View allAll Photos Tagged him
Read all about him in Figure of the Day: figureoftheday.blogspot.com/2010/10/star-wars-figure-of-d...
So after having him on layaway for over two months, my adorable little Puff arrived on my doorstep today :'] He is the perfect remedy for my school finals stresses D:
His name is Dustin, and he is a little Prince from the Renaissance times. I am not sure where he is from yet, I was leaning towards France this whole time but I'm still not 100% sure.
After a trip to the dentist and waiting impatiently at home for my sisters to get home, I finally opened him up!
He is SO adorable, I simply melt whenever I see those puffy little cheeks! No wonder he is called Puff ! XD
Surya Sinha has a treasure of thoughts. His ideas place him in the category of a philosopher besides a thinker. Anyone who follows his ideas is bound to scale great heights in life much beyond his imagination.
Foundation of success is a man's optimism. If he is full of hope and positivism then he can do all that which other might just be contemplating. He can attain what others might be just dreaming.
Surya Sinha is an embodiment of this philosophy. Because of his faith in life, he has been able to achieve those goals that he never even thought he can achieve. Today he is at such a height that society looks up to him for inspiration. His coaching takes one to newer heights of success. Even his books have helped people achieve great success. He is one of the international bestsellers.
Surya Sinha is an Indian Best-selling Author, Corporate Trainer, Keynote & motivational Speaker, Life Coach, Consultant, Management Guru, An Entrepreneur, A visionary, communication expert, Educator, Motivator, Public speaker, social activist, author of the books "Apni Yaddashat Kaise Badhayen, Lok Vayavhar,Why Network Marketing, Learn to say I Love You, Network Marketing Sawaal Aapke Jawab Surya Sinha Ke, Kaise Payen Safalta Network Marketing Mein, Jeevan Ke Prerak, Chubhtey kadvey pravachan, A Guide To Network Marketing , Complete Personality Development Course, Kahaniyon Ki Aawaz, Aao Bane Safal Vakta, How To get Success In Network Marketing Bussiness & Boost Your Brain Power" & audio cassettes on "Motivational, Goal Setting, Time Management, Leadership & Winning Strategy" and has more than 18 years of experience of Media , Films, Theatre and performing arts in the national and International arena.
He is a well-known figure in Bangladesh, Mauritius, Nepal, Singapore, Bangkok, Canada, Thailand and in India. He is the ultimate inspirer. That is why he is sought after by a number of leading institutions to guide and train their employees.
Taken at the Cleveland Botanical Gardens in Ohio. This little guy was posing for every. I also took one of him balancing on a stick in the pond, but it didn't turn out.
COL Scott Himes relinquished command of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, to COL Paul Larson, May 9, 2018. Prior to the ceremony, COL Himes and CSM Fortenberry were awarded the Order of Saint Maurice. Anjoleen Himes and Lorna Forenberry were awarded the Shield of Sparta.
#CommandoChangeofCommand
#2018CommandoChangeofCommand
One of the few photos of him taken by a Western journalist, I'm told.
Stalin Museum - Gori, Georgia.
Losie NYC/NJ FMR:
Him/Disturbed/Bloodsimple Listening Party at Hot Topic!
The counters of Hot Topic with a Bloodsimple and HIM poster and a HIM flat. Above the counters, free swag for everyon which included HIM/Disturbed/Bloodsimple stickers and our Triple Threat cd sampler
In Him alone is our hope
In Him alone is our strength
In Him alone are we justified
In Him alone are we saved
What have we to offer
That does not fade or wither
Can the world ever satisfy
The emptiness in our hearts
In vain we deny
When will you cease running
In search of hollow meaning
Let His love feed the hunger
In your soul till it overflows
With joy you yearn to know
In Him alone is our hope
Unto Him I pour out my heart
He alone will save me
With His love and mercy.
Relic under my family custody
More miraculous stories in the life of Saint Padre Pio
(This article is a continuation of miraculous stories in the life of St Padre Pio. Part 1 which is entitled "Little known stories in the life of St Padre Pio" can be found here.
I would like to sincerely thank Brother Michael of the Cross and also Thomas Warner M.D. for transcribing these stories. -Webmaster)
The cure of Gaspare di Prazzo, Cianciana, Agrigento
Mr. Gaspare di Prazzo had a case of Mediterranean Fever which had become very serious. A woman, Signora Vacarro, knew of Padre Pio and recommended the patient invoke Padre Pio's help for a cure and Signora Vacarro gave Gaspare a picture of Padre Pio to use while invoking his intercession. Upon receiving the photo, the patient kissed the photograph of Padre Pio and begged him to cure him.
A few days passed when one evening at 6pm the patient said to his wife: "Put someone at the door and don't let anyone in, because Padre Pio is coming, and I don't want to be seen by anyone.'
The wife nodded assent and assured him that their nephew was already near the door.
Later that night, at eleven o'clock, when all were in bed and only his wife was sitting up by the patient's bedside, and the patient had a significant fever he said to his wife: 'Put out the light because Padre Pio is about to come, and I don't want to be seen by anyone, not even by you.'
His wife obeyed and put out the light. All of a sudden the patient began to speak, very joyfully: "Oh! Padre Pio, are you here to heal me? I thank you. Pass your hand from my head to my feet. I cannot go on anymore and I do not want to leave my wife a widow...'
The patient felt Padre Pio near his bed. He passed his stigmatized hand over all his body. His wife saw nobody, but understood that Padre Pio was beside her beloved spouse, and trembling in a corner of the room on her knees, weeping she also prayed to Padre Pio: ' As you have come, Padre Pio, ask Our Lord for the grace of my husband's cure.'
After a few minutes, the wife asked her husband if she could put on the light, and the patient replied: 'No, because Padre Pio has not gone out yet, he is still by my bedside.'
Another ten minutes passed, then the husband told his wife to put on the light, because Padre Pio was gone. After putting on the light, his sister and Dr. Giannone came around the bed of the patient, whose eyes were shining, and who was emitting deep sighs. He said he felt better, and then told them the following:
"A little while ago I found myself in a beautiful church, where Padre Pio was celebrating Mass, and I was on my knees . I saw the Holy Ghost in the beautiful form of a dove above the altar. After Mass, I drew closer to him, and he said to me: 'Have faith in God. But you must go to confession and you must not swear any more.' Being thirsty, I asked Padre Pio for water, and he accompanied me to a cistern. I filled a bottle with lovely fresh water; groaning with pain I drank it in one draught, burning with fever. As soon as I had drunk the water I smelt perfume which resembled the smell of vanilla. Then Padre Pio went away."
After this account the patient repeated that he felt better. The cousin,a medical physician, examined him an noted a very significant change: the fever had already diminished, and by the next morning he was without any, and the fever never returned. Early that next morning Signora Vacarro went to visit him - the reader will recall that it was she who lent him the photograph of Padre Pio - and joyfully upon seeing him she said:
"The grace has been given! I dreamt of Padre Pio last night and he said to me: 'The grace has been given.'"
-and truly the grace had been obtained, for a few days afterwards the patient got up cured and went to church to thank Our Lord. Later he had a solemn day of the Blessed Eucharist celebrated in the Church of the Liguorini, where he confessed and received Holy Communion, after having been away from the Sacraments for ten years. From then on Signor Piazzi has never swore again and he is very grateful to Padre Pio, whose photograph he always carries about with him."
Cure of a diabetic through a vision of Padre Pio
On Corpus Christi, June 20, 1946, at about 6pm a nun named Lucia was suffering from severe diabetes and because of this was impelled to drank quarts of water for relief. Suddenly however she no longer felt the need to drink water and she called the Mother Superior. She said she must now go to the chapel to pray.
Nevertheless, the Mother Superior asked the sister to bring along a glass of water. The Mother Superior had a presentiment that it was the beginning of the end. Lucia told her with a happy smille: "I will die soon, Mother, Padre Pio came to see me. He was just like picture on the bureau. He said I could not be cured (i.e. by the doctors). But he also told me to hope, and to have faith in the help of Heaven.
Evidently, from the succession of events we will read below, Lucia has initially misunderstood Padre Pio. Two sisters assisted her to the chapel. She did not ask for water, and even refused when offered the glass that had been taken along. It was now already a quarter of an hour since she had taken anything to drink. After finishing her prayers she was brought back to her little room as it appeared that she was fainting. The chaplain was called and a drinking tube was put into her mouth, but she immediately pushed it away. Suddenly she opened her eyes with a strange smile on her lips. She sat up in her bed and gesticulated joyously, saying Padre Pio had just told her in the name of God: "You are cured. Get up! Come immediately to my monastery. I want to bless you and thank the Almighty with you." Lucia went to the monastery with two of the sisters on June 17. When they appeared before Padre Pio, he said with a smile: "I was waiting for you," and he blessed her.
__________________
A spiritual grace, Porto Maurizio, September 11, 1940
A gentleman from Porto Maurizio writes:
"No matter how much I say with regard to the graces received through Padre Pio, I could not say enough, for he procured me a great number, and continued to do so. When I saw Padre Pio for the first time, it seemed to me like a dream, and my heart leapt for joy.
"I assisted at the Mass he celebrated with saintly ardor. I was also fortunate enough to see him at close range, for I was kneeling at the side of the altar; large drops of tears fell from his eyes ... in that instant I repented of my sins and implored forgiveness for myself and for all mankind. At the Consecration, I was doubly wrapped in prayer, and at the Elevation of the Host I looked up with faith, and to my astonishment it appeared radiant and beautiful. I said nothing about it to anyone that day, but the following day I went to the confessional of the Padre and I said, 'Father,the Host consecrated by you does not look the same as the others.' 'What,' he said, 'is there something special about mine?' 'Yes, I replied, 'the Host of every other priest looks ordinary, and there is a crucifix in the center, while yours appears beautiful and radiant.' he did not reply, so I continued, "Tell me Father, is this so, or is it an illusion?' Entering into a state of recollection within himself, he replied with gravity, 'What you saw in fact was true.'
________________
Padre Pio predicts a boy to a childless couple, and later baptizes the baby under miraculous circumstances
A couple from Genoa visited Padre Pio to tell him they had no children. "Bring him to me to be baptized when he is born," was his answer. He could often foretell the sex of an unborn child.
The following year the fortunate couple returned to the monastery Church with their new baby boy, but in the Church of Our Lady of Graces there was such a large crowd that it was impossible to reach Padre Pio who was hearing confessions and then reciting the evening prayers . The mother remained in the parish house of San Giovanni Rotundo one mile away, whilst the father went to the monastery to talk to Padre Pio's fellow priests, telling them that Padre Pio had invited them to come there and that they were to meet with him; hoping to try to arrange a meeting with him in the next few days. Since by then it was getting quite late, he was told to come back in the morning. So, he returned to his wife at the parish house and when he arrived his wife informed him that Padre Pio had come to baptise the baby earlier in the evening. "But how is that possible!" he replied, because at the time specified Padre Pio was without a doubt in the Church reciting the evening prayers and hearing confessions of the many people assembled there.
_________________
A woman is revived from a coma
On July 20, 1921, a Monsignor D'Indico of Florence, whom this author [Fr. Charles Carty] met in 1923 when studying theology at the Archbishop's Seminary in Florence, was alone in his study. He felt the sensation of having someone at his back. He turned and saw a monk, who disappeared. He left his room to tell a chaplain what happened. The chaplain thought it was mere hallucination due to his state of anxiety over his sister, who was very ill. He invited him to take a short walk for mental distraction. When they returned they went to see his sister in her sick room. His sister, who a little before had been in state of coma, at the same hour when her brother felt the sensation of being in the presence of Padre Pio, told how she had seen a monk enter her room who approached her and said : "Don't be afraid; tomorrow your fever will disappear, and after a few days there will be no trace of your illness in your body." But, Padre, she answered, "are you then a saint?" "No, I am simply a creature who serves the Lord through His mercies."
"Let me kiss your habit, Padre."
"Kiss the sign of the Passion," and he showed his hands transfixed and bleeding.
"Padre, I recommend to you my husband and child."
"Pray, pray that you will be good, and be assured that your child will be under my protection," and blessing her, he vanished.
She immediately got better and in eight days was entirely cured.
____________________
Fr. Antonio narrates that during the war in Africa an Italian soldier was standing behind a large rock, while a fierce battle was going on. Suddenly a monk stood beside him and pulled him gently by the sleeve, saying he should get out form behind the rock. The soldier did not want to leave what he thought was a safe place. The monk pulled a second time, and was more emphatic. he did not move. Then the monk pulled him out by force. Right after that the entire place where the soldier had been standing blew up. The monk disappeared. Some days after as he was relating this to a fellow soldier, the companion showed him a picture of Padre Pio which he always carried with him. The soldier whose life had been saved exclaimed: "Why, that is definitely the monk who saved my life!"
Prior to this he had never seen Padre Pio or heard of him before.
_____________________
The Church approved miracle for the canonisation of Padre Pio
January 20th , 2000, was a regular school day for seven years old Matteo Pio Colella of San Giovanni Rotondo until he started to shiver and develop a fever. He was brought home weak and vomiting. That he evening he was progressively worse with the development of bleeding into and necrosis of his skin. In the modern hospital of San Giovanni Rotondo (Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza ) he was found to have clots in his blood vessels, signs of kidney and liver failure and hyperacute meningitis with septicaemia : an extremely serious condition, which by next morning, had rapidly affected all organ systems with septic shock, respiratory failure, cyanosis, a heart rate of 20 , dilated pupils and cardiac arrest. Despite therapy, the prognosis for survival was hopeless. Meanwhile, prayers for his recovery were being offered by many through the intercession of Padre Pio. By mid-day, despite the most morbid prognostication, he showed signs of improvement. Even with a persistent lung problem he made great progress within ten days. In a few weeks recovery was complete.
The mortality from his illness ---fulminant meningitis with acute respiratory distress syndrome and multi-organ (nine organ systems) failure ---- is 100 percent. His recovery was medically inexplicable and was declared a miracle by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in the presence of Pope John Paul II.
An unusual visitor
While asleep, Matteo said that he was unable to pray to Padre Pio but started to do so, on awakening. “As soon as I awoke, I put out my hand searching for another hand saying: I want Padre Pio “. However during his ‘sleep’ he was not alone but was visited by an old man with a white beard and a long brown garment. This man, smiling, gave him his hand and said “Matteo don’t be worried you will soon be healed “. Beside this man he saw three angels, one dressed in white with green wings and two in red with white wings; their faces were not clear because of their brilliance. Another day afterwards, he told his uncle Giovanni that the very night he was healed there was a child with green eyes and black hair, lying rigid, on a little bed in a hospital in Rome. Subsequently he related the dream to his mother who asked: “How did you get to Rome? “. Matteo told her that he made a kind of flight with Padre Pio who held him by the hand and who spoke to him interiorly; when they arrived Padre Pio asked: “Do you want to be healed ? And Matteo replied “How will that happen? “ “Will it with prayer”.
Then his mother asked: “How did you know you were in Rome? “ Matteo recognized Luna Park ( a theme park ) which he had visited with uncle Giovanni! In conclusion, Matteo said “I was healed by Padre Pio“
Matteo was present in Saint Peter’s Square for the canonization of Padre Pio (June 16th, 2002 ) and at this Mass he made his First Holy Communion. Incidentally, Matteo has green eyes and black hair.
Finally, as if to remind us of an unusual ‘event’ in the Saint’s life, the official missal for the occasion had on the cover an icon depicting Jesus Christ crucified with Saint Francis beneath one arm of the Cross and Padre Pio beneath the other. This ‘event’, to be described briefly, was reported by Fr. Alberto D’Apolito, a friend of Padre Pio’s.
Jacopa and the Third Order
Giovanna Rizzani Boschi, a shy lady from Udine, became a spiritual daughter of Padre Pio in 1923. In 1905, while her father lay dying her mother gave birth to Giovanna in their courtyard where, during labour, she thought she saw a Capuchin friar. Meanwhile , in 1905, as a seminarian in the Capuchin friary Padre Pio wrote about a similar incident in which he found himself in a nobleman’s home during the birth of a child as her father was dying. The Virgin Mary appeared to Padre Pio and said: “I am entrusting this child to you --- she will seek you out --- but first you will meet her in St. Peter’s.
The Boschi family moved to Rome in 1922. One afternoon Giovanna visited St. Peter’s where she discussed doubts about her faith in a confessional with a Capuchin friar. She waited for this “gifted man “ before the Basilica was closed to arrange a further meeting. The sacristan showed her that the confessional was empty; he had vanished. Later, she heard about Padre Pio for the first time and decided she must meet him and arranged a trip to San Giovanni Rotondo. While Padre Pio was passing through a large crowd he stopped in front of her and said: “Giovanna, I know you. You were born the day your father died.” And he continued to reveal details of her birth and her visit to St. Peter’s. On a later visit he asked her to join the Franciscian Third Order, giving her the name Jacopa which she didn’t like. But he insisted, saying that a noble Roman woman called Jacopa was present at the death of St. Francis of Assisi. “One day you will be present at my death”.
In September 1968, the anniversary of the stigmata, Giovanna heard his voice calling her to San Giovanni because he was going away. She arrived and went to confession. After Mass, on September 22nd, Padre Pio became ill, but not seriously. That night, either in a dream or a vision, she found herself in Padre Pio’s cell where he lay dying, surrounded by friars and two doctors. She woke up and cried out to her friend that Padre Pio was dying. She got dressed and outside the monastery was told by a friar that Padre Pio was dead. Later, she related the strange events to Fr. Alberto D’Apolito and described in detail the interior of Padre Pio’s room (which before his death had never been photographed). He agreed with her description.
Indeed, in 1209, when St. Francis travelled to Rome to submit the rule of his new order to Pope Innocent III, he was supported by a Roman noblewoman called Jacopa de Settesoli. Subsequently she followed St. Francis’ life of austerity and was probably the inspiration for the founding of the Third Order of St. Francis. Jacopa was present at the death of St. Francis in Assisi. She died in Assisi in 1239 where her remains were placed in the “Saint’s Crypt“ bearing the inscription : HIC REQUIESCIT IACOPA SANCTA NOBLISQUE ROMANA
Beatification-Canonisation
Patience is a virtue and a virtue that was recognized as such by the devotees, prayer groups and spiritual children of Padre Pio. Even though the cause for canonization could have been initiated in 1973, ten more years elapsed before the complex process of beatification would begin with anihil obstat in 1982. In December 1997 the Decree of heroic virtue was promulgated in the presence of Pope John Paul II. The Servant of God was now Venerable. The medical board of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints examined a miracle attributed to the intercession of Padre Pio and the Decree on the miracle was promulgated again in the presence of the Pope in December 1998. His beatification by the Pope followed on May 2nd.1999 in the presence of a huge crowd.
Pope John Paul met Padre Pio in 1947, confessed to him and attended his Mass. This made a lasting impression on Fr. Wojtyla who recalled that Padre Pio “physically suffered “during the Eucharistic celebration. Also, in 1962 Bishop Wojtyla wrote to Padre Pio asking for his prayers for a friend who had advanced cancer. The malignancy disappeared the day before scheduled surgery.
There was no shortage of miracles during the life of “the man of prayer and suffering”, as Pope Paul VI called him. However, only those miracles occurring after death are considered for beatification with another, following that, for canonization. Again, the canonical documents were sent from the diocese of Manfredonia-Vieste to the Congregation and the medical testimony from Matteo’s cure was examined. In December 2000 the Theological Consultors met, followed by the Session of Cardinals and Bishops. Finally, the Decree of miracle and subsequently the Decree of Canonization were promulgated in the presence of Pope John Paul II.
Piazza San Pietro was packed for Mass on Sunday, June 16th. 2002. A large tapestry with the image of Padre Pio hung over the main door of the Basilica. No doubt many of his followers and spiritual children were ecstatic. The introduction included prayers, hymns and readings from Padre Pio’s writings. The choir sang the “Canto d’ingresso” followed by Psalm 97. Then the Pope recited a beautiful prayer in Italian, beginning with: “My dear brothers and sisters, today the Church inscribes the name of Blessed Padre Pio of Pietrelcina in the Register of the Saints---“,followed by the Miserere nostri ---. The Litany of the Saints preceded the Rite of Canonization with the Formula solemnly read in Latin by the Pope “ --- Beatum Pium a Pietrelcina Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus, ac Sanctorum Catalogo adscribimus ----“. “In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti”. Amen.
Padre Pio's feast day falls on September 23rd, the anniversary of his holy death.
References:
1. San Pio da Pietrelcina: Gerardo di Flumeri & Luciano Lotti; Frati Minori Cappuccin,Provincia di “Sant’ Angelo e Padre Pio”.
2. "Padre Pio, Man of Hope" Renzo Allegri; Servant Publications, Ann Arbor, MI.
3. "Witness to Hope" George Weigel; Harper Collins, New York.
4. "Padre Pio, The Stigmatist". Fr. Charles Mortimer Carty. Tan Books.
Shade: so what are we doing here?
Wayne: I don’t know. We were just called to meet here? Why am I stuck with you?
Me: Hi guys! Are you ready for an interview?
Shade: Wait, wait, what? I just remembered I had to go do something so see ya! ;)
Wayne: ( snatches Shade’s arm and yanks him back down) You are not leaving. Now sit still like a normal person
Shade: Who said I was normal?
Me: Ok, let us begin.
1. What was your childhood like?
Wayne: Not very fun to say the least. My parents and little sister were murdered in a robbery. I was blearily able to grab my little brother Sade and stash us behind some stuff under the bunk bed. the two of us survived and took refuge in a orphanage for several years. one day a family was interested in Sade, but only wanted 1 child. when they said that we were brothers, Sade rebuked them saying that was all a mistake and that we were "Not" related. (even though i was the one who looked after him all these years) Well he got adopted so that was that. I haven't seen him since, and I still have yet to decide if i even want to or not. Later on I grew up in a foster home and had to sleep in a garage.
Shade: I think it was normal. I just had fun with my best friend Ashers and annoyed his sister Kaela.
Wayne: You know he doesn’t like to be called Ashers
Shade: I know. I just like to annoy him since he annoys me ALL the time. -_-
Me: I love you two. XD Next question.
2. If you could go back in time and change one thing, what would it be?
Wayne: I am not big on holding any regrets. What is done is done and you can’t change it.
Shade: Dating Jasper!! That was absolutely the worst and I mean worse chose I ever made!! All you guys out there DONT date her!!
Wayne: it is only because you broke up her dated her best friend, got back together and broke up with her again. I am not even that stupid.
Shade: Says the guy who lives alone.
Wayne: oh you be quiet.
Me: hey, we have an interview remember.
Wayne: yeah Shade behave yourself.
Shade: What did I do?
Me: can we please continue with this?
3. How much do you weigh?
Shade: 145, yeah not too much. I a little skinny.
Wayne: Actually a just 192. and I’m not a fat person. I’ve always been tall and had a big bone structure. I still try to work out as close as I did into the army, unlike some of the others I know in the police force.
4. Have you ever loved and lost? I'll bet it was your fault, wasn't it? Tsk tsk...
Wayne: Maybe yes because I never asked? It just feels kind of awkward
Shade: He means Jade. XD
Wayne: Shut up!
Shade: They met and Ash and Amber’s wedding and they just talked and talked…
Wayne: Do you want me to honestly hurt you!
Shade: No… I’ll be quiet. o_o
5. What do you do for a living, and why?
Wayne: Well, I first entered the army as soon as I could enlist. After a few years of that I left and now work in the police force.
Shade: I still am not a %100 sure on what I want to be. I just do odd jobs for now.
6. What kind of music do you listen to? Do you play any instruments? If so, which ones?
Wayne: I like Rise Against, Red, Thousand Foot Crutch, and a few others. I am mostly an Alternative Metal person.
Shade: Nothing that he said
Wayne: You have then no good taste. -_-
7. How old are you?
Wayne: I am 23
Shade: 22
8. What is the most annoying thing in the world?
Wayne: How about people. Shade, Jasper, Lukara and Jenny.
Shade: I think that is the one thing we can agree... Wait! No sir I am not annoying!
Wayne: Yes you are. Now don’t get all upset.
Shade: I am upset!
Me: calm down
Shade: But he just
Me: Calm down. XD
9. What is your favorite word?
Wayne: I say “How’s life” a lot for no reason. I guess it is how I start up conversation.
Shade: You make no since. Mine is “No comment” if I don’t want to say anything. But people like to abuse my phrase in my face to annoy me. I am like “it’s my phrase lay off! “
10. Do you have any interesting hobbies?
Wayne: I like to work with cars mechanics. For some strange reason I find it relaxing.
Shade: Whatever I want to do is my hobby
11. What's the most romantic thing anyone has ever done for you...?
Wayne: It’s a back and forth battle I guess.
Shade: Invited me over for dinner.
Me: Was it good?
Shade: Yeah, it was.
12. Everyone has an adrenaline fix, what's yours?
Wayne: Motorcycling.
Shade: doing unsafe things :)
13. What do you do to relax at the end of a long day?
Shade: sleep, TV, internet
Wayne: He can mess around. I mostly have to work on paper work, or work out, or finish whatever I have to do that day. I like to keep myself busy.
14. Do you have any obsessions?
Shade: Nothing at all.
Wayne: Uh no. You sir are practically obsessed with everything.
Shade: No I am not!
Wayne: Yes you are.
Shade: No I am not!
Me: Ok guys, you can stop auguring now.
Shade: he started it.
Wayne: No you
Me: I said stop it. -_-
15. What is your nationality?
Wayne: I grew up in an orphanage so I really just don’t know. I should look it up.
Shade: I am at least American
16. What languages can you speak?
Wayne: English and Spanish, just the basics.
Shade: Uh… I think just English.
17. If you could own ANY animal in the world as a pet, what would it be?
Wayne: I would still have my dog Robin.
Shade: a leopard
18. What do others think your best quality is?
Wayne: No one has ever told me. Well I never asked to be honest. I know one thing is I am straight forwards and will tell you the truth even if you don’t want to hear it.
Shade: I’m smart, talented, brave-
Wayne: he’s lying.
Shade: Hey that’s not fair lover boy
Wayne: Will you stop that!!
Me: You know this will be posted on Flickr right? ;)
Wayne: Oh crap!
Shade: Uh oh…
19. Who do you consider to be your hero?
Wayne: Probably the Colonel Jefferson from back when I was in the army. He was a really great guy as well as mentor.
Shade: Ash. :)
Me: for some strange reason I am seeing a name pop up again and again.
20. Have you ever been in a fight? Did you win?
Wayne: Back when I was a sergeant in the army we both lost and won battles. Thankfully I made it out of the chaos and I am still alive to this day last I checked.
Shade: Not when it includes Jasper. Her mind is set on killing me I swear!
21. What's a random thing you find yourself doing every day?
Wayne: Wishing people would just behave themselves.
Shade: people say many things.
22. SPEED FAVORITES GO! Book, Movie, Game, Food, Drink, Color!?
Wayne: I’ve always had an interest in history, The Book of Eli, poker, as long as it isn't crap I’ll eat it. Dr. Pepper, and I think red?
Shade: comics,
Monopoly ,People say it is pizza even though I don’t really like it, any Coke product really, and green.
23. Where is your house located and what is it like?
Do you live alone or does someone live with you?
Wayne: I live in an apartment on the third floor. I am alone thank you.
Shade: I live where he is not
24. What is the most sentimental thing you own and why?
Wayne: Probably my dog tags. They remind me of the hard ships I had faced.
Shade: My friend. And I know that sounds weird.
25. Are you in a relationship? How's it working out for you?
Wayne: Now that’s a funny question. Sort of yes and no.
Shade: Jasper black mailed me to all the other girls so it just make it in possible for me to get one.
Me: well maybe one will come along one day. :)
Shade: Can you please get rid of Jasper!!
Me: I’ll think about it I guess?
26. What's the worst you've ever been injured or sick?
Wayne: To many times to count. Between the army and almost getting shot to death on a failed mission with Ash, I got stabbed, punched, smacked, you named it. I always try to get back on my feet if at all possible.
27. What scares you the most?
Wayne: I am not really of anything.
Shade: Ash told me you were afraid of something?
Wayne: Whatever! Now stop poking your nose in my life. Let’s just say it almost killed me as a child.
Shade: But poking into other people lives is Lukara’s job
Me: you got that one right Shade.
28. Something random about you that people don't know?
Wayne: I like to work with my hands and I would rather do things myself than let others do it for me. I’m pretty straight forward so there isn’t too much left to say
Shade: What about Jade? (teases.)
Wayne: Shade this is really getting boring. Now if I didn’t have self-restraint I would love to hurt you.
Me: Good thing you do.
Wayne: You know, sometimes I feel like the only normal person here. -_-
Me: that is not true, but life does seem that way sometimes.
29. Do you have any pets?
Yes, I have a grey collie named Robin. She is very free spirited dog and likes to wonder off. I don’t like it when she dose because I have to go out and find her again.
Shade: I did have a tarantula. Then someone killed it.
30. Okay that's all!!! What did you think of this interview?
Wayne: It was fine I guess as long as Jade doesn’t read it. It was a little
strange I do have to say.
Shade: Hey Jade!
Jade: What is it? (enters room)
(Wayne drags Sade into other room.)
Jade: what was that about?
Me: ( I shrug) Just another doll interview. Nothing special.
Jade: alright then.
(if you have any interview request let me know.)
Udalryk: I should have saved him when he went under. Instead, I was jealous, not fit to rule.
Hjort: This is why you must prove your worth and fight the other clans!
Cerys: I'd hoped you were done listening to shady bastards.
Geralt: Agreed. With that Specter out of you, the only council you should trust is your own.
Dennis Village Cemetery
"Bark Sarah L. Bryant, Jones, which arrived at Boston on Wednesday last, from Shetland Isles, reports that on Dec. 21st in lat. 48 38. lon. 37 20, while lying to in a heavy gale from ESE, a tremendous sea broke on board, which swept everything from the deck, from the fore rigging to the poop, and washed overboard the first mate, Mr. Barnabas C. Hall, of Dennis, who was lost.
Mr. Hall was a son of the late Capt. Freeman Hall who was lost in that never-to-be-forgotten October gale of 1841, and his loss will fall heavily upon his widowed mother, who was hourly expecting him home when the news of his untimely death reached her. He was a young man universally esteemed, and his loss will be deeply deplored by all who knew him." Barnstable Patriot, 22 Jan 1861, p2
In monotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God as described by most theologians includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good), and all loving.
God is most often held to be non-corporeal,[3] and to be without any human biological sex,[4][5] yet the concept of God actively creating the universe (as opposed to passively)[6] has caused many religions to describe God using masculine terminology, using such terms as "Him" or "Father". Furthermore, some religions (such as Judaism) attribute only a purely grammatical "gender" to God.[7]
In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, God is not believed to exist, while God is deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[3] Many notable philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.[8]
There are many names for God, and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about God's identity and attributes. In the ancient Egyptian era of Atenism, possibly the earliest recorded monotheistic religion, this deity was called Aten,[9] premised on being the one "true" Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe.[10] In the Hebrew Bible and Judaism, "He Who Is", "I Am that I Am", and the tetragrammaton YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה, which means: "I am who I am"; "He Who Exists") are used as names of God, while Yahweh and Jehovah are sometimes used in Christianity as vocalizations of YHWH. In the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, God, consubstantial in three persons, is called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In Judaism, it is common to refer to God by the titular names Elohim or Adonai, the latter of which is believed by some scholars to descend from the Egyptian Aten.[11][12][13][14][15] In Islam, the name Allah, "Al-El", or "Al-Elah" ("the God") is used, while Muslims also have a multitude of titular names for God. In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered a monistic deity.[16] Other religions have names for God, for instance, Baha in the Bahá'í Faith,[17] Waheguru in Sikhism,[18] and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.[19]
The many different conceptions of God, and competing claims as to God's characteristics, aims, and actions, have led to the development of ideas of omnitheism, pandeism,[20][21] or a perennial philosophy, which postulates that there is one underlying theological truth, of which all religions express a partial understanding, and as to which "the devout in the various great world religions are in fact worshipping that one God, but through different, overlapping concepts or mental images of Him."[22]
Contents [hide]
1Etymology and usage
2General conceptions
2.1Oneness
2.2Theism, deism and pantheism
2.3Other concepts
3Non-theistic views
3.1Agnosticism and atheism
3.2Anthropomorphism
4Existence
5Specific attributes
5.1Names
5.2Gender
5.3Relationship with creation
6Depiction
6.1Zoroastrianism
6.2Islam
6.3Judaism
6.4Christianity
7Theological approaches
8Distribution of belief
9See also
9.1In specific religions
10References
11Further reading
12External links
Etymology and usage
The Mesha Stele bears the earliest known reference (840 BCE) to the Israelite God Yahweh.
Main article: God (word)
The earliest written form of the Germanic word God (always, in this usage, capitalized[23]) comes from the 6th-century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * ǥuđan. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * ǵhu-tó-m was likely based on the root * ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".[24] The Germanic words for God were originally neuter—applying to both genders—but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the words became a masculine syntactic form.[25]
The word 'Allah' in Arabic calligraphy
In the English language, the capitalized form of God continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism.[26][27] The English word God and its counterparts in other languages are normally used for any and all conceptions and, in spite of significant differences between religions, the term remains an English translation common to all. The same holds for Hebrew El, but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammaton YHWH, in origin possibly the name of an Edomite or Midianite deity, Yahweh. In many translations of the Bible, when the word LORD is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.[28]
Allāh (Arabic: الله) is the Arabic term with no plural used by Muslims and Arabic speaking Christians and Jews meaning "The God" (with a capital G), while "ʾilāh" (Arabic: إله) is the term used for a deity or a god in general.[29][30][31] God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the personal nature of God, with early references to his name as Krishna-Vasudeva in Bhagavata or later Vishnu and Hari.[32]
Ahura Mazda is the name for God used in Zoroastrianism. "Mazda", or rather the Avestan stem-form Mazdā-, nominative Mazdå, reflects Proto-Iranian *Mazdāh (female). It is generally taken to be the proper name of the spirit, and like its Sanskrit cognate medhā, means "intelligence" or "wisdom". Both the Avestan and Sanskrit words reflect Proto-Indo-Iranian *mazdhā-, from Proto-Indo-European mn̩sdʰeh1, literally meaning "placing (dʰeh1) one's mind (*mn̩-s)", hence "wise".[33]
Waheguru (Punjabi: vāhigurū) is a term most often used in Sikhism to refer to God. It means "Wonderful Teacher" in the Punjabi language. Vāhi (a Middle Persian borrowing) means "wonderful" and guru (Sanskrit: guru) is a term denoting "teacher". Waheguru is also described by some as an experience of ecstasy which is beyond all descriptions. The most common usage of the word "Waheguru" is in the greeting Sikhs use with each other:
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
Wonderful Lord's Khalsa, Victory is to the Wonderful Lord.
Baha, the "greatest" name for God in the Baha'i faith, is Arabic for "All-Glorious".
General conceptions
Main article: Conceptions of God
There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the existence of God.[34] The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the monotheistic definition of God in Judaism, the trinitarian view of Christians, and the Islamic concept of God. The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine: views of God in Hinduism vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic. Divinity was recognized by the historical Buddha, particularly Śakra and Brahma. However, other sentient beings, including gods, can at best only play a supportive role in one's personal path to salvation. Conceptions of God in the latter developments of the Mahayana tradition give a more prominent place to notions of the divine.[citation needed]
Oneness
Main articles: Monotheism and Henotheism
The Trinity is the belief that God is composed of The Father, The Son (embodied metaphysically in the physical realm by Jesus), and The Holy Spirit.
Monotheists hold that there is only one god, and may claim that the one true god is worshiped in different religions under different names. The view that all theists actually worship the same god, whether they know it or not, is especially emphasized in Hinduism[35] and Sikhism.[36] In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity describes God as one God in three persons. The Trinity comprises The Father, The Son (embodied metaphysically by Jesus), and The Holy Spirit.[37] Islam's most fundamental concept is tawhid (meaning "oneness" or "uniqueness"). God is described in the Quran as: "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him."[38][39] Muslims repudiate the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, comparing it to polytheism. In Islam, God is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules, and are not expected to visualize God.[40]
Henotheism is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.[41]
Theism, deism and pantheism
Main articles: Theism, Deism, and Pantheism
Theism generally holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal; and that God is personal and interacting with the universe through, for example, religious experience and the prayers of humans.[42] Theism holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and in some way present in the affairs of the world.[43] Not all theists subscribe to all of these propositions, but each usually subscribes to some of them (see, by way of comparison, family resemblance).[42] Catholic theology holds that God is infinitely simple and is not involuntarily subject to time. Most theists hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, although this belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. Some theists ascribe to God a self-conscious or purposeful limiting of omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Open Theism, by contrast, asserts that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future. Theism is sometimes used to refer in general to any belief in a god or gods, i.e., monotheism or polytheism.[44][45]
"God blessing the seventh day", a watercolor painting depicting God, by William Blake (1757 – 1827)
Deism holds that God is wholly transcendent: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it.[43] In this view, God is not anthropomorphic, and neither answers prayers nor produces miracles. Common in Deism is a belief that God has no interest in humanity and may not even be aware of humanity. Pandeism and Panendeism, respectively, combine Deism with the Pantheistic or Panentheistic beliefs.[21][46][47] Pandeism is proposed to explain as to Deism why God would create a universe and then abandon it,[48] and as to Pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.[48][49]
Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God, whereas Panentheism holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.[50] It is also the view of the Liberal Catholic Church; Theosophy; some views of Hinduism except Vaishnavism, which believes in panentheism; Sikhism; some divisions of Neopaganism and Taoism, along with many varying denominations and individuals within denominations. Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, paints a pantheistic/panentheistic view of God—which has wide acceptance in Hasidic Judaism, particularly from their founder The Baal Shem Tov—but only as an addition to the Jewish view of a personal god, not in the original pantheistic sense that denies or limits persona to God.[citation needed]
Other concepts
Dystheism, which is related to theodicy, is a form of theism which holds that God is either not wholly good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the problem of evil. One such example comes from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, in which Ivan Karamazov rejects God on the grounds that he allows children to suffer.[51]
In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as process theology and open theism. The contemporaneous French philosopher Michel Henry has however proposed a phenomenological approach and definition of God as phenomenological essence of Life.[52]
God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[3] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[53] Augustine of Hippo,[53] and Al-Ghazali,[8] respectively.
Non-theistic views
See also: Evolutionary origin of religions and Evolutionary psychology of religion
Non-theist views about God also vary. Some non-theists avoid the concept of God, whilst accepting that it is significant to many; other non-theists understand God as a symbol of human values and aspirations. The nineteenth-century English atheist Charles Bradlaugh declared that he refused to say "There is no God", because "the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation";[54] he said more specifically that he disbelieved in the Christian god. Stephen Jay Gould proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world.[55]
Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that the existence of God is an empirical question, on the grounds that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."[56] Carl Sagan argued that the doctrine of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could disprove the existence of a Creator (not necessarily a God) would be the discovery that the universe is infinitely old.[57]
Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book, The Grand Design, that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.[58] Neuroscientist Michael Nikoletseas has proposed that questions of the existence of God are no different from questions of natural sciences. Following a biological comparative approach, he concludes that it is highly probable that God exists, and, although not visible, it is possible that we know some of his attributes.[59]
Agnosticism and atheism
Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[60][61][62]
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, or a God.[63][64] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[65]
Anthropomorphism
Main article: Anthropomorphism
Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems.[66] Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries.[67] Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.[68]
Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[69]
Existence
Main article: Existence of God
St. Thomas Aquinas summed up five main arguments as proofs for God's existence.
Isaac Newton saw the existence of a Creator necessary in the movement of astronomical objects.
Arguments about the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Different views include that: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist" (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism[70]);"God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (de facto theism); and that "God exists and this can be proven" (strong theism).[55]
Countless arguments have been proposed to prove the existence of God.[71] Some of the most notable arguments are the Five Ways of Aquinas, the Argument from Desire proposed by C.S. Lewis, and the Ontological Argument formulated both by St. Anselm and René Descartes.[72]
St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[73] His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.[74]
Scientist Isaac Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[75] Nevertheless, he rejected polymath Leibniz' thesis that God would necessarily make a perfect world which requires no intervention from the creator. In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:
For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.[76]
St. Thomas believed that the existence of God is self-evident in itself, but not to us. "Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects."[77] St. Thomas believed that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Briefly in the Summa theologiae and more extensively in the Summa contra Gentiles, he considered in great detail five arguments for the existence of God, widely known as the quinque viae (Five Ways).
For the original text of the five proofs, see quinque viae
Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a First Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.
Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.
Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.
Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God (Note: Thomas does not ascribe actual qualities to God Himself).
Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God (Note that even when we guide objects, in Thomas's view, the source of all our knowledge comes from God as well).[78]
Alister McGrath, a formerly atheistic scientist and theologian who has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins' version of atheism
Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A.E. McGrath, argue that the existence of God is not a question that can be answered using the scientific method.[79][80] Agnostic Stephen Jay Gould argues that science and religion are not in conflict and do not overlap.[81]
Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by some atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.[82][83][84] These atheists claim that a single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner.[85] Richard Dawkins interprets such findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God, but as extensive evidence to the contrary.[55] However, his views are opposed by some theologians and scientists including Alister McGrath, who argues that existence of God is compatible with science.[86]
Neuroscientist Michael Nikoletseas has proposed that questions of the existence of God are no different from questions of natural sciences. Following a biological comparative approach, he concludes that it is highly probable that God exists, and, although not visible, it is possible that we know some of his attributes.[59]
Specific attributes
Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.
Names
Main article: Names of God
99 names of Allah, in Chinese Sini (script)
The word God is "one of the most complex and difficult in the English language." In the Judeo-Christian tradition, "the Bible has been the principal source of the conceptions of God". That the Bible "includes many different images, concepts, and ways of thinking about" God has resulted in perpetual "disagreements about how God is to be conceived and understood".[87]
Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are many names for God. One of them is Elohim. Another one is El Shaddai, meaning "God Almighty".[88] A third notable name is El Elyon, which means "The Most High God".[89]
God is described and referred in the Quran and hadith by certain names or attributes, the most common being Al-Rahman, meaning "Most Compassionate" and Al-Rahim, meaning "Most Merciful" (See Names of God in Islam).[90]
Supreme soul
The Brahma Kumaris use the term "Supreme Soul" to refer to God. They see God as incorporeal and eternal, and regard him as a point of living light like human souls, but without a physical body, as he does not enter the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. God is seen as the perfect and constant embodiment of all virtues, powers and values and that He is the unconditionally loving Father of all souls, irrespective of their religion, gender, or culture.[91]
Vaishnavism, a tradition in Hinduism, has list of titles and names of Krishna.
Gender
Main article: Gender of God
The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form.[92][93] Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.[6]
Biblical sources usually refer to God using male words, except Genesis 1:26-27,[94][95] Psalm 123:2-3, and Luke 15:8-10 (female); Hosea 11:3-4, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 131:2 (a mother); Deuteronomy 32:11-12 (a mother eagle); and Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 (a mother hen).
Relationship with creation
See also: Creator deity, Prayer, and Worship
And Elohim Created Adam by William Blake, c.1795
Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God.[96][97] He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance.[98] Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."[99]
Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.
Jews and Christians believe that humans are created in the likeness of God, and are the center, crown and key to God's creation, stewards for God, supreme over everything else God had made (Gen 1:26); for this reason, humans are in Christianity called the "Children of God".[100]
Depiction
God is defined as incorporeal,[3] and invisible from direct sight, and thus cannot be portrayed in a literal visual image.
The respective principles of religions may or may not permit them to use images (which are entirely symbolic) to represent God in art or in worship .
Zoroastrianism
Ahura Mazda (depiction is on the right, with high crown) presents Ardashir I (left) with the ring of kingship. (Relief at Naqsh-e Rustam, 3rd century CE)
During the early Parthian Empire, Ahura Mazda was visually represented for worship. This practice ended during the beginning of the Sassanid empire. Zoroastrian iconoclasm, which can be traced to the end of the Parthian period and the beginning of the Sassanid, eventually put an end to the use of all images of Ahura Mazda in worship. However, Ahura Mazda continued to be symbolized by a dignified male figure, standing or on horseback which is found in Sassanian investiture.[101]
Islam
Further information: God in Islam
Muslims believe that God (Allah) is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of His creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules, are not expected to visualize God.[40]
Judaism
At least some Jews do not use any image for God, since God is the unimageable Being who cannot be represented in material forms.[102] In some samples of Jewish Art, however, sometimes God, or at least His Intervention, is indicated by a Hand Of God symbol, which represents the bath Kol (literally "daughter of a voice") or Voice of God;[103] this use of the Hand Of God is carried over to Christian Art.
Christianity
This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Early Christians believed that the words of the Gospel of John 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time" and numerous other statements were meant to apply not only to God, but to all attempts at the depiction of God.[104]
Use of the symbolic Hand of God in the Ascension from the Drogo Sacramentary, c. 850
However, later on the Hand of God symbol is found several times in the only ancient synagogue with a large surviving decorative scheme, the Dura Europos Synagogue of the mid-3rd century, and was probably adopted into Early Christian art from Jewish art. It was common in Late Antique art in both East and West, and remained the main way of symbolizing the actions or approval of God the Father in the West until about the end of the Romanesque period. It also represents the bath Kol (literally "daughter of a voice") or voice of God,[103] just like in Jewish Art.
In situations, such as the Baptism of Christ, where a specific representation of God the Father was indicated, the Hand of God was used, with increasing freedom from the Carolingian period until the end of the Romanesque. This motif now, since the discovery of the 3rd century Dura Europos synagogue, seems to have been borrowed from Jewish art, and is found in Christian art almost from its beginnings.
The use of religious images in general continued to increase up to the end of the 7th century, to the point that in 695, upon assuming the throne, Byzantine emperor Justinian II put an image of Christ on the obverse side of his gold coins, resulting in a rift which ended the use of Byzantine coin types in the Islamic world.[105] However, the increase in religious imagery did not include depictions of God the Father. For instance, while the eighty second canon of the Council of Trullo in 692 did not specifically condemn images of The Father, it suggested that icons of Christ were preferred over Old Testament shadows and figures.[106]
The beginning of the 8th century witnessed the suppression and destruction of religious icons as the period of Byzantine iconoclasm (literally image-breaking) started. Emperor Leo III (717–741), suppressed the use of icons by imperial edict of the Byzantine Empire, presumably due to a military loss which he attributed to the undue veneration of icons.[107] The edict (which was issued without consulting the Church) forbade the veneration of religious images but did not apply to other forms of art, including the image of the emperor, or religious symbols such as the cross.[108] Theological arguments against icons then began to appear with iconoclasts arguing that icons could not represent both the divine and the human natures of Jesus at the same time. In this atmosphere, no public depictions of God the Father were even attempted and such depictions only began to appear two centuries later.
The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 effectively ended the first period of Byzantine iconoclasm and restored the honouring of icons and holy images in general.[109] However, this did not immediately translate into large scale depictions of God the Father. Even supporters of the use of icons in the 8th century, such as Saint John of Damascus, drew a distinction between images of God the Father and those of Christ.
In his treatise On the Divine Images John of Damascus wrote: "In former times, God who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see".[110] The implication here is that insofar as God the Father or the Spirit did not become man, visible and tangible, images and portrait icons can not be depicted. So what was true for the whole Trinity before Christ remains true for the Father and the Spirit but not for the Word. John of Damascus wrote:[111]
"If we attempt to make an image of the invisible God, this would be sinful indeed. It is impossible to portray one who is without body:invisible, uncircumscribed and without form."
Around 790 Charlemagne ordered a set of four books that became known as the Libri Carolini (i.e. "Charles' books") to refute what his court mistakenly understood to be the iconoclast decrees of the Byzantine Second Council of Nicaea regarding sacred images. Although not well known during the Middle Ages, these books describe the key elements of the Catholic theological position on sacred images. To the Western Church, images were just objects made by craftsmen, to be utilized for stimulating the senses of the faithful, and to be respected for the sake of the subject represented, not in themselves. The Council of Constantinople (869) (considered ecumenical by the Western Church, but not the Eastern Church) reaffirmed the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea and helped stamp out any remaining coals of iconoclasm. Specifically, its third canon required the image of Christ to have veneration equal with that of a Gospel book:[112]
We decree that the sacred image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator and Savior of all people, must be venerated with the same honor as is given the book of the holy Gospels. For as through the language of the words contained in this book all can reach salvation, so, due to the action which these images exercise by their colors, all wise and simple alike, can derive profit from them.
But images of God the Father were not directly addressed in Constantinople in 869. A list of permitted icons was enumerated at this Council, but symbols of God the Father were not among them.[113] However, the general acceptance of icons and holy images began to create an atmosphere in which God the Father could be symbolized.
Prior to the 10th century no attempt was made to use a human to symbolize God the Father in Western art.[104] Yet, Western art eventually required some way to illustrate the presence of the Father, so through successive representations a set of artistic styles for symbolizing the Father using a man gradually emerged around the 10th century AD. A rationale for the use of a human is the belief that God created the soul of Man in the image of His own (thus allowing Human to transcend the other animals).
It appears that when early artists designed to represent God the Father, fear and awe restrained them from a usage of the whole human figure. Typically only a small part would be used as the image, usually the hand, or sometimes the face, but rarely a whole human. In many images, the figure of the Son supplants the Father, so a smaller portion of the person of the Father is depicted.[114]
By the 12th century depictions of God the Father had started to appear in French illuminated manuscripts, which as a less public form could often be more adventurous in their iconography, and in stained glass church windows in England. Initially the head or bust was usually shown in some form of frame of clouds in the top of the picture space, where the Hand of God had formerly appeared; the Baptism of Christ on the famous baptismal font in Liège of Rainer of Huy is an example from 1118 (a Hand of God is used in another scene). Gradually the amount of the human symbol shown can increase to a half-length figure, then a full-length, usually enthroned, as in Giotto's fresco of c. 1305 in Padua.[115] In the 14th century the Naples Bible carried a depiction of God the Father in the Burning bush. By the early 15th century, the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry has a considerable number of symbols, including an elderly but tall and elegant full-length figure walking in the Garden of Eden, which show a considerable diversity of apparent ages and dress. The "Gates of Paradise" of the Florence Baptistry by Lorenzo Ghiberti, begun in 1425 use a similar tall full-length symbol for the Father. The Rohan Book of Hours of about 1430 also included depictions of God the Father in half-length human form, which were now becoming standard, and the Hand of God becoming rarer. At the same period other works, like the large Genesis altarpiece by the Hamburg painter Meister Bertram, continued to use the old depiction of Christ as Logos in Genesis scenes. In the 15th century there was a brief fashion for depicting all three persons of the Trinity as similar or identical figures with the usual appearance of Christ.
In an early Venetian school Coronation of the Virgin by Giovanni d'Alemagna and Antonio Vivarini, (c. 1443) The Father is depicted using the symbol consistently used by other artists later, namely a patriarch, with benign, yet powerful countenance and with long white hair and a beard, a depiction largely derived from, and justified by, the near-physical, but still figurative, description of the Ancient of Days.[116]
. ...the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. (Daniel 7:9)
Usage of two Hands of God"(relatively unusual) and the Holy Spirit as a dove in Baptism of Christ, by Verrocchio, 1472
In the Annunciation by Benvenuto di Giovanni in 1470, God the Father is portrayed in the red robe and a hat that resembles that of a Cardinal. However, even in the later part of the 15th century, the symbolic representation of the Father and the Holy Spirit as "hands and dove" continued, e.g. in Verrocchio's Baptism of Christ in 1472.[117]
God the Father with His Right Hand Raised in Blessing, with a triangular halo representing the Trinity, Girolamo dai Libri c. 1555
In Renaissance paintings of the adoration of the Trinity, God may be depicted in two ways, either with emphasis on The Father, or the three elements of the Trinity. The most usual depiction of the Trinity in Renaissance art depicts God the Father using an old man, usually with a long beard and patriarchal in appearance, sometimes with a triangular halo (as a reference to the Trinity), or with a papal crown, specially in Northern Renaissance painting. In these depictions The Father may hold a globe or book (to symbolize God's knowledge and as a reference to how knowledge is deemed divine). He is behind and above Christ on the Cross in the Throne of Mercy iconography. A dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit may hover above. Various people from different classes of society, e.g. kings, popes or martyrs may be present in the picture. In a Trinitarian Pietà, God the Father is often symbolized using a man wearing a papal dress and a papal crown, supporting the dead Christ in his arms. They are depicted as floating in heaven with angels who carry the instruments of the Passion.[118]
Representations of God the Father and the Trinity were attacked both by Protestants and within Catholicism, by the Jansenist and Baianist movements as well as more orthodox theologians. As with other attacks on Catholic imagery, this had the effect both of reducing Church support for the less central depictions, and strengthening it for the core ones. In the Western Church, the pressure to restrain religious imagery resulted in the highly influential decrees of the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563. The Council of Trent decrees confirmed the traditional Catholic doctrine that images only represented the person depicted, and that veneration to them was paid to the person, not the image.[119]
Artistic depictions of God the Father were uncontroversial in Catholic art thereafter, but less common depictions of the Trinity were condemned. In 1745 Pope Benedict XIV explicitly supported the Throne of Mercy depiction, referring to the "Ancient of Days", but in 1786 it was still necessary for Pope Pius VI to issue a papal bull condemning the decision of an Italian church council to remove all images of the Trinity from churches.[120]
The famous The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo, c.1512
God the Father is symbolized in several Genesis scenes in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling, most famously The Creation of Adam (whose image of near touching hands of God and Adam is iconic of humanity, being a reminder that Man is created in the Image and Likeness of God (Gen 1:26)).God the Father is depicted as a powerful figure, floating in the clouds in Titian's Assumption of the Virgin in the Frari of Venice, long admired as a masterpiece of High Renaissance art.[121] The Church of the Gesù in Rome includes a number of 16th century depictions of God the Father. In some of these paintings the Trinity is still alluded to in terms of three angels, but Giovanni Battista Fiammeri also depicted God the Father as a man riding on a cloud, above the scenes.[122]
In both the Last Judgment and the Coronation of the Virgin paintings by Rubens he depicted God the Father using the image that by then had become widely accepted, a bearded patriarchal figure above the fray. In the 17th century, the two Spanish artists Velázquez (whose father-in-law Francisco Pacheco was in charge of the approval of new images for the Inquisition) and Murillo both depicted God the Father using a patriarchal figure with a white beard in a purple robe.
The Ancient of Days (1794) Watercolor etching by William Blake
While representations of God the Father were growing in Italy, Spain, Germany and the Low Countries, there was resistance elsewhere in Europe, even during the 17th century. In 1632 most members of the Star Chamber court in England (except the Archbishop of York) condemned the use of the images of the Trinity in church windows, and some considered them illegal.[123] Later in the 17th century Sir Thomas Browne wrote that he considered the representation of God the Father using an old man "a dangerous act" that might lead to Egyptian symbolism.[124] In 1847, Charles Winston was still critical of such images as a "Romish trend" (a term used to refer to Roman Catholics) that he considered best avoided in England.[125]
In 1667 the 43rd chapter of the Great Moscow Council specifically included a ban on a number of symbolic depictions of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, which then also resulted in a whole range of other icons being placed on the forbidden list,[126][127] mostly affecting Western-style depictions which had been gaining ground in Orthodox icons. The Council also declared that the person of the Trinity who was the "Ancient of Days" was Christ, as Logos, not God the Father. However some icons continued to be produced in Russia, as well as Greece, Romania, and other Orthodox countries.
Theological approaches
Theologians and philosophers have attributed to God such characteristics as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable being existent.[3] These attributes were all claimed to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including Maimonides,[53] St Augustine,[53] and Al-Ghazali.[128]
Many philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,[8] while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience may seem to imply that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their ostensible free will might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient.[129]
However, if by its essential nature, free will is not predetermined, then the effect of its will can never be perfectly predicted by anyone, regardless of intelligence and knowledge. Although knowledge of the options presented to that will, combined with perfectly infinite intelligence, could be said to provide God with omniscience if omniscience is defined as knowledge or understanding of all that is.
The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, as does Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic", or to take, as does Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position.[130] Some theists agree that only some of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position summed up by Pascal as "the heart has reasons of which reason does not know."[131] A recent theory using concepts from physics and neurophysiology proposes that God can be conceptualized within the theory of integrative level.[132]
Many religious believers allow for the existence of other, less powerful spiritual beings such as angels, saints, jinn, demons, and devas.[133][134][135][136][137]
Distribution of belief
Not being obscene now. :P
This is one of his new sleeping spots. Was so amused when I first saw him there. :)
This is my work for a competition organised by LugPOL's administrator liwnik, where the task is to build a scene using a pirate minifigure. Unfortunately not polish people probably will not understand the scene fully without a description, so here is a hint, in polish a phrase meaning the same what roadhog means literally road pirate.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Paramount, 1979).
putlocker.bz/watch-star-trek-the-motion-picture-online-fr... Full Feature
Starring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, George Takei, Majel Barrett, Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Persis Khambatta, Stephen Collins, Grace Lee Whitney, Mark Lenard. Directed by Robert Wise.
In Klingon space, three Klingon battle cruisers encounter a huge cloud-like anomaly. On the bridge of one of the ships, the captain (Mark Lenard) orders his crew to fire torpedoes at it, but they have no effect. The ships take evasive action.
Meanwhile, in Federation space, a monitoring station, Epsilon 9, picks up a distress signal from one of the Klingon ships. As the three ships are attempting to escape the cloud, energy beams shoot out and engulf each ship one by one, and they vanish. On Epsilon 9, the crew tracks the course of the cloud and discovers that it is headed for Earth.
On Vulcan, Spock (Leonard Nimoy) has been undergoing the kohlinahr ritual, in which he has been learning how to purge all of his emotions, and is nearly finished with his training. A female Vulcan Master (Edna Glover), surrounded by two men, is about to give him an ornate necklace as a symbol of pure logic, when Spock holds out his hand to stop her. Confused, she mind-melds with him and senses a consciousness calling to him from space that is affecting his human side. She drops the necklace. "You have not yet achieved kohlinahr. You must look elsewhere for your answer," she says as they leave Spock. "You will not find it here."
In San Francisco, Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) arrives at Starfleet Headquarters in a shuttlecraft. He sees Commander Sonak (Jon Rashad Kamal), a Vulcan science officer who is joining the Enterprise crew and recommended for the position by Kirk himself. Kirk is bothered as to why Sonak is not on board yet. Sonak explains that Captain Willard Decker (Stephen Collins), the new captain of the Enterprise, wanted him to complete his science briefing at Headquarters before they left on their mission. The Enterprise has been undergoing a complete "refitting" for the past 18 months and is now under final preparations to leave, which would take at least 20 hours, but Kirk informs him that they only have 12. He tells Sonak to report to him on the Enterprise in one hour; he has a short meeting with Admiral Nogura and is intent on being on the ship.
Kirk transports to an office complex orbiting Earth and meets Montgomery Scott (James Doohan), the Enterprise's chief engineer. Scotty expresses his concern about the tight departure time. The cloud is less than three days away from Earth, and the Enterprise has been ordered to intercept it because they are the only ship in range. Scotty says that the refit can't be finished in 12 hours, and tries to convince him that the ship needs more work done as well as a shakedown cruise. Kirk insists that they are leaving, ready or not. They board a travel pod and begin the journey over to the drydock in orbit that houses the Enterprise.
Scotty tells Kirk that the crew hasn't had enough transition time with all the new equipment and that the engines haven't even been tested at warp power, not to mention that they have an untried captain. Kirk tells Scotty that two and a half years as Chief of Starfleet Operations may have made him a little stale, but that he wouldn't exactly consider himself untried. Kirk then tells a surprised Scotty that Starfleet gave him back his command of the Enterprise. Scotty doubts it, saying that he doesn't think it was that easy with Admiral Nogura, who gave Kirk his orders. They arrive at the Enterprise, and Scotty indulges Kirk with a brief tour of the new exterior of the ship.
Upon docking with the ship, Scotty is summoned to Engineering. Kirk goes up to the bridge, and is informed by Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) that Starfleet has just transferred command from Captain Decker over to him. Kirk finds Decker in engineering, whom is visibly upset when Kirk breaks the news that he is assuming command, but recognizes it is because Kirk has more experience. Decker will remain on the ship as 2nd officer. As Decker storms off, an alarm sounds. Someone is trying to beam over to the ship, but the transporter is malfunctioning. Kirk and Scotty race to the transporter room. Transporter operator Janice Rand (Grace Lee Whitney) is frantically trying to tell Starfleet to abort the transport, but it is too late. Commander Sonak and an unknown female officer are beaming in, but their bodies aren't re-forming properly in the beam. The female officer screams, and then their bodies disappear. Starfleet signals to them that they have died. Kirk tells Starfleet to express his sympathies to their families.
In the corridor, Kirk sees Decker and tells him they will have to replace Commander Sonak and wants another Vulcan. Decker tells him that no one is available that is familiar with the ship's new design. Kirk tells Decker he will have to double his duties as science officer as well.
In the recreation room, as Kirk briefs the assembled crew on the mission, they receive a transmission from Epsilon 9. Commander Branch (David Gautreaux) tells them they have analyzed the mysterious cloud. It generates an immense amount of energy and measures 2 A.U.s (300 million km) in diameter. There is also a vessel of some kind in the center. They've tried to communicate with it and have performed scans, but the cloud reflects them back. It seems to think of the scans as hostile and attacks them. Like the Klingon ships earlier, Epsilon 9 disappears.
Later on the bridge, Uhura informs Kirk that the transporter is working now. Lt. Ilia, (Persis Khambatta), a bald being from the planet Delta IV, arrives. Decker is happy to see her, as they developed a romantic relationship when he was assigned to her planet several years earlier. Ilia is curious about Decker's reduction in rank and Kirk interrupts and tells her about Decker being the executive and science officer. Decker tells her, with slight sarcasm, that Kirk has the utmost confidence in him. Ilia tells Kirk that her oath of celibacy is on record and asks permission to assume her duties. Uhura tells Kirk that one of the last few crew members to arrive is refusing to beam up. Kirk goes to the transporter room to ensure that "he" beams up.
Kirk tells Starfleet to beam the officer aboard. Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (DeForest Kelley) materializes on the platform. McCoy is angry that his Starfleet commission was reactivated and that it was Kirk's idea for him to be brought along on the mission. His attitude changes, however, when Kirk says he desperately needs him. McCoy leaves to check out the new sickbay.
The crew finishes its repairs and the Enterprise leaves drydock and into the solar system. Dr. McCoy comes up to the bridge and complains that the new sickbay is nothing but a computer center. Kirk is anxious to intercept the cloud intruder, and orders Hikaru Sulu (George Takei) to go to warp speed. Suddenly, the ship enters a wormhole, which was created by an engine imbalance, and is about to collide with an asteroid that has been pulled inside. Kirk orders the phasers to be fired on it, but Decker tells Pavel Chekov (Walter Koenig) to fire photon torpedoes instead. The asteroid and the wormhole are destroyed. Annoyed, Kirk wants to meet with Decker in his quarters. Dr. McCoy decides to go along.
Kirk demands an explanation from Decker. Decker pointed out that the redesigned Enterprise channeled the phasers through the main engines and because they were imbalanced, the phasers were cut off. Kirk acknowledged that he had saved the ship; however, he accuses Decker of competing with him. Decker tells Kirk that, because of his unfamiliarity with the ship's new design, the mission is in jeopardy. Decker tells Kirk that he will gladly help Kirk understand the new design. Kirk then dismisses him from the room. In the corridor, Decker runs into Ilia. Ilia asked if the confrontation was difficult, and he tells her that it was about as difficult as seeing her again, and apologizes. She asked if he was sorry for leaving Delta IV, or for not saying goodbye. He said that if he had seen her again, would she be able to say goodbye? She says "no," and walked around him and entered her quarters nearby.
Back in Kirk's quarters, McCoy accuses Kirk of being the one who was competing, and the fact that it was Kirk who used the emergency to pressure Starfleet into letting him get command of the Enterprise. McCoy thinks that Kirk is obsessed with keeping his command. On Kirk's console viewscreen, Uhura informs Kirk that a shuttlecraft is approaching and that the occupant wishes to dock. Chekov also pipes in and replies that it appears to be a courier vessel. Kirk tells Chekov to handle the situation.
The shuttle approaches the Enterprise from behind, and the top portion of it detaches and docks at an airlock behind the bridge. Chekov is waiting by the airlock doors and is surprised to see Spock come aboard. Moments later, Spock arrives on the bridge, and everyone is shocked and pleased to see him, yet Spock ignores them. He moves over to the science station and tells Kirk that he is aware of the crisis and knows about the ship's engine design difficulties. He offers to step in as the science officer. McCoy and Dr. Christine Chapel (Majel Barret Roddenberry) come to the bridge to greet Spock, but Spock just stares alarmingly at their emotional outburst. Spock leaves to discuss fuel equations with Scotty in engineering.
With Spock's assistance, the engines are now rebalanced for full warp capacity. The ship successfully goes to warp to intercept the cloud. In the officers lounge, Spock meets with Kirk and McCoy. They discuss Spock's kohlinahr training on Vulcan, and how Spock broke off from his training to join them. Spock describes how he sensed the consciousness of the intruder, from a source more powerful that he has ever encountered, with perfect, logical thought patterns. He believes that it holds the answers he seeks. Uhura tells Kirk over the intercom that they have visual contact with the intruder.
The cloud scans the ship, but Kirk orders no return scans. Spock determines that the scans are coming from the center of the cloud. Uhura tries sending "linguacode" messages, but there is no response. Decker suggests raising the shields for protection, but Kirk determines that that might be considered hostile to the cloud. Spock analyzes the clouds composition, and discovers it has a 12-power energy field, the equivalent of power generated by thousands of starships.
Sitting at the science station, Spock awakens from a brief trance. He reveals to Kirk that the alien was communicating with him. The alien is puzzled; it contacted the Enterprise--why has the Enterprise not replied? A red alert sounds, and an energy beam from within the cloud touches the ship, and begins to overload the ship's systems. Bolts of lightning surround the warp core and nearly injure some engineering officers, and Chekov is also hurt--his hand is burned while sitting at the weapons station on the bridge. The energy beam then disappears. A medical team is summoned to the bridge, and Ilia is able to use her telepathic powers to soothe Chekov's pain.
Spock confirms to Kirk that the alien has been attempting to communicate. It communicates at a frequency of more than one million megahertz, and at such a high rate of speed, the message only lasts a millisecond. Spock programs to computer to send linguacode messages at that frequency. Another energy beam is sent out, but Spock transmits a message just in time, and the beam disappears. The ship continues on course through the cloud. They pass through many expansive and colorful cloud layers and upon clearing these, a giant vessel is revealed. It is roughly cylindrical in shape, with large spikes jutting out from the surface at equidistant angles between each other, forming a hexagon-like shape.
Kirk tells Uhura to transmit an image of the alien to Starfleet, but she explains that any transmission sent out of the cloud is being reflected back to them. Kirk orders Sulu to fly above and along the top of the vessel. The Enterprise is so small compared to the size of the alien vessel that it appears only as a little white dot next to it. The ship travels past many oddly-shaped structures, including a sunken area where the energy beams originate.
An alarm sounds, and yet another energy bolt approaches the ship. It appears on the bridge as a column of bright light that emits a very loud noise. The crew struggles to shield their eyes from its brilliant glow. Chekov asks Spock if it is one of the alien's crew, and Spock replies that it is a probe sent from the vessel. The probe slowly moves around the room and stops in front of the science station. Bolts of lightning shoot out from it and surround the console--it is trying to access the ship's computer. Spock manages to smash the controls to prevent further access, and the probe gives him an electric shock that sends him rolling onto the floor. The probe approaches the helm/navigation console and it scans Lt. Ilia. Suddenly, she vanishes, along with the probe.
Ahead of the ship looms another giant section of the vessel. A tractor beam is drawing the Enterprise toward an opening aperture. Decker calls for Chief DiFalco (Marcy Lafferty) to come up to the bridge as Ilia's replacement. The ship travels deep into the next chamber. Decker wonders why they were brought inside--they could have been easily destroyed outside. Spock deduces that the alien is curious about them. Uhura's monitor shows that the aperture is closing; they are trapped. The ship is released from the tractor beam and suddenly, an intruder alert goes off. Someone has come aboard the ship and is in the crew quarters section.
Kirk and Spock arrive inside a crewman's quarters to discover that the intruder is inside the sonic shower. It is revealed to be Ilia, although it isn't really her--there is a small red device attached to her neck. In a mechanized voice, she replies "You are the Kirk unit--you will listen to me." She explains that she has been programmed by an entity called "V'Ger" to observe and record the normal functions of the carbon-based units (humans) "infesting" the Enterprise. Kirk opens the shower door and "Ilia" steps out, wearing a small white garment that just materialized around her. Dr. McCoy and a security officer enter the room, and Kirk tells McCoy to scan her with a tricorder.
Kirk asks her who V'Ger is. She replies "V'Ger is that which programmed me." McCoy tells Kirk that Ilia is a mechanism and Spock confirms she is a probe that assumed Ilia's physical form. Kirk asks where the real Ilia is, and the probe states that "that unit" no longer functions. Kirk also asks why V'Ger is traveling to Earth, and the probe answers that it wishes to find the Creator, join with him, and become one with it. Spock suggests that McCoy perform a complete examination of the probe.
In sickbay, the Ilia probe lays on a diagnostic table, its sensors slowly taking readings. All normal body functions, down to the microscopic level, are exactly duplicated by the probe. Decker arrives and is stunned to see her there. She looks up at him and addresses him as "Decker", rather than "Decker unit," which intrigues Spock. Spock talks with Kirk and Decker in an adjoining room, and Spock locks the door. Spock theorizes that the real Ilia's memories and feelings have been duplicated by the probe as well as her body. Decker is angry that the probe killed Ilia, but Kirk convinces him that their only contact with the vessel is through the probe, and they need to use that advantage to find out more about the alien. Suddenly, the probe bursts through the door, and demands that Kirk assist her with her observations. He tells her that Decker will do it with more efficiency.
Decker and Ilia are seen walking around in the recreation room. He shows her pictures of previous ships that were named Enterprise. Decker has been trying to see if Ilia's memories or emotions can resurface, but to no avail. Kirk and McCoy are observing them covertly on a monitor from his quarters. Decker shows her a game that the crew enjoys playing. She is not interested and states that recreation and enjoyment has no meaning to her programming. At another game, which Ilia enjoyed and nearly always won, they both press one of their hands down onto a table to play it. The table lights up, indicating she won the game, and she gazes into Deckers eyes. This moment of emotion ends suddenly, and she returns to normal. "This device serves no purpose."
"Why does the Enterprise require the presence of carbon units?" she asks. Decker tells her the ship couldn't function without them. She tells him that more information is needed before the crew can be patterned for data storage. Horrified, he asks her what this means. "When my examination is complete, all carbon units will be reduced to data patterns." He tells her that within her are the memory patterns of a certain carbon unit. He convinces her to let him help her revive those patterns so that she can understand their functions better. She allows him to proceed.
Spock slowly enters an airlock room. He sees an officer standing at a console, his back to Spock. Spock quietly approaches him, and gives him the Vulcan nerve pinch to render him unconscious.
Decker, the probe, Dr. McCoy, and Dr. Chapel are in Ilia's quarters. Dr. Chapel gives the probe a decorative headband that Ilia used to wear. Chapel puts it over "Ilia's" head and turns her toward a mirror. Decker asks her if she remembers wearing it on Delta IV. The probe shows another moment of emotion, saying Dr. Chapel's name, and putting her hand on Decker's face, calling him Will. Behind them, McCoy reminds Decker that she is a mechanism. Decker asks "Ilia" to help them make contact with V'Ger. She says that she can't, and Decker asks her who the Creator is. She says V'Ger does not know. The probe becomes emotionless again and removes the headband.
Spock is now outside the ship in a space suit with an attached thruster pack. He begins recording a log entry for Kirk detailing his attempt to contact the alien. He activates a panel on the suit and calculates thruster ignition and acceleration to coincide with the opening of an aperture ahead of him. He hopes to get a better view of the spacecraft interior.
Kirk comes up to the bridge and Uhura tells him that Starfleet signals are growing stronger, indicating they are very close to Earth. Starfleet is monitoring the intruder and notifies Uhura that it is slowing down in its approach. Sulu confirms this and says that lunar beacons show the intruder is entering into orbit. Chekov tells Kirk that Airlock 4 has been opened and a thruster suit is missing. Kirk figures out that Spock has done it, and orders Chekov to get Spock back on the ship. He changes his mind, and instead tells him to determine his position.
Spock touches a button on his thruster panel and his thruster engine ignites. He is propelled forward rapidly, and enters the next chamber of the vessel just before the aperture closes behind him. The thruster engine shuts down, and the momentum carries Spock ahead further. He disconnects the thruster pack from his suit and it falls away from him.
Continuing his log entry, Spock sees an image of what he believes to be V'Gers home planet. He passes through a tunnel filled with crackling plasma energy, possibly a power source for a gigantic imaging system. Next, he sees several more images of planets, moons, stars, and galaxies stored and recorded. Spock theorizes that this may be a visual representation of V'Gers entire journey. "But who or what are we dealing with?" he ponders.
He sees the Epsilon 9 station, and notes to Kirk that he is convinced that all of what he is seeing is V'Ger; and that they are inside a living machine. Then he sees a giant image of Lt. Ilia with the sensor on her neck. Spock decides it must have some special meaning, so he attempts to mind-meld with it. He is quickly overwhelmed by the multitude of images flooding his mind, and is thrown backward.
Kirk is now in a space suit and has exited the ship. The aperture in front of the Enterprise opens, and Spock's unconscious body floats toward him. Later, Dr. Chapel and Dr. McCoy are examining Spock in sickbay. Dr. McCoy performs scans and determines that Spock endured massive neurological trauma from the mind-meld. Spock tells Kirk he should have known and Kirk asks if he was right about V'Ger. Spock calls it a conscious, living entity. Kirk explains that V'Ger considers the Enterprise a living machine and it's why "Ilia" refers to the ship as an entity and the crew as an infestation.
Spock describes V'Ger's homeworld as a planet populated by living machines with unbelievable technology. But with all that logic and knowledge, V'Ger is barren, with no mystery or meaning. He momentarily lapses into sleep but Kirk rouses him awake to ask what Spock should have known. Spock grasps Kirk's hand and tells him "This simple feeling is beyond V'Ger's comprehension. No meaning, no hope. And Jim, no answers. It's asking questions. 'Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?'"
Uhura chimes in and tells Kirk that they are getting a faint signal from Starfleet. The intruder has been on their monitors for a while and the cloud is rapidly dissipating as it approaches. Sulu also comments that the intruder has slowed to sub-warp speed and is three minutes from Earth orbit. Kirk acknowledges and he, McCoy and Spock go up to the bridge.
Starfleet sends the Enterprise a tactical report on the intruders position. Uhura tells Kirk that V'Ger is transmitting a signal. Decker and "Ilia" come up to the bridge, and she says that V'Ger is signaling the Creator. Spock determines that the transmission is a radio signal. Decker tells Kirk that V'Ger expects an answer, but Kirk doesn't know the question. Then "Ilia" says that the Creator has not responded. An energy bolt is released from V'Ger and positions itself above Earth. Chekov reports that all planetary defense systems have just gone inoperative. Several more bolts are released, and they all split apart to form smaller ones and they assume equidistant positions around the planet.
McCoy notices that the bolts are the same ones that hit the ship earlier, and Spock says that these are hundreds of times more powerful, and from those positions, they can destroy all life on Earth. "Why?" Kirk asks "Ilia." She says that the carbon unit infestation will be removed from the Creator's planet as they are interfering with the Creator's ability to respond and accuses the crew of infesting the Enterprise and interfering in the same manner. Kirk tells "Ilia" that carbon units are a natural function of the Creator's planet and they are living things, not infestations. However "Ilia" says they are not true life forms like the Creator. McCoy realizes V'Ger must think its creator is a machine.
Spock compares V'Ger to a child, and suggests they treat it like one. McCoy retorts that this child is about to wipe out every living thing on Earth. To get "Ilia's" attention, Kirk says that the carbon units know why the Creator hasn't responded. The Ilia probe demands that the Creator "disclose the information." Kirk won't do it until V'Ger withdraws all the orbiting devices. In response to this, V'Ger cuts off the ship's communications with Starfleet. She tells him again to disclose the information. He refuses, and a plasma energy attack shakes the ship. McCoy tells Spock that the child is having a "tantrum."
Kirk tells the probe that if V'Ger destroys the Enterprise, then the information it needs will also be destroyed. Ilia says that it is illogical to withhold the required information, and asks him why he won't disclose it. Kirk explains it is because V'Ger is going to destroy all life on Earth. "Ilia" says that they have oppressed the Creator, and Kirk makes it clear he will not disclose anything. V'Ger needs the information, says "Ilia." Kirk says that V'Ger will have to withdraw all the orbiting devices. "Ilia" says that V'Ger will comply, if the carbon units give the information.
Spock tells Kirk that V'Ger must have a central brain complex. Kirk theorizes that the orbiting devices are controlled from there. Kirk tells "Ilia" that the information cant be disclosed to V'Ger's probe, but only to V'Ger itself. "Ilia" stares at the viewscreen, and, in response, the aperture opens and drags the ship forward with a tractor beam into the next chamber. Chekov tells Kirk that the energy bolts will reach their final positions and activate in 27 minutes. Kirk calls to Scotty on the intercom and tells him to stand by to execute Starfleet Order 2005; the self-destruct command. A female crewmember asks Scotty why Kirk ordered self-destruct, and Scotty tells her that Kirk hopes that when they explode, so will the intruder.
The countdown is now down to 18 minutes. DiFalco reports that they have traveled 17 kilometers inside the vessel. Kirk goes over to Spock's station, and sees that Spock has been crying. "Not for us," Kirk realizes. Spock tells him he is crying for V'Ger, and that he weeps for V'Ger as he would for a brother. As he was when he came aboard the Enterprise, so is V'Ger now--empty, incomplete, and searching. Logic and knowledge are not enough. McCoy realizes Spock has found what he needed, but that V'Ger hasn't. Decker wonders what V'Ger would need to fulfill itself.
Spock comments that each one of us, at some point in our lives asks, "Why am I here?" "What was I meant to be?" V'Ger hopes to touch its Creator and find those answers. DiFalco directs Kirk's attention to the viewscreen. Ahead of them is a structure with a bright light. Sulu reports that forward motion has stopped. Chekov replies that an oxygen/gravity envelope has formed outside of the ship. "Ilia" points to the structure on the screen and identifies it as V'Ger. Uhura has located the source of the radio signal and it is straight ahead. A passageway forms outside the ship as Kirk Spock, McCoy, Decker, and "Ilia" enter a turbolift.
The landing party exits an airlock on the top of the saucer section and walks up the passageway. At the end of the path is a concave structure, and in the center of it is an old NASA probe from three centuries earlier. Kirk tries to rub away the smudges on the nameplate and makes out the letters V G E R. He continues to rub, and discovers that the craft is actually Voyager 6. Kirk recalls the history of the Voyager program--it was designed to collect data and transmit it back to Earth. Decker tells Kirk that Voyager 6 disappeared through a black hole.
Kirk says that it must have emerged on the far side of the galaxy and got caught in the machine planet's gravity. Spock theorizes that the planet's inhabitants found the probe to be one of their own kind--primitive, yet kindred. They discovered the probe's 20th century programming, which was to collect data and return that information to its creator. The machines interpreted that instruction literally, and constructed the entire vessel so that Voyager could fulfill its programming. Kirk continues by saying that on its journey back, it amassed so much knowledge that it gained its own consciousness.
"Ilia" tells Kirk that V'Ger awaits the information. Kirk calls Uhura on his communicator and tells her to find information on the probe in the ship's computer, specifically the NASA code signal, which will allow the probe to transmit its data. Decker realizes that that is what the probe was signaling--it's ready to transmit everything. Kirk then says that there is no one on Earth who recognizes the old-style signal--the Creator does not answer.
Kirk calls out to V'Ger and says that they are the Creator. "Ilia" says that is not logical--carbon units are not true life forms. Kirk says they will prove it by allowing V'Ger to complete its programming. Uhura calls Kirk on his communicator and tells him she has retrieved the code. Kirk tells her to set the Enterprise transmitter to the code frequency and to transmit the signal. Decker reads off the numerical code on his tricorder, and is about to read the final sequence, but Voyager's circuitry burns out, an effort by V'Ger itself to prevent the last part of the code from being transmitted.
"Ilia" says that the Creator must join with V'Ger, and turns toward Decker. McCoy warns Kirk that they only have 10 minutes left. Decker figures out that V'Ger wanted to bring the Creator here and transmit the code in person. Spock tells Kirk that V'Ger's knowledge has reached the limits of the universe and it must evolve. Kirk says that V'Ger needs a human quality in order to evolve. Decker thinks that V'Ger joining with the Creator will accomplish that. He then goes over to the damaged circuitry and fixes the wires so he can manually enter the rest of the code through the ground test computer. Kirk tries to stop him, but "Ilia" tosses him aside. Decker tells Kirk that he wants this as much as Kirk wanted the Enterprise.
Suddenly, a bright light forms around Decker's body. "Ilia" moves over to him, and the light encompasses them both as they merge together. Their bodies disappear, and the light expands and begins to consume the area. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy retreat back to the Enterprise. V'Ger explodes, leaving the Enterprise above Earth, unharmed. On the bridge, Kirk wonders if they just saw the beginning of a new life form, and Spock says yes and that it is possibly the next step in their evolution. McCoy says that its been a while since he "delivered" a baby, and hopes that they got this one off to a good start.
Uhura tells Kirk that Starfleet is requesting the ship's damage and injury reports and vessel status. Kirk reports that there were only two casualties: Lt. Ilia and Captain Decker. He quickly corrects his statement and changes their status to "missing." Vessel status: fully operational. Scotty comes on the bridge and agrees with Kirk that it's time to give the Enterprise a proper shakedown. When Scotty offers to have Spock back on Vulcan in four days, Spock says that's unnecessary, as his task on Vulcan is completed.
Kirk tells Sulu to proceed ahead at warp factor one. When DiFalco asks for a heading, Kirk simply says "Out there, thataway." With that, the Enterprise flies overhead and engages warp drive.
youtu.be/4n2dGwYcp9k?t=8s Star Trek Theme
Xander played Jesus in the Palm Sunday Children's program. Some poor girl had to pull him on the cart donkey.
This very large stone face was lying on its side while they do renovations at the Munsterbasilika in Bonn. It was just there - you could walk right up to it. No fence around it ... very open.
(added later): Apparently these are always on the ground:
In 2002 the Turkish sculptor Iskender Yediler (born 1953) created the heads of Saint Cassius and Saint Florentius who are said to have been decapitated in Bonn in 304.
They are meant to be a reminder of the town's patrons. Their bones rest in the crypt of Minster Basilica as the martyrs of Thebaeian Legion. Legends say that Empress Helena had this church erected to their honour in 310.
Gandhi (/ˈɡɑːndi, ˈɡæn-/;[2]Hindustani: [ˈmoːɦənd̪aːs ˈkərəmtʃənd̪ ˈɡaːnd̪ʱi] ( listen); 2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948) was the preeminent leader of Indian independence movement in British-ruled India. Employing nonviolent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific Mahatma (Sanskrit: "high-souled", "venerable"[3])—applied to him first in 1914 in South Africa,[4]—is now used worldwide. He is also called Bapu (Gujarati: endearment for "father",[5]"papa"[5][6]) in India.
Born and raised in a Hindu merchant caste family in coastal Gujarat, western India, and trained in law at the Inner Temple, London, Gandhi first employed nonviolent civil disobedience as an expatriate lawyer in South Africa, in the resident Indian community's struggle for civil rights. After his return to India in 1915, he set about organising peasants, farmers, and urban labourers to protest against excessive land-tax and discrimination. Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for easing poverty, expanding women's rights, building religious and ethnic amity, ending untouchability, but above all for achieving Swaraj or self-rule.
Gandhi famously led Indians in challenging the British-imposed salt tax with the 400 km (250 mi) Dandi Salt March in 1930, and later in calling for the British toQuit India in 1942. He was imprisoned for many years, upon many occasions, in both South Africa and India. Gandhi attempted to practise nonviolence and truth in all situations, and advocated that others do the same. He lived modestly in a self-sufficient residential community and wore the traditional Indian dhotiand shawl, woven with yarn hand spun on a charkha. He ate simple vegetarian food, and also undertook long fasts as the means to both self-purification and social protest.
Gandhi's vision of a free India based on religious pluralism, however, was challenged in the early 1940s by a new Muslim nationalism which was demanding a separate Muslim homeland carved out of India.[7] Eventually, in August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire[7] waspartitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and Muslim Pakistan.[8] As many displaced Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made their way to their new lands, religious violence broke out, especially in the Punjab and Bengal. Eschewing the official celebration of independence in Delhi, Gandhi visited the affected areas, attempting to provide solace. In the months following, he undertook several fasts unto death to promote religious harmony. The last of these, undertaken on 12 January 1948 at age 78,[9] also had the indirect goal of pressuring India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan.[9] Some Indians thought Gandhi was too accommodating.[9][10] Nathuram Godse, aHindu nationalist, assassinated Gandhi on 30 January 1948 by firing three bullets into his chest at point-blank range.[10]
Indians widely describe Gandhi as the father of the nation.[11][12] His birthday, 2 October, is commemorated as Gandhi Jayanti, a national holiday, and world-wide as the International Day of Nonviolence. He was the mentor of Indira Gandhi.Gandhi focused his attention on Indians while in South Africa and opposed the idea that Indians should be treated at the same level as native Africans while in South Africa.[39][40][41]He also stated that he believed "that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."[42] After several treatments he received from Whites in South Africa, Gandhi began to change his thinking and apparently increased his interest in politics.[43]White rule enforced strict segregation among all races and generated conflict between these communities. Bhana and Vahed argue that Gandhi, at first, shared racial notions prevalent of the times and that his experiences in jail sensitised him to the plight of South Africa's indigenous peoples.[44]
During the Boer war Gandhi volunteered in 1900 to form a group of ambulance drivers. He wanted to disprove the British idea that Hindus were not fit for "manly" activities involving danger and exertion. Gandhi raised eleven hundred Indian volunteers. They were trained and medically certified to serve on the front lines. At Spion Kop Gandhi and his bearers had to carry wounded soldiers for miles to a field hospital because the terrain was too rough for the ambulances. Gandhi was pleased when someone said that European ambulance corpsmen could not make the trip under the heat without food or water. General Redvers Buller mentioned the courage of the Indians in his dispatch. Gandhi and thirty-seven other Indians received the War Medal.[45]
In 1906, when the British declared war against the Zulu Kingdom in Natal, Gandhi encouraged the British to recruit Indians.[46] He argued that Indians should support the war efforts to legitimise their claims to full citizenship.[46] The British accepted Gandhi's offer to let a detachment of 20 Indians volunteer as a stretcher-bearer corps to treat wounded British soldiers. This corps was commanded by Gandhi and operated for less than two months.[47] The experience taught him it was hopeless to directly challenge the overwhelming military power of the British army—he decided it could only be resisted in nonviolent fashion by the pure of heart.[48]
In 1910, Gandhi established an idealistic community called 'Tolstoy Farm' near Johannesburg, where he nurtured his policy of peaceful resistance.[49]
After blacks gained the right to vote in South Africa, Gandhi was proclaimed a national hero with numerous monuments.[50]In 1915, Gandhi returned to India permanently. He brought an international reputation as a leading Indian nationalist, theorist and organiser. He joined the Indian National Congress and was introduced to Indian issues, politics and the Indian people primarily by Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Gokhale was a key leader of the Congress Party best known for his restraint and moderation, and his insistence on working inside the system. Gandhi took Gokhale's liberal approach based on British Whiggish traditions and transformed it to make it look wholly Indian.[51]
Gandhi took leadership of Congress in 1920 and began a steady escalation of demands (with intermittent compromises or pauses) until on 26 January 1930 the Indian National Congress declared the independence of India. The British did not recognise the declaration, and more negotiations ensued, with Congress taking a role in provincial government in the late 1930s. Gandhi and Congress withdrew their support of the Raj when the Viceroy declared war on Germany in September 1939 without consulting anyone. Tensions escalated until Gandhi demanded immediate independence in 1942 and the British responded by imprisoning him and tens of thousands of Congress leaders for the duration. Meanwhile the Muslim League did cooperate with Britain and moved, against Gandhi's strong opposition, to demands for a totally separate Muslim state of Pakistan. In August 1947 the British partitioned the land, with India and Pakistan each achieving independence on terms that Gandhi disapproved.[52]Gandhi stayed out of active politics and, as such, the limelight for most of the 1920s. He focused instead on resolving the wedge between the Swaraj Party and the Indian National Congress, and expanding initiatives against untouchability, alcoholism, ignorance and poverty. He returned to the fore in 1928. In the preceding year, the British government had appointed a new constitutional reform commission under Sir John Simon, which did not include any Indian as its member. The result was a boycott of the commission by Indian political parties. Gandhi pushed through a resolution at the Calcutta Congress in December 1928 calling on the British government to grant India dominion status or face a new campaign of noncooperation with complete independence for the country as its goal. Gandhi had not only moderated the views of younger men like Subhas Chandra Bose andJawaharlal Nehru, who sought a demand for immediate independence, but also reduced his own call to a one year wait, instead of two.[82]
The British did not respond. On 31 December 1929, the flag of India was unfurled in Lahore. 26 January 1930 was celebrated as India's Independence Day by the Indian National Congress meeting in Lahore. This day was commemorated by almost every other Indian organisation. Gandhi then launched a new Satyagraha against the tax on salt in March 1930. This was highlighted by the famous Salt March to Dandi from 12 March to 6 April, where he marched 388 kilometres (241 mi) from Ahmedabad to Dandi, Gujarat to make salt himself. Thousands of Indians joined him on this march to the sea. This campaign was one of his most successful at upsetting British hold on India; Britain responded by imprisoning over 60,000 people.[83]Women
Gandhi strongly favoured the emancipation of women, and he went so far as to say that "the women have come to look upon me as one of themselves." He opposed purdah, child marriage, untouchability, and the extreme oppression of Hindu widows, up to and including sati. He especially recruited women to participate in the salt tax campaigns and the boycott of foreign products.[84] Sarma concludes that Gandhi's success in enlisting women in his campaigns, including the salt tax campaign, anti-untouchability campaign and the peasant movement, gave many women a new self-confidence and dignity in the mainstream of Indian public life.[85]
Gandhi as folk hero
Congress in the 1920s appealed to peasants by portraying Gandhi as a sort of messiah, a strategy that succeeded in incorporating radical forces within the peasantry into the nonviolent resistance movement. In thousands of villages plays were performed that presented Gandhi as the reincarnation of earlier Indian nationalist leaders, or even as a demigod. The plays built support among illiterate peasants steeped in traditional Hindu culture. Similar messianic imagery appeared in popular songs and poems, and in Congress-sponsored religious pageants and celebrations. The result was that Gandhi became not only a folk hero but the Congress was widely seen in the villages as his sacred instrument.[86]Gandhism designates the ideas and principles Gandhi promoted. Of central importance is nonviolent resistance. A Gandhiancan mean either an individual who follows, or a specific philosophy which is attributed to, Gandhism.[58] M. M. Sankhdher argues that Gandhism is not a systematic position in metaphysics or in political philosophy. Rather, it is a political creed, an economic doctrine, a religious outlook, a moral precept, and especially, a humanitarian world view. It is an effort not to systematise wisdom but to transform society and is based on an undying faith in the goodness of human nature.[132]However Gandhi himself did not approve of the notion of "Gandhism", as he explained in 1936:
There is no such thing as "Gandhism", and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems...The opinions I have formed and the conclusions I have arrived at are not final. I may change them tomorrow. I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills.[133]Gandhi dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya. He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting experiments on himself. He called his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth.[148]
Bruce Watson argues that Gandhi based Satyagraha on the Vedantic ideal of self-realization, and notes it also contains Jain and Buddhist notions of nonviolence, vegetarianism, the avoidance of killing, and 'agape' (universal love). Gandhi also borrowed Christian-Islamic ideas of equality, the brotherhood of man, and the concept of turning the other cheek.[149]
Gandhi stated that the most important battle to fight was overcoming his own demons, fears, and insecurities. Gandhi summarised his beliefs first when he said "God is Truth". He would later change this statement to "Truth is God". Thus, satya(truth) in Gandhi's philosophy is "God".[150]
The essence of Satyagraha (a name Gandhi invented meaning "adherence to truth"[151]) is that it seeks to eliminate antagonisms without harming the antagonists themselves and seeks to transform or "purify" it to a higher level. A euphemism sometimes used for Satyagraha is that it is a "silent force" or a "soul force" (a term also used by Martin Luther King Jr. during his famous "I Have a Dream" speech). It arms the individual with moral power rather than physical power. Satyagraha is also termed a "universal force", as it essentially "makes no distinction between kinsmen and strangers, young and old, man and woman, friend and foe."[152]
Gandhi wrote: "There must be no impatience, no barbarity, no insolence, no undue pressure. If we want to cultivate a true spirit of democracy, we cannot afford to be intolerant. Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."[153] Civil disobedience and noncooperation as practised under Satyagraha are based on the "law of suffering",[154] a doctrine that the endurance of suffering is a means to an end. This end usually implies a moral upliftment or progress of an individual or society. Therefore, noncooperation in Satyagraha is in fact a means to secure the cooperation of the opponent consistently with truth and justice.[155]Gandhi used fasting as a political device, often threatening suicide unless demands were met. Congress publicised the fasts as a political action that generated widespread sympathy. In response the government tried to manipulate news coverage to minimise his challenge to the Raj. He fasted in 1932 to protest the voting scheme for separate political representation for Dalits; Gandhi did not want them segregated. The government stopped the London press from showing photographs of his emaciated body, because it would elicit sympathy. Gandhi's 1943 hunger strike took place during a two-year prison term for the anticolonial Quit India movement. The government called on nutritional experts to demystify his action, and again no photos were allowed. However, his final fast in 1948, after India was independent, was lauded by the British press and this time did include full-length photos.[180]
Alter argues that Gandhi's fixation on diet and celibacy were much deeper than exercises in self-discipline. Rather, his beliefs regarding health offered a critique of both the traditional Hindu system of ayurvedic medicine and Western concepts. This challenge was integral to his deeper challenge to tradition and modernity, as health and nonviolence became part of the same ethics.[181]Vegetarianism and food
Stephen Hay argues that Gandhi in London looked into numerous religious and intellectual currents. He especially appreciated how the theosophical movement encouraged a religious eclecticism and an antipathy to atheism. Hay says the vegetarian movement had the greatest impact for it was Gandhi's point of entry into other reformist agendas of the time.[174]The idea of vegetarianism is deeply ingrained in Hindu and Jain traditions in India, especially in his native Gujarat.[175]Gandhi was close to the chairman of the London Vegetarian Society, Dr. Josiah Oldfield, and corresponded with Henry Stephens Salt, a vegetarian campaigner. Gandhi became a strict vegetarian. He wrote the book The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism and wrote for the London Vegetarian Society's publication.[176] Gandhi was somewhat of a food faddist taking his own goat to travels so he could always have fresh milk.[177]
Gandhi noted in The Story of My Experiments with Truth, that vegetarianism was the beginning of his deep commitment toBrahmacharya; without total control of the palate, his success in following Brahmacharya would likely falter. "You wish to know what the marks of a man are who wants to realise Truth which is God", he wrote. "He must reduce himself to zero and have perfect control over all his senses-beginning with the palate or tongue."[178][179] Gandhi also stated that he followed afruitarian diet for five years but discontinued it due to pleurisy and pressure from his doctor. He thereafter resumed a vegetarian diet.