is constantly doing all the work using you as a mere instrument.” Hinduism does not see any difference between god and other living beings. In Islam man can only be the true follower of god and the others are made just to benefit man. In Islam there is no concept of Trinity. They believe that god is one and only. Hinduism has three highest forms of god known as Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

The belief system in Hinduism and Islam has a great effect on the present day society. There is a great development and change in Hinduism over the centuries and has spread all over the world. Islam has also spread over the years and has mostly spread by trade and the people conquered by them. Hinduism and Islam are two major religions in modern world with a great amount of people following in the various parts of the world.

Work Cited

Huxley, Aldous. “Quotes About Hinduism.” (30 Quotes). Goodreads Inc., n.d. Web.

04 Oct. 2012. .

Gandhi, Mahatma. “Hinduism Quotes.” Refspace.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2012.

.

MuhI?ammad, ZI?afr-AllaI„h H. The Quran. London: Curzon, 1978. Print

VaI„lmiI„ki, , and Ramesh Menon. The Ramayana. New York: North Point Press, 2003. Print.

PrataI„pachandra, RaI„ya, and Mohan G. Kisari. The Mahabharata. Calcutta: Bharata Press, 1884.

Print.

Gupta, Prashant, M D. Gupta, and N K. Vikram. Bhagwad Gita. New Delhi: Dreamland Books,

1996. Print.

The Men Of The Nicaea Council Theology Religion Essay

On account of the growing Arian controversy, that was causing a rift in the church. Emperor Constantine assembled the First Council of Nicaea in the year 325 A.D. The purpose of the council was two-fold. First, the council was to discuss the teachings of Arius of Alexandria a very popular presbyter in the Alexandrian church. Arius had a problem with the deity of Jesus Christ. Second, Emperor Constantine wanted to mend the growing rift in the church and form a united church front. From this historical gathering The Council of Nicaea was able to produce a theological confession called the Nicene Creed.

The Arian conflict began because of a fundamental difference over the deity of Jesus Christ. The Church had always confessed their belief in God the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ. The church believed that God was divine and therefore Jesus was divine. The act of water baptism was performed in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. This belief spoken of in the Apostles Creed, boldly states, “We believe in God the Father, Almighty . . . and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord.” The church also spoke out against all pagan beliefs.

The Apostle’s Creed appeared to be too much for the Arians, for their interpretation of the deity of Christ was much different than the views of the church. The Arians led by their leader Arius of Alexandria, simply could not get over the “philosophical difficulty that one who is man cannot be also God.” The Arians believe that “Christ can be worship as the begotten Son of God, who became flesh, died and rose again, and who sits at the right hand of the Father.” Arius did everything in his power to try and show the general council that Jesus could not be equal to God. Arius quoted “John 3:15 to show that Jesus was referred as God’s only begotten Son, he also referenced Hebrews 1:5-6 which speaks of Jesus being begotten of God. Finally probably out of frustration Arius stated flatly, Jesus is in no way part God” The Arians just could not support the deity of Christ because if they did it meant that Christ was God. Arius and his followers held firm to their belief that “Jesus the Son of God, was created before the foundation of the world by God; thus Jesus is not eternal, He is but a creature.” Despite the backlash that was coming from the church and its followers the Arians continued to preach their message of heresy. Arius continued to teach to anyone that would listen that “the dignity of being the Son of God was bestowed on Jesus as a gift from the Father; however it is the Father we must worship for He alone is God.” It was because of these teaching that Arius and his followers were excommunicated from the church.

THE PURPOSE OF THE COUNCIL

The 15th chapter of Acts gives a good example of a council coming together to discuss a problem that was causing a division within the church. In the Christian church when “bishops and pastors and other elected leaders of the church assembled together to consider and rule on questions of doctrine, administration, disciple, and other matters,” this group is usually referred to as the general council. The Nicaea general council did not operated on any regular schedule, whenever there was a need to meet the council would assemble. The general council did not react to everything that might have come up within the church. However, “if something was important, the issue found its way into the general council’s meeting.” According to Socrates this “council was convened at the request of Constantine, the current emperor of Rome, because the Christian sovereign hated discord, and he therefore set three tasks that he want to resolve during this gathering.” Constantine officiated the meeting and he told the bishops that were in attendance. “You are the bishops whose jurisdiction is within the church. But I also am the bishop, ordained by God to oversee those outside the church.” The three issues Constantine wanted to resolve were the issue of the deity of Christ, establishing a date for Easter and to bring

4

unity to an already fragile church body. “The assembling of the council was a sign that Christianity had assumed a new mode of government, as well as a new position in the empire.”

CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING THE TRINITY

In John 10:30-Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” According to the Jews, Jesus had just committed blasphemy, and for that, the Jews were ready to stone him. How could Jesus and the Father be one? This question was becoming a headache for Constantine and the general council. To this day the deity of Christ is a hot topic among many in the secular world. There are those who still have a hard time grasping this theory. To the secular world Christ was just “a humble rabbi, or insightful teacher, or just a good man. Others go as far as to insinuate that Jesus was radical, egotistical, or even insane.” However, this growing controversy was more of a theological issue than anything. The relationship between the Father and the Son was the main issue and there was no easy way to explain this unique process. Arius, himself a Christian, now found himself at odds with Bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Arius “did not want to lower the person of God or to refuse him worship, but to defend from the charge of polytheism (many Gods).” It was the concept of many God’s that was keeping Arius and his followers from accepting the deity of Christ. Arius and his followers failed to see the spiritual significant of the Trinity. Which was “God is one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each

5

member of the Trinity is completely God. As part of the Trinity, Jesus Christ who is God the Son is deity. ” “This is the Christian doctrine of the trinity. God in his infinite mercy looked up his finite creatures and knew that they would have a hard time comprehending him and believing in him. So, he revealed himself to everyone in three different aspects.”

THE NICENE CREED

“A Creed, or Rule of Faith, or Symbol is a confession of faith for public use, or a form of words setting forth with authority certain articles of belief, which are regarded by the framers as necessary for salvation, or at least for the well-being of the Christian Church.” The creed may cover the whole area of the Christian doctrine and process, or embrace only such points as believed to be essential and acceptable. Creeds are generally used at baptisms, or used for instructional purposes; they can be more elaborate and theological, for ministers and teachers. Creeds give everyone a chance to speak out with a loud voice what they believe. The Nicene Creed would go on to become one of the most important Christian texts ever to be produced. The Nicene Creeds goes as followsaˆ¦..

“We believe in God the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only- begotten of the Father, that is, begotten of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true, begotten God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance as the Father, through whom all things were made, in heaven and earth; who for us humans and our salvation came down, took flesh, and was made human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.”

6

By citing the Nicene Creed the general council and the followers of the Christian faith were affirming their belief in the deity of Jesus Christ.

THE MEN OF THE COUNCIL

At the invitation of Emperor Constantine three hundred and eighteen bishops assembled for what would become the first official gathering of the Nicaea Council. The council “lasted for two months and twelve days. It was held in the spring of AD 325 in what is now northwest Turkey.” “The church had waited for over “three centuries to officially call its first general council meeting, because Christianity was still officially outlawed.” This moment has been declared the first ecumenical council of the Christian church and “historically it marked the end of early church history and the dawning of the middle Ages.” The Council of Nicaea was held during the first year of the reign of Constantine the Great. Out of all the men in attendance at the council there were few men who stood out.

EMPEROR CONSTANTINE

7

Besides being called Constantine the Great, the emperor was also known as the first Christian Emperor. There have been some debates by historians whether Constantine was even a Christian at all. He was born in Illyria, a region around the Balkans in A.D. 280. His father Constantius Chlorus, was already a Roman official who was moving up the ranks. His mother was Helena, the daughter of an innkeeper. Constantine was in line to become emperor of the western empire by the time he was 31. Spring of 311 Constantine and his army of 40,000 soldiers rode toward Rome to confront an enemy who had four times the men he did. The battle was for supremacy in the west. “While riding into battle it is said that Constantine saw a vision in the sky: a bright cross with the words By This Sign Conquer. Constantine believes that this was a sign from God telling him to take the cross into battle so he ordered his men to mark their shield with the now famous cross which became known as the Chi-Rio ” With renewed hope Constantine was victorious over his enemy. He would enter Rome as the new ruler of the west; Constantine became the first Roman emperor with a cross in his crown. Once Constantine had established himself as emperor “he met Licinius, the ruler of the Balkan provinces, and he issued the now famous Edict of Milan that gave Christians the freedom to worship.” “The reign of Constantine the Great marks the transition of the Christian religion from under persecution by the secular government to union with the same; the beginning of the state-church system.” For fourteen years Christians under the rule of Constantine enjoyed the freedom of worship however Constantine wavered back and forth with his faith, because he was considered a friend of the

8

Christians, and because his Christian convictions grow over the years Constantine now proclaimed himself a Christian. Nevertheless, all good things must come to an end, and it ended with a resounding thud. Controversy had to rear its ugly head around A.D.325. A fundamental issue regarding the deity of Christ was threatening to divide the church, after Constantine had worked so hard to establish unity. To settle the matter Constantine, called together a council of bishops at Nicaea to discuss the matter. Constantine told the bishops that “division in the church is worse than war.”

ATHANASIUS

“Athanasius of Alexandria was born in the last decade of the third century AD and he died in May of 373. He lived during a period where considerable change was happening in the Christian church.” Athanasius grew up in a fatherless home, his mother a very rich woman; was a worshipper of idols. Once Athanasius had become an adult his mother’s desire was that he would marry, Athanasius had no desire to get marry. As with most mothers she continued to press her son to get married even suggesting that he get with a young lady that was a sinner so maybe she would be able to convince to get married. Again Athanasius refused “for the Lord was keeping him for great.” His mother didn’t give up for she found different women to send her son’s way but each time he would refuse them. She finally stopped trying to get him to marry someone after a magician told her that her son might be a Christian. Maybe it was hearing that

9

her son might be a Christian that changed her heart. She immediately took Athanasius to see Alexander, once there she told Alexander everything that she had done to get her son to marry and how he refused. That day Alexander baptized both mother and son. Athanasius lived during the period of pagan worship nevertheless; over time he saw how Christianity was having a major effect on the Roman Empire, mainly due to the conversion of Constantine the Great. While under the rule of Constantine the Roman Empire increased in size, wealth and the Christian church increased in popularity. However, during this time of prosperity for the church there were some significant changes taking place. The fourth century saw the redefining of Christianity, church architecture, liturgy, clerical hierarchies, doctrinal creeds, and the canon of Scripture.” With these changes came some resistant which eventually led to divisions within the church. Through all these changes Athanasius saw himself suddenly being thrust into the spotlight when he became bishop of Alexandria in 328. “It was during his time as Bishop of Alexandria that he would fight for his vision of Christianity, his conception of correct Christian belief and practice, and his leadership of the Egyptian Church.” Athanasius did not know what trouble was until Arius, a presbyter from Libya started to speak out against the deity of Christ. Arius announced, “If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not” The argument caused a fundamental split to rise up within the church. Athanasius spoke out against Arius and his belief, by saying that it would deny the Trinity. Athanasius was not going to stand for this

10

type of heresy; there was no reason to question the deity of Christ. When you see Christ you see God because they are of the same substance. Arius’s view begin to catch on and soon he had followers and soon word got to Constantine about the growing divide in the church. It was at the council that Alexander and Athanasius signed a letter attacking Arius’s statement regarding the deity of Christ. While at the Council of Nicaea, Arius was exiled from the church and it was a major offense if anyone was found in possession of his writing. After few months Arius’s exile was lifted. While everyone was still at the council a statement of faith called The Nicene Creed was written and everyone in attendance agreed to sign the creed even Arius. Athanasius was ordered by Constantine to restore Arius to full fellowship, however Athanasius refused and because of his refusal false rumors started to spread around the empire. These rumors eventually made their way to the emperor and because of the rumor of treason Athanasius was sent into exile. When in exile the Constantine died and Arianism had taken over.

ARIUS

“Arius, the North African priest who gave his name to one of Christianity’s most troublesome schisms, was born ca. 250, apparently in Libya.” He was a pupil of Lucien of Antioch. Under the bishopric of Peter of Alexandria, he was made deacon. However, Arius’s path up the ranks of the Christian ladder was a rocky one. It started off with him being excommunicated for his involved with Melitians (a self-proclaimed movement with no church authority), being restored back to the fellowship by Bishop Achillas of Alexandria and given

11

priestly orders in the church of Baucalis. It appeared that things may have been going well until Arius decided to speak out against Bishop Alexander over the deity of Christ. In deciding to speak out against the theology of the church Arius took to the streets and he started teaching his views to those who would listen. Now the church had just gone through some major transitions, the Christians were no longer being persecuted; they were allowed to worship freely, the emperor himself proclaimed to be a Christian, was considered a friend of the Christians. The church was seeing some of the best times it had ever seen. Well this did not sit well with the Bishop Alexander and he started to speak out against the teaching of Arius. What was Arius teaching that was causing this big of a divide in the church? The church had decided that Jesus and God was one, Arius said this cannot be true because the Son was the begotten Son of God. The debate went on for a while with each side gaining support the longer it went on. “Bishop Alexander enlisted support of various bishops throughout Palestine and Syria. For his part Arius gained the backing of several high-placed churchmen, including Eusebius of Nicomedia.” As the debate grew Arius’s teachings became known as Arianism and his followers became known as Arians. This debate went back and forth until it made it was to the ears of the emperor. A meeting of the general council was called to address this heresy. At the council Arius stated his case and to no avail he was exiled. During the meeting of the council Eusebius of Caesarea, whose name means faithful, attempted to mediate of behalf of Arius. It did not matter because the council had already made its decision and Arius was anathematized. Eusebius was not too happy with this decision and he even had some reservations about signing the statement of faith document that the council had drawn up. In the end Eusebius signed the document because

12

The council said “Peace is the object which we set before us.”

CONCLUSION

It is really amazing how something as trivial as the interpretation of a Scripture can cause so much chaos in the church. The word of God does not produce confusion. Confusion comes about because people refuse to accept the Word as being true. There is nothing wrong with a person having a different view, however when it brings confusion and chaos into the house of God it is wrong. Confusion is what the Emperor Constantine was trying to avoid by assembling together the general council. With prayer, faith and patience the council was able to over this confusion and bring peace once again to the church body

13