There are really only two ways to photograph operating trains that you are not riding on.

 

In the first instance you pick a good spot and wait for a train to come.

 

In the alternative and clearly the more fun method, you chase the train in your trusty railfanning vehicle and meet it at a number of predetermined spots that you know will provide images with interesting backgrounds and good light on the nose and sides of the lead engine(s).

 

That considered, when one engages in a train chase, there are a few things that cannot be foreseen during said chase that greatly effect the results of the photographic efforts of the participants, one of which is the presence of an extra train in the wrong place at the wrong time and as here, on the wrong track.

 

In this instance I had been on a scouting trip on a dirt road further up the hill near Stein's Hill when I heard the BNSF (in the distance) heading down the hill.

 

Having already hit my favorite spots up the hill, I boogied on down the freshly rutted dirt road paralleling I-15 and got on Highway 138 for the dash across Cajon Creek to a little spot I know near Pine Lodge.

 

Then as I pull in off the highway all fat and happy, ready to a get a good shot of the big Orange one coming down the grade, I hear the rumble of a Yellow one as it blasts from under the bridge to my right.

 

Now I am stuck with some great afternoon light and an extra train on the wrong track.

 

Too bad these were not reversed, but that is life and I thought this one came out rather interesting.

 

BNSF Cajon Subdivision at Pine Lodge and California State Route 138, San Bernardino County California.

 

(March 9, 2010)

 

********************************************************************************************

 

This images was initially rejected by RP.net because: - Bad Angle: The angle from which the image was composed is poor. This can include extreme angles below or above the subject, uninteresting angles on roster shots, and images in which the train is going away from the viewer.

 

I appealed the rejection by pointing out that the subject of the shot was not the train in foreground, rather it was the meet between the head end of the train in the foreground and the Orange one coming down the hill. I also pointed out that the composition of the image was "different" and that people seem to like the "different." They obviously accepted that argument.

 

********************************************************************************************

 

Dear EL ROCO Photography,

 

Congratulations! One of your recently uploaded photos has made it as one of

the top 2 viewed photos at RailPictures.Net for the past 24 hours!

 

You may view this photo at the link below, or visit our homepage at

www.railpictures.net to see your photo featured on the front page! Your

photo will be featured on the front page until it is either passed by another

photo, or has been on the site for longer than 24 hours.

 

Photo Link: Link

 

As always, please accept our sincere appreciation for choosing to upload

your photos to RailPictures.Net, the most popular railroad interest site

online! And once again, congratulations!

 

Best regards,

Chris Kilroy

Editor, RailPictures.Net

www.railpictures.net/

I normally like marbled LEGO parts, but in this particular instance, I wish it weren't there :(

Krishna [1](/ˈkrɪʃnə/; Sanskrit: कृष्ण, Kṛṣṇa in IAST, pronounced [ˈkr̩ʂɳə] ( listen)) is considered the supreme deity, worshipped across many traditions of Hinduism in a variety of different perspectives. Krishna is recognized as the eighth incarnation (avatar) of Lord Vishnu, and one and the same as Lord Vishnu one of the trimurti and as the supreme god in his own right. Krishna is the principal protagonist with Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita also known as the Song of God, which depicts the conversation between the Royal Prince Arjuna and Krishna during the great battle of Kurukshetra 5000 years ago where Arjuna discovers that Krishna is God and then comprehends his nature and will for him and for mankind. In present age Krishna is one of the most widely revered and most popular of all Indian divinities.[2]

Krishna is often described and portrayed as an infant eating butter, a young boy playing a flute as in the Bhagavata Purana,[3] or as an elder giving direction and guidance as in the Bhagavad Gita.[4] The stories of Krishna appear across a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions.[5] They portray him in various perspectives: a god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero, and the Supreme Being.[6] The principal scriptures discussing Krishna's story are the Mahabharata, the Harivamsa, the Bhagavata Purana, and the Vishnu Purana.

Krishna's disappearance marks the end of Dvapara Yuga and the start of Kali Yuga (present age), which is dated to February 17/18, 3102 BCE.[7] Worship of the deity Krishna, either in the form of deity Krishna or in the form of Vasudeva, Bala Krishna or Gopala can be traced to as early as 4th century BC.[8][9] Worship of Krishna as Svayam Bhagavan, or the supreme being, known as Krishnaism, arose in the Middle Ages in the context of the Bhakti movement. From the 10th century AD, Krishna became a favourite subject in performing arts and regional traditions of devotion developed for forms of Krishna such as Jagannatha in Odisha, Vithoba in Maharashtra and Shrinathji in Rajasthan. Since the 1960s the worship of Krishna has also spread in the Western world, largely due to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.[10]The name originates from the Sanskrit word Kṛṣṇa, which is primarily an adjective meaning "black", "dark" or "dark blue".[11] The waning moon is called Krishna Paksha in the Vedic tradition, relating to the adjective meaning "darkening".[12] Sometimes it is also translated as "all-attractive", according to members of the Hare Krishna movement.[13]

As a name of Vishnu, Krishna listed as the 57th name in the Vishnu Sahasranama. Based on his name, Krishna is often depicted in murtis as black or blue-skinned. Krishna is also known by various other names, epithets and titles, which reflect his many associations and attributes. Among the most common names are Mohan "enchanter", Govinda, "Finder of the cows" or Gopala, "Protector of the cows", which refer to Krishna's childhood in Braj (in present day Uttar Pradesh).[14][15] Some of the distinct names may be regionally important; for instance, Jagannatha, a popular incarnation of Puri, Odisha in eastern India.[16]Krishna is easily recognized by his representations. Though his skin color may be depicted as black or dark in some representations, particularly in murtis, in other images such as modern pictorial representations, Krishna is usually shown with a blue skin. He is often shown wearing a silk dhoti and a peacock feather crown. Common depictions show him as a little boy, or as a young man in a characteristically relaxed pose, playing the flute.[17][18] In this form, he usually stands with one leg bent in front of the other with a flute raised to his lips, in the Tribhanga posture, accompanied by cows, emphasizing his position as the divine herdsman, Govinda, or with the gopis (milkmaids) i.e. Gopikrishna, stealing butter from neighbouring houses i.e. Navneet Chora or Gokulakrishna, defeating the vicious serpent i.e. Kaliya Damana Krishna, lifting the hill i.e. Giridhara Krishna ..so on and so forth from his childhood / youth events.

A steatite (soapstone) tablet unearthed from Mohenjo-daro, Larkana district, Sindh depicting a young boy uprooting two trees from which are emerging two human figures is an interesting archaeological find for fixing dates associated with Krishna. This image recalls the Yamalarjuna episode of Bhagavata and Harivamsa Purana. In this image, the young boy is Krishna, and the two human beings emerging from the trees are the two cursed gandharvas, identified as Nalakubara and Manigriva. Dr. E.J.H. Mackay, who did the excavation at Mohanjodaro, compares this image with the Yamalarjuna episode. Prof. V.S. Agrawal has also accepted this identification. Thus, it seems that the Indus valley people knew stories related to Krishna. This lone find may not establish Krishna as contemporary with Pre-Indus or Indus times, but, likewise, it cannot be ignored.[19][20]The scene on the battlefield of the epic Mahabharata, notably where he addresses Pandava prince Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, is another common subject for representation. In these depictions, he is shown as a man, often with supreme God characteristics of Hindu religious art, such as multiple arms or heads, denoting power, and with attributes of Vishnu, such as the chakra or in his two-armed form as a charioteer. Cave paintings dated to 800 BCE in Mirzapur, Mirzapur district, Uttar Pradesh, show raiding horse-charioteers, one of whom is about to hurl a wheel, and who could potentially be identified as Krishna.[21]

Representations in temples often show Krishna as a man standing in an upright, formal pose. He may be alone, or with associated figures:[22] his brother Balarama and sister Subhadra, or his main queens Rukmini and Satyabhama.

Often, Krishna is pictured with his gopi-consort Radha. Manipuri Vaishnavas do not worship Krishna alone, but as Radha Krishna,[23] a combined image of Krishna and Radha. This is also a characteristic of the schools Rudra[24] and Nimbarka sampradaya,[25] as well as that of Swaminarayan sect. The traditions celebrate Radha Ramana murti, who is viewed by Gaudiyas as a form of Radha Krishna.[26]

Krishna is also depicted and worshipped as a small child (Bala Krishna, Bāla Kṛṣṇa the child Krishna), crawling on his hands and knees or dancing, often with butter or Laddu in his hand being Laddu Gopal.[27][28] Regional variations in the iconography of Krishna are seen in his different forms, such as Jaganatha of Odisha, Vithoba of Maharashtra,[29] Venkateswara (also Srinivasa or Balaji) in Andhra Pradesh, and Shrinathji in Rajasthan.The earliest text to explicitly provide detailed descriptions of Krishna as a personality is the epic Mahabharata which depicts Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu.[30] Krishna is central to many of the main stories of the epic. The eighteen chapters of the sixth book (Bhishma Parva) of the epic that constitute the Bhagavad Gita contain the advice of Krishna to the warrior-hero Arjuna, on the battlefield. Krishna is already an adult in the epic, although there are allusions to his earlier exploits. The Harivamsa, a later appendix to this epic, contains the earliest detailed version of Krishna's childhood and youth.

The Rig Veda 1.22.164 sukta 31 mentions a herdsman "who never stumbles".[31] Some Vaishnavite scholars, such as Bhaktivinoda Thakura, claim that this herdsman refers to Krishna.[32] Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar also attempted to show that "the very same Krishna" made an appearance, e.g. as the drapsa ... krishna "black drop" of RV 8.96.13.[33] Some authors have also likened prehistoric depictions of deities to Krishna.

Chandogya Upanishad (3.17.6) composed around 900 BCE[34] mentions Vasudeva Krishna as the son of Devaki and the disciple of Ghora Angirasa, the seer who preached his disciple the philosophy of ‘Chhandogya.’ Having been influenced by the philosophy of ‘Chhandogya’ Krishna in the Bhagavadgita while delivering the discourse to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra discussed about sacrifice, which can be compared to purusha or the individual.[35][36][37][38]

Yāska's Nirukta, an etymological dictionary around 6th century BC, contains a reference to the Shyamantaka jewel in the possession of Akrura, a motif from well known Puranic story about Krishna.[39] Shatapatha Brahmana and Aitareya-Aranyaka, associate Krishna with his Vrishni origins.[40]

Pāṇini, the ancient grammarian and author of Asthadhyayi (probably belonged to 5th century or 6th century BC) mentions a character called Vāsudeva, son of Vasudeva, and also mentions Kaurava and Arjuna which testifies to Vasudeva Krishna, Arjuna and Kauravas being contemporaries.[35][41][42]

Megasthenes (350 – 290 BC) a Greek ethnographer and an ambassador of Seleucus I to the court of Chandragupta Maurya made reference to Herakles in his famous work Indica. Many scholars have suggested that the deity identified as Herakles was Krishna. According to Arrian, Diodorus, and Strabo, Megasthenes described an Indian tribe called Sourasenoi, who especially worshipped Herakles in their land, and this land had two cities, Methora and Kleisobora, and a navigable river, the Jobares. As was common in the ancient period, the Greeks sometimes described foreign gods in terms of their own divinities, and there is a little doubt that the Sourasenoi refers to the Shurasenas, a branch of the Yadu dynasty to which Krishna belonged; Herakles to Krishna, or Hari-Krishna: Methora to Mathura, where Krishna was born; Kleisobora to Krishnapura, meaning "the city of Krishna"; and the Jobares to the Yamuna, the famous river in the Krishna story. Quintus Curtius also mentions that when Alexander the Great confronted Porus, Porus's soldiers were carrying an image of Herakles in their vanguard.[43]

The name Krishna occurs in Buddhist writings in the form Kānha, phonetically equivalent to Krishna.[44]

The Ghata-Jâtaka (No. 454) gives an account of Krishna's childhood and subsequent exploits which in many points corresponds with the Brahmanic legends of his life and contains several familiar incidents and names, such as Vâsudeva, Baladeva, Kaṃsa. Yet it presents many peculiarities and is either an independent version or a misrepresentation of a popular story that had wandered far from its home. Jain tradition also shows that these tales were popular and were worked up into different forms, for the Jains have an elaborate system of ancient patriarchs which includes Vâsudevas and Baladevas. Krishna is the ninth of the Black Vâsudevas and is connected with Dvâravatî or Dvârakâ. He will become the twelfth tîrthankara of the next world-period and a similar position will be attained by Devakî, Rohinî, Baladeva and Javakumâra, all members of his family. This is a striking proof of the popularity of the Krishna legend outside the Brahmanic religion.[45]

According to Arthasastra of Kautilya (4th century BCE) Vāsudeva was worshiped as supreme Deity in a strongly monotheistic format.[41]

Around 150 BC, Patanjali in his Mahabhashya quotes a verse: "May the might of Krishna accompanied by Samkarshana increase!" Other verses are mentioned. One verse speaks of "Janardhana with himself as fourth" (Krishna with three companions, the three possibly being Samkarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha). Another verse mentions musical instruments being played at meetings in the temples of Rama (Balarama) and Kesava (Krishna). Patanjali also describes dramatic and mimetic performances (Krishna-Kamsopacharam) representing the killing of Kamsa by Vasudeva.[46][47]

In the 1st century BC, there seems to be evidence for a worship of five Vrishni heroes (Balarama, Krishna, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Samba) for an inscription has been found at Mora near Mathura, which apparently mentions a son of the great satrap Rajuvula, probably the satrap Sodasa, and an image of Vrishni, "probably Vasudeva, and of the "Five Warriors".[48] Brahmi inscription on the Mora stone slab, now in the Mathura Museum.[49][50]

Many Puranas tell Krishna's life-story or some highlights from it. Two Puranas, the Bhagavata Purana and the Vishnu Purana, that contain the most elaborate telling of Krishna’s story and teachings are the most theologically venerated by the Vaishnava schools.[51] Roughly one quarter of the Bhagavata Purana is spent extolling his life and philosophy.

Life[edit]

This summary is based on details from the Mahābhārata, the Harivamsa, the Bhagavata Purana and the Vishnu Purana. The scenes from the narrative are set in north India mostly in the present states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Delhi and Gujarat.Based on scriptural details and astrological calculations, the date of Krishna's birth, known as Janmashtami,[52] is 18 July 3228 BCE.[53] He was born to Devaki and her husband, Vasudeva,[54][55] When Mother Earth became upset by the sin being committed on Earth, she thought of seeking help from Lord Vishnu. She went in the form of a cow to visit Lord Vishnu and ask for help. Lord Vishnu agreed to help her and promised her that he would be born on Earth. On Earth in the Yadava clan, he was yadav according to his birth, a prince named Kansa sent his father Ugrasena (King of Mathura) to prison and became the King himself. One day a loud voice from the sky (Akash Vani in Hindi) prophesied that the 8th son of Kansa's sister (Devaki) would kill Kansa. Out of affection for Devaki, Kansa did not kill her outright. He did, however, send his sister and her husband (Vasudeva) to prison. Lord Vishnu himself later appeared to Devaki and Vasudeva and told them that he himself would be their eighth son and kill Kansa and destroy sin in the world. In the story of Krishna the deity is the agent of conception and also the offspring.[citation needed] Because of his sympathy for the earth, the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son, Vaasudeva (i.e., Krishna).[citation needed] This is occasionally cited as evidence that "virgin birth" tales are fairly common in non-Christian religions around the world.[56][57][58] However, there is nothing in Hindu scriptures to suggest that it was a "virgin" birth. By the time of conception and birth of Krishna, Devaki was married to Vasudeva and had already borne 7 children.[59] Virgin birth in this case should be more accurately understood as divine conception. Kunti the mother of the Pandavas referenced contemporaneously with the story of Krishna in the Mahabharata also has divine conception and virgin birth of Prince Karna.

The Hindu Vishnu Purana relates: "Devaki bore in her womb the lotus-eyed deity...before the birth of Krishna, no one could bear to gaze upon Devaki, from the light that invested her, and those who contemplated her radiance felt their minds disturbed.” This reference to light is reminiscent of the Vedic hymn "To an Unknown Divine," which refers to a Golden Child. According to F. M. Müller, this term means "the golden gem of child" and is an attempt at naming the sun. According to the Vishnu Purana, Krishna is the total incarnation of Lord Vishnu. It clearly describes in the Vishnu Purana that Krishna was born on earth to destroy sin, especially Kansa.

Krishna belonged to the Vrishni clan of Yadavas from Mathura,[60] and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva.

Mathura (in present day Mathura district, Uttar Pradesh) was the capital of the Yadavas, to which Krishna's parents Vasudeva and Devaki belonged. King Kansa, Devaki's brother,[61] had ascended the throne by imprisoning his father, King Ugrasena. Afraid of a prophecy from a divine voice from the heavens that predicted his death at the hands of Devaki's eighth "garbha", Kansa had the couple locked in a prison cell. After Kansa killed the first six children, Devaki apparently had a miscarriage of the seventh. However, in reality, the womb was actually transferred to Rohini secretly. This was how Balarama, Krishna's elder brother, was born. Once again Devaki became pregnant. Now due to the miscarriage, Kansa was in a puzzle regarding 'The Eighth One', but his ministers advised that the divine voice from the heavens emphasised "the eight garbha" and so this is the one. That night Krishna was born in the Abhijit nakshatra and simultanously Ekanamsha was born as Yogamaya in Gokulam to Nanda and Yashoda.

Since Vasudeva knew Krishna's life was in danger, Krishna was secretly taken out of the prison cell to be raised by his foster parents, Yasoda[62] and Nanda, in Gokula (in present day Mathura district). Two of his other siblings also survived, Balarama (Devaki's seventh child, transferred to the womb of Rohini, Vasudeva's first wife) and Subhadra (daughter of Vasudeva and Rohini, born much later than Balarama and Krishna)Nanda was the head of a community of cow-herders, and he settled in Vrindavana. The stories of Krishna's childhood and youth tell how he became a cow herder,[64] his mischievous pranks as Makhan Chor (butter thief) his foiling of attempts to take his life, and his role as a protector of the people of Vrindavana.

Krishna killed the demoness Putana, disguised as a wet nurse, and the tornado demon Trinavarta both sent by Kamsa for Krishna's life. He tamed the serpent Kāliyā, who previously poisoned the waters of Yamuna river, thus leading to the death of the cowherds. In Hindu art, Krishna is often depicted dancing on the multi-hooded Kāliyā.

Krishna lifted the Govardhana hill and taught Indra, the king of the devas, a lesson to protect native people of Brindavana from persecution by Indra and prevent the devastation of the pasture land of Govardhan. Indra had too much pride and was angry when Krishna advised the people of Brindavana to take care of their animals and their environment that provide them with all their necessities, instead of worshipping Indra annually by spending their resources.[65][66] In the view of some, the spiritual movement started by Krishna had something in it which went against the orthodox forms of worship of the Vedic gods such as Indra.[67] In Bhagavat Purana, Krishna says that the rain came from the nearby hill Govardhana, and advised that the people worshiped the hill instead of Indra. This made Indra furious, so he punished them by sending out a great storm. Krishna then lifted Govardhan and held it over the people like an umbrella.

The stories of his play with the gopis (milkmaids) of Brindavana, especially Radha (daughter of Vrishbhanu, one of the original residents of Brindavan) became known as the Rasa lila and were romanticised in the poetry of Jayadeva, author of the Gita Govinda. These became important as part of the development of the Krishna bhakti traditions worshiping Radha Krishna.[68]

Krishna’s childhood reinforces the Hindu concept of lila, playing for fun and enjoyment and not for sport or gain. His interaction with the gopis at the rasa dance or Rasa-lila is a great example of this. Krishna played his flute and the gopis came immediately from whatever they were doing, to the banks of the Yamuna River, and joined him in singing and dancing. Even those who could not physically be there joined him through meditation.[69] The story of Krishna’s battle with Kāliyā also supports this idea in the sense of him dancing on Kāliyā’s many hoods. Even though he is doing battle with the serpent, he is in no real danger and treats it like a game. He is a protector, but he only appears to be a young boy having fun.[70] This idea of having a playful god is very important in Hinduism. The playfulness of Krishna has inspired many celebrations like the Rasa-lila and the Janmashtami : where they make human pyramids to break open handis (clay pots) hung high in the air that spill buttermilk all over the group after being broken by the person at the top. This is meant to be a fun celebration and it gives the participants a sense of unity. Many believe that lila being connected with Krishna gives Hindus a deeper connection to him and thus a deeper connection to Vishnu also; seeing as Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu. Theologists, like Kristin Johnston Largen, believe that Krishna’s childhood can even inspire other religions to look for lila in deities so that they have a chance to experience a part of their faith that they may not have previously seen.On his return to Mathura as a young man, Krishna overthrew and killed his maternal uncle, Kansa, after quelling several assassination attempts from Kansa's followers. He reinstated Kansa's father, Ugrasena, as the king of the Yadavas and became a leading prince at the court.[73] During this period, he became a friend of Arjuna and the other Pandava princes of the Kuru kingdom, who were his cousins. Later, he took his Yadava subjects to the city of Dwaraka (in modern Gujarat) and established his own kingdom there.[74]

Krishna married Rukmini, the Vidarbha princess, by abducting her, at her request, from her proposed wedding with Shishupala. He married eight queens—collectively called the Ashtabharya—including Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Mitravinda, Nagnajiti, Bhadra and Lakshmana.[75][76] Krishna subsequently married 16,000 or 16,100 maidens who were held captive by the demon Narakasura, to save their honour.[77][78] Krishna killed the demon and released them all. According to social custom of the time, all of the captive women were degraded, and would be unable to marry, as they had been under the Narakasura's control. However Krishna married them to reinstate their status in the society. This symbolic wedding with 16,100 abandoned daughters was more of a mass rehabilitation.[79] In Vaishnava traditions, Krishna's wives are forms of the goddess Lakshmi— consort of Vishnu, or special souls who attained this qualification after many lifetimes of austerity, while his two queens, Rukmani and Satyabhama, are expansions of Lakshmi.[80]

When Yudhisthira was assuming the title of emperor, he had invited all the great kings to the ceremony and while paying his respects to them, he started with Krishna because he considered Krishna to be the greatest of them all. While it was a unanimous feeling amongst most present at the ceremony that Krishna should get the first honours, his cousin Shishupala felt otherwise and started berating Krishna. Due to a vow given to Shishupal's mother, Krishna forgave a hundred verbal abuses by Shishupal, and upon the one hundred and first, he assumed his Virat (universal) form and killed Shishupal with his Chakra. The blind king Dhritarashtra also obtained divine vision to be able to see this form of Krishna during the time when Duryodana tried to capture Krishna when he came as a peace bearer before the great Mahabharat War. Essentially, Shishupala and Dantavakra were both re-incarnations of Vishnu's gate-keepers Jaya and Vijaya, who were cursed to be born on Earth, to be delivered by the Vishnu back to Vaikuntha.Once battle seemed inevitable, Krishna offered both sides the opportunity to choose between having either his army called narayani sena or himself alone, but on the condition that he personally would not raise any weapon. Arjuna, on behalf of the Pandavas, chose to have Krishna on their side, and Duryodhana, Kaurava prince, chose Krishna's army. At the time of the great battle, Krishna acted as Arjuna's charioteer, since this position did not require the wielding of weapons.

Upon arrival at the battlefield, and seeing that the enemies are his family, his grandfather, his cousins and loved ones, Arjuna is moved and says his heart does not allow him to fight and he would rather prefer to renounce the kingdom and put down his Gandiv (Arjuna's bow). Krishna then advises him about the battle, with the conversation soon extending into a discourse which was later compiled as the Bhagavad Gita.[82]Krishna asked Arjuna, "Have you within no time, forgotten the Kauravas' evil deeds such as not accepting the eldest brother Yudhishtira as King, usurping the entire Kingdom without yielding any portion to the Pandavas, meting out insults and difficulties to Pandavas, attempt to murder the Pandavas in the Barnava lac guest house, publicly attempting to disrobe and disgracing Draupadi. Krishna further exhorted in his famous Bhagavad Gita, "Arjuna, do not engage in philosophical analyses at this point of time like a Pundit. You are aware that Duryodhana and Karna particularly have long harboured jealousy and hatred for you Pandavas and badly want to prove their hegemony. You are aware that Bhishmacharya and your Teachers are tied down to their dharma of protecting the unitarian power of the Kuru throne. Moreover, you Arjuna, are only a mortal appointee to carry out my divine will, since the Kauravas are destined to die either way, due to their heap of sins. Open your eyes O Bhaarata and know that I encompass the Karta, Karma and Kriya, all in myself. There is no scope for contemplation now or remorse later, it is indeed time for war and the world will remember your might and immense powers for time to come. So rise O Arjuna!, tighten up your Gandiva and let all directions shiver till their farthest horizons, by the reverberation of its string."Krishna had a profound effect on the Mahabharata war and its consequences. He had considered the Kurukshetra war to be a last resort after voluntarily acting as a messenger in order to establish peace between the Pandavas and Kauravas. But, once these peace negotiations failed and was embarked into the war, then he became a clever strategist. During the war, upon becoming angry with Arjuna for not fighting in true spirit against his ancestors, Krishna once picked up a carriage wheel in order to use it as a weapon to challenge Bhishma. Upon seeing this, Bhishma dropped his weapons and asked Krishna to kill him. However, Arjuna apologized to Krishna, promising that he would fight with full dedication here/after, and the battle continued. Krishna had directed Yudhisthira and Arjuna to return to Bhishma the boon of "victory" which he had given to Yudhisthira before the war commenced, since he himself was standing in their way to victory. Bhishma understood the message and told them the means through which he would drop his weapons—which was if a woman entered the battlefield. Next day, upon Krishna's directions, Shikhandi (Amba reborn) accompanied Arjuna to the battlefield and thus, Bhishma laid down his arms. This was a decisive moment in the war because Bhishma was the chief commander of the Kaurava army and the most formidable warrior on the battlefield. Krishna aided Arjuna in killing Jayadratha, who had held the other four Pandava brothers at bay while Arjuna's son Abhimanyu entered Drona's Chakravyuha formation—an effort in which he was killed by the simultaneous attack of eight Kaurava warriors. Krishna also caused the downfall of Drona, when he signalled Bhima to kill an elephant called Ashwatthama, the namesake of Drona's son. Pandavas started shouting that Ashwatthama was dead but Drona refused to believe them saying he would believe it only if he heard it from Yudhisthira. Krishna knew that Yudhisthira would never tell a lie, so he devised a clever ploy so that Yudhisthira wouldn't lie and at the same time Drona would be convinced of his son's death. On asked by Drona, Yudhisthira proclaimed

Ashwathama Hatahath, naro va Kunjaro va

i.e. Ashwathama had died but he was nor sure whether it was a Drona's son or an elephant. But as soon as Yudhisthira had uttered the first line, Pandava army on Krishna's direction broke into celebration with drums and conchs, in the din of which Drona could not hear the second part of the Yudhisthira's declaration and assumed that his son indeed was dead. Overcome with grief he laid down his arms, and on Krishna's instruction Dhrishtadyumna beheaded Drona.

When Arjuna was fighting Karna, the latter's chariot's wheels sank into the ground. While Karna was trying to take out the chariot from the grip of the Earth, Krishna reminded Arjuna how Karna and the other Kauravas had broken all rules of battle while simultaneously attacking and killing Abhimanyu, and he convinced Arjuna to do the same in revenge in order to kill Karna. During the final stage of the war, when Duryodhana was going to meet his mother Gandhari for taking her blessings which would convert all parts of his body on which her sight falls to diamond, Krishna tricks him to wearing banana leaves to hide his groin. When Duryodhana meets Gandhari, her vision and blessings fall on his entire body except his groin and thighs, and she becomes unhappy about it because she was not able to convert his entire body to diamond. When Duryodhana was in a mace-fight with Bhima, Bhima's blows had no effect on Duryodhana. Upon this, Krishna reminded Bhima of his vow to kill Duryodhana by hitting him on the thigh, and Bhima did the same to win the war despite it being against the rules of mace-fight (since Duryodhana had himself broken Dharma in all his past acts). Thus, Krishna's unparalleled strategy helped the Pandavas win the Mahabharata war by bringing the downfall of all the chief Kaurava warriors, without lifting any weapon. He also brought back to life Arjuna's grandson Parikshit, who had been attacked by a Brahmastra weapon from Ashwatthama while he was in his mother's womb. Parikshit became the Pandavas' successor.Krishna had eight princely wives, also known as Ashtabharya: Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Nagnajiti, Kalindi, Mitravinda, Bhadra, Lakshmana) and the other 16,100 or 16,000 (number varies in scriptures), who were rescued from Narakasura. They had been forcibly kept in his palace and after Krishna had killed Narakasura, he rescued these women and freed them. Krishna married them all to save them from destruction and infamity. He gave them shelter in his new palace and a respectful place in society. The chief amongst them is Rohini.

The Bhagavata Purana, Vishnu Purana, Harivamsa list the children of Krishna from the Ashtabharya with some variation; while Rohini's sons are interpreted to represent the unnumbered children of his junior wives. Most well-known among his sons are Pradyumna, the eldest son of Krishna (and Rukmini) and Samba, the son of Jambavati, whose actions led to the destruction of Krishna's clan.According to Mahabharata, the Kurukshetra war resulted in the death of all the hundred sons of Gandhari. On the night before Duryodhana's death, Lord Krishna visited Gandhari to offer his condolences. Gandhari felt that Krishna knowingly did not put an end to the war, and in a fit of rage and sorrow, Gandhari cursed that Krishna, along with everyone else from the Yadu dynasty, would perish after 36 years. Krishna himself knew and wanted this to happen as he felt that the Yadavas had become very haughty and arrogant (adharmi), so he ended Gandhari's speech by saying "tathastu" (so be it).[83][84][85]

After 36 years passed, a fight broke out between the Yadavas, at a festival, who killed each other. His elder brother, Balarama, then gave up his body using Yoga. Krishna retired into the forest and started meditating under a tree. The Mahabharata also narrates the story of a hunter who becomes an instrument for Krishna's departure from the world. The hunter Jara, mistook Krishna's partly visible left foot for that of a deer, and shot an arrow, wounding him mortally. After he realised the mistake, While still bleeding, Krishna told Jara, "O Jara, you were Bali in your previous birth, killed by myself as Rama in Tretayuga. Here you had a chance to even it and since all acts in this world are done as desired by me, you need not worry for this". Then Krishna, with his physical body[86] ascended back to his eternal abode, Goloka vrindavan and this event marks departure of Krishna from the earth.[87][88][89] The news was conveyed to Hastinapur and Dwaraka by eyewitnesses to this event.[86] The place of this incident is believed to be Bhalka, near Somnath temple.[90][91]

According to Puranic sources,[92] Krishna's disappearance marks the end of Dvapara Yuga and the start of Kali Yuga, which is dated to February 17/18, 3102 BCE.[7] Vaishnava teachers such as Ramanujacharya and Gaudiya Vaishnavas held the view that the body of Krishna is completely spiritual and never decays (Achyuta) as this appears to be the perspective of the Bhagavata Purana. Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (an incarnation of Lord Sri Krishna according to the Bhavishya Purana) exhorted, "Krishna Naama Sankirtan" i.e. the constant chanting of the Krishna's name is the supreme healer in Kali Yuga. It destroys sins and purifies the hearts through Bhakti ensures universal peace.

Krishna never appears to grow old or age at all in the historical depictions of the Puranas despite passing of several decades, but there are grounds for a debate whether this indicates that he has no material body, since battles and other descriptions of the Mahabhārata epic show clear indications that he seems to be subject to the limitations of nature.[93] While battles apparently seem to indicate limitations, Mahabharata also shows in many places where Krishna is not subject to any limitations as through episodes Duryodhana trying to arrest Krishna where his body burst into fire showing all creation within him.[94] Krishna is also explicitly described as without deterioration elsewhere.[95]The worship of Krishna is part of Vaishnavism, which regards Vishnu as the Supreme God and venerates His associated avatars, their consorts, and related saints and teachers. Krishna is especially looked upon as a full manifestation of Vishnu, and as one with Vishnu himself.[96] However the exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu is complex and diverse,[97] where Krishna is sometimes considered an independent deity, supreme in his own right.[98] Out of many deities, Krishna is particularly important, and traditions of Vaishnava lines are generally centered either on Vishnu or on Krishna, as supreme. The term Krishnaism has been used to describe the sects of Krishna, reserving the term "Vaishnavism" for sects focusing on Vishnu in which Krishna is an avatar, rather than as a transcendent Supreme Being.[99]

All Vaishnava traditions recognise Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; others identify Krishna with Vishnu; while traditions, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[100][101] Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, regard Krishna as the Svayam Bhagavan, original form of God.[102][103][104][105][106] Swaminarayan, the founder of the Swaminarayan Sampraday also worshipped Krishna as God himself. "Greater Krishnaism" corresponds to the second and dominant phase of Vaishnavism, revolving around the cults of the Vasudeva, Krishna, and Gopala of late Vedic period.[107] Today the faith has a significant following outside of India as well.[108]The deity Krishna-Vasudeva (kṛṣṇa vāsudeva "Krishna, the son of Vasudeva") is historically one of the earliest forms of worship in Krishnaism and Vaishnavism.[8][39] It is believed to be a significant tradition of the early history of the worship of Krishna in antiquity.[9][109] This tradition is considered as earliest to other traditions that led to amalgamation at a later stage of the historical development. Other traditions are Bhagavatism and the cult of Gopala, that along with the cult of Bala Krishna form the basis of current tradition of monotheistic religion of Krishna.[110][111] Some early scholars would equate it with Bhagavatism,[9] and the founder of this religious tradition is believed to be Krishna, who is the son of Vasudeva, thus his name is Vāsudeva; he is said to be historically part of the Satvata tribe, and according to them his followers called themselves Bhagavatas and this religion had formed by the 2nd century BC (the time of Patanjali), or as early as the 4th century BC according to evidence in Megasthenes and in the Arthasastra of Kautilya, when Vāsudeva was worshiped as supreme deity in a strongly monotheistic format, where the supreme being was perfect, eternal and full of grace.[9] In many sources outside of the cult, the devotee or bhakta is defined as Vāsudevaka.[112] The Harivamsa describes intricate relationships between Krishna Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha that would later form a Vaishnava concept of primary quadrupled expansion, or avatar.[113]

Bhakti tradition[edit]

Main article: Bhakti yoga

Bhakti, meaning devotion, is not confined to any one deity. However Krishna is an important and popular focus of the devotional and ecstatic aspects of Hindu religion, particularly among the Vaishnava sects.[100][114] Devotees of Krishna subscribe to the concept of lila, meaning 'divine play', as the central principle of the Universe. The lilas of Krishna, with their expressions of personal love that transcend the boundaries of formal reverence, serve as a counterpoint to the actions of another avatar of Vishnu: Rama, "He of the straight and narrow path of maryada, or rules and regulations."[101]

The bhakti movements devoted to Krishna became prominent in southern India in the 7th to 9th centuries AD. The earliest works included those of the Alvar saints of the Tamil country.[115] A major collection of their works is the Divya Prabandham. The Alvar Andal's popular collection of songs Tiruppavai, in which she conceives of herself as a gopi, is the most famous of the oldest works in this genre.[116][117] [118] Kulasekaraazhvaar's Mukundamala was another notable work of this early stage.

Spread of the Krishna-bhakti movement[edit]

The movement, which started in the 6th-7th century A.D. in the Tamil-speaking region of South India, with twelve Alvar (one immersed in God) saint-poets, who wrote devotional songs. The religion of Alvar poets, which included a woman poet, Andal, was devotion to God through love (bhakti), and in the ecstasy of such devotions they sang hundreds of songs which embodied both depth of feeling and felicity of expressions. The movement originated in South India during the seventh-century CE, spreading northwards from Tamil Nadu through Karnataka and Maharashtra; by the fifteenth century, it was established in Bengal and northern India[119]While the learned sections of the society well versed in Sanskrit could enjoy works like Gita Govinda or Bilvamangala's Krishna-Karnamritam, the masses sang the songs of the devotee-poets, who composed in the regional languages of India. These songs expressing intense personal devotion were written by devotees from all walks of life. The songs of Meera and Surdas became epitomes of Krishna-devotion in north India.These devotee-poets, like the Alvars before them, were aligned to specific theological schools only loosely, if at all. But by the 11th century AD, Vaishnava Bhakti schools with elaborate theological frameworks around the worship of Krishna were established in north India. Nimbarka (11th century AD), Vallabhacharya (15th century AD) and (Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu an incarnation of Lord Sri Krishna according to the Bhavishya Purana) (16th century AD) all inspired by the teachings of Madhvacharya (11th century AD) were the founders of the most influential schools. These schools, namely Nimbarka Sampradaya, Vallabha Sampradaya and Gaudiya Vaishnavism respectively, see Krishna as the supreme God, rather than an avatar, as generally seen.

In the Deccan, particularly in Maharashtra, saint poets of the Varkari sect such as Dnyaneshwar, Namdev, Janabai, Eknath and Tukaram promoted the worship of Vithoba,[29] a local form of Krishna, from the beginning of the 13th century until the late 18th century.[6] In southern India, Purandara Dasa and Kanakadasa of Karnataka composed songs devoted to the Krishna image of Udupi. Rupa Goswami of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, has compiled a comprehensive summary of bhakti named Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu.[114]In 1965, the Krishna-bhakti movement had spread outside India when its founder, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, (who was instructed by his guru, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura) traveled from his homeland in West Bengal to New York City. A year later in 1966, after gaining many followers, he was able to form the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement. The purpose of this movement was to write about Krishna in English and to share the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy with people in the Western world by spreading the teachings of the saint Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. In an effort to gain attention, followers chanted the names of God in public locations. This chanting was known as hari-nama sankirtana and helped spread the teaching. Additionally, the practice of distributing prasad or “sanctified food” worked as a catalyst in the dissemination of his works. In the Hare Krishna movement, Prasad was a vegetarian dish that would be first offered to Krishna. The food’s proximity to Krishna added a “spiritual effect,” and was seen to “counteract material contamination affecting the soul.” Sharing this sanctified food with the public, in turn, enabled the movement to gain new recruits and further spread these teachings.[10][120][121]In South India, Vaishnavas usually belong to the Sri Sampradaya[citation needed]. The acharyas of the Sri Sampradaya have written reverentially about Krishna in most of their works like the Thiruppavai by Andal[122] and Gopala Vimshati by Vedanta Desika.[123] In South India, devotion to Krishna, as an avatar of Vishnu, spread in the face of opposition to Buddhism, Shaktism, and Shaivism and ritualistic Vedic sacrifices. The acharyas of the Sri Sampradaya like Manavala Mamunigal, Vedanta Desika strongly advocated surrender to Vishnu as the aim of the Vedas. Out of 108 Divya Desams there are 97 Divya Desams in South India.While discussing the origin of Indian theatre, Horwitz talks about the mention of the Krishna story in Patanjali's Mahabhashya (c. 150 BC), where the episodes of slaying of Kamsa (Kamsa Vadha) and "Binding of the heaven storming titan" (Bali Bandha) are described.[124] Bhasa's Balacharitam and Dutavakyam (c. 400 BC) are the only Sanskrit plays centered on Krishna written by a major classical dramatist. The former dwells only on his childhood exploits and the latter is a one-act play based on a single episode from the Mahābhārata when Krishna tries to make peace between the warring cousins.[125]

From the 10th century AD, with the growing bhakti movement, Krishna became a favorite subject of the arts. The songs of the Gita Govinda became popular across India, and had many imitations. The songs composed by the Bhakti poets added to the repository of both folk and classical singing.

The classical Indian dances, especially Odissi and Manipuri, draw heavily on the story. The 'Rasa lila' dances performed in Vrindavan shares elements with Kathak, and the Krisnattam, with some cycles, such as Krishnattam, traditionally restricted to the Guruvayur temple, the precursor of Kathakali.[126]

The Sattriya dance, founded by the Assamese Vaishnava saint Sankardeva, extols the virtues of Krishna. Medieval Maharashtra gave birth to a form of storytelling known as the Hari-Katha, that told Vaishnava tales and teachings through music, dance, and narrative sequences, and the story of Krishna one of them. This tradition spread to Tamil Nadu and other southern states, and is now popular in many places throughout India.

Narayana Tirtha's (17th century AD) Krishna-Lila-Tarangini provided material for the musical plays of the Bhagavata-Mela by telling the tale of Krishna from birth until his marriage to Rukmini. Tyagaraja (18th century AD) wrote a similar piece about Krishna called Nauka-Charitam. The narratives of Krishna from the Puranas are performed in Yakshagana, a performance style native to Karnataka's coastal districts. Many movies in all Indian languages have been made based on these stories. These are of varying quality and usually add various songs, melodrama, and special effects.

In other religions[edit]

Jainism[edit]

Further information: Salakapurusa

The most exalted figures in Jainism are the twenty-four Tirthankaras. Krishna, when he was incorporated into the Jain list of heroic figures, presented a problem with his activities which are not pacifist. The concept of Baladeva, Vasudeva and Prati-Vasudeva was used to solve it.[neutrality is disputed] The Jain list of sixty-three Shalakapurshas or notable figures includes, amongst others, the twenty-four Tirthankaras and nine sets of this triad. One of these triads is Krishna as the Vasudeva, Balarama as the Baladeva and Jarasandha as the Prati-Vasudeva. He was a cousin of the twenty-second Tirthankara, Neminatha. The stories of these triads can be found in the Harivamsha of Jinasena (not be confused with its namesake, the addendum to Mahābhārata) and the Trishashti-shalakapurusha-charita of Hemachandra.[127]

In each age of the Jain cyclic time is born a Vasudeva with an elder brother termed the Baladeva. The villain is the Prati-vasudeva. Baladeva is the upholder of the Jain principle of non-violence. However, Vasudeva has to forsake this principle to kill the Prati-Vasudeva and save the world. [128][129]The story of Krishna occurs in the Jataka tales in Buddhism,[130] in the Vaibhav Jataka as a prince and legendary conqueror and king of India.[131] In the Buddhist version, Krishna is called Vasudeva, Kanha and Keshava, and Balarama is his older brother, Baladeva. These details resemble that of the story given in the Bhagavata Purana. Vasudeva, along with his nine other brothers (each son a powerful wrestler) and one elder sister (Anjana) capture all of Jambudvipa (many consider this to be India) after beheading their evil uncle, King Kamsa, and later all other kings of Jambudvipa with his Sudarshana Chakra. Much of the story involving the defeat of Kamsa follows the story given in the Bhagavata Purana.[132]

As depicted in the Mahābhārata, all of the sons are eventually killed due to a curse of sage Kanhadipayana (Veda Vyasa, also known as Krishna Dwaipayana). Krishna himself is eventually speared by a hunter in the foot by mistake, leaving the sole survivor of their family being their sister, Anjanadevi of whom no further mention is made.[133]

Since Jataka tales are given from the perspective of Buddha's previous lives (as well as the previous lives of many of Buddha's followers), Krishna appears as the "Dhammasenapati" or "Chief General of the Dharma" and is usually shown being Buddha's "right-hand man" in Buddhist art and iconography.[134] The Bodhisattva, is born in this tale as one of his youngest brothers named Ghatapandita, and saves Krishna from the grief of losing his son.[131] The 'divine boy' Krishna as an embodiment of wisdom and endearing prankster forms a part of the pantheon of gods in Japanese Buddhism .[135]Bahá'ís believe that Krishna was a "Manifestation of God", or one in a line of prophets who have revealed the Word of God progressively for a gradually maturing humanity. In this way, Krishna shares an exalted station with Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus, the Báb, and the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'u'lláh.[Members of the Ahmadiyya Community believe Krishna to be a great prophet of God as described by their founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This belief is maintained by the Qur'anic Principle that God has sent prophets and messengers to every nation of the world leaving no region without divine guidance (see for instance Quran 10:47 and Quran 16:36).

Ghulam Ahmad also claimed to be the likeness of Krishna as a latter day reviver of religion and morality whose mission was to reconcile man with God.[138] Ahmadis maintain that the Sanskrit term Avatar is synonymous with the term 'prophet' of the Middle Eastern religious tradition as God's intervention with man; as God appoints a man as his vicegerent upon earth. In Lecture Sialkot, Ghulam Ahmed wrote:

Let it be clear that Raja Krishna, according to what has been revealed to me, was such a truly great man that it is hard to find his like among the Rishis and Avatars of the Hindus. He was an Avatar—i.e., Prophet—of his time upon whom the Holy Spirit would descend from God. He was from God, victorious and prosperous. He cleansed the land of the Aryas from sin and was in fact the Prophet of his age whose teaching was later corrupted in numerous ways. He was full of love for God, a friend of virtue and an enemy of evil.[138]

Krishna is also called Murli Dhar. The flute of Krishna means the flute of revelation and not the physical flute. Krishna lived like humans and he was a prophet.[139][140]Krishna worship or reverence has been adopted by several new religious movements since the 19th century and he is sometimes a member of an eclectic pantheon in occult texts, along with Greek, Buddhist, biblical and even historical figures.[141] For instance, Édouard Schuré, an influential figure in perennial philosophy and occult movements, considered Krishna a Great Initiate; while Theosophists regard Krishna as an incarnation of Maitreya (one of the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom), the most important spiritual teacher for humanity along with Buddha

I have to say that I love ultrawide angle lenses sometimes - For instance fitting in massive structures like the Älvsborg bridge fairly close up. this bridge is located at the mouth of the Göta river as it enters the sea. The passenger ships usually sail into the inner harbour nearer to the heart of the city while the really large ones and freight ships stay outside.

 

The bridges pylons is 107 meters high and the clearance height is 45 meters.

 

This area called Röda sten, "Red rock", is popular for evening strolls.

 

You can see other images from Göteborg and Sweden in general in my Sweden set.

 

You should watch this Large On Black since that brings out more details. My pictures aren't balanced for a white background and a lot of the finer details are lost in this small format. the large version is a sixth of the original - The medium size shown here even smaller...

 

This is an copyrighted image with all rights reserved and may not be reproduced, transmitted, copied or used in any way in any media(blogs included) without the written permission from the photographer.

Fisher, Joe (Joel). Instances of Change. [s.l.: s.n.], 1975.

 

See MCAD Library's catalog record for this book.

intranet.mcad.edu/library

This is one of those instances when something seems like a good idea at the time, but looking back you wonder, "why did I think that was a good idea?" I didn't have any ideas for the shot and my friends down the hall had gotten pizza earlier in the night so I decided to try and do that for the day's shot. The question I have now is whether I was trying to make the pizza look good or bad because it's not looking so good at the moment. In any case, I had my camera on a tripod with my 18-55 and a +4 and +2 magnifying lens on the front. I held my Vivitar flash off to camera left and manually fired, bouncing it off a pad of sticky notes to give it a yellow color.

 

View Large (if you dare)

It was a rare instance to see our old tent set up right next to our new tent. The size isn't *that* different, but the one on the right is definitely smaller than the one on the left. Hard to believe it's supposed to be for two people. Clint dubbed it "The two-lesbian-tent", because calling it a "two man tent" is pushing it. The only way two people could possibly fit in there is if they are intimate with each other; lovers. And only if they are girls. Clint doesn't fit, and has to lay diagonally, with his legs on top of Carolyn's. Thus, the slight change in size still significantly improves the experience for both of us.

 

Chris, Kipp, Tabbitha.

tent.

 

Elizabeth Furnace, George Washington National Forest, Virginia.

 

September 9, 2006.

  

... Read my blog at http://ClintJCL.wordpress.com.

 

... View Kipp's photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lurking444/.

Read more... www.videoconsolerepair.com

Can video consoles Bring about Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?

 

The existence of popular video gaming systems along with pc practice led in the instance of carpal tunnel syndrome. In a large, it has grow to be a challenge for a lot of participants. Mainly because carpal tunnel affecting more youthful individuals constantly increases with numbers, this specific benefits in a studies from the trigger as well as symptoms as to if the injury is defined as related with involved in video games.

 

Common assumptions has been saying which usually correlation is present. It has been obtain out that kids who are enjoying a whole lot of online games has increased possibilities of developing carpal tunnel syndrome in comparison with young people who usually do not play video games. Remarkably, based mostly on many research that was performed, the idea reveals a couple of startling in addition sudden success.

 

The federal government sometimes funded recent studies to obtain available regardless of whether enjoying video games relates to the development of cts. Though they already have mentioned that there isn't any relation at each one particular, a few part from the scientific tests states several unfavorable effects of taking aspect in too much video games or perhaps undertaking a lot of personal computer is effective.

 

There may well be and so miles debate to discuss nevertheless the injuries that has been acquired resemble in nature in order to carpal tunnel syndrome. This is proven simply by increased playing of video game titles.

 

Carpal tunnel syndrome can be an affliction mostly affecting people over three decades old. However, several kids have possibly displayed a number of its indications. The injury contain bursitis, tendonitis, as well as linked injuries which are turning out to be further present with young children. Manufacturers thumb and also Nintendonitis may be the legal name called by virtually all folks towards continuous using of video games producing strain incidents that is repetitively occurring. This particular even characterizes carpal tunnel syndrome. Video systems applied for residences aren't a solely factor, but additionally movie systems which might be portable as well as handheld activity systems.

 

Success plus conclusions of several doctors reveal which prolonged several hours of relaxing in specifically the equivalent position and making use of the handy muscles in addition thumb through plus over as soon as more, will cause imbalance inside muscles that ends up in discomfort as well as other linked beneficial difficulties. Compared to other activities, training are quite usefulbut ,, utilizing the same muscles and also muscle organizations particularly without the need of exercising it is counterparts to ensure balance is actually maintained can definitely result in discomfort additionally injury.

 

Youngsters ages Six or eight years old cannot created carpal tunnel, nonetheless, as long as they continue to enjoy excessively, they may be currently additional almost certainly to formulate carpal tunnel syndrome. As much as prospective, prolonged taking destroys in amongst substantial game experiencing sessions should be accomplished to existing rest towards affected muscle mass, prevent placement of arms plus fingers awkwardly, and also forestall long continuous trying to play.

 

The personal computers rise in making use of light-bit, flat controls which permits high speed broadband typing causes epidemic incidents of the arms, shoulders, additionally arms. Using of pointing units like trackballs plus the general personal computer mouse triggers your carpal tunnel syndrome development. Moreover, the particular uninterrupted use of controls within video gaming systems can the identical matter. No matter the carpal tunnel development, not enough adequate smashes plus sleep may perhaps be quite difficult.

 

You'll find scientific tests although of which suggests that there is absolutely no huge variance in the selection of people who are plagued by carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of playing video games in comparison with those men and women whom dont enjoy video games by any means. Elevated injury on the hands and wrists have still got to accomplish with extended time in enjoying video games. With this case, it is really miles safer to guard 1s well being whether or not or not cts would possibly impact older men and women. Computer game enthusiasts will need to don't forget in the prospective troubles they can encounter throughout the future for that reason purpose.

 

This research executed to verify no matter if or not carpal tunnel syndrome is related to gaming could also have an effect on the future of film game sector. Having said that, innovative developments may perhaps be nevertheless produced to solve this problem. Carpal tunnel may well be stopped as game industries nevertheless flourish and new innovations and styles are thought to be of.

I return to the school I attended before going into the naughty boys' home.

 

During my time at boarding school, my mother had prepared for our return to London. Throughout our stay, we had accumulated quite a few possessions in excess of the two cases we had arrived with. As our return journey was probably by coach and train, our possessions needed to be reduced to a similar amount.

Mother had been ruthless with my things, it was with the thought that I had either grown out of many items of clothing and toys or they would have little use in London. There was never the case of my clothing or toys having any major value; in many instances they had come from the local jumble sales. Our distance from the centre of the village meant that it would be difficult to pass items on. The bonfire at the end of the garden took anything that could be burnt; with the isolation of the house, refuse collections were always a slight problem.

The few metal cars I had left here had been put safe whilst I was away. I did not really miss the small number of other toys or books that were too bulky to take back to London. There was one item of my clothing that I was angry about that was missing; it was that my mother had put my riding boots on the bonfire, as they would not be needed in London. My anger resulted in a trip to my bedroom and a couple of hits with the plimsoll.

Once the clothing I brought from the boarding school was added to the clothes that were ready for my return to London, there was now a selection of best and school clothes, and one set of respectable play clothes. On my last few visits to the farm, I managed to ruin the set of play clothes together with my school shoes and a duffel coat. The day before we left, after a few final hits with my plimsoll, I was made to take all the clothes I had ruined down to the bottom of the garden and arrange one final bonfire. Such a major clear out of my clothes and possessions was not really needed in the end. Instead of traveling on our own, an uncle came over to take us in his car.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Back to London

I was happy at the age of eight in returning to London; soon I was settled into a new school.

The school was very large compared to all the others I had attended, the main part was for juniors only. Infants had a separate part of the building and their own playground. There were four main floors in the junior school, with a floor for each year. Seven and eight year olds on the lower floor and went up by each year, each age group had roughly the same numbers of boys and girls of 150 to 200 per year split mainly into four classes for each year split by ability.

Placed in the equivalent of the B form, I found it quite easy to settle in. Due to many children arriving from overseas countries, they started off in a class of their own and slowly moved into an ordinary stream once it was worked out about their ability.

 

During my first week I was in trouble with one of the teachers at lunch break. A few of the older boys had decided to fill the sinks in the outside lavatory block with water and let them overflow. The plugs to the sinks had long ago vanished; all the sinks plug holes were filled with scraps of paper to stop the water running away. When the sinks partly filled, the paper would start to rise, allowing the water to run away. Extra pairs of hands were needed to keep the basins filling. I had come out of one of the cubicles and found myself with the instruction to help them.

As it was a chance of mischief, I became an easy member of their gang. With all the taps running at the same time, the flow of water was not that fast, slowly the sinks at the far end started to overflow first. The older boys were hopping about trying to keep their shoes or plimsolls from getting soaked; like the younger boy at the next sink, we did not have these problems as we wore wellingtons. We were too busy watching the others to notice a teacher enter. We were unlucky and the nearest to him, and had continued to hold our wads of paper in our sinks as he walked behind us.

The six of us were removed from the lavatories in seconds. It was a quick march to the main building and the Headmaster’s office. Waiting outside the office took forever; the teacher had gone inside to report our activity. The older four were trying to frighten the pair of us, mentioning that he normally gave out harsh punishments. Our conversations ended at that moment and we were beckoned inside. There was little chance given to us to explain our actions; as we had all been caught flooding the floor, there was little we could have said to clear our names.

The instruction to hold out each of our hands was given by the Headmaster. I was the second to be dealt with; it was one stroke on each hand. We were soon in tears. The older ones did not reach this stage, but as soon as they had been given the cane, it was clear to see it had really hurt. There was one final instruction for us not to be caught messing about again and we were sent on our way. The four older boys rushed off, probably to boast to their friends about their latest deed. The two of us younger ones headed to a quiet area to be out of attention of any of our friends, so that we had a chance to hide the fact we had been in tears. We were still looking for trouble and headed back to the lavatories to see how soaked the floor was. There was little to see as the slight slope of floor had solved the problem of the water that had overflowed from the sinks, I had made a new friend.

At afternoon lessons in my class, I was able to show off the red mark on each of my hands. My status was going up in their estimation. To be given the cane in the first year of primary school meant I was high up in the league of crime. When I returned home, I did not say anything to my mother about getting the cane at school.

--------------------

 

A report is now sent to The National Children's Home by the Headmistress of the previous school.

"He was backward in most subjects although he was now beginning to make real progress with his reading. His work was generally messy and untidy. He is highly strung and his behaviour with other children tended to be aggressive and unfriendly."

"I feel strongly that a move would be best for Philip."

-----------------

 

Living conditions in the flat were not ideal for a small boy, who was perhaps a little energetic and at times could get in the way. I thought everything was running smoothly, the only slight problem were several wet beds. I was not punished now I was back in London, my mother possibly didn't want me crying and disturbing my grandparents, my punishments now were that I would not be getting any sweets or other treats that day.

 

I was taken to the doctor who lived next door to us. As I had not had any major illnesses, other than a few colds, the number of visits to doctors had been few in number. I was not upset when my mother mentioned to the doctor about my bedwetting. As nothing had been said about us at the boarding school often having wet beds, I told the doctor that I was not upset when she questioned me over how I felt about the matter. After checking me over, I was sent into a small room whilst the doctor talked to my mother alone.

At the time I had little idea that my mother was planning a major change in my life. A few days later I was told there was a minor change going to take place. For one day a week I would not go to the school I had just started, but to a different school where they would try and see if I was unhappy in any way.

I was told that I was to be taken to the school first thing in the morning, as I would be having school lunches and collected at the end of the afternoon. there did not seem to anything really different to my normal school day.

 

The school I now attended for one day a week was a short bus ride from where we lived. I was not afraid of now going to another school, once through the main door I was left with the school staff. I had expected it to be full of other children, but I was soon told that there were usually around fifteen of us and we were normally split into groups of five or six of us.

On my first visit, the morning was spent with a lady asking me various questions on how happy I was, what did l like playing with and several other similar matters.

The afternoon I would be able to join the others. When it was lunch I was added to the main group. I had expected that I was here to do normal lessons, the others told me that we can have indoor play as much as we like, or if we want we can go and read comics and books there was a quiet room if we did not want to join in our group.

Once lunch was over I was told that the afternoon was art for our group, it could get a bit messy, I was given a pair of nylon shorts, wellingtons, and a white waterproof raincoat, next time I came it might be best if I brought an extra pair of socks and pants to change into for going home, if the lesson became too messy.

On re-joining the others, I found they were dressed in a similar fashion for our afternoon period. Our group was two girls and three other boys of around the same age as myself.

Before we went into the art room we were encouraged to visit the toilets, as this would prevent dragging paint and other mess to other parts of the building. Our art room was on the ground floor, once inside three of the walls were covered in large white tiles, the forth was mirrored part way up.

Art could be anything we wanted, we could work on our own, or if we wanted to group together to help each other. Talking to the others it seemed we could do what we wanted during the half hour lessons. We could paint on paper, on the walls, on each others coats, or on the mirrors if we wanted to do pictures of ourselves.

There were a few illustrations on the walls that had been painted quite quickly by the adults in poster paint, we could use these as ideas or paint over them. The only instruction I was given was that I should not paint on each others faces.

It took a few minutes to join in the total anarchy of the lesson, one of the staff sat down in a far corner of the room just to make sure we did not get too out of hand, the others had been reminded that this area was not to be used for any paint use.

It was totally odd, we could flick paint at the walls, daub the walls and even drag our hands across the paint, cover large areas in one colour and even paint each others coats. I was told that when our lesson finished, the room would be cleaned up for the next group.

After about twenty minutes we were taken to another room, this was the clay room. Tables had bowls and piles of clay, we could make what we wanted, like the art room the walls were cover in the same tiles and mirrors, with an area for the staff in charge of us could sit. A boy I had teamed up said it was fine to throw small balls of clay at the walls or daub it on the mirrors or each other, but if you use too much of it up, you were not given any more for yourself.

It seemed odd that none of us were told what to do, we were just left to do what we wanted, it was more like play than anything else. Our coats had every colour of paint on, and now with various clay stains over the top.

The lesson ended as abruptly as it had started and we were moved to a third identical room. Large plastic blocks were in various parts of the room, we could move these around as we wanted, my new friend told me that this was the water room.

At either end there were two troughs of water, one end had water that was red, the other end was blue.

What we did it appeared was up to us. As there did not seem to be an area for a member of staff to sit, I could guess it could get a bit messy. We picked sides of three of each as one girl and two boys. I followed what the others were doing, there was a selection of water pistols, small buckets and other containers equally divided up and taken to each end.

I was at the blue end, the water was not that highly coloured, just enough to show where a stream went. There was nothing in the room to get damaged, with no lights in the ceiling, we could even aim our sprays upwards.

It was not an angry battle, it was just fun to try and outwit our opponents without getting too soaked in trying. I could understand now why we had two different colours of water, the middle of the room now turned purple to a depth of just over an inch of water. This it seemed was the signal to end the battle and just go into the middle of the room and splash about.

Everything seemed so odd, here we could make as much mess in any of the lessons, and even cause a flood in the middle of the room without any telling off, whilst in my normal school, I had been given the cane the previous week for causing a minor flood in the outside toilets.

Eventually when totally soaked but much cleaner the lesson ended and we were sent out to the toilets to dry ourselves off and remove any paint and clay that still remained. It seemed the clothing we had been given was cleaned off and dried off ready for its next use. I wondered how I would explain to my mother about my now soaked socks and pants. If the lesson was to be the same week, I would remember to bring extra things to change into. My new friends told me that we were allowed to do similar things each week.

Once my mother came to collect me, I was left alone whilst she talked to the staff. Once we left, there was the comment that she hoped I had enjoyed myself. There seemed to be no telling off about my damp clothing, the staff must have told he about all the mess we had caused during the afternoon. If I wanted to, I could go back the following week, I was asked had I made any friends?

The next few days of ordinary school seemed to drag on in the anticipation for the next day of play.

The following week there was a similar visit to the school. The morning was not as fun as the previous visit, but it was far better than ordinary school. Now it was one member of staff to one child, for part of the time we talked, at other moments I was left to get on my own. There were things to build with bricks, sand to play with and just sat down asking questions, it was not like a teacher asking questions, it just seemed an adult was interested in what I was doing.

The afternoon sessions always ended with paint, clay and water, and we were allowed to play in our small groups.

My sessions at this school was for six periods, then it appeared I was going to move out of the area.

 

My mother announced that I was going to live in the country with other boys and girls of my own age; I was told that the new boarding school would be friendlier, as I would be living with just six other children as part of a family.

I don’t think the words ‘Children’s Home’ were ever uttered; if they had, I might have taken immediate notice and made more of a fuss. As I was told my aunts and uncles lived quite close to my new home and they would be able to visit me, I did not offer any protest. I was even looking forward to the move.

  

This is a little letter to myself today... Sometimes life is going to nip at your feet. It will annoy the crap out of you until you are standing in a pool of your own blood. In that instance, just learn to enjoy the pain. Enjoy the struggle. Because sometimes there is nothing better than getting done with a 20 mile run to find your shoes soaked with blood. As odd as it is, it's fulfilling. The more pain you endure the stronger you grow as a person. So here's my advice to myself.. love the pain and dance in the rain. Because struggles will always be there. Stop letting them control you and learn to take control of your own life. #DayTwelve #MotivationalMay #Struggle .. #run #running #triathlete #grind #crossfit #crossfitgames #fit #fitness #marathon #tgim #progress #nevergiveup #neverbackdown #neverquit #relentless #limitless #comeback #swim #bike #lovethepain #Ironman #ironmantri #motivation #inspiration #inspire

My wife work... #work #camera #me #mycamera #photographer #pool #all_shots #photooftheday #photography #popularpics #popularpage #popular #instagranhub #instanced #instagram #iphoneonly #iphonesia #ipoto #fun #webstagram #beautiful #bastoftheday #instagrammers #ig #igdaily #jj #iphoneography #now #2012

 

60 Likes on Instagram

 

7 Comments on Instagram:

 

shaicohen: פה פה פי פה!!

 

royalgo: פים פם פום !!

 

eliranavital: @shaicohen @royalgo יום שבת מתקרב בום בום

 

royalgo: יאללה יהיה מדהים יום הצילומים הזה.. מאמין יהיו שם עוד אינסטגרמים פה ושם..

 

shaicohen: בשבילי?? לא היית צריך!!

 

eliranavital: @royalgo במקווה שהמזג האוויר רק יהיה טוב :-) והכל מושלם הארוחת בוקר על האש חח

 

eliranavital: @shaicohen אל תשתגע אבל תקבל סיבוב עליה בשבת

  

It may seem a rare instance when the technology-centered mindset of the Puget Sound Region can blend seamlessly with the rich fruit growing heritage of eastern Washington, but it can be argued that the Curran House in University Place provides just such an experience. Architecturally, the Curran House is a fine example of mid-century modern design. Robert B. Price, noted as the first architect from Tacoma to be inducted to the AIA College of Fellows, designed the house in 1952. But what sets it apart, and provides the agricultural connection, is the setting: the house is situated within an orchard providing a unique example of early western Washington apple horticulture. This combination deems the property eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register, and if listed, would be the first Price-designed resource to achieve such designation.

 

In the early 1990s, Pierce County purchased the property and the existing house from the original owners with funds from the county’s Conservation Futures program for use as parkland. The guidelines of the program require that the property, as well as the house, be used for horticultural and educational purposes in perpetuity. After incorporating as a city in 1995, University Place assumed control of the property. The city leased the Curran House for some time, but the structure has sat vacant for over a year.

 

In 1999, University Place developed a Master Plan for the park in order to evaluate future uses and programs at the site. Of the several scenarios included in the plan, each called for retaining the Curran House based on findings that the building could serve a useful function and was an integral part of the property as a unit. Despite this planning document, the city is currently debating whether or not to demolish the structure, citing a variety of costs related to repairs, security, and utility bills as barriers to rehabilitation. Given the lack of funds, the responsibility has fallen on the community to provide money for needed improvements and ongoing maintenance.

I think it's interesting to look back on a character created if you've had them a long time. How they evolve and change over time. Take Larissa for instance. Far left you have her right as she popped out of bodyshop. XD (Another thing I find interesting is how my editing/picture taking has evolved too). She was created at the end of 2007. As you can see, my sim-making skills have also improved since then. ;P Dark Raon hair, heavy make-up, and her eyes were hazel.

 

The story Larissa belongs to was just in the very early stages of development, so I really didn't have a concrete idea of how she looked. You can see this progress into the next picture, the only one where her hair is black instead of brown. Eyes are still hazel, but I was trying to get a better idea of how I wanted her to look. I was still trying to build the world she lived in, so that played a huge part in how she ended up looking in the end.

 

I finally decided to stick with brown hair, but I hadn't yet changed her eye color in picture three. I was thinking her hair would be rather short at this point, and it's definitely the lightest it had ever been.

 

The 4th shot is where I think she really started to look the way I wanted her to. Eye color was changed from hazel to violet, and her hair was lengthened, though I kept it pretty light at this point.

 

5th shot is how she looked for a LONG time. I was in love with the hair and I liked the way it gave her a bit of an edge. 6th and final shot shows her how she appears in my game now. Hair has been darkened and it slightly longer. Her make-up usually looks more like in the 5th shot, but I needed her to look a bit fancier in the shot.

 

It's be interesting to do this with other characters I've got. Axle has had more hair changes than I can count (he also went through an eye color change), and it took me AGES to find the right face for Justus. Poor guy looked different in every shot for a while. XD

 

Sorry, this is me rambling. I'm still alive! Hello!

For Instance

Listen here: www.myspace.com/forinstanceband

CARDEN DNA PROJECT

 

Fifth Report - May 2003

 

The use of DNA for genealogy relies on the fact that the portion called the Y-chromosome is passed unaltered from father to son over very many generations, except for the rare occurrence of a mutation affecting one element (called a marker).

 

For explanations, see, for instance

 

freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~allpoms/genetics.html

 

www.familytreedna.com/facts_genes.asp

 

For the Carden DNA Project nearly 40 Y-chromosome analysis results have now been received, including those of the first six participants which were covered in my report dated January 2002.The first 25 were analysed by Oxford Ancestors in England, but we are now using FTDNA of Texas, through whom analysis is carried out by the University of Arizona.

 

This latest report omits most of the explanations given in earlier reports. I will be happy to repeat them, and also go into much greater detail about the technique, probability calculations, family trees of the participants, more detail about origins of the family and so on, on request.If anyone else would like to take part, please contact me.

 

Many thanks are again due to Trish and Ron for kindly publishing this report on their sites -

 

www.TNTCarden.com/tree/ensor/00CardenDNAproject1.html

 

www.lightpatch.com/genealogy/cardendnaproject/

 

Arthur Carden.30th May 2003

   

Carden Origins

 

For some years I have thought, without much foundation, that all Cardens world-wide (apart from a few whose ancestors changed their surname to Carden from some other name) descend from one of three common ancestors, and thus are part of three unrelated groups with origins as follows.

 

Cheshire Origin

 

The Carden name appears in Cheshire from the 13th century onwards. Ormerod, the famous Cheshire historian, states “at some point before the reign of Henry II (i.e., before 1216) a family assumed the local name Carden.”

 

Essex Origin.

 

The Domesday Book shows that in 1086 a William Cardon was working for Geoffrey de Mandeville, one of the many followers of William the Conqueror who were given confiscated land.

 

Mayo/Sligo Group.

 

Many Cardens can trace their origins to these Irish west coast counties.

 

An objective of the CARDEN DNA PROJECT is to show whether most Cardens are indeed members of one of these three groups, and whether the three groups are distinct or connected to one another.It has already gone a long way to achieving this objective.

   

Results so far

 

What appears here is a highly simplified summary.The actual numbers for each individual appear in a table at the end of this document.

 

Cheshire Haplogroup

 

About half of all the nearly 40 results received so far (mostly 10 or 12 marker tests) are identical, and those concerned undoubtedly have a common ancestor.I call this identical DNA signature the Cheshire Haplotype because several of the individuals concerned are known to have very early Cheshire origins.Many of the remainder differ by only one or two mutations, and clearly also come from Cheshire.Probability calculations suggest that they all had a common ancestor in about the year 1500 plus or minus a century or more.

 

Five of these identical results are 25-marker tests.Compared with these another five 25-marker tests exhibit mutations.This is splendid – the five identical ones define the Cheshire haplotype as far as the additional markers are concerned, and the five with mutations may in due course help to establish family groupings.

 

Mayo/Sligo Group

 

It is remarkable that the signatures of two of the participants from Mayo/Sligo only differ by two mutations from the Cheshire haplotype.This implies that the Mayo/Sligo Cardens may also have a Cheshire ancestor.The earliest record of Cardens in Co Sligo is dated 1617, well before a Carden emigrated from Cheshire to Tipperary about 1665.It is possible that their ancestor emigrated separately from England in earlier years, perhaps in Norman or Elizabethan times.However the other two participants from Mayo/Sligo do not support this theory.

 

East Kent Haplogroup

 

Two results (both from the original six) define the totally different East Kent Haplotype.They come from Ron and Bill, who both live in Kent, England.Bill’s was a welcome surprise, as it was previously only guessed that his great grandfather, Sergeant George Carden, born 1818 in France, had Kent ancestors.Their common ancestor lived before 1700 and probably before 1450.

 

Individual Participants and Family Groups

 

An attempt is made below to comment on the DNA signature of each individual participant.Comments and corrections will be most welcome.

 

Matlock Group

 

Observant readers will see that I have now transferred Tom Carding to the Matlock Group from the Tipperary Group, although there is no proof that he descends from Samuel, the common ancestor of the other four.Both he and Jim have had 25-marker tests made, with identical results, so that there is a 50/50 chance they have a common ancestor within 7 generations.We do not yet have a 25-marker test for a Tipperary Carden, unfortunately.

 

Apart from Tom, the signatures of three of the group exactly match the Cheshire haplotype, so not only is it clear that the Matlock group has Cheshire origins, but that their common ancestor Samuel must have had the same signature.Samuel Carden or Carding was born about 1650 in Matlock.Michael’s has two mutations.

 

The Carden, Cardin and Carding names were all used by members of this group, changing back and forth over the years.

 

Cecil Carding of New Zealand is the “senior” member of the group, being descended from Samuel’s elder son.

 

Jim Carden lives in Stalybridge, England.James (“Jim”) has obtained a 25-marker result, which exactly matches the results for four of the others who have obtained such results, helping to confirm the 25-marker Cheshire haplotypeHe has his own very interesting web site at .

 

John Carden, by coincidence, also used to live in Stalybridge, but has recently moved to France. His descent from Samuel seems highly probable, but his earliest proven ancestor is Solomon Cardin/Carding who married in Manchester in 1841.However his DNA signature helps to prove the link to Samuel.

 

Michael Carding and his wife Marrion live in Chesterfield, England.He is the odd one out. All the other Matlock Cardens match the Cheshire haplotype exactly (whether over 10 markers or 25).Michael previously showed one mutation, and now that he has obtained a 25-marker result shows two!It appears that the first mutation (at DYS 393) must have occurred at one of the five transmissions between himself and Michael born 1787, his earliest common ancestor with John.The other mutation (at DYS 464d) must have been at one of the eight transmissions between himself and Samuel born 1681.If John decides to have a 25-marker test done, he will also presumably be found to possess this second mutation, as it would be remarkable for both of Michael's mutations to have occurred since his line split from John's.

 

Tom Carding (Frank Tomas Carding) lives in Cheshire.His son Michael, head teacher of the local secondary school, was very helpful as regards the Carden Gathering in 1998.There is a delightful tradition in his family that a scoundrel named Captain John Carden from Tipperary eloped with the unfortunate Miss Mary de Warren about 1750 and soon deserted her and her infant son John, who used the name Carding rather than Carden. The family still treasures the scoundrel’s sword.Since Tom had an identical 10-marker signature to Peter, of the Tipperary group below this appeared to suggest that the scoundrel came from Peter’s branch of the family, and might even have been the same as the Major John Carden who eloped in 1772 with a Miss Sarah Surman.But there is evidence that Miss Mary de Warren actually married a John Carding from the next village, so it is equally likely that Tom’s ancestry comes more directly from Cheshire, without having anything to do with Tipperary.Now that Tom has had a 25-marker test done, which matches Jim (of Matlock’s) signature exactly, this and the name “Carding” makes a connection with the Matlock group more likely than one with the Tipperary group.

 

Tipperary Group

 

A John Carden emigrated to Tipperary, probably directly from Cheshire, in the 17th century.He is known to some of us as the patriarch.His date of birth is not known, but is likely to have been in the first half of the 17th century as his sons were married in Tipperary in 1672 and 1673.He must have had the same DNA signature as Peter O’N Carden, whose ancestry has been traced on paper back to the patriarch over 8 generations, as otherwise Peter would not have exactly fitted the Cheshire Carden haplotype.

 

Results have been received from five Tipperary Cardens, as follows:

 

Arnold Carden lives in Argentina.He and Arthur and Michael J (see below), all members of the Barnane branch of the family, have identical signatures to each other.These signatures, surprisingly, differ from the Cheshire haplotype and therefore from their “paper” ancestor, the patriarch, by six mutations, far too many for biological descent from the patriarch.It is therefore certain that somewhere between the patriarch and the common ancestor of Arnold, Arthur and Michael J there was a “non-paternal event.”This common ancestor was John Carden, born 1699, great grandson of the patriarch.He was an only child and there is some evidence that he himself was the child of a certain John Barry, so perhaps it is the Barry DNA signature which we carry.Arnold’s and Arthur’s common ancestor was born as recently as 1818, but the Michael J’s result greatly helped by taking the birth of the common ancestor back to 1699.

 

Arthur Carden, the organiser of this study, and of the 1998 Carden Gathering, lives near London.See Arnold above.

 

Michael J Carden is a member of the Barnane-in-Australia branch and lives near Canberra.The identity of his DNA signature to that of Arnold and Arthur proves that the branch is correctly named – proof of the connection to Barnane did not previously exist, though there were strong indications.His participation (paid for jointly by Arthur and his brother Michael) has therefore been doubly useful.

 

Dr Peter O’Neil Carden lives in NSW, Australia.He is a member of the Killard branch of the family, descended from the younger son of the patriarch.As mentioned above, Peter’s signature is identical to the Cheshire Haplotype, which proves that the patriarch’s signature was the same.Peter is interested in probability theory and has made some contributions to the understanding of DNA links and mutations.

 

Richard A P Carden lives in Norfolk.He will be remembered by many who attended the Carden Gathering in Cheshire in 1998 for his financial management and administration of the event, as well as for his cheerfulness.He is a member of the Fishmoyne branch, descended from a younger grandson of the patriarch than is the Barnane branch.His signature differs by two mutations from that of the patriarch.There is a “reasonable” chance of about 1 in 20 of this happening in 10 generations, so a non-parental event need not have occurred in his case.

 

Penshurst / Chiddingstone Cardens

 

It is likely that the Cardens of Penshurst and Chiddingstone, Kent (villages near Tonbridge), are descended from the John Carden of Tilston, Cheshire, mentioned under Brighton below.This idea is supported to some degree by the results for two participants –

 

Mike Carden (Michael J), of Cumbria, exhibits two mutations (counting a double-jump as one mutation in accordance with advice from Oxford Ancestors) from the Cheshire haplotype.There is better chance that he has a common ancestor with those with exact matches to that haplotype than quoted for Richard A P above since many more generations may have elapsed. Mike is a member of the Maidstone sub-branch.

 

Roger Carden of London, a member of the Loraine sub-branch, shares one mutation with Mike, but otherwise fits the Cheshire haplotype exactly. This suggests that their common ancestor, William Carden of Penshurst, born 1760, had the same signature as Roger, and Mike’s second mutation occurred in the six subsequent generations.

   

Brighton Cardens

 

There is good evidence, found by Joan Carden of Spain, that the Cardens of Brighton are descended from a Richard Carden born in Cheshire in about 1500.He became Dean of Chichester and paid for the 16th century stained glass window in Tilston church in Cheshire which shows the sling and pheon which form part of the Carden coat of arms.

 

However the two results obtained for Cardens in Brighton, though identical to each other, are utterly different from the Cheshire haplotype.They were provided by -

 

Donald Carden, who lives in Luton and is a member of the “Hatter” branch of the Brighton Cardens which included Sir Herbert Carden, known as the “father of modern Brighton.” and

 

David Carden, who lives in Brighton, and is Town Clerk of a neighbouring town.His result and that of Donald are so far removed from the other results, despite their Cheshire link, that a non-paternal event in their ancestry, perhaps many generations ago, is virtually certain.David’s branch of the Brighton family is known as the “Virgo” branch.He and Donald have a common ancestor in Robert Carden, born 1787, one of whose sons (Samuel Virgo Carden, born 1815) started David’s “Virgo” branch of the Cardens of Brighton, and another (John, born 1821) started Donald’s “Hatter” branch.So the non-paternal event occurred in 1787 or before.

 

Another possible explanation however might be that Donald’s and David’s are examples ofthe “true” Cheshire signature of a very early Cheshire Carden, and the non-paternal event took place between this early Cheshire Carden and the common ancestor of all the others.I am indebted to Joan Carden for this suggestion.

 

Other UK Cardens close to the Cheshire Carden haplotype

 

Ernest Carden, who lives in Cheshire and is a member of the Winsford branch, almost certainly has Cheshire ancestors.This is supported by his DNA result, which shows only one mutation from the Cheshire haplotype, even over 25 markers

 

Peter L Cardenlives in Australia and is a member of the Randle branch, descended from a William Carden whose son Randle Carden was born about 1830 in the old county of Flint, just over the border from Cheshire.His daughter Natalie persuaded him to participate.His signature also exhibits one mutation from the Cheshire Carden haplotype so it is confirmed that his branch is a Cheshire one.This mutation is the same as that of Scott, below.

 

Peter W Cardenlives near Liverpool.His sister Hazel Poole has been trying for many years to trace their ancestor, a soldier, whose son was born in Halifax about 1847.Since Peter’s signature is three mutations away from the Cheshire haplotype, his Cheshire origin is somewhat doubtful.

 

Tony Carden (Dr A B G Carden) of Melbourne, Australia is a member of the Bendigo branch, the origins of which have been traced back to a town in Shropshire, just over the border from Cheshire and only a few miles from the hamlet of Carden.As perhaps might be expected, he has a DNA signature identical to the Cheshire haplotype.

 

Lincolnshire Cardens

 

Only one Lincolnshire Carden is a participant so far.

 

Stephen Carden, who lives in Spain not far from Joan Carden, has a DNA signature totally different from both the Cheshire haplotype and the East Kent haplotype.Therefore, either there is a non-paternal event in his ancestry, or the Lincolnshire Cardens have their own unique origin.

 

Cardens of Virginia, USA

 

Chris, Chuck, James E (rather surprisingly, see below), Judson and Raymond (12 markers), and Eddie (25 markers) all have DNA signatures identical to the Cheshire haplotype So does Greg (25 markers), though his VA roots are unproven.It seems clear that they are all directly descended from Cheshire ancestors, perhaps from a single immigrant.

 

Chris Carden and his sister Beth Macdonald, together with Chuck below, have traced their ancestry firmly to Robert Carden who died in Goochland County, Virginia in 1785, and possibly, three further generations back, to a passenger from England aboard the “Speedwell.”Beth writes:“Chuck’s and our ancestry probably converge back with my Robert James Carden (c.1702 VA) and Phyllis Woolbanks, whom Chuck lists as Robert [above].That particular Robert is a huge mystery and is not proven for Chris and me.”,

 

Chuck Carden (Charles W Carden), see above, is a retired Marine and Chief of Police who came to the Carden Gathering in Cheshire in 1998, and is soon to move to Cape Cod from Colorado.

 

Eddie Carden (Edward Glen) lives in Virginia but was born in Tennessee. His 25-marker result matches the Cheshire Haplotype exactly.His earliest proven ancestor is John Cardin of Mecklenberg Couny Virginia, the father of Reubin Carden born about 1775.

 

Greg Carden lives in Alabama.His Virginia ancestry is not proven, though there are sufficient indications for him to be included, at least for the time being, in this group. He and Eddie are the only members of this group, so far, to have obtained a 25-marker result. (Greg’s mother):

 

James E (Eugene) Carden writes:“I am African American and have never met another "Black" Carden except for my immediate family until about 2 years ago when I visited Halifax County (Scottsburg) Virginia. I think this is where my Great Grandfather, James H. Carden was born.”

 

Judson Wayne Carden lives in Alabama.His third cousin Elisa Sanford persuaded him to submit a sample.His earliest proven ancestor is Leonard Carden, born about 1793 in Virginia. (Elisa)

 

Raymond Bell’s grandfather changed his name from Cardin to Bell for no apparent reason.His daughter Linda Tieman has traced his ancestry back to Leonard Carden, born about 1785 in Virginia.Raymond lives in Georgia, and his daughter in Texas.

 

(Linda Tiemann)

 

Cardens of North Carolina, USA

 

Richard below have DNA signatures identical to the Cheshire haplotype, and undoubtedly share ancestors in Cheshire with all those with similar signatures.Greg, above, and Scott are the only members of the Virginia and North Carolina groups to have obtained 25-marker results so farIt is hoped that others will do so to clarify the relationships.

 

Richard J Carden lives in Michigan.His oldest known ancestor is William Carden who was born in 1755 in Orange County, North Carolina and who died in 1824 in Jasper County Georgia. As mentioned above, his 10-marker signature matches the Cheshire haplotype exactly

 

Scott Carden.Carol Scarlett, a keen family researcher who came to the Carden Gathering in Cheshire in 1998, traced her distant cousin Scott and persuaded him to submit a sample. His great great grandfather was George Carden born in Orange County, North Carolina in 1828. A 25-marker result has recently been obtained for Scott. One of his original Oxford Ancestors results (not analysed by FTDNA) matches that of Peter L of the Randle branch below.It is not yet clear whether this is a mutation or part of the Cheshire haplotype, but suggests that Scott and Peter L have a common ancestor.A definite mutation in the last of his 25-marker results matches that of Jim of Matlock above, once again suggesting a common ancestor.Neither of these casts any doubt on his Cheshire origin, but they suggest he and Richard J may descend from different immigrants. (Carol Scarlett)

 

Thor Carden (Thor Foy Carden) and his wife Tricia Swallows Carden live in Tennessee, where Thor is Administrator of the Family Christian Academy.Trish kindly publishes this report on her web site.They have traced Thor’s ancestry to a John Carden who was born about 1776 and died in 1847 in Orange County, North Carolina.Thor’s DNA signature differs from the Cheshire Haplotype by two mutations, so there is only a “reasonable” possibility that he shares an ancestor with others who match more closely. Thor suspects that his father’s exposure to radiation while working on radar during the war might be the reason for these mutations.He has traced a third cousin, Robert L. Carden, who has agreed to submit a sample, the analysis of which will be extremely interesting in this context.

 

Other Cardens in USA

 

Bill Carden (William Andrew) lives in Tennessee.His wife Rosemarie has persuaded Bill to submit a sample to help identify his Carden origins.It is identical with the Cheshire Haplotype over all 25 markers, so undoubtedly he has a Cheshire ancestor. Bill’s earliest proven ancestor, Ansel Carden, was also from Tennessee, but if Rosemarie is able to go further back it may be appropriate to include him in one of the groups above.

 

Jerry Carden (Jerry Alan Carden) who lives in Illinois, traces his ancestry to a William Carden, born in Yorkshire, England in 1795. William and his wife came to the US in 1819.His DNA signature exactly matches the Cheshire Haplotype, so undoubtedly he shares an ancestor in Cheshire around 1500 with all those who have the same DNA signature.He has recently obtained a 25-marker result, showing two unique mutations, which may one day enable a link to others in England to be proven.

 

Leo Carden (Robert Leo Carden) was born in Oklahoma, and before retirement was a teacher and then for many years Director of a Technology Center.His relative Carrie Bench has traced their ancestry to William Carden, born about 1755 in Georgia.The first three known generations lived in Georgia and the next three in Alabama.

   

Mayo-Sligo Group

 

As mentioned above, it is remarkable that the signatures of two participants from Co Sligo are close to the Cheshire Haplotype, despite the fact that Cardens were to be found in these west coast Irish counties as early as 1617, well before a Carden emigrated from Cheshire to Tipperary about 1665 (and before Cromwell banished his opponents to the western counties).Presumably their ancestor emigrated separately from England in earlier years, perhaps in Norman or Elizabethan times.

 

Two other participants have rather different signatures, which tends to reduce the force of the above.

 

Gerard Carden, who lives in Glasgow, Scotland, has traced his ancestry to Mathew Carden, whose son Patrick was married in Co Sligo in 1880.His DNA signature is identical to the Cheshire haplotype as regards 9 out of the 10 markers analysed by Oxford Ancestors, but shows a triple-jump in the remaining one, which they regard as two mutations.This suggests a common ancestor with those possessing the exact Cheshire haplotype about 20 or 30 generations ago, which means this ancestor might have lived in about 1400, presumably in Cheshire

 

Owen Carden, who lives in Leeds, England, was persuaded by his nephew Des Curley of Co Sligo, to submit a sample for analysis.This turned out to be identical to Gerard’s, which is not surprising, as they are related.

 

Fred Carden of Pennsylvania, who traces his ancestry to Killala, Co Mayo, has a DNA signature which differs at four points from the Cheshire haplotype, which would normally be enough to deny a common ancestor in the past millennium.However one of them is in the same marker as the mutation possessed by Gerard and Owen, but the remaining three are probably enough to deny a relationship.Fred has ordered a 25-marker analysis, which will be very interesting, especially if other Mayo/Sligo Cardens do so too.

 

Terry (Terrence S) Carden of Arizona, a retired physician who traces his ancestry to Ballina, Co Mayo, differs at three points from the Cheshire haplotype, one of which is the same as Gerald, Owen and Fred’s and the other two the same as Fred’s.Terry therefore almost certainly has a common ancestor with Fred.Terry, incidentally, has kindly digitised many hundreds of Mayo parish register entries obtained by Arthur, and will send copies on request.

 

Fred has ordered a 25-marker test, and if some of the others do so too, and/or some more results from Mayo/Sligo participants are received. perhaps this rather complex situation will be clarified.

 

East Kent Haplogroup

 

Two results (both from the original six) define the totally different East Kent haplogroup.It is possible that this group is descended from the Cardon mentioned in the Domesday Book, but that is pure speculation.It is interesting that only these two, out of the 25 or more Cardens who have submitted samples, belong to this group, the remainder almost all belonging to the Cheshire group.If it were not for the similarity of Ron’s and Bill’s results it might have been supposed that a non-paternal event in their ancestry prevented them from matching the Cheshire haplotype (like for instance, Donald and David of Brighton).

 

Ron Carden (Ronald George) lives in Ashford, Kent.He is a keen genealogist and studies Cardens throughout East Kent.He has traced his ancestry convincingly to Thomas Carden, born in Herne, Kent in 1734.Joan Carden of Spain, who belongs to this family, has carried the pedigree back to John Carden of Sheppey, Kent, born 1450.

   

Bill Carden (William George) lives in Faversham, Kent.He shared the cost of his DNA analysis with his cousin Ian who lives in New Zealand.The result was virtually identical to Ron’s, which was a welcome surprise, as it was previously only guessed that his great grandfather, Sergeant George Carden, born 1818 in France, had Kent ancestors.Subsequent research suggests that the latter’s father was born in Littlebourne, Kent and fought at the battle of Waterloo.

 

Surname Variants

 

DNA analysis may make it possible to shown whether or not names such as Carwardine, Calladine, Kerwin, Kenderdine and so on are indeed variants of the Cawarden name, which changed to Carden in Cheshire.So far only one individual has come forward.

 

Taylor Cowardin traces his ancestry to Peter Carwardine who came to Maryland from England in 1656.Unfortunately his DNA signature is totally different from that of every other participant, so either there is no link between the surnames, or there was a “non-paternal event” at some time, perhaps many generations ago,which broke the chain whereby the Y-chromosome is passed, unchanging, from father to son.

 

FTDNA’s three extra markers

 

As more results are received from FTDNA, attention can be directed at the three extra markers upon which they report.Until the switch to FTDNA was made, the Cheshire Carden haplotype was only defined in terms of the 10 markers reported by Oxford Ancestors.

  

So far, among those who exactly match the Cheshire Haplotype on the 9 markers common to OA and FTDNA, all have identical values for two of the extra three, but not for the other, DYS 385b, for which two values appear:

  

15 Jim, Tom (Matlock), Eddie, Greg, James E, Judson (Virginia).

 

16 Peter L (Randle), Scott (NC)

  

We cannot yet be sure therefore whether for DYS385b the Cheshire haplotype is 15 or 16, although 15 seems the more probable.A value of 15 is also supported by Ernest’s result.If 15 is correct, then Peter L and Scott have a distinguishing mutation (and in any case possibly have a common ancestor).

  

Differences like these can be very useful in making connections between branches, but surprisingly few have arisen.

 

25-marker Signatures

 

FTDNA offer to report on 25 markers.9 participants have already taken advantage of this.The analysis can either be done when a sample is first submitted, by paying $169 (instead of $99 for a 12-marker report}, or in the form of an upgrade at a later date, costing $90.

 

The advantages of 25-marker tests are twofold.First, they are able to identify much more effectively the closeness of relationships.For instance, at present we know that a large proportion of our participants share a common ancestor in Cheshire, but we are unable to group them into branches of the family.With 25-markers to consider it may be possible to allocate them to a number of groups of individuals who share, or nearly share, identical results for all 25 markers.Second, with 25 markers it is possible to estimate the number of generations to the most recent common ancestor considerably better.For instance it is calculated that two individuals with identical 10-marker results have a common ancestor who lived about 15 generations ago, plus or minus a very wide margin of error.For two individuals with identical 25-marker results the corresponding estimate is 7 generations.

 

It is to be hoped that many participants will be prepared to pay for 25-marker tests, either when they first join the project or subsequently.Unfortunately all those whose sample was analysed by Oxford Ancestors will have to start again from scratch with FTDNA, paying $169, although several of the 10 mentioned above have taken advantage of a special offer of $149 for “Oxford Conversion.

 

The Y-STR database

 

This is a fast-growing collection of DNA results for forensic purposes covering most countries in Europe (http://ystr.charite.de).Unfortunately only 7 of the markers in the database coincide with the 10 used by Oxford Ancestors or the 12 used by FTDNA.Using these seven, 267 exact matches were found for the basic Cheshire Group signature out of a database of 9,685.This means that about 1 in 35 men in Europe share the same numbers with our Cheshire Group, and this is one of the most frequently found set of numbers, only one step away from what is called the “Atlantic Modal Haplotype.”

 

Arthur, Ernest (both 14 for DYS 392), and Thor (12 for DYS 391) all possess rather rare mutations.If others are found to match their results this will be highly significant.No matches whatever were found for the set of 7 usable May-Sligo figures provided by Gerard and Owen, so theirs is a very rare set of numbers!

 

As regards the East Kent Group, using the 7 available markers, there are only 4 exact matches for Ron/Bill’s result out of a database which had increased to 10,035 by the time the comparison was made.The matches are one each in Switzerland, London, Southern Ireland and Tuscany, so this tells us only that the East Kent Group has a very rare signature and makes a relationship between Ron and Bill virtually certain.[What is more, their common result of 9 for DYS 388 is, according to Oxford Ancestors, also very rare and outside the normal range for this marker.]

 

Ybase

 

There is an interesting site at where it is possible to compare DNA signatures with those of people who have entered theirs.

 

For instance, on entering the numbers for our Cheshire Haplotype, there is found to be one surname, Rader, which matches on 21 out of the 26 markers, 12 surnames which match on 20 of the 26 and many more which match on 19 or less.

 

If I receive no objection in the next month or so, I will submit our Cheshire and East Kent haplotypes as permanent entries in this database, so that those with other surnames can have some fun finding a match with us.Of course any of us can enter his own numbers (temporarily or permanently) to see what he finds.

   

Other comments

 

It is notable that the majority of our American participants match the Cheshire haplotype exactly, and most of the others with only one or two mutationsThis proves that almost all have Cheshire descent beyond doubt and shows that no non-paternal events have occurred in their ancestry.It is a pity, in a way, that so few exhibit any mutations, which would have made it possible to establish groups.

 

Huge numbers of Americans left Ireland for a better life, but only two of our participants did so.It will also be noted that the oldest proven ancestor of almost every participant from USA lived in USA before independence, long before the days of Ellis Island or the Irish famine.

 

But it should not be supposed that our 16 American participants are truly representative of the thousands of Cardens in the USA!

 

Results awaited

 

The following are believed to have sent samples for analysis, or are about to do so, but have not yet received their results

 

Dave (David L) Carden of North Carolina.

 

Mark Carden of Co. Sligo, now living in London..

 

Fred Carden (Cheryl’s husband) of North Carolina.

 

Robert L. Carden, of, Haw River, NC, USA, cousin of Thor above.

 

Mike Collins, for his uncle in Texas.

 

Ted (Prof Edward) Carden of California (Rigsby, UK, branch).

 

Colin M Carden of Somerset, UK.

 

George Carden of Georgia USA.

 

Several others are making up their minds whether to participate or not, or are trying to persuade male relatives to do so.

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

In this instance he was seen carousing with a couple of ladies, one of which suffers from Narcocameralepsy® -- A condition which causes one to fall asleep the moment one hears the click of a camera shutter.

 

These ladies, along with several other Londoners I met, were not familiar with the infamous Mr. Bill.

Patrice Clarke Washington, Airplane Captain

 

In 1994, while working as first officer on DC-8 for United Parcel Service, she was promoted to captain--the nation's, and possibly the world's, first black commercial airline captain.

 

Personal Information

 

Born Patrice Francise Clarke on September 11, 1961, in Nassau, Bahamas; daughter of Nathaniel and Peggy Ann (now Lundy) Clarke. Married Ray Washington, February, 1994.

 

Education

 

Attended Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla. Graduated in April 1982 with a commercial pilot's certificate and B.S. in aeronautical science.

 

Career

 

Worked as a pilot for a charter company, Trans Island Airways, in the Bahamas, 1982-84. Flew as a first officer with Bahamasair 1984-88. Hired as a flight engineer for United Parcel Service May 1988; promoted to first officer, January 1990; upgraded to captain November, 1994. Believed to be first African American female pilot with a commercial airline.

 

Life's Work

 

When you live in the Bahamas it's practically a given that you'll do your shopping in Florida. "I remember many, many summers growing up when, as soon as we were done with school, we were on a plane headed for Miami," the now 35-year-old Chicagoan told CBB in a telephone interview. Virtually every summer, Christmas, and Easter school breaks, Washington, her mother, and two sisters would board a plane for the short hop across the water to visit with family members in the States to stock up on essentials. Accordingly, airline travel became second nature to this young Bahamian girl. And, somewhere up there in the clouds, above the shimmery blue of the Carribean, the bug bit--Washington decided she was going to fly planes for a living.

 

More than anything, she was determined to see the world beyond her lush, tropical island. And remarkably, nobody stopped her, nobody discouraged her, nobody said: You're female, you're black, you can't do these things. So Washington pressed on, despite the cultural and economic odds. And she succeeded far beyond anyone's expectations, including her own

 

In 1994, while working as first officer on DC-8 for United Parcel Service, she was promoted to captain--the nation's, and possibly the world's, first black commercial airline captain.

 

Washington's "first" was especially significant considering that there are fewer than a dozen black female pilots on major airlines, according to the Organization of Black Airline Pilots. Of UPS's own 1,650 pilots, only 59 percent are black and only 86 are women. Washington is the only one who is both black and female.

 

Of course, women had been flying planes for six decades, inspired by role models like Amelia Earhart in the 1930s and by the Women's Air Service Pilots of World War II. African Americans, however, had to fight their way in. After WWII ended in 1945, none of the 992 Tuskegee Airmen were able to get a job in commercial aviation. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, it took a succession of lawsuits by black pilots against airlines--and eventually one brought by the Justice Department against United Airlines--to weed out the entrenched discrimination.

 

These facts were unknown to the Bahamian teen-ager with her head in the clouds. "Growing up in the Bahamas I didn't have that consciousness about race," Washington said. All around her were black professionals and blacks in government leadership posts. "So when someone said `no,' as far as I was concerned it was no because `this is the way it had to be.' I didn't relate to people and life in terms of black, white, male, or female. It was, `I can do the job or I can't.'" As for the fact that she was a woman entering a man's world, perhaps the chief influence there was the fact that she grew up in an environment where male and female roles were blissfully combined.

 

Born in Nassau, Bahamas on September 11, 1961, Patrice Clarke was only five-years-old when her parents, Peggy Ann and Nathaniel Clarke, divorced. Her father then faded almost completely from her life. As for her mother, Peggy Ann Lundy would later become involved in a long-term romantic relationship and eventually marry Leo John Lundy when Patrice was almost an adult. But, primarily, hers was a childhood without men. "I think maybe the lack of male role models [in my life] had a little to do with the decision [to become a pilot] because my head was never filled with the boy thing/girl thing," Washington said. "I wasn't told that `the boys take out the garbage and the girls do the dishes.'" Because there were no boys in our house, we did it all."

 

Washington's family included her mother and two younger sisters: Natasha, two years her junior, and Lynette (who was adopted), 13 years her junior. There was a big extended family that cared for the girls while Peggy Ann Lundy was away working, first as a nurse's aide and later as the manager of a bar/restaurant. "There were tough times," Washington remembered. "She seemed to make things work ... She worked her butt off for us. She was always gone. We had one day with her--Sundays." But Nassau "was safe, and being a relatively small island, family were real close ... within two to three miles of our house. The family network is what made the difference."

 

Washington decided to apply to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, her mother, she recalls, was "awestruck." Perhaps it was her career choice, perhaps it was the stratospheric cost flying school combined with a four-year college degree entails. Still, Peggy Ann Lundy never voiced a single objection, Washington remembers; she just worked all the harder to put her daughter through college.

 

At Embry-Riddle, young Patrice studied aerodynamics, meteorology, and physics along with the usual subjects; besides these subjects, the biggest distinction her campus had was the 210 hours she put in learning to fly. A Bahamian citizen (the Bahamas had already become independent of Great Britain), Washington went through other changes: She felt pulled to her adopted country, the United States and sought and won official residency here shortly after college graduation. Though she ultimately decided not to follow the usual career path pilots do--through the military. To be understood by her American peers, she realized she had to drop some of the British words she used, along with the lilting, broken English of her Bahamian upbringing.

 

She graduated in April of 1982 with a B.S. in aeronautical science.

 

It was a recession year and a terrible time to be job-hunting.

Finally giving up on a United States-based pilot's job, she returned, dejected, to Nassau that summer. But luck was on her side after all; she was hired by Trans Island Airways that September. At Trans Island she found immense satisfaction, flying charters around the Bahamas, South Florida, Haiti, and Grand Cayman. Finally, she was being allowed to fly over open water. And, seated at the helm of tiny six-and-ten-seater Aztecs and Islanders, she couldn't have been happier. The scenery, the new people she was meeting, and even the occasional gut-wrenching thunderstorms--it was the world she wanted.

 

But eventually Washington realized she wanted a bigger world and the chance to fly to its furthest reaches. So, in October of 1984, she accepted a job with Bahamasair, a much larger airline, where she could fly Boeing 737s to points as far away as Atlanta and New York. She had taken a giant step up to her eventual goal. Yet three-and-a-half years later, she was job-hunting again. "The point in time came when I got tired doing the same thing, which was flying the Bahamas and South Florida. After you've done that so many times, it gets old." So Washington began interviewing at major U.S. airlines, and eventually she landed--at UPS.

 

Initially, Washington worked as a flight engineer on three-crew member flights, from UPS's home flight base in Louisville, Kentucky, to places like Anchorage, Alaska; Sydney, Australia, and Cologne, Germany. As a flight engineer, it was her job to check fuel levels and systems operation. But she yearned to get her hands on the controls of the huge cargo DC-8s she was helping to operate.

 

Still, she was realizing her dream of getting around the globe. Flying to Alaska, for instance, she saw her first glacier, something she had only read about in school in the tropics. "When I saw the glaciers for the first time my mind went back to geography class, my eyes watered, and I was filled with emotion," Washington has written in a short autobiographical article.

 

In her personal life there was another emotional high. In February of 1994 she married Ray Washington, a pilot for American Airlines whom she met at an Organization of Black Airline Pilots convention. A little over a year later, she was pregnant with their first child.

 

But her professional career was moving slowly, and the young Bahamian who had rarely thought of race or gender as controlling factors was starting to think about them now. She yearned to be promoted to first officer so she could fly UPS's planes directly. "The hard times," she says, "were when I started to realize I was being treated differently either because of my sex and or because of my race." During an upgrade test flight at UPS, for instance, when she was being considered for a first officer upgrade, she was paired with a trainer who decided she was not capable of the upgrade. She wondered why.

 

But she still was not making the connection, she remembers. Then she was paired with a second trainer who also refused to pass her. During one flight, she says he told her, "'I understand you only have about 1,000 hours [flight time]. And when he said that, I understood exactly what time it was. I looked at him and said, "No, sir, I have about 1000 hours flying a Boeing 737." In other words, what he was saying to me was "You're a low-time pilot, you don't deserve this job.' And, `basically we're not going to pass you, so you can go sit as an engineer for a few more years and try it later.'" The male pilot training alongside her passed the course.

 

Despite the hitches, however, Washington was finally promoted to first officer, in January 1990. Then, in November of 1994 she was promoted again--this time to captain. It was a hard-won first for African Americans. As Washington told Time magazine, "Airlines only hired us because they were sued."

 

According to Time, Korean War pilot Marlon Green sued Continental Airlines, winning a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962 that opened the door for black pilots to work for commercial airlines. But the fight was not yet won. In 1973 the U.S. Justice Department won its own landmark case against United Airlines when a federal court found entrenched discrimination and ordered United to hire blacks at twice the percentage of black applicants. American Airlines also was affected; it subsequently dropped its 5-foot, 6- inch height requirement which had nothing to do with flying airplanes, but did leave many women in the wings of the profession. And, USAir agreed to drop its nepotism requirements that also left many women out--because they weren't members of the boys club that was the traditional pilots community.

 

Despite these rulings, enforcement lagged. In 1988 the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission went back to court against United on behalf of hundreds of rejected African Americans and women. United responded, recruiting minority pilots and paying for their training to boost their numbers from 2.6 percent to 8.1 percent of the total. In the female-pilot category, United increased its numbers from 1.5 percent to 5.5 percent.

 

The result? "Things have changed significantly in the airline industry," Washington said. "I'm just going to be 35 [years-old], and I'm a captain--that was basically unheard of [in the recent past]. Particularly for me to be flying with people who are older than me and subordinate to me. So things have changed."

 

She wants to continue that trend. To young people interested in flying, she advises taking a serious look at the military as the route in; flight training is normally too expensive for most young people, especially those from low-income backgrounds. She also points to some limited scholarship aid from groups like the Organization of Black Airline Pilots.

 

Most importantly, she advises youths to disregard the lack of black and female role models--particularly in the still largely white male military. She suggests youths hold fast to their dreams, the way she did. "My point of view has always been that if there's something you want to do, go ahead and do it," Washington said. "I've always been pretty well focused and once I decided on something, I did it."

 

Awards

 

Honoree for female trailblazer award, National Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees, 1995; honoree, Organization of Black Airline Pilots, 1995.

  

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

This window is the gift of the Danehill parishioners and represents St Edward the Confessor, St Augustine of Canterbury and St Pancras, saints who have been chosen as instance of holy living in three different stations of life, namely as king, bishop and peasant. On the scroll across the window is written ‘In memorial eternal erit justus’ ie ‘The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance’ (Psalm 112:6).

 

Edward the Confessor here stands arrayed in his regal garments holding a sceptre and a ring, his peculiar attribute. In secular histories much of the real beauty and goodness of this king’s character is but lightly spoken of; yet though he may have made some grave mistakes as king, it was his earnest desire to let mercy and justice be the guides of his actions in governing his people. He was brought up in Normandy, the home of his beautiful mother Emma, who afterwards married King Canute. Of the many churches and monasteries that the saint endowed, Westminster Abbey dedicated to St Peter remains as one of the greatest monuments of his religious zeal and beneath it rests Edward the Confessor’s remains.

 

The following legend is connected with the ring that is held in his left hand is told by Mrs Jameson in her ‘Sacred and Legendary Act’. King Edward the Confessor has, after CHRIST and the Virgin, a special veneration for St John the Evangelist.

 

One day returning from his church at Westminster, he was accosted by a pilgrim who asked an alm for the love of GOD and of St John. The king ever merciful to the poor immediately drew from his finger a ring and unknown to anyone gave it to the beggar.

 

When the king had reigned twenty-four years, it came to pass that two pilgrims returning to their own country of England were met by one in the habit of a pilgrim, who said to them, ‘When ye arrive in England go to Kind Edward and salute him in my name, say to him, I thank him for the alms he bestowed on me in Westminster, for there on a certain day as I begged an alms he gave me this ring, which ye shall carry back to him, saying that in six months from this time he shall quit the world and remain with me for ever. The pilgrims being astounded said to him, ’Who art thou and where is they dwelling place?’ and he answered, ‘I am John the Evangelist, Edward your king is my friend and for the sanctity of his life I hold him dear, therefore deliver him this message and the ring, and I will pray to God that ye may arrive safely’.

 

The pilgrims went on their way praising God for this glorious vision, and having arrived in England delivered the ring and message. The king received the news joyfully and set himself to prepare for his departure from this world. On the eve of the Nativity 1066 he fell sick and on the eve of the Epiphany he died, the ring he gave to the Abbot of Westminster to be preserved among the relics.

 

Photograph © David Milner and Marian Spinks

For instance, the silver livery TGV, is made by Hot Wheels and sold under the name "planet micro" while the black livery Alco, is made by Funrise in China.

The Eurostar and S1 steam loco, are static display items, made by Lewis Galoob and are genuine Micro Machines - none of the models seen here, will run on Micro Machines train tracks.

The instances of Identity theft are increasing yearly (maybe because many companies are going virtual?) but regardless there are very negative effects. Unfortunately many of my friends have been victims of identity theft and damage has been done to their credit score and some friends have gone into debt. This is not a happy place to be, and all because there was no privacy.

Fujifilm Instax 210

Here's one of two promos I did of the band For Instance.

 

Give them a listen!

 

www.myspace.com/forinstanceband

 

Become a fan of Studebaker_Photography on FACEBOOK

Le chat domestique (Felis silvestris catus) est un mammifère carnivore de la famille des félidés. Il est l’un des principaux animaux de compagnie et compte aujourd’hui une cinquantaine de races différentes reconnues par les instances de certification. Dans de nombreux pays, le chat entre dans le cadre de la législation sur les carnivores domestiques à l’instar du chien et du furet.

 

Essentiellement territorial, le chat est un prédateur de petites proies comme les rongeurs ou les oiseaux. Les chats ont diverses vocalisations dont les ronronnements, les miaulements, ou les grognements, bien qu’ils communiquent principalement par des positions faciales et corporelles et des phéromones. Selon les résultats de travaux menés en 2006 et 20071, le chat domestique est une sous-espèce du chat sauvage (Felis silvestris) dont son ancêtre, le chat sauvage d’Afrique (Felis silvestris lybica) a vraisemblablement divergé il y a 130 000 ans. Les premières domestications auraient eu lieu il y a 8 000 à 10 000 ans au Néolithique dans le Croissant fertile, époque correspondant au début de la culture de céréales et à l’engrangement de réserves susceptibles d’être attaquées par des rongeurs, le chat devenant alors pour l’homme un auxiliaire utile se prêtant à la domestication.

 

Tout d’abord vénéré par les Égyptiens, il fut diabolisé en Europe au Moyen Âge et ne retrouva ses lettres de noblesse qu’au XVIIIe siècle. En Asie, le chat reste synonyme de chance, de richesse ou de longévité. Ce félin a laissé son empreinte dans la culture populaire et artistique, tant au travers d’expressions populaires que de représentations diverses au sein de la littérature, de la peinture ou encore de la musique.

 

The domestic cat[1][2] (Felis catus[2] or Felis silvestris catus[4]) is a small, usually furry, domesticated, and carnivorous mammal. It is often called the housecat when kept as an indoor pet,[6] or simply the cat when there is no need to distinguish it from other felids and felines. Cats are often valued by humans for companionship and their ability to hunt vermin and household pests.

 

Cats are similar in anatomy to the other felids, with strong, flexible bodies, quick reflexes, sharp retractable claws, and teeth adapted to killing small prey. Cat senses fit a crepuscular and predatory ecological niche. Cats can hear sounds too faint or too high in frequency for human ears, such as those made by mice and other small animals. They can see in near darkness. Like most other mammals, cats have poorer color vision and a better sense of smell than humans.

 

Despite being solitary hunters, cats are a social species, and cat communication includes the use of a variety of vocalizations (mewing, purring, trilling, hissing, growling and grunting) as well as cat pheromones and types of cat-specific body language.[7]

 

Cats have a rapid breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering, and the abandonment of former household pets, has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[8]

 

Since cats were cult animals in ancient Egypt, they were commonly believed to have been domesticated there,[9] but there may have been instances of domestication as early as the Neolithic from around 9500 years ago (7500 BC).[10]

 

A genetic study in 2007 concluded that domestic cats are descended from African wildcats (Felis silvestris lybica) c. 8000 BC, in the Near East.[9][11] According to Scientific American, cats are the most popular pet in the world, and are now found in almost every place where humans live

Clusters available for my image

Margo Wolowiec

Instances (sold)

42 x 58 inches

Hand Woven Polyester, Cotton, Dye Sublimation Ink

via andre on Pixelfed metapixl.com/p/andre/702957009213408537

metapixl.com is a pixelfed instance

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

Battlefield 3

Press: hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/20838118/article-Showi...

 

© branko

www.a2b1.com

youtube channel: www.youtube.com/a2b1

 

trismccall.net

 

111 first street. From Paris to Jersey City, They Showed No Love.

a Branko Documentary Film

 

In the area of Jersey City NJ, for about 20 years, existed a warehouse building where artists had about 130 art studios. The artists left in 2005 and the building was demolished in 2007.

This movie only deals with the art, presented by the artists.

This documentary is a historical document of a very important part of Art in America.

 

Screening on:

2-23-2012

1:00 PM

Jersey City Library

Biblioteca Criolla, 4th. Floor

472 Jersey Avenue

Jersey City, NJ 07302

 

a2b1.com/111.html

 

111 First Street (film) - Wiki

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111_First_Street_(film)

 

111 First Street (a Branko Film), Trailer

youtu.be/WluWZBqEQMg

 

111 Jam Band (a Branko Film). Unedited

youtu.be/SiwlMJOQzg0

 

Faizulla Khamraev (a Branko Film)

youtu.be/c07dlkHvLvE

 

Maria Benjumeda, Flamenco and Bulerias at 111 First Street

youtu.be/IwZaogSBKmE

 

American Watercolor Movement, Live at Coney Island. A Branko Film (Unedited)

youtu.be/EHSx0TgjepE

 

© branko

www.a2b1.com

youtube

instagram

facebook

 

Branko: Entrevista TV Español

youtu.be/uF46ark3mlE

 

Movies:

911 Number Seven

111 First Street Movie.

Hola Presidente

Enjay 2

 

Books:

West Indian Parade (Photo Book)

Cecilia Mamede, Times Square NYC (Photo Book)

Anabel - Libro Español-Spanish

Version ebook

Libro en Español

Versao Portugues

one rare instance of thought from the pug designers. the fuel pressure regulator has a pressure release valve before the lines hit the fuel rails. you need to unclip the lines from the rear cam cover so I figured it would be easiest to de-pressurise the system and pul the lines from the rails completely to get the whole lot out of the way.

 

A hand full of towel roll over the top while you use a flat head screw driver to operate the valve seems to do the trick

For instance, here was a carpetseller in a rustbelt building from 1955, with charming pictures of flowers on its windows.

 

-----------------------

 

In Lansing, Michigan, on May 5th, 2019, Carpets To Go on the west side of South Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard (Michigan Highway M-99) between Pierce Road and Reo Road.

 

The building was erected in 1955.

 

-----------------------

 

Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names terms:

• Ingham (county) (1002502)

• Lansing (2052433)

 

Art & Architecture Thesaurus terms:

• awnings (300254200)

• beige (color) (300266234)

• brick (clay material) (300010463)

• carpets (300185756)

• decorations (ornaments) (300379003)

• shop signs (300211862)

• specialty stores (300005364)

• storefronts (300002533)

 

Wikidata items:

• 5 May 2019 (Q57350091)

• 1950s in architecture (Q11185577)

• 1955 in architecture (Q2812133)

• 4504 (Q19245809)

• Central Michigan (Q2945568)

• M-99 (Q2354133)

• May 5 (Q2550)

• May 2019 (Q47087597)

• rug and carpet industry (Q74007739)

• Treaty of Saginaw (Q1572601)

 

Library of Congress Subject Headings:

• Business names (sh85018315)

• Decoration and ornament—Plant forms (sh85036250)

• Flowers in art (sh85049347)

• Small business (sh85123568)

Decree of the Lords of the Council, at the instance of the college, ordaining letters of four forms to be issued against the occupiers of lands and houses indebted in payment of rents and dues to the chaplaincies, altarages and prebends of the city of Glasgow, and against the parishioners of Govan for the teinds and dues of that parish, with an exception in favour of the parishioners during the continuance of the tack granted to Archibald Betoun of the teinds of Govan, and another exception as to the Black Friars' Yards, in favour of John Graham. (1 November 1577)

 

(University of Glasgow Archive Services Ref: GUA BL/418)

 

Image of front with details available here

 

View the catalogue for GUA BL/418 online

2023-06-16: Atef Majdoub, President of Instance Générale de Partenariat Public Privé (IGPPP) Tunisia speaks during PPPs in North Africa, for sustainable and inclusive growth, Tunisia.

In this instance, the spirit is Ouzo. Today we went back to visit Karin and family, as G's mum was saddened that she didn't have enough notice of our visit to prepare a feast!

 

She certainly made good on that, with a little help from G.

 

Historically I've not had much love for Greek food, but then I've never been to Greece and perhaps I've needed some guidance in restaurants.

 

G explained to me that almost all Greek restaurant food is Island food for two reasons. Firstly, people want to eat what they had on holiday, and they holiday in the islands. Secondly, chefs who leave Greece are more likely to be those come into contact with tourists and they do that at islands.

 

This meal was from the hands of people who live in the mainland, and so has more in common with Turkish cooking than with Greek island food. Certainly there was no seafood at all.

 

G recommended some ouzo with the starters which I was happy to take him up on. Here it is served in the most Finnish of glasses. This is an Iittala Ultima Thule glass, designed by Tapio Wirkkala in the 1960s and influenced by the melting ice that he saw in Lapland. It went down well. :)

color is defined by 3 properties, hue, saturation and value.

 

hue is the difference between, for instance, red and blue, holding the brightness or darkness of the colors relatively constant. All hues are exemplified by a spectrum, as projected from sunlight by a prism. or by the color wheel.

 

brighter versions of any color are called tones, and are the result of increasing the lightness or value of any hue. darker versions of a hue are called tints, and are the result of lowering the brightness, or value of a hue. at zero saturation, value is seen as a continuum from black through dark gray, middle gray, light gray, to pure white.

 

the remaining dimension of color is saturation, also known as chroma, or chromaticity. saturation is the purity or vibrancy of hue. it runs from the most striking, distinct, or fully saturated version of a hue to an equivalent grayscale value.

 

there are many ways of representing the properties of color as dimensions of a solid. these different conceptions probably lend themselves to different types of useful manipulations, or to understanding different options for display in different media.

 

the most interesting to me are based on human perception of color difference. my human eye sees ultra-violet blending into infra-red, making the spectrum into a circle perpendicular to the grayscale axis. the cartography of color therefore produces a form akin to a globe, or spindle. the maximum distinctions are represented by the equator and the grayscale axis. colors brightened, or darkened from their maximum saturation appear less distinct from the tints or tones of neighboring hues, thus, the area necessary to represent them diminishes, and the area of the solid shrinks as one approaches the poles in an analogous way to the diminution of length of latitude lines as one approaches the poles of the globe.

 

the color solid as developed by Howard Munsell, based more on the messy truth of human perception than idealized schematic representations of these properties abstraced, manifests the unequal luminance that we perceive in fully saturated colors. a pure yellow always looks brighter than a pure blue or red. our color globe or spindle is lopsided. its equator is not a perfect circle. you cannot hold value perfectly constant for all colors at maximum purity. if you held value constant your yellow would be dingy, or your blue would be washed-out, or both.

 

I navigate these oceans. my chart room is stuffed with color pickers, pigments, color wheels and spectra. the prism is my sextant. I am a voyager.

I am progressively photographing all of my old camera collection, in this instance a 1950’s Braun Paxette, with which I am currently taking some pic’s to see if my repairs have worked. I always try to photograph them in context, in this case I have used a 50s picture of Joan Collins as a suitable backdrop and attempted to blend the camera in.

Le chat domestique (Felis silvestris catus) est un mammifère carnivore de la famille des félidés. Il est l’un des principaux animaux de compagnie et compte aujourd’hui une cinquantaine de races différentes reconnues par les instances de certification. Dans de nombreux pays, le chat entre dans le cadre de la législation sur les carnivores domestiques à l’instar du chien et du furet.

 

Essentiellement territorial, le chat est un prédateur de petites proies comme les rongeurs ou les oiseaux. Les chats ont diverses vocalisations dont les ronronnements, les miaulements, ou les grognements, bien qu’ils communiquent principalement par des positions faciales et corporelles et des phéromones. Selon les résultats de travaux menés en 2006 et 20071, le chat domestique est une sous-espèce du chat sauvage (Felis silvestris) dont son ancêtre, le chat sauvage d’Afrique (Felis silvestris lybica) a vraisemblablement divergé il y a 130 000 ans. Les premières domestications auraient eu lieu il y a 8 000 à 10 000 ans au Néolithique dans le Croissant fertile, époque correspondant au début de la culture de céréales et à l’engrangement de réserves susceptibles d’être attaquées par des rongeurs, le chat devenant alors pour l’homme un auxiliaire utile se prêtant à la domestication.

 

Tout d’abord vénéré par les Égyptiens, il fut diabolisé en Europe au Moyen Âge et ne retrouva ses lettres de noblesse qu’au XVIIIe siècle. En Asie, le chat reste synonyme de chance, de richesse ou de longévité. Ce félin a laissé son empreinte dans la culture populaire et artistique, tant au travers d’expressions populaires que de représentations diverses au sein de la littérature, de la peinture ou encore de la musique.

 

The domestic cat[1][2] (Felis catus[2] or Felis silvestris catus[4]) is a small, usually furry, domesticated, and carnivorous mammal. It is often called the housecat when kept as an indoor pet,[6] or simply the cat when there is no need to distinguish it from other felids and felines. Cats are often valued by humans for companionship and their ability to hunt vermin and household pests.

 

Cats are similar in anatomy to the other felids, with strong, flexible bodies, quick reflexes, sharp retractable claws, and teeth adapted to killing small prey. Cat senses fit a crepuscular and predatory ecological niche. Cats can hear sounds too faint or too high in frequency for human ears, such as those made by mice and other small animals. They can see in near darkness. Like most other mammals, cats have poorer color vision and a better sense of smell than humans.

 

Despite being solitary hunters, cats are a social species, and cat communication includes the use of a variety of vocalizations (mewing, purring, trilling, hissing, growling and grunting) as well as cat pheromones and types of cat-specific body language.[7]

 

Cats have a rapid breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering, and the abandonment of former household pets, has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[8]

 

Since cats were cult animals in ancient Egypt, they were commonly believed to have been domesticated there,[9] but there may have been instances of domestication as early as the Neolithic from around 9500 years ago (7500 BC).[10]

 

A genetic study in 2007 concluded that domestic cats are descended from African wildcats (Felis silvestris lybica) c. 8000 BC, in the Near East.[9][11] According to Scientific American, cats are the most popular pet in the world, and are now found in almost every place where humans live

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]

Instance 1 of a drumstick going up someone's butt... Rob Chianelli is awesome! I'm definitely bringing a longer lens with me next time I see these guys so I can get more shots of him!

  

Anyone looking to use or license these photos can shoot me an email at pritenvora@gmail.com at any time! =)

Retro Manga style illustration inspired by the late Osamu Tezuka

 

KING CLAUDIUS

 

Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother's death

The memory be green, and that it us befitted

To bear our hearts in grief and our whole kingdom

To be contracted in one brow of woe,

Yet so far hath discretion fought with nature

That we with wisest sorrow think on him,

Together with remembrance of ourselves.

Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,

The imperial jointress to this warlike state,

Have we, as 'twere with a defeated joy,--

With an auspicious and a dropping eye,

With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,

In equal scale weighing delight and dole,--

Taken to wife: nor have we herein barr'd

Your better wisdoms, which have freely gone

With this affair along. For all, our thanks.

Now follows, that you know, young Fortinbras,

Holding a weak supposal of our worth,

Or thinking by our late dear brother's death

Our state to be disjoint and out of frame,

Colleagued with the dream of his advantage,

He hath not fail'd to pester us with message,

Importing the surrender of those lands

Lost by his father, with all bonds of law,

To our most valiant brother. So much for him.

Now for ourself and for this time of meeting:

Thus much the business is: we have here writ

To Norway, uncle of young Fortinbras,--

Who, impotent and bed-rid, scarcely hears

Of this his nephew's purpose,--to suppress

His further gait herein; in that the levies,

The lists and full proportions, are all made

Out of his subject: and we here dispatch

You, good Cornelius, and you, Voltimand,

For bearers of this greeting to old Norway;

Giving to you no further personal power

To business with the king, more than the scope

Of these delated articles allow.

Farewell, and let your haste commend your duty.

 

CORNELIUS VOLTIMAND

 

In that and all things will we show our duty.

 

KING CLAUDIUS

 

We doubt it nothing: heartily farewell.

 

Le chat domestique (Felis silvestris catus) est un mammifère carnivore de la famille des félidés. Il est l’un des principaux animaux de compagnie et compte aujourd’hui une cinquantaine de races différentes reconnues par les instances de certification. Dans de nombreux pays, le chat entre dans le cadre de la législation sur les carnivores domestiques à l’instar du chien et du furet.

 

Essentiellement territorial, le chat est un prédateur de petites proies comme les rongeurs ou les oiseaux. Les chats ont diverses vocalisations dont les ronronnements, les miaulements, ou les grognements, bien qu’ils communiquent principalement par des positions faciales et corporelles et des phéromones. Selon les résultats de travaux menés en 2006 et 20071, le chat domestique est une sous-espèce du chat sauvage (Felis silvestris) dont son ancêtre, le chat sauvage d’Afrique (Felis silvestris lybica) a vraisemblablement divergé il y a 130 000 ans. Les premières domestications auraient eu lieu il y a 8 000 à 10 000 ans au Néolithique dans le Croissant fertile, époque correspondant au début de la culture de céréales et à l’engrangement de réserves susceptibles d’être attaquées par des rongeurs, le chat devenant alors pour l’homme un auxiliaire utile se prêtant à la domestication.

 

Tout d’abord vénéré par les Égyptiens, il fut diabolisé en Europe au Moyen Âge et ne retrouva ses lettres de noblesse qu’au XVIIIe siècle. En Asie, le chat reste synonyme de chance, de richesse ou de longévité. Ce félin a laissé son empreinte dans la culture populaire et artistique, tant au travers d’expressions populaires que de représentations diverses au sein de la littérature, de la peinture ou encore de la musique.

 

The domestic cat[1][2] (Felis catus[2] or Felis silvestris catus[4]) is a small, usually furry, domesticated, and carnivorous mammal. It is often called the housecat when kept as an indoor pet,[6] or simply the cat when there is no need to distinguish it from other felids and felines. Cats are often valued by humans for companionship and their ability to hunt vermin and household pests.

 

Cats are similar in anatomy to the other felids, with strong, flexible bodies, quick reflexes, sharp retractable claws, and teeth adapted to killing small prey. Cat senses fit a crepuscular and predatory ecological niche. Cats can hear sounds too faint or too high in frequency for human ears, such as those made by mice and other small animals. They can see in near darkness. Like most other mammals, cats have poorer color vision and a better sense of smell than humans.

 

Despite being solitary hunters, cats are a social species, and cat communication includes the use of a variety of vocalizations (mewing, purring, trilling, hissing, growling and grunting) as well as cat pheromones and types of cat-specific body language.[7]

 

Cats have a rapid breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering, and the abandonment of former household pets, has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[8]

 

Since cats were cult animals in ancient Egypt, they were commonly believed to have been domesticated there,[9] but there may have been instances of domestication as early as the Neolithic from around 9500 years ago (7500 BC).[10]

 

A genetic study in 2007 concluded that domestic cats are descended from African wildcats (Felis silvestris lybica) c. 8000 BC, in the Near East.[9][11] According to Scientific American, cats are the most popular pet in the world, and are now found in almost every place where humans live

Focus on Eldercare's response to COVID-19

 

At the purpose when the noxious impacts of COVID-19 showed first in Wuhan, the entire city and therefore the entire of Hubei Province ground to a halt. The lockdown of Wuhan brought remarkable torment and threatening difficulties for several individual occupants therein first focus. Presently, COVID-19 represents those equivalent difficulties for individuals and social welfare frameworks all-inclusive. Especially, it tests our aggregate endeavors to believe one another, particularly the foremost defenseless among us.

 

As a populace, individuals quite 70 will generally have more fragile insusceptible frameworks and progressively fundamental conditions that obstruct their capacity to battle the infection. They're likewise sure to dwell on bunch day to day environments, nearby people. Floods of COVID-19 passings in nursing homes — first within the Seattle territory, at that time on the brink of Sacramento and now during the country — have underscored this inauspicious reality. Up until now, Californians quite 65 have made up, at any rate, a fourth of the state's affirmed instances of COVID-19.

 

Be that because it may, guidelines, especially for helping living offices, are unsafely failing to satisfy the expectations in protecting California's older folks from this infection. Luck, Gov. Gavin Newsom's plan on Aging activity, as of now ongoing, presents an opportunity to forcefully address this peril and find how to secure an enormous number of more seasoned Americans.

 

Helped living focuses are an aid to the Eldercare business and therefore the enormous corporate proprietors that currently command the market. Simultaneously, in any case, an absence of guideline and oversight of staffing levels and capabilities — particularly prerequisites for on-location doctors and much prepared clinical experts — has left the business defenseless against misuse and unfortunate results. One glaring issue that has got to be tended to: helped living focuses are directed by the state Department of Social Services rather than the Department of Public Health.

 

In any case, it helped to measure maybe a piece of social welfare and clinical consideration conveyance framework, not only a direction for living. Propelled a year ago, Newsom's plan on Aging has framed a warning advisory group, is holding open gatherings and within the fall is planned to offer a 10-year plan which will address issues from lodging and vagrancy to crisis readiness to manhandle and disrespect. The venture has made a "Value Committee" to urge a contribution from a progressively differing gathering of residents and associations, including agents of the crippled network, Native Americans and other ethnic minorities.

 

Considering the spreading coronavirus general wellbeing emerging, it's basic that the representative's plan on Aging takes on an expansive and genuine open arrangement job. We weren't bothered with elevated level clichés for tending to the wants of the old. We'd like solid arrangements, solid guidelines with implementation teeth and a guarantee to continued oversight.

 

The Age of COVID-19

 

Older people who get themselves out of the blue alone without authority over their conditions are at specific hazards for an assortment of serious, even hazardous, physical and psychological well-being conditions, including a subjective decrease. Limitations on the opportunity of development ought to be proportionate and not founded solely on age.

 

COVID-19, as different irresistible melodies, represents a higher hazard to populaces that live in nearness. This hazard is especially intense in nursing or matured consideration offices, where the infection can spread quickly and has just brought about numerous passings. About 1.5 million older people individuals live in the nursing homes in the US, barring helped living offices and different settings making nearness.

 

Twenty-three individuals kicked the bucket in a flare-up at an office in Washington State in February and March, and the US Centers for Disease Control detailed 400 additional cases in offices as of April 1. On March 31, wellbeing experts in the Grand East district of France detailed 570 passings of older people in nursing homes.

 

Older people often end up in nursing homes due to governments' inability to offer adequate social types of assistance for individuals to live freely in the network, approaches that have put millions at included danger of getting the infection as a result of their organization. Governments ought to guarantee the progression of network-based administrations with the goal that individuals don't wind up in organizations without different alternatives.

 

Expound now on the roles played via care laborers in continuing the lives of the old during that emergency, and who, however dreadful themselves, by and by remain day in and outing inside the bounds of their wards to offer fundamental consideration.

 

Care supervisor Chang, the woman in charge of the consideration laborers among whom I led my hands-on work, coordinated the change of her ward into a self-sufficient fixed of a unit of care. The passage to her floor is carefully monitored; just fundamental conveyances are permitted, for instance, nourishment and clothing. Since nobody can enter or leave the structure, the flask for the older was transformed into a dozing region for care laborers. Despite the very fact that a lot of consideration laborers have their circle of relatives to require care of, they put that piece of their life under the control of others. Care specialist Lin, whose spouse died at the start of the pandemic, did not have the chance to completely grieve his passing due to incessant understaffing at Sunlight. She came back to figure following the burial service, despite realizing that she not, at now expected to figure at Sunlight to hide her significant other's clinical costs. Lin's arrival says much regarding her promise to her calling, to her colleagues, and to the old she had come to understand so well. My examination with care laborers recommends that it's an enthusiastic association and an awareness of other's expectations that propels them to remain the end of the day in care work. This is often borne out immediately.

 

Carefully add China is often seen as being grimy and unfortunate, thanks to an excellent extension to its nearby hook up with the realistic consideration required by slight, skilled bodies. Chinese consideration laborers are for the foremost part provincial to urban transients or urban specialists laid far away from previous state-claimed processing plants. In any case, direct consideration is intricate. In any case, its unpredictability goes unrecognized, or maybe disregarded by institutional powers that organize benefits and generalize the old as bodies to chip away at, to the disregard of their social-passionate necessities. As is valid with Sunlight, things which might typically undermine the keenness of care laborers, for instance, the absence of institutional acknowledgment for his or her enthusiastic work, are required to be postponed. Care specialists are currently centered around a shared objective: ensuring the gift assistance of the older. COVID-19 propels care laborers to consider what kind of care is required and the way to offer that care. It fills in as a channel through which the elemental beliefs of care are observed. Care is about common human weakness and our intrinsic association. Care laborers at Sunlight, in their aggregate every minute of everyday endeavors to secure the older, typify this ethic through their consideration. May the respectful regard, they hold of the older in their consideration redound on them and everyone consideration laborers overall who are fighting this pandemic on the bleeding edge!

 

Like the consideration laborers at Sunlight, the laborers in numerous nations are regarded human life so that we cannot be embarrassed to return clean with the leading edge about ourselves. Salute the spearheading staff who salutes our purposeful endeavors to handle the pandemic in numerous settings around the globe, within the daylight, yet additionally to ensure that veterans are appropriately treated, took care of and washed.

 

We all hope and pray that the coronavirus will soon be controlled and subdued. And that when the crisis is behind us, that we continue the important work of protecting the elderly and other vulnerable segments of our citizenry.

 

DONATE paypal.me/pools/c/8obn2hcLVG

 

How Can I Contribute in Times of COVID-19?

 

Write your testimony about the concequences from the time of Corona virus (COVID-19). Here is a great knowledge base about the effects of the Corona virus. Thank you for your story! article-directory.org/article/717/40/Emergency-Situations...

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

 

Some background:

Both Imperial Japanese Army and Navy Aviation (IJA and IJN, respectively) were very aware of the developments of jet engines, esp. through close contact with Germany and mutual exchange of blueprints and even hardware. But it was the IJN which basically drove jet-powered aircraft, e. g. through the Kyūshū J7W2 Shinden or Nakajima J9Y1 Kikka fighters.

 

The IJA was far behind schedule. Its primary jet projects had been conversions of existing, piston-engine-driven bomber types, but the increasing threat through high and fast incoming B-29 bombers, as well as the potential danger of even faster, jet-powered types, stirred the development of fast and agile interceptors with a heavy armament.

 

Since no such indigenous design existed (the IJA rejected the logical option to adapt an IJN types!), German engineers and design had a strong impact on what was to become the Ki-202 - a parallel development to the two-engined, heavier Ki-201 "Karyu", which resembled much the German Me 262.

 

The Ki-202 was developed by the Nippon Kokusai Koku Kogyo in a very short time frame: initial work started in late 1944, and the prototype was ready in summer 1945. The Ki-202 was regarded as a light, dedicated interceptor for spot defence, which should be produced in large numbers and with less investment of sparse resources and work labor per unit than the Karyu.

 

The Ki-202 was a very compact and simple aircraft. Outwardly it bore a striking resemblance to Kurt Tank's Ta 183 "Huckebein" jet fighter that had been under development in Germany since 1942, but the Ki-202 was much more simplified, both concerning construction and aerodynamics, as it was so direly needed and, beyond the jet engine, no big development risk was to be dared.

 

For instance, in order to avoid trouble with swept wings (which had not been incorporated in Japanese aircraft design yet, even though some wind tunnel test results already existed, as well as scientific input from Germany), the Ki-202 featured straight wings with a laminar-flow profile. The tail section was also different from the Ta 183: instead of the Ta 183's highly swept tail fin and a T-tail arrangement, the Ki-202 featured a relatively slender, staright tail boom above the jet exhaust, carrying a conventional stabilizer arrangement with only moderate sweep.

 

The fuselage resembled much Hans Multhopp's Ta 183, with a nose air intake, the pressurized cockpit placed above the air duct. The cockpot featured a frameless bubble canopy with an armored windscreen that offered an excellent field of view. Another novelty for the IJA was a tricycle landing gear that retracted into the lower fuselage. The engine (initially a single Ishikawajima Ne-20 turbojet, rated at 4.66 kN/475 kgf) filled the whole lower fuselage half. It lay between the main landing gear wells, with fuel cells above them and in the wing roots.

 

The aircraft had a rather stubby appearance, but turned out to be easy to handle and highly agile. Its weak spot was the Ne-20 engine, which was based on the German BMW 003 turbojet. Its low power output limited the Ki-202's performance so much that the initial prototypes (two were built) could only take off with reduced fuel - in fact, one of these machines was lost when it overrun the runway and crashed beyond repair.

 

Hence, only basic flight testing without any military equipment on board could be done until April 1945, and after the starting crash the other prototype was actually towed into the air, where it would, at safe height, power up its engine and perform a very limited test program.

When it became available in May 1945, a slightly uprated Ne-20-Kai engine was installed, but this measure hardly made the aircraft suitable to serious military service.

 

Things changed dramatically with the introduction of the much improved Ne-230 and Ne-330 engines. The latter had a thrust rating at 12.75 kN/1.300 kgf of thrust - nearly three times of what the early Ne-20 could deliver and close to the German 2nd generation Heinkel HeS 011 turbojet.

This new engine necessitated a slightly widened exhaust nozzle, and in the course of this modifications many detail refinements on prototypes #3 and 4 were made, including anti-flutter weights on the horizontal stabilizers and small wing fences.

In September 1945 this "new" aircraft eventually entered IJA service as "Ki-202 Kai", officially called 'Goryō' (御霊 - "Vengeful ghost") but also nicknamed 'Nezumi' (ネズミ - "Mouse") by its crews

 

The new type proved to be an immediate success. The Ki-202 Kai had a very good rate of climb, the short wings, coupled with a center-heavy CG due to the compact "pod and boom" layout, offered a very high manouverybility that was on par with contemporary Allied piston-engined fighters. As a bonus, its small size made the 'Goryō' a target which was hard to acquire or hit.

 

On the other side, the aircraft sported a powerful cannon armament (two fuselage-mounted 20 mm Ho-5 cannons, each with 150 RPG, plus two fuselage-mounted 30 mm Ho-155-II cannons, each with 50 RPG), and it was able to carry unguided air-to-air missiles under its wings, or two 150 L (40 US gal) drop tanks on either wing or a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) bombs.

On the downside, the Ne-330 engine had a very high fuel consumption rate, its throttle response was marginal, and its reliability was poor, especially in the initial production batches which suffered from material failures and lack of engineering experience.

  

General characteristics

Crew: one

Length: 8.96 m (29 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 9,74 m (31 ft 10 1/2 in)

Height: 3,69 m (12 ft 1 in)

Wing area: 17.5 m² (188 ft²)

Empty weight: 2,380 kg (5,247 lb)

Loaded weight: 4,300 kg (9,480 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Ishikawajima Ne-330 engine with 12.75 kN/1.300 kgf of thrust

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 855 km/h (531 mph)

Stall speed: 140 km/h (92 knots, 106 mph) (power off, flaps down)

Range: 1.250 km (673 nmi, 776 mi)

Service ceiling: 14.000 m (45,932 ft)

Rate of climb: 20,4 m/s (4,020 ft/min)

Wing loading: 196 kg/m² (41 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.37

 

Armament

2× 20 mm Ho-5 cannons with 150 RPG

2× 30 mm Ho-155-II cannons with 50 RPG

2× underwing hardpoints for up to 250 kg (551 lb) each

(for racks with unguided missiles, drop tanks or bombs)

  

The kit and its assembly:

A spontaneous project, inspired by a similar build (in French livery, though) on whatifmodelers.com some time ago, and an interim project while I waited for ordered decals for another whif on the bench.

I had a surplus Ta 183 from PM Models in store, and eventually considered it for conversion. When I recently got hands on several PZL TS-11 'Iskra' trainers from Master Craft, I eventually got the inspiration (and parts!) I needed and decided to make a kitbash, retro-fitting the rather futuristic Ta 183 with straight wings and a tail boom.

 

Conversion was rather straightforward, even though little from the Ta 183 was left: just the fuselage halves, air intake, canopy and parts of the landing gear. The Iskra 'donated' its wings and tail, as well as the front wheel.

Main wheels, cockpit interior, exhaust pipe and pilot figure come from the scrap box - noteworthy is the landing gear well interior. The PM kit just has a shallow, blank fairing - I cut that away and inserted parts from a jet engine (from a Revell F-16, the old kit which comes with a truck, trolley and a spare engine as props) - finally got use for these rather crude parts!

 

Some putty work was necessary at the fuselage/tail intersection, as well as at the wing roots, but overall the body work was rather quick and simple.

 

The packs of unguided missiles under the wings actually belong to the Matchbox BAC Strikemaster - I found an illustration of a similar arrangement on a Japanese rocket fighter, and they suit the 'Vengeful Ghost' well.

  

Painting and markings:

By tendency, I rather keep whifs' liveries simple and unspectacular - but I already have built some and want to avoid repetition. So I settled for an improvised camouflage scheme on bare metal, which I kept for the lower sides. AFAIK, such makeshift paint schemes were pretty common, and since no primer was used, quickly deteriorated.

 

To keep things simple I painted the finished model with Metallizer from Modelmaster, with different tones in selected areas (e. g. Aluminum Plate, Steel). After that I applied a thin coat of Humbrol 172 with a soft, broad brush on the upper surfaces, the waterline on the flanks masked with Tamiya tape. The metal below was to shine through, streaks were welcome, so that the finish became willingly uneven (and more interesting). This was later enhanced with some dry-brushed Humbrol 102 on top of that.

 

For more contrast, I added white Homeland Defence bands under the Hinomaru markings on wings and fuselage. These were cut from white decal sheet, not painted, and the Hinomaru placed on top of that. The yellow bands on the wings' ledaing edges are decals, too, a very effective method! The other few markings came from AeroMaster Decals and Microscale sheets.

 

Weathering included, beyond a wash with thinned black ink, a light sand paper treatment on the leading edges and in areas with much external contact, for an even shaggier look, and some grinded graphite was rubbed onto the bare metal surfaces for a worn look and some extra metal shine.

 

Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of semi-gloss acryl varnish.

  

A 'quickie', and the result looks a bit odd, IMHO - like a Saab 29 hatchling, maybe?

 

Mr. M.H.M.N. Bandara is a Member of the Sri Lanka Foreign Service (2000 batch)

 

(The following article published on Sunday Nation on 30 September 2007,{www.nation.lk/2007/09/30/special2.htm} and Sunday Observer on 7th October 2007 {www.sundayobserver.lk/2007/10/07/fea01.asp}

 

Foreign Service Invest further for a fruitful harvest

 

(The 58th anniversary of the Sri Lanka Foreign Service falls on October 1)

 

By M.H.M.N. Bandara

 

The Sri Lanka Foreign Service (SLFS) will commemorate its 58th anniversary on October 1. The SLFS, which commenced its activities independently on October 1, 1949 with five members – Dr. V.L.B. Mendis, H.O. Wijegoonawardena, A. Basnayake, I. B. Fonseka and Y. Yogasunderam – has since grown substantially, having undergone changes, challenges, disputes, etc., and now has a strength of 153 career personnel serving as ambassadors, high commissioners, additional secretaries, directors general and directors.

 

It is my view that the SLFS has not received its due share of ‘praise’ from both the media and the general public. This is mainly due to the fact that the general public is not appropriately apprised of the onerous duties performed by the members of the SLFS for the benefit of the country as a whole.

 

One allegation levelled against the SLFS is that SLFS officers are not closely linked with Sri Lankans living abroad. They are at times targetted by the media in a critical manner for not taking action to ‘safeguard’ the Sri Lankan migrant workers who are found guilty of violating the rule of law applicable to the respective countries. Nevertheless, it will have to be conceded that there may be very few instances where SLFS officers have observed the rules in the breach, perhaps unwittingly.

 

Criticism

Another criticism levelled against SLFS officers is that they are keener on ‘looking after the welfare of their children’s, education,’ rather than the wellbeing of the country. This allegation is baseless and is unfounded.

Of the 419 home based officers serving in Sri Lankan foreign missions abroad, only 97 officials, a mere 23%, are from the SLFS. The remaining 322 personnel, or 77%, comprise officers from various government services and also those who have political patronage.

 

Of the 153 officers now serving the SLFS, 61% comprise of unmarried officers and officers with one child per officer or none. Most of the children of these officers are not receiving the ‘education allowance.’ Hence, it is not fair by these officers to level such criticism against them.

 

The SLFS is a specialised service. It runs parallel to the Sri Lanka Administrative service and other combined services in the country. However, its role is different from other services. Broadly, the SLFS officials are tasked with the responsibility of coordinating bilateral and multilateral relations with foreign countries and also with the responsibility of protecting and safeguarding the image of the country.

 

The SLFS officers have measured up to their counterparts in other countries in discharging their assigned duties with diligence and bringing ‘name and fame’ to our motherland.

 

When we gained independence in 1948 after a period of foreign domination of almost 150 years, the most sought after and the prestigious service in the country was the then Ceylon Civil Service (CCS). Therefore, every young man with the requisite qualifications aspired to be a ‘civil servant’ and the failures at the Civil Service had the opportunity to join the then Overseas Service, which was then new to the country. However, they had to answer an extra question paper on world affairs.

 

First Overseas Service Minute

In terms of the first Overseas Service Minute – operative from 1949 to 1959 – nearly 32 officials were recruited to the then Ceylon Overseas Service as probationers and they were designated as ‘Grade IV Officers of the Ceylon Overseas Service.’

The Overseas Service Minute of 1949 was superseded by the Overseas Service Minute of 1959, which had the effect of a revision of the examination to recruit officers to the Overseas Service. From 1949 to 1973, a total of 73 officers had been recruited to the SLFS.

 

From January 4, 1974 onwards, the scheme of recruitment to the SLFS was revised so as to allow the opportunity to those graduates who had qualified themselves in Sinhala and Tamil media also to sit the examination in Sinhala and Tamil media in addition to the examination in the English medium.

 

Thereby, many graduates from Sinhala and Tamil speaking rural areas who received their education in the Sinhala and Tamil media and who were the products of ‘central colleges’ established in keeping with the ‘C.W.W. Kannangara vision’ were benefited and the numbers from such rural areas exceeded the numbers from the urban areas.

 

Until the time of late President Ranasinghe Premadasa, the post of Foreign Affairs Ministry secretary was held by non-SLFS officers. It was during Premadasa’s time that an SLFS officer was appointed to this post for the first time and that honour went to Bernard Tilakaratna.

 

Subsequently T.H.W. Woutersz (1965 batch), R.C. Vendargart (1967 batch), G. Wijesiri (1970 batch), D.E.N. Rodrigo (1965 batch), B.A.B. Goonetilleke (1970 batch) and H.M.G.S. Palihakkara (1979 batch) held that coveted post.

 

Creating history

Manel Abeysekera created history in the SLFS by being the first female career diplomat and the first female chief of protocol of the Foreign Ministry. Mary Luxhmi Naganathan was the second female career diplomat and the first from the Tamil community to reach that level.

 

Sarala Fernando (1975 batch) was the first female permanent representative of the United Nations. Of an approved cadre of 179, the SLFS now has 153 officers in its service in the categories Grade I, II, and III, (and at the additional secretary level too).

The ethnic, religious and gender balance in the SLFS is healthy. Of the 153 serving officers, 52 are females and four of them are serving as heads of missions in Paris (C. Wagiswara), The Hague (Pamela J. Deen), London (Kshenuka Senewiratne) and Vienna (Aruni Wijewardane).

 

In addition to the aforesaid female heads of missions, SLFS officers head the following missions: New Delhi (C. R. Jayasinghe), New York (Prasad Kariyawasam), Berlin (Jayantha Palipana), Warsaw (C. F. Chinniah), Beijing (Karunathilaka Amunugama Stockholm (Ranjith Jayasuriya – designate) , Tel Aviv (W.M. Senevirathna – designate), Tokyo (Ranjith Uyangoda), Muscat (M. Maharoof), Cairo (I Ansar –designate), Oslo (Esala Weerakoon), Katmandu (Sumith Nakandala), Pretoria (R.K.M.A. Rajakaruna), Hanoi (A. L. Rathnapala), Dhaka (V. Krishnamoorthy), Frankfurt (T. Raveenthiran) and Chennai (P.M. Amza).

Two officers of the ‘ambassador rank’ are serving as an Additional Secretary (Sarala Fernando) and a Director General (Grace Asirwatham) respectively at the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

 

Of the aforesaid 153 SLFS officers, 57 officers, including the 10 officers recruited in April 2007, are attached to the office of the Foreign Affairs Ministry in Colombo. The remaining 91 SLFS officers are attached to Sri Lankan missions abroad (four officers are on study leave and one of senior officers has been working in the international organisation).

  

Recruitment

The majority of the SLFS officers had been recruited through competitive examinations and some through the ‘merit system,’ which was an opportunity extended to clerical grade officers serving the Foreign Ministry and the other category through a ‘limited examination’ conducted by the Examinations Department for the benefit of certain grades of public servants with a certain number of years of service to their credit in government departments.

 

Recruitments to the SLFS under the merit and limited systems were abolished by the new minutes introduced in 2001. Anyone who wishes now to join the SLFS has to sit an Open Competitive Examination conducted by the Examinations Department. The examination comprises six written papers and a viva voice.

 

When we look back at the performance of some of our SLFS officers during the last ‘half-a-century,’ we can be really proud of our service. Many of them have excelled in their respective fields. I take this opportunity to name a few of them:

 

Deshamanya Dr. V. L. B. Mendis was in one of the very first batches of officers selected to the overseas service of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon). His contribution to our foreign service is priceless. He was highly respected wherever he served. To his credit, there are several publications authored by him which are a sine qua non to SLFS officers.

 

The 1976 Non-aligned Summit was the most successful international conference ever held in this country. Dr. Mendis was its secretary general and it was he and the SLFS officials who meticulously planned and programmed the proceedings of the summit. The whole world acclaimed that it was a complete success.

 

The diplomatically famed Dr. Jayantha Danapala has brought fame not only to the Foreign Service, but also to our motherland as a whole. He is a product of the SLFS and has displayed his ‘diplomatic skills’ internationally by serving the United Nations at different levels. His name was also proposed for the post of secretary general of the United Nations in the year 2006.

 

Achievements

Dr. John Gunaratne, who joined the Foreign Service in 1967, has several publications to his credit, one of which is A Decade of Confrontations: Sri Lanka and India in the 1980s. His recent publication launched in July 2007 is Negotiating with the Tigers.

S.B. Atugoda joined the Foreign Service in 1975 and he has several publications to his credit – fiction in both Sinhala and English.

Ranjith Gunaratana of the 1992 batch has published several fictions both Sinhala and English.

 

In 2006 he translated into Sinhala and published the biography of the former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew.

Niluka Kadurugamuwa, who joined the Foreign Service in the 2003, was a journalist at the Lakbima Newspaper. He has translated into Sinhala and published two publications, In Evil Hour authored by Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Maya authored by Manel Abeyratne under the titles Vikal Horawa and Maya, respectively.

 

Bandu de Silva and Kalyananda Godage of the 1956 and 1973 batches respectively are two prolific writers. They subscribe to the local press periodically on matters not only pertaining to the Foreign Service but also of national interest. Their publications have boosted the image of the Foreign Service.

 

Nihal Rodrigo is not only a diplomat (1965 batch) but is also a painter of no mean repute. Rodrigo, when he once met Cuban Leader Fidel Castro, on the spur of the moment sketched the Cuban Leader’s face on a piece of paper. The Cuban Leader was so happy with the ‘sketch’ that he autographed it. It is now a souvenir with Rodrigo. Rodrigo served as the SAARC Secretary General from January 1, 1999 to January 10, 2002.

 

T.Z.A. Samsudeen of the 1981 Foreign Service batch served as the executive director of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IORARC) in Mauritius. Rodney Perera of the 1988 batch and a former ambassador to Italy received one of the highest honours awarded by the Italian government.

 

Media personnel

Our Foreign Service also possesses experienced media personnel. Ravintha Abeysinghe of the 1988 batch was an announcer as well as a presenter at Sri Lanka Rupavahani Corporation. As a presenter of SLRC, he had also conducted several interviews with visiting VIP leaders of many countries. He is presently the director general of public communications at the Foreign Ministry.

Madhrika Joseph and George Cooke of the 1998 and 2007 batches sharpened their skills as announcers at SLRC and TNL respectively. Several SLFS officers are well versed in UN languages and other international languages.

 

B. Kandeepan joined the Foreign Service in the year 1996. His hobby is playing the tabla and he is a skilled tabla player. He has displayed his tabla-playing skills even at musical shows conducted by Maestro Visaradha Amaradeva.

 

Chanaka H. Talpahewa (year 2000 batch) has excelled in the sport of rowing in the country. He became the first rowing captain of Sri Lanka when he led the Sri Lanka rowing team to the Asian Games in South Korea in 2002. He also won a silver medal at the SAF Games in Pakistan (2004) and a bronze medal at the South Asian Games in Colombo (2006). He is the holder of two Sri Lanka records. He is also an accomplished rowing coach and the secretary of the National Rowing Association.

 

The SLFS had to face an uphill task to redeem the lost prestige of the country. Human rights violations were the main allegation levelled against Sri Lanka. Our officers working in foreign missions, especially New York, Geneva, Brussels and some European countries and India, had to burn the midnight oil to keep the Sri Lankan flag flying with prestige.

 

Our officers, with the guidance of that great and inimitable statesman, the late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, were not only able to turn the tide against the terrorists and redeem the lost prestige of our motherland but also to persuade several countries, including those who initially supported terrorist activities, to proscribe the anti Sri Lanka movements in their countries. It was a great achievement and the unsung heroes were the Foreign Affairs Ministry officials and the Minister.

 

Significant role

Foreign Ministry officials played a significant role at the peace talks/negotiations with the LTTE commencing from Thimpu to Geneva. The first Peace Secretariat Secretary General was B.A.B. Goonetilleke, a product of the SLFS 1970 batch. Dr. Jayantha Danapala and Dr. John Gooneratne too had worked at the Peace Secretariat. Presently C. H. Poologasingham of the SLFS 1975 batch is working at the Peace Secretariat. The two SAARC summits held in Sri Lanka were excellently handled by SLFS officers.

 

The tsunami of December 2004 was the biggest disaster the country ever suffered. The administrative machinery too was affected and several public servants could not even reach their work places. The international community reacted to the situation immediately and the influx of foreign aid was instantaneous. Over 300 foreign delegates arrived in the country.

 

The SLFS officers were ever ready to meet any situation and the coordination of the visits of the foreign delegates was handled by the SLFS officers to the satisfaction of everyone.

  

Officers of the Sri Lankan missions abroad collected more than Rs. 500 million as donations as well as officers’ personal contributions. The Sri Lankan Mission in China alone collected approximately Rs. 200 million. With those funds, the Foreign Ministry completed five housing projects comprising 856 housing units for tsunami victims – 152 units at Trincomalee, 300 units at Ampara, 116 units at Galle (two projects) and 288 units at Kalutara.

 

The recent reception held at the Embassy of Sri Lanka in Japan to commemorate ‘Sri Lanka Day’ was attended by more than 100,000 guests and the spouse of the Japanese Prime Minister graced the occasion as the Chief Guest. It was a great publicity event organised by the SLFS officers of the mission.

 

Yeoman service

SLFS officers have done a yeoman service to the country. They have protected and safeguarded the image of the country. They have kept the Sri Lankan flag flying with dignity. Their services are indeed praiseworthy.

The next batch to the SLFS is scheduled to be recruited in the near future. As a member of the SLFS, I invite talented young graduates who passed out recently to join the SLFS and serve our motherland.

 

In conclusion, I mention with gratitude the encouragement given to me by that veteran administrator, Lionel Fernando, a one time Foreign Affairs Ministry secretary and member of the former Civil Service, to make an in-depth study of the SLFS. I thank him from the bottom of my heart.

 

(The writer is the First Secretary of the Embassy of Sri Lanka, The Hague, The Netherlands. E.mail. menikb@hotmail.com