Eric Brenman was a psychoanalyst and former President and Training Psychoanalyst of the Institute of Psychoanalysis. He made a distinctive and important contribution to psychoanalysis within the post-Kleinian tradition, and his collected papers on psychoanalytic theory and technique can be found in his seminal book The Recovery of the Lost Good Object (2006, Routledge: London).

 

Brought up in North London, Brenman trained as a doctor then as a psychiatrist. His psychoanalyst during his training was Hanna Segal, and one main strand of his work developed her ideas on reparation. In a 1952 paper on creativity, Segal had put the issue thus: "It is when the world within us is destroyed, when it is dead and loveless, when our loved ones are in fragments, and we ourselves in helpless despair – it is then that we must re-create our world anew, reassemble the pieces, infuse life into dead fragments, re-create life".

 

Brenman's focus was on difficulties patients experience with this task of repair, a task central to life. The main thrust of his work may be summarised as a detailed theoretical and technical psychoanalytic study of the struggles of patient and analyst to reassemble fragmented inner loved ones.

 

I was privileged to go to Brenman for supervision. He had a brilliant way of finding potent images to help understand underlying difficulties patients may face. He once illuminated a particular patient's current plight with the tale of the Flying Dutchman in Wagner's opera. The Flying Dutchman is an example of the archetypal legend of man condemned endlessly to wander alone and tormented by guilt about his greed, corruption and destructiveness, unable to find inner rest, forgiveness and love.

 

In Wagner's version he can only be saved by the love of a good woman, personified by Senta. However, full of doubt and suspicion, and unable to trust in Senta's abiding love and faithfulness, the Dutchman destroys himself. Brenman's point was that we need a good loving relationship in order to bear knowing about our own destructiveness, but the good relationship we need may be very difficult – sometimes too difficult – to bear and to believe in.

 

He thought that what helps patients over time is having the sense that their psychoanalyst really appreciates what it feels like for them to be who they are. He conveyed a sense that, if the analyst were in the same situation with the same pressures the patient had and has, would he or she do any better than the patient? He invited one to realise: probably not. He conveyed an analytic stance with a deep sense of "there but for the grace of God would I have gone or be".

 

In a celebrated paper, Cruelty and Narrow-mindedness (1985) he discussed those who consume and possess without a conscious sense of guilt or responsibility. He emphasised the narrow-mindedness of this view of the world and its intimate connections with cruelty. The person expects ideal provision and is driven to punish people for not being ideal and for not being able to satisfy him or her in every way.

 

Brenman's paper was important in that it helped open up a path to the better psychoanalytic understanding of grievance-based states of mind and to further work in this area. He brilliantly discussed the quality of narrow-mindedness, its ruthless greed, its persistence and its blinkered focus, one that can occlude the benign influence of ordinary love and understanding. These ideas have relevance for society at large. Brenman argued that this syndrome could be observed in wealth-seeking, wars, sexual conquests, racism, political beliefs, religious corruption, – often fuelled by a crusade of holy grievances.

 

In his paper Matters of life and death – real and assumed (2006), he wrote of the complex conflictual relations between the parts of the self that embrace life and truth and those that embrace deadliness, lies and corruption. He stressed that compromises are necessarily reached. For instance, he argued that people may kill off or deaden parts of themselves that are capable of love, not out of pure destructiveness but in order to avoid being excessively tormented by guilt, a useful perspective on these situations which can be so difficult in psychoanalysis. What matters then is not that we kill off but how much we kill off.

 

Brenman's psychoanalyst-as-guide comes across with modesty of aim and awareness of limitation and context, whose needed strength to withstand the patient's and his or her own omnipotence is like a bough that bends rather than one that breaks under pressure. This is the strength "to bear knowing and experiencing, and knowing how much one can bear''.

 

He had a dry, ironic, sometimes cheeky sense of humour. He was a deeply cultured man with a penetrating interest in whatever his attention focused on. He lived life to the full: he loved good food, wine, music,theatre, books and football, and he loved Italy. He said his favourite play was The Bacchae by Euripides, which he once cited as an illustration of just how badly things can go wrong if we disrespect or discount the reality that we are cursed with an omnipotent, god-like part of ourselves.

 

Eric Brenman, psychoanalyst and medical doctor: born London 12 January 1920; married firstly Ishbel McWhirter (marriage dissolved; two sons), secondly Irma Pick (one stepson);

 

Highgate Cemetery East, Swain's Lane, London

View On Black

 

Bramante teorizzava l’ archittettura come un monumento, dove l’ uomo doveva rimanere a distanza per ammirarla, per coglierne l’ essenza; San Pietro era stata concepita così, ma le menti cambiano, cambia anche la visione, e alla fine Michelangelo stravolse i progetti mostrandola a noi come adesso la possiamo ammirare…

 

Ma, questo direte voi, non c’entra nulla con Valencia e Calatrava, invece, dico io, c’entra e come…

 

Questa è l’ architettura che ti pone a distanza, l’ architettura che ti schiaccia, dove l’ uomo è una formica, e non potrà mai riempirla, non potrà mai viverla…

Un senso di vuoto ti pervade, agorafobia che incombe, ti senti solo, ti senti nulla, ma questo solo all’ inizio, poi hai senso di libertà, e desideri solo essere un colombo, per poter volare in cima, nel punto piu alto, e avere tutto sotto ai tuoi piedi…

 

Alla fine Bramante, questo pensava, folle dicevano, giusto dico io, la mente se vuole, può toccare veramente il cielo…

 

Quasi un sintomo di onnipotenza…

  

Yashica Fx3

Ilford Fp4 125

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Another look at the delightful gazebo in the Imperial Garden, which is in all probability the Pavilion of Floating Spring. (subject to confirmation). Note the paved pathway. These footpaths are paved with varied patterns of coloured pebbles, symbolizing good luck and fortune. I read on a website that if one cares to pay attention, one would observe a group of pictures set in the footpath stones which depict shrews punishing their husbands. It seems strange that such pictures should appear here in feudal China at a time when male dominance and more especially the omnipotence of the emperor prevailed! Maybe the emperor was a poor henpecked soul, like most of us poor males are? (joke!) (Beijing (Peking), China, May 2017)

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

O triângulo é a figura geométrica que dá origem à pirâmide e ambos são parte da simbologia maçônica. O triângulo é símbolo da luz. Como o vértice para cima representa o fogo e a virilidade. Com o vértice para baixo representa a água e o sexo feminino. O triângulo eqüilátero é usado como símbolo da divindade maçônica e representa os três atributos divinos: força, beleza e sabedoria, e também os três reinos: mineral, vegetal e animal. O triângulo com um olho no centro representa a onipotência, a onisciência e a onipresença divina; também conhecido como o olho que tudo vê.

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

The triangle is the geometric figure that gives rise to the pyramid and both are part of Masonic symbolism. The triangle is a symbol of light. As the apex upward represents fire and virility. With the apex downwards represents water and the female. The equilateral triangle is used as a Masonic symbol of divinity and represent the three divine attributes: strength, beauty and wisdom and also the three kingdoms: mineral, vegetable and animal. The triangle with an eye in the center represents the omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of God, also known as the all-seeing eye.

———————————————————-

Fotolog ¦ Twitter ¦ Facebook ¦ Tumblr ¦ Blog ¦ Orkut

———————————————————-

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Derveni Crater. Dating from 300 BC, this bronze wine-mixing vase standing 80 cm high. The detailed figures of maenads are exquisite; Dionysos and Ariadne are shown on the front. The volutes at the top are decorated with the head of Herakles.

The elaborate decorarion constitutes a hymn to the god Dionydud, to his omnipotence over nature and to his power in both life and death. On the vase's obverse (main side) is depicted the sacred wedding of the god and Ariadne. The couple is seated on a rock, and the naked Dionysus has placed his leg familiarly on his wife's thigh. Ariadne, holding her veil aloft, gazes at her husband in a characteristically bridal gesture.

The gold color of the vase is owed ti its particular composition: bronze and a large quantitiy of tin, but without a trace ot gold.

This is the only intact bronze vessel wiht relief decoration preserved fronn the period. Its creator may have been a sculptor and metalworker from one of the Ionain cities of the Chalkdiki wo had served his apprenticeship in Athens. 33-=320 BC

 

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP: "Mary has a radical right to universal queenship by the fact of her divine motherhood, but the divine plan was that she should merit it also by her union with her suffering Son, and that she should not exercise it fully before being crowned queen of all creation in Heaven. Her royalty is spiritual and supernatural rather than temporal and natural, though it extends in a secondary way to temporal affairs considered in their relation to salvation and sanctification.

 

We have seen how Mary exercises her queenship on earth. She exercises it in Heaven also. The essential glory of the blessed depends on Jesus’ merits and hers. She contributes to their accidental glory—as well as to that of the angels—by the light she communicates to them, and by the joy they have in her presence and in the realization of what she does for souls. To both the angels and the saints she manifests Christ’s plan for the extension of His Kingdom.

 

Mary’s queenship extends to purgatory, for she prompts the faithful on earth to pray for the souls detained there and to have Masses offered for them. She herself offers their prayers to God, thereby increasing their value. She applies the fruits of the merits of Jesus and of herself to the Holy Souls in Jesus’ name.

 

Her queenship extends to the demons too who are obliged to recognise her power, for she can make their temptation cease, can save souls from their snares, and can repulse their attacks. “The demons suffer more,” says St. Grignon de Montfort, “from being conquered by the humility of Mary than by the Omnipotence of God.” Her reign of mercy extends to Hell itself, as we have seen, in the sense that the lost souls are punished less than they deserve, and that on certain days—including possibly the Assumption—their sufferings become less fearful.

 

Thus Mary’s queenship is truly universal. There is no region to which it does not extend in some way."

 

From the Calvaria in Banská Štiavnica, Slovakia.

Two of the 216 faces starring at you from the heights of Bayon.Cambodia.

 

A translation of King Jayavarman VII`s mystic Buddhist beliefs, Bayon is a spiritual experience. From each of the survivng towers the enlightened grin of the Boddhisattva Avalokitesvara, one of the most worshipped divinities in Mahayana Buddhism and the kingdom's principal divinity, compassion radiates out in the four cardinal directions. Carved in the likeness of the King himself (his portrait is known from other sculptures found elsewhere in Cambodia and Thailand), these enigmatically smiling faces portray the King as god, symbolizing his omnipresence and omnipotence.

The portal to The Inferno.

Through me the way is to the city dolent;Through me the way is to eternal dole;Through me the way among the people lost.

Justice incited my sublime Creator;Created me divine Omnipotence,The highest Wisdom and the primal Love.

Before me there were no created things,Only eterne, and I eternal last.All hope abandon, ye who enter in!.

- Canto III, The Inferno, Dante Alighieri

Part one of Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy, known more affectionately by those who have read it as "The Inferno," was something close to required reading for college students at The University of Chicago. Dogeared copies of the most recent verse translations were a staple of tables throughout the library. As far as I could tell, every humanities course (a requirement for all students) included at least part of this master work. Much discussion as to its literary merits and political references surely followed, but I think what connected with students was Dante's vision of the deepest, darkest levels of hell as miserably cold rather than blazingly hot. To an undergraduate facing finals in the depths of January's arctic grip, this vision of a cold hell continually resonates. So much so that, during my ten years on campus, I could always spot a college student sporting a homemade t-shirt with the slogan "University of Chicago - The level of hell Dante forgot," or "Hell does freeze over." Beyond the delightfully geeky literary reference to Alighieri, these shirts were also remarkable for displaying a table of temperature lows for the dates of the winter quarter.

Such a table for the temperatures on Stanford's campus through the corresponding period of time would paint a far sunnier picture. Imagine my surprise then, when I discovered that the Gates of Hell are actually on the Stanford Campus. The Gates of Hell is a massive sculpture by Auguste Rodin inspired by the famous poem; it, and many other of Rodin's works, is a fixture of the B. Gerald Cantor Rodin Sculpture Garden. The illustrious sculptor worked to create this masterpiece over the course of nearly four decades, until his death. The word massive fails here to convey the size of the gate - it stands at nearly twenty feet tall and over thirteen feet wide. It is imposing without being utterly frightening. Rodin included some of his most famous sculptures within The Gates of Hell - notice the thinker jutting out at you far overhead at the center of the doors. He also included some unexpected things, like The Kiss within the doors and perhaps that little bit of romance and sweetness is the reason that we are not terrified of this massive vision of Hell's Door.

112 megapixels of The Gates of Hell.

 

I created this image as a massive panorama for two primary reasons. One, because the sculpture defies the small-format photographer to capture its essence and requires a high-resolution approach. Two, because I have been working diligently to produce a workflow of image capture and processing that I will call "Large Format DSLR Photography." You will notice that the above image isn't just properly exposed and very high-resolution, but it is also perfectly corrected for perspective. Look at the gates, follow the vertical and horizontal lines - you will notice they are all perfectly parallel to the edges of the frame. The door doesn't shrink at the top where the subject is further from the camera, and it doesn't expand at the bottom. All this is possible thanks to a very special tripod head (more details on that later) and some careful computation. You'll be seeing more high resolution images like this and learn more about how to make "large format" digital images like this in the coming weeks and months - stay tuned. I've also included a smaller version of the image below so those of you who like to see the whole image all at once can do so. And if you were looking for another indication of scale here - that placard on the right of the frame is about four to five feet from the ground.

 

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

聚能压缩饼干

特殊的工艺， 不一样的饼干

roughly translates as: special manufacturing process, unique biscuits

 

454g pack, AUD5.29

 

Seen at

Central Grocery

Melbourne Central Shopping Centre

(03)96392803

 

KIRBY-VISION

 

A blog for creative projects inspired by the art and concepts of Jack Kirby.

 

If you would like to submit any Kirby related artwork to the blog please follow

the link for more details.

The Aghori (Sanskrit aghora)[2] are ascetic Shaiva sadhus.

  

The Aghori in Shaivism.

The Aghori are known to engage in post-mortem rituals. They often dwell in charnel grounds, have been witnessed smearing cremation ashes on their bodies, and have been known to use bones from human corpses for crafting kapalas (which Shiva and other Hindu deities are often iconically depicted holding or using) and jewelry. Due to their practices that are contradictory to orthodox Hinduism, they are generally opposed.[3][4]

 

Many Aghori gurus command great reverence from rural populations as they are supposed to possess healing powers gained through their intensely eremitic rites and practices of renunciation and tápasya. They are also known to meditate and perform worship in haunted houses.

 

Aghoris are devotees of Shiva manifested as Bhairava,[5] are monists who seek moksha from the cycle of reincarnation or saṃsāra. This freedom is a realization of the self's identity with the absolute. Because of this monistic doctrine, the Aghoris maintain that all opposites are ultimately illusory. The purpose of embracing pollution and degradation through various customs is the realization of non-duality (advaita) through transcending social taboos, attaining what is essentially an altered state of consciousness and perceiving the illusory nature of all conventional categories.

 

Aghoris are not to be confused with Shivnetras, who are also ardent devotees of Shiva but do not indulge in extreme, tamasic ritual practices. Although the Aghoris enjoy close ties with the Shivnetras, the two groups are quite distinct, Shivnetras engaging in sattvic worship.

 

Aghoris base their beliefs on two principles common to broader Shaiva beliefs: that Shiva is perfect (having omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence) and that Shiva is responsible for everything that occurs – all conditions, causes and effects. Consequently, everything that exists must be perfect and to deny the perfection of anything would be to deny the sacredness of all life in its full manifestation, as well as to deny the Supreme Being.

 

Aghoris believe that every person's soul is Shiva but is covered by astamahapasha ("eight great nooses or bonds") - sensual pleasure, anger, greed, obsession, fear and hatred. The practices of the Aghoris are centered around the removal of these bonds. Sadhana in cremation grounds destroys fear; sexual practices with certain riders and controls help release one from sexual desire; being naked destroys shame. On release from all the eight bonds the soul becomes sadashiva and obtains moksha.[citation needed]

 

History[edit]

 

Aghori in Satopant.

 

An Aghori man in Badrinath smoking hashish or Cannabis from a chillum in 2011.

Although akin to the Kapalika ascetics of medieval Kashmir, as well as the Kalamukhas, with whom there may be a historical connection, the Aghoris trace their origin to Kina Ram, an ascetic who is said to have lived 150 years, dying during the second half of the 18th century.[6] Dattatreya the avadhuta, to whom has been attributed the esteemed nondual medieval song, the Avadhuta Gita, was a founding adi guru of the Aghor tradition according to Barrett (2008: p. 33):

 

Lord Dattatreya, an antinomian form of Shiva closely associated with the cremation ground, who appeared to Baba Keenaram atop Girnar Mountain in Gujarat. Considered to be the adi guru (ancient spiritual teacher) and founding deity of Aghor, Lord Dattatreya offered his own flesh to the young ascetic as prasād (a kind of blessing), conferring upon him the power of clairvoyance and establishing a guru-disciple relationship between them.[7]

 

Aghoris also hold sacred the Hindu deity Dattatreya as a predecessor to the Aghori Tantric tradition. Dattatreya was believed to be an incarnation of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva united in the same singular physical body. Dattatreya is revered in all schools of Tantrism, which is the philosophy followed by the Aghora tradition, and he is often depicted in Hindu artwork and its holy scriptures of folk narratives, the Puranas, indulging in Aghori "left-hand" Tantric worship as his prime practice.

 

An aghori believes in getting into total darkness by all means, and then getting into light or self realizing. Though this is a different approach from other Hindu sects, they believe it to be effective. They are infamously known for their rituals that include such as shava samskara (ritual worship incorporating the use of a corpse as the altar) to invoke the mother goddess in her form as Smashan Tara (Tara of the Cremation Grounds).

 

In Hindu iconography, Tara, like Kali, is one of the ten Mahavidyas (wisdom goddesses) and once invoked can bless the Aghori with supernatural powers. The most popular of the ten Mahavidyas who are worshiped by Aghoris are Dhumavati, Bagalamukhi, and Bhairavi. The male Hindu deities primarily worshiped by Aghoris for supernatural powers are manifestations of Shiva, including Mahākāla, Bhairava, Virabhadra, Avadhuti, and others.

 

Barrett (2008: p. 161) discusses the "charnel ground sādhanā" of the Aghora in both its left and right-handed proclivities and identifies it as principally cutting through attachments and aversion and foregrounding primordiality; a view uncultured, undomesticated:

 

The gurus and disciples of Aghor believe their state to be primordial and universal. They believe that all human beings are natural-born Aghori. Hari Baba has said on several occasions that human babies of all societies are without discrimination, that they will play as much in their own filth as with the toys around them. Children become progressively discriminating as they grow older and learn the culturally specific attachments and aversions of their parents. Children become increasingly aware of their mortality as they bump their heads and fall to the ground. They come to fear their mortality and then palliate this fear by finding ways to deny it altogether.[2]

 

In this sense, the Aghora sādhanā is a process of unlearning deeply internalized cultural models. When this sādhanā takes the form of charnel ground sādhanā, the Aghori faces death as a very young child, simultaneously meditating on the totality of life at its two extremes. This ideal example serves as a prototype for other Aghor practices, both left and right, in ritual and in daily life."[8] The Aghoris are also recorded to perform shava sadhana, worship with a corpse.

 

Adherents[edit]

Though Aghoris are prevalent in cremation grounds across India, Nepal, and even sparsely across cremation grounds in South East Asia, the secrecy of this religious sect leaves no desire for practitioners to aspire for social recognition and notoriety. [1]

 

Spiritual headquarters[edit]

Hinglaj Mata is the Kuladevata (patron goddess) of the Aghori. The main Aghori pilgrimage centre is Kina Ram's hermitage or ashram in Ravindrapuri, Varanasi.[9] The full name of this place is Baba Keenaram Sthal, Krim-Kund. Here, Kina Ram is buried in a tomb or samadhi which is a centre of pilgrimage for Aghoris and Aghori devotees. Present head (Abbot), since 1978, of Baba Keenaram Sthal is Baba Siddharth Gautam Ram.

 

According to Devotees, Baba Siddharth Gautam Ram is reincarnation of Baba Keenaram himself. Apart from this, any cremation ground would be a holy place for an Aghori ascetic. The cremation grounds near the yoni pithas, 51 holy centers for worship of the Hindu Mother Goddess scattered across South Asia and the Himalayan terrain, are key locations preferred for performing sadhana by the Aghoris. They are also known to meditate and perform sadhana in haunted houses.

 

Medicine[edit]

Aghori practise healing through purification as a pillar of their ritual. Their patients believe the Aghori are able to transfer pollution and health to and from patients as a form of "transformative healing", due to the believed superior state of body and mind of the Aghori.[10][verification needed]

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

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]

This is the prayer Shahram read at our beloved Daniel's passing, I have read it at the Shrine of the Bab and at Bahji ... not for Danny, he has winged his way to Paradise and hath "verily hastened unto the Kingdom", but for all of us left behind.. for his father and his mother, for his sisters, for his aunts and uncles and cousins, and for his multitude of friends.. who feel the emptiness of his absence from us.. until we join him...

 

“HE IS GOD, EXALTED IS HE, THE LORD OF LOVING-KINDNESS…”

 

He is God, exalted is He, the Lord of loving-kindness and bounty!

Glory be unto Thee, Thou, O my God, the Lord Omnipotent. I testify to Thine omnipotence and Thy might, Thy sovereignty and Thy loving-kindness, Thy grace and Thy power, the oneness of Thy Being and the unity of Thine Essence, Thy sanctity and exaltation above the world of being and all that is therein.

O my God! Thou seest me detached from all save Thee, holding fast unto Thee and turning unto the ocean of Thy bounty, to the heaven of Thy favor, to the Daystar of Thy grace.

Lord! I bear witness that in Thy servant Thou hast reposed Thy Trust, and that is the Spirit wherewith Thou hast given life to the world.

I ask of Thee by the splendor of the Orb of Thy Revelation, mercifully to accept from him that which he hath achieved in Thy days. Grant then that he may be invested with the glory of Thy good-pleasure and adorned with Thine acceptance.

O my Lord! I myself and all created things bear witness unto Thy might, and I pray Thee not to turn away from Thyself this spirit that hath ascended unto Thee, unto Thy heavenly place, Thine exalted Paradise and Thy retreats of nearness, O Thou Who art the Lord of all men!

Grant, then, O my God, that Thy servant may consort with Thy chosen ones, Thy saints and Thy Messengers in heavenly places that the pen cannot tell nor the tongue recount.

 

O my Lord, the poor one hath verily hastened unto the Kingdom of Thy wealth, the stranger unto his home within Thy precincts, he that is sore athirst to the heavenly river of Thy bounty. Deprive him not, O Lord, from his share of the banquet of Thy grace and from the favor of Thy bounty. Thou art in truth the Almighty, the Gracious, the All-Bountiful.

O my God, Thy Trust hath been returned unto Thee. It behooveth Thy grace and Thy bounty that have compassed Thy dominions on earth and in heaven, to vouchsafe unto Thy newly welcomed one Thy gifts and Thy bestowals, and the fruits of the tree of Thy grace! Powerful art Thou to do as Thou willest, there is none other God but Thee, the Gracious, the Most Bountiful, the Compassionate, the Bestower, the Pardoner, the Precious, the All-Knowing

 

I testify, O my Lord, that Thou hast enjoined upon men to honor their guest, and he that hath ascended unto Thee hath verily reached Thee and attained Thy Presence. Deal with him then according to Thy grace and bounty! By Thy glory, I know of a certainty that Thou wilt not withhold Thyself from that which Thou hast commanded Thy servants, nor wilt Thou deprive him that hath clung to the cord of Thy bounty and hath ascended to the Dayspring of Thy wealth.

There is none other God but Thee, the One, the Single, the Powerful, the Omniscient, the Bountiful.

—Bahá’u’lláh

 

"O SON OF THE SUPREME! I have made death a messenger of joy to thee. Wherefore dost thou grieve?"

 

Love is the most great Law, we love you Danny and our tears fall because we miss you ...and we wait patiently, loving one another, till we can join you. —

 

Life After Death

 

Bahá’u’lláh tells us that the life in the flesh is but the embryonic stage of our existence, and that escape from the body is like a new birth through which the human spirit enters on a fuller, freer life. He writes:— "

Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty. The movement of My Pen is stilled when it attempteth to befittingly describe the loftiness and glory of so exalted a station. The honor with which the Hand of Mercy will invest the soul is such as no tongue can adequately reveal, nor any other earthly agency describe. "

 

Similarly, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá writes:— "

The mysteries of which man is heedless in the earthly world, those will he discover in the heavenly world, and there will he be informed of the secrets of the truth; how much more will he recognize or discover persons with whom he has been associated. "

 

" O SON OF JUSTICE! Whither can a lover go but to the land of his beloved? and what seeker findeth rest away from his heart’s desire? To the true lover reunion is life, and separation is death. His breast is void of patience and his heart hath no peace. A myriad lives he would forsake to hasten to the abode of his beloved. " - The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh

 

" Thou hast asked Me whether man, as apart from the Prophets of God and His chosen ones, will retain, after his physical death, the self-same individuality, personality, consciousness, and understanding that characterize his life in this world. If this should be the case, how is it, thou hast observed, that whereas such slight injuries to his mental faculties as fainting and severe illness deprive him of his understanding and consciousness, his death, which must involve the decomposition of his body and the dissolution of its elements, is powerless to destroy that understanding and extinguish that consciousness? How can any one imagine that man's consciousness and personality will be maintained, when the very instruments necessary to their existence and function will have completely disintegrated?

Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments. Consider the light of the lamp. Though an external object may interfere with its radiance, the light itself continueth to shine with undiminished power. In like manner, every malady afflicting the body of man is an impediment that preventeth the soul from manifesting its inherent might and power. When it leaveth the body, however, it will evince such ascendancy, and reveal such influence as no force on earth can equal. Every pure, every refined and sanctified soul will be endowed with tremendous power, and shall rejoice with exceeding gladness.

 

Consider the lamp which is hidden under a bushel. Though its light be shining, yet its radiance is concealed from men. Likewise, consider the sun which hath been obscured by the clouds. Observe how its splendor appeareth to have diminished, when in reality the source of that light hath remained unchanged. The soul of man should be likened unto this sun, and all things on earth should be regarded as his body. So long as no external impediment interveneth between them, the body will, in its entirety, continue to reflect the light of the soul, and to be sustained by its power. As soon as, however, a veil interposeth itself between them, the brightness of that light seemeth to lessen.

 

Consider again the sun when it is completely hidden behind the clouds. Though the earth is still illumined with its light, yet the measure of light which it receiveth is considerably reduced. Not until the clouds have dispersed, can the sun shine again in the plenitude of its glory. Neither the presence of the cloud nor its absence can, in any way, affect the inherent splendor of the sun. The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.

 

Consider, moreover, how the fruit, ere it is formed, lieth potentially within the tree. Were the tree to be cut into pieces, no sign nor any part of the fruit, however small, could be detected. When it appeareth, however, it manifesteth itself, as thou hast observed, in its wondrous beauty and glorious perfection. Certain fruits, indeed, attain their fullest development only after being severed from the tree. " - Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=U141AajCCuA&list=RDwgLVOLfLam...

  

Photo: transmediale 2014

 

Taiwan, the ultimate hub of paradoxes; everything is juxtaposed at proximation: leading-edge technology and traditional cultures, the Chinese majority and the 17 Austronesian tribes, its well-defined national identity and still unsettled legal status with mainland China. Such tension is omnipresent that can be best described as schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Taiwan 2.0 is an allusion to Muller’s Hamlet Machine – the omnipresence and omnipotence of machines as the cause of an incessant revolution. Born between the era of color TV and the smartphone epoch, and born in a country with an 80% share of the world’s electronic productions, Taiwanese digital artists are fully aware of the potential and the risk of globalization and cybernetics. Their works reflect the crisis that is now facing Taiwan and the entire world.

Please be aware... I am no stamp expert. Posted titles here are either what I was told when acquiring these or are from a simple Google search. I make no claim as to them being 100% accurate but I make an effort to be as factual as I am able when posting. There may well be some duplication of type or variety, but I try not to double post any single items. My feeble brain may slip on that from time to time. These are all from my semi worthless collection from over the years. Little to no value exists in most (if not all) of them. They are just a hobby.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

The statue's right hand points to the threat of nuclear weapons while the extended left hand symbolizes eternal peace. The mild face symbolizes divine grace and the gently closed eyes offer a prayer for the repose of the bomb victims' souls. The folded right leg and extended left leg signify both meditation and the readiness to stand up and rescue the people of the world.

The massive and muscular body symbolises divine omnipotence and love.

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

From the Superhero Supply Company.

Joseph Weizenbaum died recently. He was 85 years old.

 

He influenced my adult life than any other writer from my childhood. Before I read Computer Power and Human Reason, I thought I wanted to be a computer programmer. After I read it, especially the chapter on "Science and the Compulsive Programmer," I tried to focus more of my attention on the world outside.

 

Most of the computer books I tried to read when I was an adolescent were too difficult for me. But Weizenbaum's simple prose was easy for me to understand.

 

Here's a short quote from the book--

 

"The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is the lawgiver. So, of course, is the designer of any game. But universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs. Morevoer, and this a crucial point, systems so formulated and elaborated act out their programmed scripts. They compliantly obey their laws and vividly exhibit their obedient behavior. No playwright, no stage director, no emperor, however powerful, has ever exercised such absolute authority to arrange a stage or a field of battle and to command such unswervingly dutiful actors or troops.

 

One would have to be astonished if Lord Acton's observation that power corrupts were not to apply in an environment in which omnipotence is so easily achievable. It does apply. And the corruption evoked by the computer programmer's omnipotence manifests itself in a form that is instructive in a domain far larger that the immediate evironment of the computer. To understand it, we will have to take a look at a mental disorder that, while actually very old, appears to have been transformed by the computer into a new genus: the compulsion to program."

Date:Jan 15 2014, 10:51 AM

Subject:

RE: A Right Royal Do!

Show full header

Dear All

Thank you your Majesty and loyal subjects. This speedy correspondence has saved me a lot of palava etc so I shall just say my snaps are up on flickr now at www.flickr.com/photos/pitzys_pyx/.

I should like to say that we missed TWF all day (yes we did) but cold 90s humour might here say "but I couldn't" just for a snigger. I should also like to say thank you to:

Maryla for her Sandy Smith Mud Pies

Liz M for her wonderful shortcake biscuits (the choc chip ones were particularly good :))

Malcolm X for his fruit and vanilla buns, they were very very tasty.

Whoever brought the Jaffa Cakes

To you all for your laughs and banter.

Dave Lowe for his folk and Beetles songs.

For those who wondered why I had stopped by the road side on my way home see the first snap.

Cheers

JP

   

Now this is what makes Tuesdays such fun and keeps me nearly sane – you should see me when I’m really balmy! Very many apologies for the lack of cake – I will try hardy next time (depending on the day and the venue!).

 

Thanks for all the grovelling and the wonderful singing. Could you just shorten my name to She as long as I promise not to do an “Ursula Undress” and wear a chamois leather. Thanks also for the decent weather, not that it was cold where I was standing!

 

I can report that I was at the Rufus Centre this afternoon and there was JB, Audrey and their lovely daughter. JB allowed me to feel his new pulse and I can recommend it as a strange experience and I think he’s got a battery somewhere that gives electric twitches.

 

Bon voyage to the Breeds who will be sadly missed for a while. See the rest of you somewhere in the wilds of Bedfordshire and hopefully next Tuesday.

 

Thanks Mr. Kippling – your writing talents are beyond compare and your cakes are pretty wonderful too. Tally Ho! She

 

From: Steve Squire [mailto:Steve.Squire@greensandtrust.org]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:36

To: Malcolm Willis; Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: RE: A Right Royal Do!

 

Good to see you now have an official email Sue .

 

Well done Malcolm for making me laugh , very good thank you and to Jock with hot bum in fire.

 

And thank you all too for working so hard with or without Royal Cake!

 

Regards

 

Steve

        

From: Malcolm Willis [malcolmJwillis@btinternet.com]

Sent: 14 January 2014 21:13

To: Tim Spencer; bazbreed@hotmail.com; 'Colin Atkins'; 'Dave Clarke'; 'David Moffatt'; 'James Miller'; 'Jane Breed'; 'John Buxton'; 'John Pitts'; 'Kelvin Horton'; 'Malcolm Willis'; 'Marie Mead'; 'Maryla Carter'; 'Peter Stafferton'; 'Roger Christopher'; 'Ros Blevins'; 'Steve Jones'; Steve Squire; Sue Raven; 'Tim Chamen'; wendy.copper@virginmedia.com

Cc: She who must be obeyed

Subject: A Right Royal Do!

The stately limousine sailed into sight like a swan upon an enchanted lake. The blue eye that is heaven became bedazzled by the occasion, even the golden beams of universal eternity dipped in homage. The line of voles, once ordinary looking, became unworthy in the instant. The conveyance glided to a halt. The door opened. Hearts that only seconds ago had been pounding chests for freedom were now in suspended animation and inexplicably in mouths agog in anticipation. And then there she was. Serenely climbing down the stepladders (which had been thoughtfully placed out of view of the cameras), she emerged onto the immediately hallowed turf of SSNR [By Appointment to Her Right Royaltiness the Lady Youthfulness].

 

The appointed Dave stepped forward and humbled himself. An unfortunate occurrence given the magnitude of the occasion. The reserve Dave stepped into the breach. Another unfortunate occurrence! Finally the ‘if all else fails’ Dave came to the rescue.

Bowing so low it made his eyes water he addressed her Supreme Being: “Your Majestyness, if I may be so humbly bold as to..”

Her ladyship interrupted as only one of noble birth can: “Are you a Dimbleby Dave?”

‘If all else fails’ Dave: “Err no?”

Her Exquisiteness: “Then go away.” The nobility of the extended hand flutter in Dave’s direction and immediately he was dispatched as like a game bird on the 1st September.

Her Exquisite Ladyshipness: “My husband and I..” A half turn to the limo revealed a slight glitch. “Oh bother, I must have left him somewhere again. Never mind, I shall continue. Myself and I remember only too vividly the diem horribilis that was last week. But we must move on.”

So saying Her Supremeliness moved on proffering dainty dexterous digits for the gathered ensemble to pucker up their trembling lips to.

Her Regality: “Oh I say what an obnoxious hound.”

Several male voles looked even further ashamed and took several steps back towards oblivion.

Her Lady Regal Exquisiteness: “I was referring to the dog.”

The males voles teetered on the edge of the abyss that is ordinariness. One brave soul remarked: “That is Jock, a rescued dog, he was found in a large, handbag, with handles. He was probably brought up in it.”

Her Lady Ladyness:“ I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

The voles shook their heads, a few too vigorously causing them to fall off!

Brave Soul: “ Err yessum your womanliness. We believe he lost his parents and so we’ve adopted him like.”

Her Lady Ladyshipness: “To lose one parent, my good man, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): He’s only being truthful you’re Omnipotence. He’s very earnest so he is and that’s what makes him so highly regarded by us all. ” Having said all this the little old lady retired to lie down until lunchtime.

Lady Youthfulness: “Well I suppose that’s the importance of being earnest.”

 

[I bet that’s made Oscar wild!]

 

Little old lady with straw sticking out from under one arm (One Arm!!!!): “Who’s Oscar?”

 

So many congratulation to Lady Sue on yet another birthday without a cake big enough to hold all the candles.

 

No doubt Mr Pitts will shortly be circulating a stunning array of pics so all who weren’t there today will see what the rest of us were up to. Basically following the Squire around, picking up loads of cut reeds (or in a little old lady’s case an odd bunch here and there!); carting them off to be burnt; telling the Squire not to go in the boggy bit; pulling the Squire out of the boggy bit!; showing the Squire were to cut next; sending out explorers to find where the Squire went!; telling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; retelling the Squire it’s time to stop cutting; telling the local warden to stop telling the Squire to keep cutting!; getting bored of feeding the fire while the mound of cut reeds keeps growing; setting fire to the mound of cut reeds and blaming it on the person furthest away (Colin); eating muffins; eating biscuits (thanks Lillybeth); eating chocolate cake off the ground (thanks Maryla!); eating Jaffa cakes; moaning that there is no pudding!; moaning that Her Ladyship didn’t bring a birthday cake! and generally having fun.

 

Thanks to everyone who left early and didn’t stay to watch Jock walk across the ash (several times), try to make a ‘nest’ in the hot ash! (he dashed out pretty quick) and finally lie down in the ash!!!

 

Malcolm.

Royal Arch Principals No.1 - Zerubbabel: youtu.be/Lp5gYXhHJYs

 

The Triple Tau

 

The compound character known as the triple tau is one of the Royal Arch’s emblems. A triple tau is literally “three Tau’s,” the tau being the nineteenth letter in the Greek Alphabet. The triple tau of Royal Arch Masonry consists of 3 Ts linked in the centre joined at their base.

 

This mystical character can be signified in a few different ways.

 

First, the names Hiram of Tyre and Hiram Abif appear in the Phoenican language with the same letters “H” and “T” as they do in English. Therefore, the Triple Tau takes on the interpretation of the initial letters in Hiram Abif’s name.

 

Second, it signifies also T. H., Templum Hierosolym, the Temple of Jerusalem, and when used as the Royal Arch symbol, some jurisdictions teach that the wearer acknowledges himself a servant of God.

 

Third, Christians in Greek or Roman influence anciently used a tau cross. The basis of a triple tau in early church history would mean the trinity of father, son, and holy spirit. A belief in the triune nature of godhead is common to many faiths and religions.

 

A triangle is a simple shape in geometry that has taken on great spiritual significance and symbolism. The equilateral triangle was revered by ancient nations as containing the greatest and most abstruse mysteries, and as a symbol of God, denoting a triad of intelligence, a triad of deity, a triune God. The equilateral triangle shows equality with its three angles of the same degrees. In one way, it best represents deity by its equality or perfection in design and proportion.

 

The triangle is a symbol of divine union, and an emblem of the mysterious triune, equally representing the attributes of deity, and his triune essence: omnipotence (all powerful), omnipresence (eternal) and omniscience (all knowing).

 

drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ipXklBRV41Z2xFZUVGMV9wRGc/edit

The acknowledgement that the King is the supreme lawmaker in England in Memoirs of the most material transactions in England - for the last one hundred years by James Welwood, Fellow of the College of Physicians, London.

Printed for a Society of Stationers, London 1710.

Full leather binding, original front and rear cover, rebacked 19th century, 346 pages, 10cm x 16cm.

 

back on the Psalms project again...Psalm 76 - the omnipotence of God through Christ

"Although the Lord Jesus’ time of working in the flesh was full of hardships and suffering, through His appearance in His spiritual body of flesh and blood, He completely and perfectly accomplished His work of that time in the flesh to redeem mankind. He began His ministry by becoming flesh, and He concluded His ministry by appearing to mankind in His fleshly form. He heralded the Age of Grace, He began the Age of Grace through His identity as Christ. Through His identity as Christ, He carried out the work in the Age of Grace and He strengthened and led all of His followers in the Age of Grace. It can be said of God’s work that He truly finishes what He starts. There are steps and a plan, and it is full of God’s wisdom, His omnipotence, and His marvelous deeds. It is also full of God’s love and mercy. Of course, the main thread running through all of God’s work is His care for mankind; it is permeated with His feelings of concern that He can never put aside" (Continuation of The Word Appears in the Flesh).

 

Website: www.holyspiritspeaks.org/

YouTube: www.youtube.com/godfootstepsen

Facebook: www.facebook.com/godfootstepsen

Twitter: twitter.com/churchAlmighty

Blog: en.blog.hidden-advent.org/

Instagram: instagram.com/thechurchofalmi...

Email: info@almightygod.church

Here's the shorter, inspirational, more action-oriented version: "Make smarter stupid mistakes!"

 

Yup, it's an Elon Musk post! I wrote about the situation in last week's post, Understanding Hubris: What Drives CEO Arrogance - and Why Does it Never End Well?

 

What is happening today at Twitter is a stunning display of arrogance and hubris in action, and those of us who were once fans of Elon Musk suspect it will not end well. Also, we've moved pretty quickly from being a fan to watching in stunned silence. (Not a fan!)

 

Here's the context: tech firms have long subscribed to the mantra "Move fast. Break things." It's been a key part of the culture of success - you can only accomplish big things if you are willing to innovate quickly by taking on greater risks. That's smart innovation - sometimes it works. But, you must wonder when smart innovation transitions into stupid innovation. I think that is what happening right now with Musk, and that's the context for today's quote.

 

My post on CEO arrogance and hubris took months for me to pull together; I actually began working on it about six months ago when this situation first started to unfold. I used my online research service to pull out hundreds of articles on the topic going back to the 1980s, and spent a lot of time reading through them, discovering nuggets like this on the 'Icarus Syndrome.'

 

In organisations, the Icarus syndrome characterises leaders who initiate overly ambitious projects that come to naught, causing harm to themselves and others in the process. Fuelled by excitement, these leaders are unable to rein in their misguided enthusiasm before it is too late. Often, these leaders have let adulation go to their heads. They display symptoms such as:

 

Placing excessive confidence in their own judgment

Harbouring feelings of omnipotence

Becoming reckless and restless

Displaying contempt for the advice and criticism of others

Ignoring the practicality, cost or damaging consequences of their various endeavours.

Insead Knowledge, 01 Jul 2019

 

Sounds like someone in the news today. I scribbled notes to myself, studied the research reports, and compiled a long list of the attributes of CEO hubris that led to corporate failure. Go read the post - and look at the list. Now compare it to what's happening today.

 

Today, speed accelerates all change. Years ago, when speaking on stage at the global conference for Burger King, I noted that a brand today can 'go from hero to zero in a matter of months.' That was back in 2009 when social media was quite new, and brands were trying to understand this complicated new world. Today, given the fierce backlash against Musk by people who are *not* fans, it's pretty evident that a CEO brand can go from hero to zero in a matter of weeks. In my post last week, I wrote:

 

And now, it happens faster. You can watch CEO arrogance happen live, in real-time – you are probably doing that right now. Think about it – in the olden days, like, 10-20 years ago, it took years, if not decades, to watch organizations like Sears, Kodak, Blockbuster, and Nokia implode. Now, with Twitter, Facebook, and other tech firms, you can watch it happen before your very eyes – at blinding speed!

 

And so yesterday, many of us were watching in real-time. Consider what happened as seen in a series of images: First, he reported that he was going to take on a project of doing something that, well, you don't normally just do with code.

  

Later in the day, many people were reporting problems with a certain feature - specifically, 2FA (or Two-Factor Authentication) which is the service that will send you a text message code when you log in to verify that it is really you. It stopped working.

  

People were soon reporting far and wide on the problem - and solution. (Don't do anything that requires you to use the feature!)

  

and suggested solutions:

  

Anyone with half a brain will tell you that when it comes to an extremely complicated service with an extremely complicated software 'stack,' you don't just start removing things on a whim. But, well, hubris and arrogance. (If you want to learn more about what happened, Wired has a great article: "Twitter’s SMS Two-Factor Authentication Is Melting Down: Problems with the important security feature may be some of the first signs that Elon Musk’s social network is fraying at the edges.")

 

As with any business icon, there are many Elon Musk fans - I once counted myself among them. He has done remarkable things - reinventing and setting the pace with the automotive industry with Tesla, accomplishing astonishing things with the industry of space with Space-X, and accelerating the concept of civic infrastructure with the Boring Company. But as with many, I'm not a fan of reckless idiocy driven by hubris. Read the post I wrote on CEO hubris, and see if it fits. Every single warning sign is there.

  

Which makes one wonder. Yesterday, folks were sharing how Forbes Magazine, like many, often gets caught up in the hype and myth of the billionaire superstar, with the current crypto meltdown of Sam Bankman-Fried' ("SBF") joining the distinguished company of Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos. (Both are likely to end up in jail for fraud driven by, well, hubris.)

 

Some now wonder about other magazine covers.

 

CEO hubris is a dangerous thing.

 

And, there is smart stupid innovation. And then, there is stupid stupid innovation.

 

Know the difference.

 

Original post: jimcarroll.com/2022/11/daily-inspiration-dont-do-stupid-t...

 

"Caroline Isabel

wife of John Hooper

and daughter of

Rev. Joseph Field

born Oct. 23, 1829

died Feb. 15, 1856

aged 26

 

[First two lines illegible]

Happy in herself

She [???] the happiness of all around her

[????????] daughter, sister and wife

She welcomed all the duties of life

With good humor [??] and zeal

She never gave a moment's pain to those she loved

But in her separation from them.

We sorrow for her, but not as those without hope

Humbly trusting through Jesus Christ

That she has passed from a world of trial and suffering

To a world of joy and peace"

 

John Hooper

Feby. 7, 1866

aged 35

 

"'Repose, then. Precious clay!

Thou art in safer custody than mine.

The purchase of atoning Blood! What though

The sods of earth now cover thee, and rage

The elements around thee? Angels watch

The sleeping dust; nay, more, Omnipotence

Is th' invisible Guardian of thy tomb."

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 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

Christian Choir Song | Praise and Worship " The Kingdom " | Welcome the Return of God

 

The Kingdom

The kingdom, the city of saints, Christ’s kingdom.

In the kingdom, God’s riches and glory are made manifest.

Lightning comes from the East and shines unto the West.

The true light is here, God’s word has appeared in the flesh.

The Savior has long since returned, descending on a white cloud.

The saints have today been raptured before the throne to worship God.

The saints of the past have arisen again to stand firm in the last days.

The saints are cruelly persecuted in China, the land of demons.

Over six thousand years of history, the saints have shed blood and wept tears,

unable to go home, drifting from place to place, with nowhere to lay their head.

In a chasm of misery, a darkness where no sun shines, Satan’s legions dance.

The six thousand years of battle, blood and tears usher in the coming of the kingdom.

We hear God’s voice and are raptured before His throne.

We experience the judgment of Christ and attend the wedding feast of the Lamb.

We attain purification in God’s words and see His righteousness and holiness.

Conquered and perfected by God’s words, we attain His salvation of the last days.

I praise and sing loudly of the wondrous deeds of Almighty God .

I heap unending praise on the righteous disposition of Almighty God.

I cheer and leap for the wisdom and omnipotence of Almighty God.

I cannot love enough the humility and hiddenness of Almighty God.

Being unable to repay God’s love, my heart feels pain and guilt.

I am a person with heart and spirit, so why can’t I love God?

God is my support, what is there to fear? I pledge my life to fight with Satan till the end.

God lifts us up, we should leave everything behind and fight to bear witness for Christ.

God will carry out His will on earth.

I’ll prepare my love and loyalty and devote them all to God.

I will joyfully welcome God’s return when He descends in glory,

and meet with Him again when the kingdom of Christ is realized.

Christ has come to earth as man, wearing flesh to do battle.

He wipes away the saints’ tears, and saves them from Satan.

We hate the devils, the bitter enemies of God.

Their bloody crimes are innumerable, leaving such vivid memories.

We are filled with seething hatred, and our anger can no longer be restrained.

We denounce Satan, we pray for Satan to be judged and the devils severely punished.

There can be no reconciliation, we vow to fight them to the last.

Only destruction of Satan’s kingdom can relieve the hatred in our hearts.

Out of adversity come many victorious good soldiers.

We are victorious with God and become God’s testimony .

Look to the day God gains glory, it comes with irresistible force.

All peoples flow to this mountain, walking in God’s light.

The unparalleled splendor of the kingdom must manifest throughout the world.

The future of the kingdom is bright and limitless; God comes Himself to the world to take up power.

The saints of the past arise again from death and enjoy eternal blessings.

The future of the kingdom is bright and limitless; God comes Himself to the world to take up power.

The saints of the past arise again from death and enjoy eternal blessings.

The kingdom, the city of saints, Christ’s kingdom.

In the kingdom, God’s riches and glory are made manifest.

from Follow the Lamb and Sing New Songs

 

Some of the material is from:

NASA

ESO/J. Emerson/VISTA.

ESA/Hubble, NASA, Digitized Sky Survey, N. Risinger (skysurvey.org)

NASA, ESA, Digitized Sky Survey 2, N. Risinger (skysurvey.org)

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]

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]

Spinning himself, spinning the world,

even spinning me...

 

Location: Tallinn, Estonia