Explain Biblical Ideas About the Goodness of God Essay Example for Free

Explain Biblical Ideas About the Goodness of God Essay Throughout the bible the goodness of God is shown in many ways, the bible presents God as being morally perfect, and everything that he is or will ever be is also presented as morally perfect; The Bible presents God as benevolent, an all loving figure. It displays this in a number of ways throughout the Bible, the first and possible the most important way is in the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Genesis states that everything that God creates is â€Å"Very good†; When God created the world in the Genesis creation story he commanded various things. â€Å"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light, and God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness â€Å". (Genesis 1:3-4). The authors of the bible when praising God do so because he provides reason for it. The creation of animals, plants and waters are all necessary for the sustainment of life, and religion, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth and God said, See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. (Genesis 1:28-29). Some Christians believe that there is still goodness like God’s around us today in the form of stewardship. We look after our world to improve it so we can pass it on to the next generation. Another way in which the bible shows Gods goodness is; Christians believe that God’s goodness is shown in his son Jesus, and his sacrifice in the name of God. Jesus came to earth as God in human form, he done this to experience the lives of his people. God thought it was all well and good requesting people to follow rules but because he cares he wanted to experience the lives of his believers and the difficulties they incur so he sent Jesus. Jesus was the ideal of moral goodness for humanity; he displayed the right way in which people should treat each other and how to worship God, and this was recorded and passed onto future generations by it being retold in the bible, even today people can still read it and gain knowledge of Gods sacrifice. The form of good described in the bible is very different from Platos form of good; Platos form of good was perfect and it didnt exist on Earth it existed in the realm, making it a concept and not personal to anyone, Platos form of good doesnt take an interest in situations or in life, it just simply exists, where as the idea of Gods good in the bible focuses almost entirely on moral behaviour. It is concerned that humanity should be making the right choices to life by and always aims to be good. Plato’s form of the good is perfect, but because it doesn’t physically exist what ever goodness is on earth is only of copy of the ideal thus making it imperfect when it is practiced. So whatever you think you are doing is good, it is not. However God believes that everyone can be morally good thus living their lives accordingly. As soon as God creates humans he gives them rules of follow, they are to take responsibility for the earth he has created and not take from the tree of knowledge. This shows that he cares not for worship being their main duty, but he takes an interest in their lives. Gods goodness is also shown through his love in the bible, God gives humans free will, to make their own moral decisions but he clearly sets out what is right and what is wrong. However he doesn’t force them into obeying those rules, he is loving and lets them choose for themselves, this is an act of love. He knows that because he has made man in his image (Genesis 1:27) they are like God and they know what is expected of them. Even thought they haven’t been socialised they still know what is morally right. Plato would agree with this statement because he believes we all have knowledge of ideal forms from birth. God commands things to be good because he is omniscient and knows all. So everything that he commands will be perfect, good and loving.

Classical Liberalism VS Classical Conservatism Essay -- American Gover

Are you Republican or Democrat? Maybe you are Conservative or Liberal? What do these terms mean and how did they begin? Classical Conservatism is defined as â€Å"a political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order.†(Frohnen, Beer, and Nelson, 2006) Classical Liberalism is described as â€Å"a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.† (Hudelson, 1999) These two ideas have shaped our philosophies and parties for centuries to come. These philosophies were made possible by many bright men of the time like Edmund Burke, John Adams, John Locke and Adam Smith. Classical conservatism or traditional conservatism, Burkean conservatism, and Toryism, is a party that has re-expressed their convections to fit the time. (Frohnen, Beer, and Nelson, 2006) In classical conservatism, many parties have adapted their view points. One of the first parties in American that adapted the philosophies of conservatism was the Whigs. The Whigs opposed monarchial power, advocated internal reform of administration, and freedom under the law. They believed in balancing orders in the common wealth and religious toleration. (Kirk, 1953) One person highly recognized for his work in the public sector for conservatism was Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke was born January 12, 1729 in Dublin, Ireland, and died July 9, 1797 in Beaconsfield, England. (Lock, 1999) During his sixty-eight years, he was a very smart and good man; He was an Irish statesman, author, orator, and political theorist and philosopher. Edmund Burke was known for supporting the American Revolution but opposing the Fr... ...ssical conservatives are scared of it, but they do know that is needed with some restrictions, or as modern liberals would say, â€Å"safety nets, lots and lots of safety nets.† Classical liberals love the free market system because of what it can do for the economy and society. Classical liberalism and classical conservatism are closely based as seen by Edmund Burke who was admired for his political philosophies from both classical liberalism and classical conservatism. Yet, with any group of people, not everyone is going to agree, and parties form even if it over a small issue. Consider the christian faith, there are many different denominations because of the beliefs in minor doctrine, but they all believe that Jesus is the Son of God, like the classical liberals and classical conservatives believe in the Constitution. So, what party are you in?

Differences Between Laptop and Netbook

What are the Difference between Laptop and Netbook? So what is the difference between laptop and netbook? A laptop (also called a notebook) is computer which has been designed to be made portable, featuring a screen hinged to a keyboard. A laptop includes a battery for portable power and a touchpad instead of a mouse for input. Mini laptops (also called a netbook, subnotebook or ultraportables) take these ideas further still, creating a new market above handheld computers, smartphones and personal digital assistants.The primary characteristic of these are smaller size and weight, which are pretty similar to the average diary, as well as costing less than a standard laptop with prices starting at around ? 150, an excellent solution during the credit crunch! Mini laptops aren't as powerful as bigger notebook computers, and lack the power for big, demanding programs as well as an optical disc drive – so no CDs or DVDs. None the less, connectivity is a central focus for netbooks. Internet downloads are quickly catching up on hard media products, so perhaps it's not such a loss.In short, the difference between laptop and netbook is a netbook is smaller, lighter, cheaper (on the whole) and simpler. New mini laptops are expected to sell in the region of 5. 2 million units by the end of 2008, 8 million during 2009 and up to 50 million by 2012 – a ten fold growth. Industry analysts are torn whether or not subnotebooks will cannibalize the laptop market, some suggesting that a mere 10% market share will be taken. However, in this economic downturn, people will always look for cheaper products and with mini laptops available from ? 150-200, perhaps there is a big market after all.So is it game over for the standard laptop and pc? Unlikely; whilst mini laptops can perform dozens of tasks to identical or similar standard of larger computers, they will (for the time being) be limited by battery size, processing power and storage space, the difference between la ptop and netbook is pronounced enough not to make the former obsolete. Furthermore, when using a computer over a prolonged period of time, it would make sense to use a bigger screen and a faster processor of a desktop replacement laptop or a PC, particularly for demanding programs' such as games.And finally, similarly priced but laptops, of varying quality, are available for around ? 200-300 leading some industry analysts to believe that the consumer focus will be on functionality and not merely size and weight. At the opposite end of the spectrum, mobile phone manufacturers and providers are tapping into the netbook market with the Samsung NC10, LG X110 and Carphone Warehouse launching the Webbook – a branded laptop made by Elonex. Vodafone has linked arms with Dell with its Inspiron Mini 9, offering 3G mobile broadband contracts. Orange have followed suit with by cosying up with Asus and the Eee PC 901.

The construction of Alexander the Greats Reputation - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1367 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2019/04/16 Category History Essay Level High school Tags: Alexander The Great Essay Did you like this example? A great body of myths, legends, and historical facts about a person have always been accepted in the written or oral tradition. This is the way people understood historic figures. For some of the chief peoples of the world like those of the Near East and of ancient Europe, the attempts to particularly distinguish between legends and historical fact have been a long and hard. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The construction of Alexander the Greats Reputation" essay for you Create order According to (Stoneman, 1991), it is not only legends that must be separated from historical events and conditions, but also myths and a peoples mythology. This is true in the case of Alexander the Greats mythology, which has been supported for political and military purposes. The historic interpretation of this famous figure is reflected in the understanding of the Macedonian and the Midetteranian cultures whose social and cultural development was highly affected by various degrees of confusion in this whole image of myth and historical data, (Stoneman, 1994). Alexander the Great (356â€Å"323 B.C.) is considered the greatest military genius of the ancient world. He conquered countries from Greece to Egypt and through Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. He succeeded in building a kingdom and at the same time expanding it. Alexander spent thirteen years of his reign working to unite East and West through military campaigns and cultural exchange. Alexanders reputation grew so quickly that by the time of his death at age 32 he was seen as having divine aspects. This is why historians mentioned that it isnt easy to separate fact and myth from the stories told about Alexander over the centuries, (S? ©lincourt, 1997). Green, (1991) mentions that those familiar with the Greek and Roman literature know how full it is with allusions to myths and legends. Readers of the biography of Alexander the Great realize how saturated with shadows, and even mirages of tradition it is. Plutarch, a Greek writer who wrote about the lives of great Roman and Greek figures in history, wrote about Alexander the Great. Plutarch lived four centuries after Alexander died. He discussed the earlier years of the Macedonian conqueror. The first aspect he described were the legends about Alexanders birth and his divine ancestry. According to the legend, Alexanders mother Olympias dreamed that her womb was struck by lightning on the day she married Alexanders father, Philip II. Waterfield (1998) mentions that also his father had a dream in which he secured his wifes womb with a lions image. Plutarchs interpretations for these dreams were that Zeus was the father of Alexander. Another legend Plutarch mentioned is that because Ol ympias was accompanied by a serpent lying by her side, Philip II believed that Olympias was the partner of a superior being. Ancient sources differ in their opinion about these legends, but some state that Alexanders mother told him all the time about his divine parentage. Macedonian coins which were made during Alexanders reign illustrate this legend. This indicates that Alexander the Great believed or at least valued these legends enough to implement them in such a way. These legends made use of religious mythology,(Waterfield, 1998). Cartledge (2004) points that these legends about Alexanders divine parentage were not considered strange in the time of Ancient Greece and Macedonia. There were so many examples in history where a king or any member of the ruling family claimed to have a divine father. Because the Greek and Macedonians had multiple gods, it was not difficult to do so. Greek and Macedonian religion was not a one-god religion, so there was enough room for nobles to make such claims. This had an effect on the way Alexander saw himself and the way he was viewed and treated by people. This is so evident when we see coins from the Alexandrian period. Also, Alexanders helmet was ornamented with the picture of a snake. Additionally, His mother believed he was descendent from Achilles and Alexander also adopted the Persian customs that implied his superiority over his companions, (Cartledge, 2004). According to Bosworth (1988), the reception of the myth of Alexander the Great in during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in particular, was shown in the medieval art and history. In art, Alexander was shown as a legendary, almost fairy-tale, figure and in the historical image, he was shown as a model of virtues and military courage. In the corpus known as the Alexander Romance, Alexander was described as a fabled explorer and knight, (p.67) whose wonderful battles were popular not only in the literary tradition but also in the visual arts. At the mid-fifteenth century, the cultural setting changed due to the rise of humanism. This medieval perception was replaced by a different image of Alexander, based on the ancient historical facts written by Plutarch, Curtius Rufus, and Arrian,. Briant (1996) points out that the most important factor in Alexanders reputation was his military power. When Alexander succeeded his father to the throne of Macedonia, he began to expand the Macedonian empire by launching wars. An important part of establishing Alexanders achievements as a conqueror was the role his behavior played in his military success. The behavior Alexander showed when he launched a war was something old books and most historians agree on. He was able to use his reputation awarded to him as the son of a god. However, historians do not deny that his intelligence made it possible to achieve his goals in the battlefield. In wars, he fought with both intelligence and tactics, which made it possible for him to flourish. Arrian, the great historian, describes Alexanders as an exceptional person. In the eyes of this author, he could clearly do no wrong. He sees Alexander as a clever hero who had control over every aspect of himself with a brave self and that he was a king with a lot of integrity. In fact, historic facts show a quite opposite image. However, Arrian only writes about Alexanders success and does not aspects like how he socialized with people. For instance, Arrian claims that Alexander was secure from being entrapped by sly opponents. In contrast, historical facts showed that an attempt to kill him failed because of a mistake made by the assassin. Arrian excuses the mistakes made by Alexander and he gives external reasons that explain his wrongful behavior. Even when he described a behavior that was against Macedonian and Greek civilizations, he does not blame Alexander for it, but blames factors that were outside his control, (Worthington, 2003). Worthington (2003) mentions examples from Arrians description. Arrian wrote that Alexanders angry battles and his adoption of Persian customs are due to his subjects disapproval of his strategies due to his youth. He even praises Alexander because he repented his mistakes and thinks that his wrong actions were aimed at ensuring the obedience of his subjects. He describes Alexanders attempt to deify (p. 84) himself as a strategy to win his subjects in a clever manner. These aspects of Alexanders personality show that Arrian twists these mistakes and describe them as either a clever tactic or excusable since he is seen to be vexed at his former errors,(p.86). The way Arrian defines Alexanders mistakes and shortcomings that lie beyond his control can be attributed to the fact that Arrian lived in the Roman Empire in the first century. He lived in the time of the first Emperors who began to cast divine parenthood on themselves and that practice was so normal then. He adds while this is normal of rulers in the Hellenistic age as they enjoyed absolute power, it is considered a peculiar behaviour in todays perceptions, even if the consulted ancient sources do not condemn this behavior, (Worthington, 2003). In conclusion, the ancient sources were collectively positive about Alexander the Great, however it is difficult to find objectivity within these writings. Because of Alexanders great military successes, the result is that the ancient authors of the books describing Alexanders life, personality and his campaigns believed that he was a great military leader without condemning his wrong doings or behavior. The most reliable sources were written in the first and second centuries AD and as it is said: history is written by the victorious. However, historians were always able to draw their own conclusions when analyzing the way in which the authors interpreted the life of this historic figure.