View allAll Photos Tagged instanced
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]
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
GIL KANE
All American Western 120
Gil Kane
Kane, Gil: Eli Katz, who worked under the name Gil Kane and in a few instances Scott Edwards, was a comic book artist whose career spanned the 1940s to 1990s and every major comics company and character. Kane co-created the modern-day versions of the superheroes Green Lantern and the Atom for DC Comics, and co-created Iron Fist with Roy Thomas for Marvel Comics. He was involved in such major storylines as a groundbreaking arc in The Amazing Spider-Man #96–98 (May-July 1971) that, at the behest of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, bucked the then-prevalent Comics Code Authority to depict drug abuse, and ultimately spurred an update of the Code. Kane additionally pioneered an early graphic novel prototype, His Name is...Savage, in 1968, and a seminal graphic novel, Blackmark, in 1971. In 1997, he was inducted into both the Will Eisner Comic Book Hall of Fame and the Harvey Award Jack Kirby Hall of Fame. . Comic Art
Gil Kane, whose real name was Eli Katz, was born in Riga, Latvia, in 1926. He moved with his family to New York in 1930, where he grew up in Brooklyn. He soon developed an avid thirst for comics, reading everything he could get his hands on, especially 'Buck Rogers', 'Tarzan', 'Dick Tracy', 'Terry and the Pirates' and 'Flash Gordon'. In 1942, at the age of sixteen, he found a job in one of the many comic "shops", taking penciled comics and drawing borders and word balloons in them. Later, he moved on to penciling comics himself, for titles such as 'Boy Commandos', 'Newsboy Legion' and 'Sandman'. In this period, Gil Kane worked together with a number of great comic artists of that time, like Jack Kirby and Joe Simon. At the same time, he attended the School of Industrial Arts, where Carmine Infantino and Harvey Kurtzmann were his classmates.
In 1943, Gil Kane quit school to devote more time to his assignment work. A year later, he joined the army, where he tried to get a job as cartoonist on the camp newspaper. He returned from the Philippines in 1945, and immediately took up his work as a comic artist again, using many different pseudonyms, such as Pen Star, Scott Edward and Gil Stack, eventually sticking with the name Gil Kane. Kane, always working very hard to improve his artwork, worked on various styles of comics, like westerns, comics about movie stars and superheroes. He reprised classic superheroes, such as 'Green Lantern' and 'Atom', for DC Comics and Marvel. Later he reinterpreted the 'Hulk', 'Captain Marvel', and 'Spider-Man'. Gil Kane made over 800 covers for comics such as 'Daredevil', 'Ka-Zar', 'Savage!', 'Ghost Rider' and many, many others.Dynamic figure work, emotionally charged characters, and innovative staged fight scenes are his trademark.
Eli Katz (born April 6, 1926, Riga, Latvia; died January 31, 2000, Florida, United States), who worked under the name Gil Kane and in a few instances Scott Edwards, was a comic book artist whose career spanned the 1940s to 1990s.
Early life and career
Kane was born to a Jewish family that emigrated to the U.S. in 1929, settling in Brooklyn, New York City. At the age of 16, while attending the High School of Industrial Arts (now the High School of Art and Design), he began working in the comics studio system as an assistant, doing basic tasks such as drawing panel borders.
"During my summer vacation, I went up and got a job working at MLJ in 1942," Kane recalled [1], working there for three weeks before being fired. "Within a couple of days I got a job with Jack Binder's agency. Jack Binder had a loft on Fifth Avenue and it just looked like an internment camp. There must have been 50 or 60 guys up there, all at drawing tables. You had to account for the paper that you took." There Kane began pencilling professionally, but, "They weren't terribly happy with what I was doing. But when I was rehired by MLJ three weeks later, not only did they put me back into the production department and give me an increase, they gave me my first job, which was 'Inspector Bentley of Scotland Yard' in Pep Comics, and then they gave me a whole issue of The Shield and Dusty, one of their leading books." Kane soon dropped out of school to work full-time.
During the next several years, Kane drew for about a dozen studios and publishers including Timely Comics, a predecessor of Marvel Comics, and learned from such prominent artists as Jack Kirby and Joe Simon. He interrupted his career briefly to enlist in the Army during World War II, where he served in the Pacific theater. In the post-war years, on his return to comics, he used pseudonyms including Pen Star and Gil Stack before settling on Gil Kane.
In the late 1950s, Kane, freelancing for DC Comics, helped to usher in the Silver Age of comic books when he became the chief artist for a series of new superhero titles loosely based on 1940s characters, notably Green Lantern and the Atom.
He also continued to work for Marvel and illustrated many of Marvel's leading titles during the 1960s and '70s, becoming the company's preeminent cover artist for a time and serving as regular penciller during an important period on The Amazing Spider-Man in the early 1970s.
During that run he drew a landmark three-issue story arc that marked the first challenge to the rigid Comics Code since its inception in 1954. The Code forbade any mention of drugs, even in a negative context. However, The Amazing Spider-Man #96-98 (1971), written by Stan Lee, showed the negative effects of drug abuse in a storyline conceived at the request of government drug-prevention authorities. The three issues were sold without the Comics Code approval, but met with such critical acclaim and high sales that the industry's self-censorship was undercut, and the Code was revamped.
In addition, Kane drew the landmark story arc "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" in #121-122 (June-July 1973), in which Spider-Man's fiancée Gwen Stacy was killed. His depiction of her death scene remains controversial as the direct cause of her demise is ambigously depicted [2].
A Star Hawks daily strip. Art by Gil Kane, script by Ron Goulart.
A Star Hawks daily strip. Art by Gil Kane, script by Ron Goulart.
Kane's distinctive style, which combined the detailed figure drawing of Frank Frazetta with the stylized violence and exaggerated motion of Jack Kirby, greatly influenced other Marvel superhero artists during this period. Characters he helped create for Marvel include Iron Fist and Morbius the Living Vampire.
Kane's side projects include two long works that he conceived, plotted and illustrated, with scripting by Archie Goodwin: His Name is... Savage (Adventure House Press, 1968), a self-published, 40-page, magazine-format comics novel; and Blackmark (1971), a science fiction/sword-and-sorcery paperback published by Bantam Books. The latter represents, arguably, the first American graphic novel, a term not in general use at the time; the back-cover blurb of the 30th-anniversary edition (ISBN 1-56097-456-7) calls it, retroactively, "the very first American graphic novel." Whether or not this is so, Blackmark is, objectively, a 119-page story of comic-book art, with captions and word balloons, published in a traditional book format. It is also the first with an original heroic-adventure character, conceived expressly for this form.
The original 1971 Bantam paperback Blackmark, arguably the first American graphic novel.
During the 1970s and '80s, Kane did character designs for various Ruby-Spears Enterprises and Hanna-Barbera animated TV series. In 1977, he created the newspaper comic strip Star Hawks with writer Ron Goulart. The daily strip was known for its experimental use of a two-tier format during the first years. The strip ended in 1981. He remained active as an artist right up until his death.
He died of complications from cancer. Kane is survived by his second wife, Elaine, and children Scott, Eric and Beverly and two grandaughters. He is buried in Aventura, Florida.
He received numerous awards over the years, including the 1971, 1972, and 1975 National Cartoonists Society Awards for Best Story Comic Book, and their Story Comic Strip Award for 1977 for Star Hawks. He also received the Shazam Award for Special Recognition in 1971 "for Blackmark, his paperback comics novel". To honor his more than five decades of achievement, Kane was named to both the Eisner Award Hall of Fame and the Harvey Award Jack Kirby Hall of Fame in 1997.
* Served in World War II in the Pacific Theater
* Car-pooled with Julius Schwartz into work at DC before moving to Connecticut.
* An homage to Kane and to writer John Broome appears in In Darkest Night, a novelization spinoff of the Justice League animated series. The book refers to the Kane/Broome Institute For Space Studies in Coast City.
Kane, Gil: Eli Katz, who worked under the name Gil Kane and in a few instances Scott Edwards, was a comic book artist whose career spanned the 1940s to 1990s and every major comics company and character. Kane co-created the modern-day versions of the superheroes Green Lantern and the Atom for DC Comics, and co-created Iron Fist with Roy Thomas for Marvel Comics. He was involved in such major storylines as a groundbreaking arc in The Amazing Spider-Man #96–98 (May-July 1971) that, at the behest of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, bucked the then-prevalent Comics Code Authority to depict drug abuse, and ultimately spurred an update of the Code. Kane additionally pioneered an early graphic novel prototype, His Name is...Savage, in 1968, and a seminal graphic novel, Blackmark, in 1971. In 1997, he was inducted into both the Will Eisner Comic Book Hall of Fame and the Harvey Award Jack Kirby Hall of Fame.
Using Pictures in an Art Classroom
From: Willie.Nettles@selu.edu
Sent: Mon 4/28/08 7:39 PM
To: deconstructingroylichtenstein@hotmail.com
Hi there. My name is Willie and I am an art major at Southeastern. I was wondering if I could get some copies of the pictures from your website to use in an art lesson about 1950s pop art. If you could somehow allow me to use copies of the pictures, preferably without the labels on them, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Fisher, Joe (Joel). Instances of Change. [s.l.: s.n.], 1975.
See MCAD Library's catalog record for this book.
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)
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.
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 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
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.
Another instance of a railfanning surprise. NS 565 glides through Derry with two SD80MACs on the point. Just out of frame are two highrailers on main two, which had this train been ten seconds later, they'd have blocked my shot here.
Madrid, 4 de noviembre de 2016
© Casa de S.M. el Rey
www.interior.gob.es/es/web/interior/noticias/detalle/-/jo...
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.
Press: hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/20838118/article-Showi...
Bill Rodwell with his untrustworthy Olympus point and shoot camera. Or maybe it's his Nikon point and shoot. (Bill Rodwell)
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
111 First Street (film) - Wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111_First_Street_(film)
111 First Street (a Branko Film), Trailer
111 Jam Band (a Branko Film). Unedited
Faizulla Khamraev (a Branko Film)
Maria Benjumeda, Flamenco and Bulerias at 111 First Street
American Watercolor Movement, Live at Coney Island. A Branko Film (Unedited)
© branko
Branko: Entrevista TV Español
Movies:
Books:
West Indian Parade (Photo Book)
Cecilia Mamede, Times Square NYC (Photo Book)
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
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.
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.
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
In these religiously oriented and theological plays, Faust by Goethe and Doctor Faustus by Marlowe, there are two men that are drawn to the of use magic out of the dissatisfaction they find in book knowledge. However, throughout their use of magic, these men do not accomplish anything too significant. Both characters, Faust and Faustus, flaunt that they desire to fundamentally reshape the world. For instance, in Doctor Faustus, “the dominion of the magician stretcheth as farre as the mind of man”. This means that their use of magic is dependent on their frame of minds and what they cared to know. The danger in both Faust and Doctor Faustus is that although the two protagonists reach the highest wit in areas of medicine and science, they turn away from God. Turning away from the Lord, it follows that their use of omniscient magic is darkened. Thus, Faust and Faustus become real tragic heroes who experience intense drama within their mind and soul since they have sided with evil. With both Faust and Faustus, selling their souls meant a spiritual suicide within themselves. These led to their struggle with the good and evil forces
Hell, they learn, is not a place of physical torment, but happens when one denounces and turns from God. They are in hell symbolically because God is absent from their lives. In Doctor Faustus, Faustus cannot repent and be saved specifically because he cannot fully believe. Like in Shakespeare's Hamlet, “Words without thought never to Heaven go.” This search for answers to big questions is a humanistic quality. Persons constantly question and need new answers. This is an important tension expressed in these works which is between learning and experience. Faust, in Faust, rejects scholarship in exchange for experience. However, even Mephistopheles warns him about the seriousness of raw experience. Also, like in Shakespeare's Tempest, we know there is a danger and alienation in the use of magic.
In the beginning of Faust, Mephistopheles is engaged in a witty and ironic conversation with the Lord. The Lord argues to Mephistopheles that the good in human beings will always show through even when worse comes to worse. Mephistopheles criticizes God and disagrees saying that despair is stronger in man. In a way, this represents that Devil's interest in humanity since he argues what is most true amongst man. Because of his interest in humans use of reason, Mephistopheles leads a young Renaissance man named Faust toward the path of evil. The test with Faust will allow them to determine whether or not Faust can be redeemed in the Lord's vision of good.
On earth, Faust is having an aside. He is distraught and about to commit suicide when the angel's spirits lift him up back to saying yes to life. Faust is a learned man who isn't satiated with the areas of logic, medicine, law and religion and who wants to turn to magic. This also happens in Doctor Faustus, when Faustus questions logic, medicine, law and theology. He quotes an ancient authority for each: Aristotle on logic, Galen on medicine, the Byzantine emperor Justinian on law, and the Bible on religion. In the medieval model, tradition and authority, not individual inquiry, were key. But in this early soliloquy, Faustus considers and rejects this medieval way of thinking. He resolves, in full Renaissance spirit, to accept no limits, traditions, or authorities in his quest for knowledge, wealth, and power.
The contrast Faust draws between fantasy and realism is a unique quality in Goethe's Faust. Starting in line 640, he expresses a typical Romantic complaint about the Rationalist period, from which he was emerging. He is looking back with nostalgia to the Middle Ages, when the imagination was allowed freer rein and is repelled by the narrow rationalism of the eighteenth century. Receiving the highest degree, Faust was a true Renaissance man. But, he undergoes many moods. He looks toward the natural and finds in Romanticism the enormous beauty in the truths of Nature. He feels lighter in the mysterious visions of Nature surrounding him. Many reasons have driven Faust to take poison, like his inability to move forward in the world with his knowledge. Fausts' intuitions are in that he could feel more, but is destined to feel oppressed like the “worm that burrows in the dust” (40). He uses many symbols of oppression, for examples, tombs, dingy rooms, apprentice chains, crushing streets, choking lanes and the church ( lines 920-929, p. 48).
Back to Romanticism, he is happy at the sight of primitive people rowing boats merrily, glittering costumes and village mirth. His cheer is, “Here I am human, I can be human here!” (48) It is an admirable quality that such a learned man takes comfort and enjoys the sights of the peasants way of life. Indeed, there is a humanistic reading to Faust. Perhaps what Faust felt was his consciousness as a human being and a Renaissance man, lifted into another realm of consciousness by the works of the Natural. For example he pauses to see, “how beneath the sunset air the green-girt cottages all shine” (51). He knows that his knowledge as a man has a limit, but he sees a greatness in Nature. Which leads to a key point that Faust has fantastic ways thinking, new and adventurous, a philosophy that practices one's intuitions. This is heard in, “two souls abide, alas, within my breast...the one clings with a dogged love and lust with clutching parts unto this present world, the other surges fiercely from the dust unto sublime ancestral fields” (lines 1112-1118 p.52). He has a divided soul between his position in the ways of Enlightenment and Romanticism thinking.
Also, he zig zags between religious ideas. Here, I like the interruption of Wagner, his friend and confident, says that he shouldn't invoke the religious air. He warns him that he may be bait for angels posing who may really deceive him. There are of course hang ups, just like Faust feels in line 1182,” asleep are my new wild desires, my vehement activity.” He is repressing his newly found desire. So, he takes up the bible and goes over the Enlightenment thinking of Rene Descartes. He disagrees with the mind metaphor and replaces, “In the beginning was the Deed” (line 1237). His philosophy is Romanticism, saying plunge into it all and feel experience.
Mephistopheles appears functioning in the story as the symbol of evil: “Part of that Force which would do evil ever yet forever works the good” (p.59). Faust challenges the knowledge and capability of Mephistopheles. The reader has sympathized much with Faust, but now he is drawn to the evil side of the devil. Mephistopheles doesn't ask him to make the bet. He hasn't the omnipotence Faust desires, but they make a bet anyway in writing using blood. During his aside, Mephistopheles believes by bestowing the illusions he will win over Faust.
In Doctor Faustus, Faustus encounter with the Mephistopheles occurs much sooner than Faust, who spends a long time in gloom and in the ideals of Romanticism. The bet between Doctor Faustus and the Devil is that Faustus will exchange his soul for exactly twenty four years of service from Mephistopheles. Both Faustus and Faust sign the deal in blood. However, it takes Doctor Faustus much longer to sign the deed in blood. Faustus has deep meditations over what he is doing and is well aware of the consequences. Before signing, his feelings waver and he thinks about being saved. But, his reflections on God make him turn to Lucifer. God hasn't loved Faustus and cannot satiate him in the knowledge of magic. His arm is stabbed enlarging the kingdom of Lucifer, but his blood congeals. Again unable to finish his signature, Faust must meditate more on his decision. Still, he decides to go through with the deal and wills his soul to the devil's side.
Interestingly, once in power, both Faust and Doctor Faustus use their powers in ordinary ways. Faust uses it on a simple girl and Doctor Faustus uses it on simple entertainment. Once both Faustus and Faust gain their long-desired powers, they do not know what to do with them. Both, in general, are corrupted by their absolute power since it shows that once they can do everything, they no longer wants to do anything too magical. They have turned away from the light and can't do much. Instead, Doctor Faustus receives a book on astrology, botany and a book that raises spirits making maidens dance in front of him. He continuously complains that he cannot experience joys and cannot repent. The good and bad angles come through and express that he ought to repent. But, the evil side always gets the last word which is that he cannot repent. He asks many astrological questions which confirm his respectable scholarly mind, which were the interests of the new Renaissance man. He remarkably learns that there are nine controlling spirits in the seven planets, the firmament and the highest heaven (line 60 p.260). But, Mephistopheles cannot tell him who made the world.
He again furious at Mephistopheles questions if it's too late to repent. Then he actually comes to face Lucifer who tells him to think not of god, but of the devil (l. 93 p.267). He travels around Europe, playing tricks on yokels and performing conjuring acts to impress various heads of state and the emperors so that he can trust that they cannot say anything bad of scholars again. So it does add up to a good reason for what he does even when sometimes it seems like he uses his incredible gifts for what is essentially trifling entertainment. And the only entertainment the devil can give is an account of the seven deadly sins. Pride, Covetousness, Wrath, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth and Lechery speak to him and he is happy again. Then, he plays a game at the feast of the Pope by becoming invisible and stealing all his food. It is humorous to this reader when the pope thinks its a ghost and who reads it as a insult to the Catholic church.
About to die, Faustus shows Helen of Troy pass by to all his friends. Here, an old man enters telling Faustus he must repent. Realizing nothing can alter his distressed soul the old man leaves. This is his final chance and he just can't repent or believe. Again, he cuts his arm and signs to Lucifer his soul after the ambitious promise to kiss Helen of Troy. Meeting his friends the scholars again. They are very sorry to hear of their well respected man's deal with the devil. Alas, he is lost in the gapes of hell.
And in Goethe's Faust, Faust, after taking the potion from the witch, falls for a very simple woman coming from the Priest after absolving her sins. The closest Doctor Faustus gets to a woman is the one who is a hot whore of a devil in a dress with fireworks on her. The question of matrimony, then, is quickly dismissed. Yet in Faust, Mephistopheles knows he'll fall for anyone like he's falling for Helen of Troy after taking the potion. When Mephistopheles says that "Three in One and One in Three" is "illusion and not truth" he is of course mocking the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The belief that God can be simultaneously one and three persons is one of the most controversial aspects of Christian belief, giving theologians much exercise to explain this paradox in logical terms. Mephistopheles delights in pointing out such sore spots in conventional religion.
Humorously enough, the Devil can't make the match quickly and Faust must wait, even for Mephistopheles to get a present out of his “inventory.” When Faust visits her room he is melting away in love with Nature and the girl. The first present was no good and sent away to church by Gretchen's, mother. The second present she shows to her friend, Martha. Martha advises her to enjoy the magnificent jewels in private. Why would Faust chose a woman, a poor girl, that is far down in the slums of social ladder? Or why naive an innocent girl? He really puts in much effort to have her and curses and calls Mephistopheles a sophist for not getting her to him soon enough. He does then feel safe with the girl. She makes him feel the way Nature made him feel on the fields where the peasants live, light and elated.
Faust admires her nursing of her late sister as one of the purest of happiness. It is a happy image, but not a lasting one since the child died. Her individual life story is Romanticized. She is dearly cute when she picks the star flower, possibly a Larkspur, and plays the game, “ He loves me , he loves me not” (Line 3184 p.105). She picks he loves me and Faust dearly says, “Let the language of the flowers be your oracle” (line3188-89 p. 105). He stands up for his love for her indeed, even when Faust is challenged by Mephistopheles belief that he'll soon want new adventure. He says even if she was far away he'd still be in love. She is a classic victim of sexual aggression: too young and naive to realize that the erotic attractions of her body more than compensate for her lack of sophistication. She is still so impressed by Faust's social superiority that she cannot grasp that he is drawn to her for purely sexual reasons.
Yet, at what cost is their love? When Mephistopheles kills Gretchen's brother, was her love for Faust worth it? Is there still goodness in Faust or is he just the devil's puppet and evil? Valentine calls his sister a whore as he dies and Gretchen's character is no longer the innocence it was once. But, sympathy is given to Gretchen who probably doesn't deserve all the bad names she is called. Her shame during the funeral makes her unable to brush away feelings of woe.
In lines 3334-3335, Faust blasphemously proclaims that he is jealous when Gretchen goes to Mass and consumes the wafer which Catholics believe is transformed into the body of Christ. Mephistopheles answers him with a clever erotic blasphemy of his own, based on Song of Songs (known in some translations as "The Song of Solomon") 7:3 in which breasts are compared to twin deer. Mephistopheles is saying that he is jealous of Faust when the latter enjoys Gretchen with her blouse off. In fact, she is almost certainly pregnant at this point, as we will discover later. Faust is reduced to spluttering protests by this sly remark, which Mephistopheles answers with yet another sexually-toned blasphemy, arguing that since God made women to be the partners of men, he was the first pimp. Mephistopheles steps in whenever Faustus considers repentance to cajole or threaten him into staying loyal to hell. And Faust is constantly in the company of Mephistopheles.
Both tragedies could be seen through a humanistic reading. In Doctor Faustus, Faustus may be seen as an inquisitive thinker whose revolutionary thoughts exceed the thinking of late medieval Europe. As a modern reader, I am drawn to admire his willingness to argue with the ancient authorities. This shows his individualism and the new thoughts of the Renaissance. The strong aspirations that Faustus felt were compared to such men as Machiavelli and Icarus. Although the reader does note that the Chorus in Doctor Faustus warns repeatedly against Faustus' arrogance. “And melting, heavens conspired his overthrow” (Prologue 22). Furthermore, the final Chorus treats the end fate of Faustus by regretting his tragic fall and not as a moral denunciation of Faustus' character. “Cut is the branch that might have grown full straight” (Epilogue 8). Where is Faustus redeemed than as not just frivolously wasting away his magic? There are many moments such as when his sympathy for the intellectuals oppressed by restrictive sumptuary laws, he pents to, “fill the public schools with silk,/wherewith the students shall be bravely clad .” Also, his ability to show how intellectuals can cut a courtly powerful figure is shown in how he tricks the emperors of Europe. He longs to really see Venice and Rome and is against the oppression of the Catholic Church. Even the scholars he is in company with are distraught to see him go. Thus, he keeps his reputation and dignity as a well learned scholar.
Additionally both of their abilities to interrogate Mephistopheles shows a humanistic and genuine love for knowledge. He wants to know more just as Goethe's Faust and they can be seen as heroes of the new modern world, a world free of God, religion, and the limits that these imposed on humanity. On the other hand, the disappointment and mediocrity that follow Faustus’s pact with the devil, as he descends from grand ambitions to petty conjuring tricks, might suggest a contrasting interpretation. Marlowe may be suggesting that the new, modern spirit, though ambitious and glittering, will lead only to a Faustian dead end.”
Press: hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/20838118/article-Showi...
© branko
youtube channel: www.youtube.com/a2b1
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
111 First Street (film) - Wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111_First_Street_(film)
111 First Street (a Branko Film), Trailer
111 Jam Band (a Branko Film). Unedited
Faizulla Khamraev (a Branko Film)
Maria Benjumeda, Flamenco and Bulerias at 111 First Street
American Watercolor Movement, Live at Coney Island. A Branko Film (Unedited)
© branko
Branko: Entrevista TV Español
Movies:
Books:
West Indian Parade (Photo Book)
Cecilia Mamede, Times Square NYC (Photo Book)
Jacqueline found herself with lots of regrets that there were so many instances she did to herself. She neglected her son and husband and her husband was a bit depressed by his role of working and taking care of the kids when she was away.
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
Explore is a strange animal; while some photos make it out of the blue, others do not. For instance, my most viewed photo (with over 7,000 views) has never been in Explore. So I remain a little dubious about the whole thing, but it is nice to be Explored!
The pics can be seen more easily in my Explore set here;
www.flickr.com/photos/23045224@N04/sets/72157607413401709...
1. Kissing Helvick, 2. Come sit you down among the rustling reeds., 3. Dungarvan, from Ring, 4. Castle in the Air, 5. Pink Flares, 6. Dryslwyn Castle 8, 7. Menacing Sky, 8. A Study of Now Looking at Then,9.Lemonessence, 10. Buoys keep swingin', 11. Summer- Sweet 'n' Pink, 12. Dew you see what I see?, 13. In contemplation of that which is, was and is yet to be..., 14. Waterford estuary from Hook Peninsula, 15. Shellakybooky on Speed!, 16. Grattan Quay, Dungarvan. B&W, 17. Candle Curl, 18. Homecoming, 19. Sign Your Name Across My Heart, 20. The Invading Trees, 21. Waiting..., 22. May 2009 be a great year for all of you!, 23. Trio of Light, 24. Circle of Light, 25. Season's Greetings, 26. A Flounce By Any Other Colour, 27. A purple bokeh, 28. Twin Peaks, 29. In summer we waited upon the rose's unfurling petals, 30. Soft Fluid Pink, 31. Sharp Jagged Pink, 32. Birthday Bouquet Bokeh, 33. Hallowed Ground, 34. Wish You Were Here, 35. Sign Your Name Across My Heart, 36. The Two Trees, 37. Green Door, 38. The Secret Bower, 39. Mountain Stream, 40. Evergreen, 41. I was born on a red day, 42. The Magic Inside.., 43. Who lives behind this door?, 44. Celestial Spectra, 45. Near Valentia, 46. The glow of dusk before Fall., 47. Fishin' on the dock of the Bay., 48. Dungarvan at Night, 49. Comeragh Mountains, 50. Full Throttle Flamin' Lips :-), 51. A prime hunk, 52. Smouldering sky, 53. Smouldering Kiss, 54. Forget-me-not, 55. Guess.., 56. Paua shell External, 1
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
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. :)
—Spaniards, for instance, he continued, passionate temperaments like that, impetuous as Old Nick, are given to taking the law into their own hands and give you your quietus doublequick with those poignards they carry in the abdomen. It comes from the great heat, climate generally. My wife is, so to speak, Spanish, half that is. Point of fact she could actually claim Spanish nationality if she wanted, having been born in (technically) Spain, i.e. Gibraltar. She has the Spanish type. Quite dark, regular brunette, black. I for one certainly believe climate accounts for character. That’s why I asked you if you wrote your poetry in Italian.
—The temperaments at the door, Stephen interposed with, were very passionate about ten shillings. Roberto ruba roba sua.
—Quite so, Mr Bloom dittoed.
—Then, Stephen said staring and rambling on to himself or some unknown listener somewhere, we have the impetuosity of Dante and the isosceles triangle miss Portinari he fell in love with and Leonardo and san Tommaso Mastino.
—It’s in the blood, Mr Bloom acceded at once. All are washed in the blood of the sun. Coincidence I just happened to be in the Kildare street museum today, shortly prior to our meeting if I can so call it, and I was just looking at those antique statues there. The splendid proportions of hips, bosom. You simply don’t knock against those kind of women here. An exception here and there. Handsome yes, pretty in a way you find but what I’m talking about is the female form. Besides they have so little taste in dress, most of them, which greatly enhances a woman’s natural beauty, no matter what you say. Rumpled stockings, it may be, possibly is, a foible of mine but still it’s a thing I simply hate to see.
Interest, however, was starting to flag somewhat all round and then the others got on to talking about accidents at sea, ships lost in a fog, collisions with icebergs, all that sort of thing. Shipahoy of course had his own say to say. He had doubled the cape a few odd times and weathered a monsoon, a kind of wind, in the China seas and through all those perils of the deep there was one thing, he declared, stood to him or words to that effect, a pious medal he had that saved him.
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.
Nuakchot, Mauritania, 30 de julio de 2018
www.interior.gob.es/es/web/interior/noticias/detalle/-/jo...
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
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.
During my visit to Limerick I used a number of different lenses. In this instance I used a Sony A7RM2 body with a Zeiss Batis 25mm Lens which I really like.
St Mary's Cathedral, Limerick, also known as Limerick Cathedral, is a cathedral of the Church of Ireland in Limerick, Ireland which is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is in the ecclesiastical province of Dublin. Previously the cathedral of the Diocese of Limerick, it is now one of three cathedrals in the United Dioceses of Limerick and Killaloe.
Today the cathedral is still used for its original purpose as a place of worship and prayer for the people of Limerick. It is open to the public every day from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. Following the retirement of the Very Rev'd Maurice Sir on June 24, 2012, Bishop Trevor Williams announced the appointment of the Rev'd Sandra Ann Pragnell as Dean of Limerick and Rector of Limerick City Parish. She is the first female dean of the cathedral and rector of the Limerick parish. The cathedral grounds holds a United Nations Memorial Plaque with the names of all the Irish men who died while serving in the United Nations Peacekeepers.
It’s rather exceptional that I eat meat substitute. For this dish, for instance, I could make nutsballs or tofuballs… but I’m often too lazy for that.
For the original recipe (from “BBC Good Food magazine”), Swedish meatballs are used. – I don’t know what they are.
Recipe for 4:
350g (12oz) dried spaghetti
1 tbsp oil
350g pack Swedish meatballs (from the chiller cabinet in the supermarket)
*I use vegballs (“meatballs” for vegetarian)
1 tbsp honey
2 tbsp wholegrain mustard
300ml (1/2pint) (chicken or) vegetable stock (a cube is fine)
3 tbsp crème fraîche
4 spring onions, sliced
2 fat cloves of garlic (optional=not in the original recipe. I’m a garlicoholic)
1) Cook the spaghetti following the pack instructions. Meanwhile, heat the oil in a wide pan, add the meatballs and fry for 5 minutes, stirring, until browned all over.
2) Stir in the honey, mustard and stock. Add garlic, squeezed or very finely chopped, if you like. Bring to the boil, then reduce the heat and simmer for 5 minutes.
3) Stir in the crème fraîche and spring onions and bring to a gentle simmer, just to heat through.
4) Drain the spaghetti, top with meatballs and sauce and serve.
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
via Instagram ift.tt/1RlDsGJ — Some types of "ornament" do serve functional purposes. Take for instance the dado rail. This office could certainly benefit from it....
"In Breughel's Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away
Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman
Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,
But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone
As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green
Water, and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen
Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky,
Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on." [9]
wiki ~ Bruegel was born at a time of extensive change in Western Europe. Humanist ideals from the previous century influenced artists and scholars in Europe. Italy was at the end of their High Renaissance of arts and culture, when artists such as Michelangelo and Da Vinci painted their masterpieces. In 1517, about eight years before Bruegel's birth, Martin Luther created his Ninety-Five Theses and began the Protestant Reformation in neighboring Germany. The Catholic Church impinged increasingly more upon the European way of life and art. Perhaps most importantly for artists, the Council of Trent in 1545 determined what art was appropriate in Catholic states.