| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "NATION GOD": |
|
|
?One Nation under God?, 2004.
This paper discusses the history of the Pledge of Allegiance and the present-day controversy over the phrase, ?under God?.
1,910 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 18 sources, MLA, £ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the original Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1882 by a Christian Socialist Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, stated, ?I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.? The author points out that the phrase, ?under God?, which was added in 1954, has raised questions of its constitutionality because it may violate the concept of separation of church and state. The paper relates that the argument for the pledge revolves around the points that God is not bad for the American people or that supporters do fully concur with the idea of the separation of church and state. Color picture and annotated bibliography included.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Origins
Under God
Constitutionality
Those in Favor
Those Against
Conclusion
Annotated Bibliography
From the Paper
"The original pledge has changed over the years. For example, in 1923 and 1924, against Bellamy?s wishes, the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution changed the words 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' In 1954, the United States Congress added the words 'under God' to the Pledge because of a controversial campaign by the Knights of Columbus better known as the KKK. ?In June of 1954, at the height of the McCarthy hysteria, and at the urging of the Knights of Columbus, an amendment was made to add the words "under God." Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said of the pledge, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and every rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."?
| |
|
Gods Before God, 1999.
A study of the development of monotheism in the Hebrew Bible.
1,944 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Modern Judaism is usually considered a monotheistic religion - it has as its central tenet the belief in only one God, and the denial of the existence of all other gods. However, the Hebrew Bible is not a modern document, and it contains different conceptions of God and his relation to other gods. In places, the Hebrew Bible supports monotheism, but in other places it does not. This paper examines the various conceptions of God and other gods in the Hebrew Bible, how these conceptions changed over time, and the possible influences from sources outside the Israelite tradition, including Egyptian, Canaanite, and Iranian.
Outline:
Origins
Pre-Exile
Exile
Post-Exile
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In the early, pre-exilic period, the Israelites were still forming as a people, and were substantially influenced by Canaanite religion and culture. Yahweh was still a somewhat local deity, tied to the land and the temple. After the destruction of the temple and during the exile, the Israelite religion had to broaden to survive, and God became more transcendent, omnipresent, and monotheistic. The Israelites also had to differentiate themselves from the people they were living among, in order to keep their religion and culture whole. When the exile ended and the temple was rebuilt this movement continued: God became more universal and the Jewish people became more exclusive. The religion has become thoroughly monotheistic, although in late post-exilic times it starts to develop a sense of dualism that was absent earlier, and is a result of Iranian influences (Widengren, 311)."
| |
|
God in Hinduism and Judaism, 2008.
An analysis of the significance of a god or gods in Hinduism and Judaism
1,353 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the significance of gods in two different religions, specifically Hinduism and Judaism. In particular, the paper looks at how the Hindu gods and the Jewish God are extremely significant to members of those religions. The paper consists of sections on both the Hindu and Jewish significance of gods and points out common traits between the way the religions treat gods and the ways in which they differ in their practices. The paper uses MLA style footnotes but does not include a works cited page.
From the Paper
"Hindu religion emphasises a need for release from this world. One of these methods of release is the Bhakti Marga. The Bhakti Marga is a reaction of the common people to the other more intellectual paths to release. It focuses on devotion to the gods, and is a significant part of modern Hinduism. The Hindu gods are not all-powerful immortal beings, and originally the religion was philosophically based, with little emphasis placed on worship of these deities. Over time, worship of the Hindu gods became an avenue for the less intellectually inclined people of India to participate. In developing a justification of worship to the gods, Hinduism became a more practical religion, and this helped secure its own survival in a world where there were many religions to choose from."
| |
|
Kant's Argument Against God, 2002.
An overview of Immanuel Kant's theories of God and his reasoning that God does not exist.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will discuss the Immanuel Kant's theories of God and seek to understand how he succeeded in proving that God does not exist in his world. By evaluating his ideas on morals and other subjects related to his philosophy on God, we can see how he clearly saw the reasoning in finding that a God did not exist for him.
| |
|
The Word of God, 2004.
This paper offers an exploration of the word God and Word of God as treated in the Bible.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer studies the word God and the Word of God. The writer looks at these concepts as they are treated in the Old and New Testaments. In this paper, the writer shows the many differences between the two biblical books including mankind, the Law, sin and redemption.
From the Paper
"The word God and the word of God are often viewed as being radically different in the Old and New Testaments. According to one theologian, 'Understanding the difference between the Old and New Testaments is one of the most important foundations that must be laid to properly understand God's Word'. There are many differences between the Word of God in the Old Testament and the New Testament. For example, mankind had no direct link to God in the Old Testament ... "
| |
|
The Human Need to Believe in God, 2008.
A discussion of why human beings have always needed a god or gods to believe in.
1,908 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the origins of religion and how they may have evolved from a basic human need to believe in something that was meta-physical, divine, and omnipotent. The paper also focuses on the indebtedness - if any - of some of today's prominent religions to other sects which have been lost to the mists of time. Furthermore, this paper explores what purposes myths served in the ancient world and how they benefited ancient societies in ways that other forms of socialization perhaps could not. In the final analysis, the paper suggests that religion may have evolved from more primitive forms of morals and maintains that religion is beneficial to the human species.
From the Paper
"Returning once more to the work of Paul Kurtz, the need for religion is something that all ancient human societies required insofar as it was an ideal (or at least tolerably effective) coping mechanism for dealing with all of the many things early man could not control. For instance, it assuaged the fear of death, gave human beings the comfort of believing that the injustices of this world would be rectified in the next one, was a means by which the tribulations brought about famine, pestilence, terrible weather or warfare could be endured in the hopes of better days to come, and - finally - religion was a palliative that restored hope in instance wherein hope might not be easily revived otherwise. Finally, religion gave early man the faith that the unseen factors shaping the world (for better or for ill) could be propitiated and even brought to serve the needs of the local community (Kurtz, 23)."
| |
|
Greek, Norse and Egyptian Gods, 2002.
This paper discusses the similarities and differences between the Greek, Norse and Egyptian Pantheons --- gods and goddesses.
1,160 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the ?father-creator? God, a ?trickster? God, and a ?love? Goddess of Greek, Norse and Egyptian cultures. The author believes that the ?father-creator? Gods have the most in common: Greek God, Zeus, the Norse God Odin and the Egyptian God Amen-Re. The paper introduces the ?trickster Gods?: Norse God Loki, the Egyptian God Seth, and the Greek God Prometheus. The paper also describes the ?love goddesses?: Egyptian Goddess Hathor, Greek Goddess Aphrodite and Norse Goddess Freya.
From the Paper
"The myths of these gods also referred to the sky. Both Zeus and Odin had palaces high above the mortal world, known as Mt. Olympus and Asgard. These palaces served as meeting places for the gods, and as observation decks. Zeus is often depicted as looking down from Mt. Olympus into the mortal world. Odin also gazed at mortals and gods similarly, from Hlidskialf, his throne in Asgard. Though he did not have a palace in the sky, Amen-Re was referred to as the ?Sun? god. "
| |
|
Gods of Norse Mythology, 2007.
A description of three of the most important gods in Norse mythology.
913 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 22.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the gods Odin, Thor and Loki, and the parts that they played in Norse mythology. The writer explains how Odin, the most important figure and the creator in the Norse pantheon, became known as the Almighty or All-Father, and the wisest of all the gods. Thor, the god of thunder, and his magic hammer and goats, are also described. The writer explains how Loki, originally from a different race, acquired godhood by becoming Odin's blood brother, and eventually caused the downfall of the Aesir gods through his malicious acts. Ragnarokk, the day of reckoning for the gods, is also described.
Outline:
Introduction
Aesir Gods
Thor - The God of Thunder
Loki - The God of the Jotun Race
Ragnarokk - Destiny of the Gods
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In Asgard the land of the gods Thor was good natured, kind and had a beautiful wife named Sif who ripened seeds after Thor's thunder showers. They also had two sons Magni and Modi who were almost as strong as their father. Thor was the strongest of all the gods and also the protector of the gods and also the people on Midgard, he ruled over all the wars on Midgard and chose who would be the winner in each war. He protected the gods and humans by smashing jotuns and trolls with his magic hammer. He also had an iron mitt to protect his hand and a magic belt that made him twice as strong."
| |
|
Of God and Temptation, 2003.
An essay on God and his relation to the concept of temptation. This paper debates whether or not God initiated temptation and, consequently, sin, alluding to the possibility of a malevolent god.
1,313 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay is actually written in a fairly satirical tone, pointing out contradictions in the "infallible" Bible, as well as contradictions in God's allegedly perfect character using Christian rhetoric and quotations from the Bible itself.
From the Paper
"Although Genesis 3:4-5 (?The serpent said to the woman, ?Surely you will not die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.?) tells us that the serpent tempted Eve to eat the apple, isn?t it true that God tempted Adam and Eve first? If there were no Tree of Knowledge for Adam and Eve to be tempted with, then there would be no concept of temptation, no sin, and no damnation. There would also be no malice, no murder, no hatred, no theft, no bigotry, no rape, no war, no crime and nothing else that could even be perceived as a negative action, because if there was no sin, then none of the aforementioned would even exist."
| |
|
Liebniz, Spinoza and the Idea of God, 2008.
A comparison between the views of Benedict Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz concerning the idea of God.
2,575 words (approx. 10.3 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the idea of God posited by Benedict Spinoza with that posited by Gottfried Leibniz. The paper points out that, according to Spinoza, God exists necessarily from its divine nature, inhabiting the world as the world inhabits it. It claims that Leibniz saw the elegance of this utterly rational God, though he also espied a threat that he attempted to displace by defending the traditional anthropomorphic idea of God. Spinoza's God is beyond human, to which the human notions of 'good' and 'evil' do not apply. Leibniz saw in this God no freedom, no agency, and no morality by which man could live. The paper concludes that these two philosophers, arguably the most significant of their day, differed drastically in their views of God's role with regard to the world. While Spinoza's view of a non-human God appeals to humanity to find a liberal and democratic method by which to exist in the world, Leibniz's more traditional view of God involves the reliance upon faith and provides a perfect example upon which humanity must model itself.
From the Paper
"While this eminently rational idea of God possesses an almost geometric elegance, the implications of such a view would greatly disturb Spinoza's contemporaries, Leibniz among them. Since all things follow necessarily from God's nature as substance, determined solely through itself, it follows that things could not be any other way than they are. "Things could not have been produced by God in any manner or in any order different from that which exists." This is an utter rejection of the supreme anthropomorphic father figure, who chooses between right and wrong and lays down laws by which humanity is judged. Good and bad are reduced to human notions relative to our limited experience of the world, completely irrelevant to a universe that functions from the necessary. Morality is seemingly abolished, and God seems too powerless to ever have created anything at all. In fact, freedom to Spinoza is the ability to be determined by nothing other than one's nature, which entails that only God is completely free as the one substance, and to choose to be anything but what he is would be absurd, as what he is, is perfection. "...God alone is a free cause. For God alone exists only from the necessity of his nature and acts from the necessity of his nature." The threat to the theocratic order is explicit here, for while Spinoza's God is necessarily perfect, he is not necessarily good. Following from necessity, what we term 'evil' is as much in God as what we call 'good'. This God is not based on relative human notions or longings: it follows purely from the necessity of reason. Spinoza maintains that he sees God as surely as he can see the truth of a geometric proof: "I know it in the same way that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles." The rejection of ultimate reward and punishment places the onus for morality squarely upon human shoulders; a yoke religion explicitly labors to remove because it is too heavy for most humans to bear and would lead to social chaos. Perhaps Spinoza had such in mind when he penned the last line of his Ethics: "...all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."
| |
|
Truth, Goodness and the Character of God, 2008.
An analysis of the character of God in western culture.
1,375 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 2 sources, APA, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the God of Judeo-Christian culture in terms of the concepts of truth and goodness. The paper points out that this is a critical God, who monitors human thought and activity, rewards good behavior and punishes bad. It also discusses the belief that this omniscient and omnipotent God demands our undivided allegiance. The paper concludes that any inventory of the hard plight of man throughout human history would suggest that either a just God of the type envisioned in Western culture does not exist or that God exists, but not necessarily a God of goodness at all.
Outline:
Introduction
God and Truth
God and Goodness
From the Paper
"However, even in discussing as profound a topic as the character of God, I believe that our beliefs - even concerning God - must be logically consistent. In that regard, the notion that "everything happens for a reason" is not logically consistent. If God is good, and to whatever extent God desires goodness for human beings, God could either choose to remain entirely uninvolved in human affairs or God could choose to intervene on our behalf. If God chooses to remain completely uninvolved in human affairs, then the concept of things happening "for a reason" is nonsensical, because God neither acts nor intervenes on our behalf at all."
| |
|
?Their Eyes Were Watching God?, 2004.
Discusses the metaphorical use of God's voice in this novel by Zora Neale Hurston.
1,200 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 28.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Ironically, Zora Neale Hurston?s novel, "Their Eyes Were Watching God", is about voice more than sight. However, the voice has always been where mankind assumes divinity to exist; the Word of God is an important concept in Western thought. Therefore, it seems logical that the main character in a novel about a person?s search for fulfillment would use both the metaphor of the voice and the presence of God as main concepts. The paper shows that, in this novel, God is not referred to very much, but it is obvious from the title that God is present. God is not actively present, however. Instead, the natural disasters that beset and befall Janie and the others are presented simply as natural parts of God?s world, something to be watched and not ?managed? or even feared. The paper shows how God?s natural world and all its problems simply exist in a neutral way.
From the Paper
"She never finds her ultimate true voice, however, until she has to shoot Tea Cake when he is out of his mind after being bitten by a rabid dog. She must testify at her murder trial, and it is easy for her. Despite her painful loss and her pain at causing Tea Cake?s death, her love for him is obvious and gains her an acquittal from an all-white jury of men. Janie, by then, is no longer a light-skinned, raven-haired beauty who would be attractive to them to account for their decision. Therefore, it must be her voice that secures her release."
| |
|
The Gods of Ancient Egypt, 2008.
An analysis of the human-like features of the Egyptian gods as described in the book "Egyptian Myths" by George Hart.
1,138 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the Gods of Ancient Egypt were not only deities to their worshipers, but also served as a creative manifestation that collectively expressed the different facets of life in Egypt and how the scope of this effect varies from the appearance of each god representing what their responsibilities as a god might be to the human-like qualities and quirks of each god that gave them a more human aesthetic than the Greek and Roman Gods. In particular, the paper looks at how the "Egyptian Myths" is no exception to this rule and spans the breadth of Egyptian life as it touches upon the Egyptians love of beer, the emotions of the gods, the origin of the Egyptian people, the political responsibilities and relations among the gods, the relations of Egypt's gods and people to the land, and the relations of the gods to the people of Egypt.
From the Paper
"In the "Myth of Cataclysm," the gods display overwhelmingly human-like qualities. The most evident of these is emotion and more specifically, emotions related to power. Re's vengeful streak is made apparent as he addresses Nun, the primeval source of life. "In his statement he mentions how mankind emerged from the tears of his eyes... and how they are conspiring against him. He wants to know Nun's opinion before he kills the entire human race." Essentially, Re, the Sun God and the Ruler of Egypt, is considering the punishment of the human race for daring to rebel against him. This kind of retaliatory streak among gods is often perceived as wrath, but what defines this particular instance as vengeance is the emotional context. Re appears to feel betrayed by the humans as he states that they were created from his tears before he asks Nun whether he should kill them or not. The fact that Re consulted Nun about killing the human race also plays to the human qualities of the Egyptian gods. It suggests that Re has doubts about destroying his creation while also hinting that, while he is the King of Egypt and the God of the Sun, he feels indebted to the source of his own genesis, Nun. This same doubt is evident when he rescinds his desire for the destruction of the human race and sends his messenger to warn the humans about another goddess coming to destroy them while offering them a plan so that they might survive. "
| |
|
Descartes' Views On God, 2002.
Examines his ontological argument (a priori) and 'a posteriori demonstration of God's existence.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, £ 21.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
His ontological argument (a priori) and 'a posteriori demonstration of God's existence. Concept of perfection. Proofs of God's existence. Examining the reality of God. Descartes' belief in God the Giver and Creator. Free will of man as proof. Differences between existence of God & essence of God. Flaws in Descartes' reasoning.
From the Paper
"Descartes and God
"More consequences for thought and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic question" (Hutchins 543). It is a fact that, long before Descartes, Man often thought of himself as the supreme being of the Universe, and still obedient to, or believing in, or trusting some superhuman Being called God.
While for millennia, philosophers have debated the idea or ideas of God, Descartes states that "ONE idea alone, becomes the basis for such an inference. He supplements his a priori or ontological argument with what he calls 'a posteriori demonstration of God's existence from the mere idea that God exists in us'" (Hutchins 554). God exists, Descartes writes, because "He possesses every sort of perfection…(and) existence is one of them" "
|
|
|
