Monday, April 27, 2009
American Patriot’s Bible NKJV
The unique combination of a history book and a bible in one volume, the American Patriot’s Bible New King James Version, is a great resource for the history enthusiast. This bible is focused on a frequently “untapped” audience; the history student/ enthusiast. Having a BS in history, I greatly appreciated the merging of American history with the bible. Often it is the case that the faith of our nation’s founding fathers is overlooked by modern liberal education. This bible highlights the faith of our presidents and other American leaders. Historical facts about presidents and the bible are quoted within the text. Articles on well known historical figures past and present, such as Ben Franklin, Martin Luther King Jr., and Douglas MacArthur are included. Articles on culture and important historical documents such as the Bill of Rights and how they relate to the bible are also covered as well. There is a wealth of historical information! As a member of Thomas Nelson’s Book Review Blogger program http://brb.thomasnelson.com/ I have reviewed this bible and I highly recommend it if you enjoy American history. The two tone pages, and full color inserts within this bible make it visually appealing. Keep in mind that this bible should not be considered a traditional study bible, because the focus of the additional study helps concerns how scripture relates to American history.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Christianity in Crisis: The 21st Century By Hank Hanegraaff
Christianity in Crisis: The 21st Century By Hank Hanegraaff
As a member of the Thomas Nelson Review Blogger program http://brb.thomasnelson.com/ , I had the opportunity to review Hank Hanegraaff’s informative book which exposes the so-called harmless doctrines of the false teachers behind the faith and prosperity movements who are “systematically turning the truth into mythology” (page 6) to the light and truth of scripture.
In the New Testament of the bible, there are numerous warnings about false teachers. Galations 1:6-8, “I am amazed that you are so quickly turning…. to a different gospel, not that there is another, but there are some who…want to change the gospel of Christ.” In the spirit of the apostle Paul who through his letters warned the Christians of his day concerning the errors of false teachers and their dangerous doctrine, Hanegraaff has written this book to warn modern day Christians of the errors of these false teachers.
This book discusses the dangerous doctrines in detail and how they deviate from the true message of the bible. The layman is provided with a general overview of essential Christian doctrines, and a comparison with the distortions of the false modern cult-like movements. The reader is empowered with the information needed to discern the true word of God from counterfeit Christianity. Furthermore, specific false teachers as well as false doctrines are mentioned and discussed in detail. Objectively written and well researched this book is essential reading for all Christian believers. I highly recommend this book.
As a member of the Thomas Nelson Review Blogger program http://brb.thomasnelson.com/ , I had the opportunity to review Hank Hanegraaff’s informative book which exposes the so-called harmless doctrines of the false teachers behind the faith and prosperity movements who are “systematically turning the truth into mythology” (page 6) to the light and truth of scripture.
In the New Testament of the bible, there are numerous warnings about false teachers. Galations 1:6-8, “I am amazed that you are so quickly turning…. to a different gospel, not that there is another, but there are some who…want to change the gospel of Christ.” In the spirit of the apostle Paul who through his letters warned the Christians of his day concerning the errors of false teachers and their dangerous doctrine, Hanegraaff has written this book to warn modern day Christians of the errors of these false teachers.
This book discusses the dangerous doctrines in detail and how they deviate from the true message of the bible. The layman is provided with a general overview of essential Christian doctrines, and a comparison with the distortions of the false modern cult-like movements. The reader is empowered with the information needed to discern the true word of God from counterfeit Christianity. Furthermore, specific false teachers as well as false doctrines are mentioned and discussed in detail. Objectively written and well researched this book is essential reading for all Christian believers. I highly recommend this book.
Friday, April 17, 2009
In the Footsteps of Paul By Ken Duncan
Ken Duncan successfully takes on the ambitious endeavor of capturing the life and missionary journey of the apostle Paul through the use of photography. As a member of the Thomas Nelson Review Blogger program http://brb.thomasnelson.com/, it was my pleasure to review this historical and yet spiritually insightful gift book. The vivid photography of the actual places where Paul spoke and traveled adds realism to the bible accounts. For example, on page 71 there is a photo of the actual remains of the house believed to be the location where Paul preached in Perga! For those of us who may never travel to the distant lands where Paul preached, this book brings to life what we read of Paul missionaries and letters from the bible.
Well known places that we may recall from the book of Acts, such as Tarsus and the Roman roads that Paul traveled are portrayed in this book! We actually can see the streets in Damascus, and the Caesarea Harbor. This book also shows us the ancient aqueducts and the Temple of Olympian Zeus as well! We can even take a glimpse of the actual location where Paul and Silas were flogged in the Roman Agora. For anyone who has read the bible, actually viewing these locations will be such a wonderful experience. While I have emphasized the photography, the complimentary commentary and historical information presented with the photos are very informative as well. Even for those readers who have never read the bible,
I would definitely recommend this gift book.
Well known places that we may recall from the book of Acts, such as Tarsus and the Roman roads that Paul traveled are portrayed in this book! We actually can see the streets in Damascus, and the Caesarea Harbor. This book also shows us the ancient aqueducts and the Temple of Olympian Zeus as well! We can even take a glimpse of the actual location where Paul and Silas were flogged in the Roman Agora. For anyone who has read the bible, actually viewing these locations will be such a wonderful experience. While I have emphasized the photography, the complimentary commentary and historical information presented with the photos are very informative as well. Even for those readers who have never read the bible,
I would definitely recommend this gift book.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Choice of Life:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah1:5
Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mothers womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works. Psalm 139:13,14
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life." (Catholic catechism, 2270)
The Contents of This Blog Post:
Please scroll below to read each of the sections contained within this site.
..I. The Partial Birth Abortion, The Problem of Abortion
..II. The Choice of Life
..III. The Agenda Of Planned Parenthood
..IV. Supreme Court Abortion Decisions
Our society has become a society of death, where it has become easy to obtain an abortion, and difficult to have a baby. Instead of lobbying for government supported abortions, we must lobby for government supported aid to help pregnant women in need.....TABLE>
Since the decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973, which legalized abortion on demand, over 35 million unborn children have been aborted in this country.1.5 million children are aborted in the US each year and 43% of abortions are repeat abortions. (For a listing of Supreme Court cases concerning abortion, please scroll down to the appropriate section.)
..Abortion must never be a matter of choice.The beginning of human life is not solely a religious, moral or philosophical issue; it is a scientific and biological one. From that time of conception, the developing child within the womb is a living developing individual with a uniquely human genetic makeup...
..The right of every single human being must never be left to choice. Whether "wanted" or "unwanted", rich or poor, black, white, asian or hispanic, no person within the womb, or outside the womb can be deprived of life. ..
On April 10, 1996, President Bill Clinton vetoed a proposed congressional bill that sought to ban a procedure known as the partial birth abortion. A partial birth abortion is a procedure in which a viable, living baby during the last months of a mother's pregnancy, is partially delivered. In order to achieve the abortion, the child must be murdered so that it will not be born alive; prior to the completion of the delivery. This is because the child, as a living and viable being, would in many cases, survive outside the mother's womb. After the delivery of the baby's body; hands, feet, legs, and arms, the doctor stops the delivery. The doctor then uses a scissors, or other sharp tool through the back of the baby's head which at this point, is still in the mother's womb in order to induce death. Through the incision, a suction tube is inserted into the baby's head in order to remove the baby's brain to ensure the baby's death. Essentially, the reason the baby's head is not delivered is for the purposes of avoiding the illegal, criminal act of infanticide. In addition to this, 80% *of these late month abortions are "purely elective", meaning that they are for birth control, rather than for health reasons.
According to an article by Reuters' news service, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the national Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted to lying during a television appearance where he spoke in defense of late term abortions. After his appearance on television, he admitted that most late term abortions are in fact performed on healthy women who are carying healthy fetuses.
This statistic is from Robert H. Bork's book, Slouching Towards Gomorra.
Many Americans are unaware of what the partial birth abortion really is. There is not a great distinction between this procedure, and the procedure of infanticide. In fact supporters of the pro-life movement and the pro-choice movement would agree that infanticide is definatly wrong. There is no question that infanticide is murder. Nevertheless, what is the difference between a procedure which murders a baby one month before birth, from a procedure which seeks to murder a baby one month after birth.? A women's womb should not become a place of death, but of life. Just as the right to murder a human being outside the womb should never be legalized, neither should the right to end life in the womb be.
Approximately 4,500 babies are aborted a day. (EWTN) In the U.S. there were 1.53 million abortions performed in 1992. The state of New York alone had the highest rate of abortions at 46.2 abortions for every 1,000 women of reproductive age. Nationally, the rate of abortion is about 25.9 women per 1,000. (Planned Parenthood) Approximately 43% of all these abortions were repeat abortions.Most abortions are not performed out of medical neccesity, for the sake of the mother's life, but for the sake of either the mother's convenience or that of those individuals close to her, such as a husband, partner, or relative. Nor are most abortions performed because of rape.(Less than 1.5% abortions are for rape/interest) . 7% are to protect the mother's health or life. The remainder of abortions are basically for birth control which may include any number of social, convenience and economic reasons. . To save the life of an unborn child may require sacrifice, and it may not be easy or convenient, but life should not be a matter of choice...
These specific statistics, mentioned by Robert H. Bork in his book, Slouching Towards Gomorra, (c. 1996 By Harper Collins) illustrate that most abortions are purely for convenience. Please note that these numbers overlap because women have cited multiple reasons for having an abortion.
The first category of statistics concerns women who have abortions for the sake of convenience. Such women may be motivated by fear, embarrassment or shame. Nevertheless, whatever the reason, these reasons essentially are for convenience, either for that of the mother or somebody close to the mother. 76% abortions are performed because of the mother's concern about how a child will affect her life, 68% are performed for financial reasons, 51% are are because the mother is concerned about her relation ship with her partner/ husband, 23% because of pressure from partner/ husband, 7% because of pressure by the woman's parents, and 31% over a woman's fear that others will know she is pregnant or had sexual relations.
Finally,13% abortions are for reasons concerning the anticipation of possible health problem of the unborn child, and 7% of all abortions are performed for the sake of the mother's health. 1% are for rape or incest. As seen by this second category, abortions for reasons other than convenience are relatively small in proportion to the total number of abortions. Nevertheless even reasons such as these do not necessarily justify abortion either. (Please scroll below for a detailed discussion ..ions performed for rape and incest.)
Many women grieve after having an abortion. They mourn for the loss of their child, and often they regret their choice of having an abortion. Such information concerning the pain, and grief experienced by women is suppressed from women when they seek information ..ion. Pro-life testimony in public media such as in T.V., radio, newspapers, schools and women's health clinics is often suppressed and censored by the government, and the pro-choice establishment. Society tells women that the choice to be able to have an abortion is empowering. In fact, the choice to have an abortion is seen as a victory for women just as the right to vote (women's suffrage). While many pro choice advocates do not claim that they are promoting abortion, but merely the right for a woman to choose. But what is the outcome of this "freedom"? Does the legal right to have an abortion free women? The regrettable result is that many women have abortions because they feel they have no other choice. When a woman is faced with difficult financial, or personal circumstances, society prefers to offer women the easier option of abortion rather than the to seek alternatives. This certainly is not freedom.
..Individuals who support abortion are not evil. These women do not go into an abortion clinic saying to themselves, "I want to murder my baby." Often these women go to have abortions under grevious circumstances: they may feel fear or sorrow, yet they feel that they have no other option. They do not see the unborn child as a person or human being. Society does not see the unborn as a person. Personhood is defined by power and powerful individuals; by this definition, a powerless unborn being is not seen as being a person. Therefore, with this definition of what a person is and is not, abortion does not seem wrong. But, the dignity of human life does not begin at birth. It begins at the very moment that the child is conceived.
"The moment a law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law." (Catechism, 2273)
All human beings have rights which must be protected and preserved by society and the law. Just as woman has a right to protect her own body, an unborn child in her womb must also have the same right to protect his or her body. The unborn child is not a blob of tissue, a wart, cyst or mole. He or she is a human being, though dependent upon the mother's womb for nine months a life, he or she is a distinct person, nonetheless; whose unique genetic code from the moment of conception, is already determined to give forth a heart, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, and mind. Being dependent on others should not deprive a helpless human being of fundamental rights.
The choice of life....
The thought of carrying a rapist's child sounds like a horrendous injustice for a woman who has already suffered greatly. In fact, for a woman to cary a child of rape/incest is highly stigmatised in society. Yet, in the cases of evil and violent crimes such as rape and incest the victim who has become pregnant experiences more pain and anguish as a result of the trauma of rape than from the unwanted pregnancy, according to the studies of social scientists and experts. As evil and tragic as incest and incestuous pregnancies are, their harmful effects often depend largely upon reaction of others. While most of these women are traumatized over the violent crime itself, rather than the pregnancy, these women are consciously or subconsciously pressured critisised by society, or "well intentioned" family and loved ones, to have an abortion. Further pain , and suffering is experienced when these victims feel forced into obtaining abortions. Feelings such as remorse and pain at aborting the child should not be overlooked. The unborn child herself, is not guilty of the crime committed by the criminal rapist, and therefore should not be permitted to pay for the crime. While the baby herself may be vilified as the child of a criminal, the child is also that of the victim. While the mother may not be able to keep the child, there are others willing to adopt and love the child. And this is a decision that the victim may feel at peace with. Out of suffering and pain, the sacrifice, an act of supreme love for an innocent human being was made...
"I conceived my first child when I was 16. It was the result of a date rape. I had a miscarriage* at 8 weeks and I have to say that I suffered more from the loss of that life than Iever did from the rape...Even though I was young and I don't think I was ready to raise a child there are many people out there who are unable to have children and would have been more than happy to adopt my child." (a 21 year old young woman- December 12, 1996.) * A miscarriage is not an abortion. This example is used to illustrate that the pain of the loss of an unborn child is far worse than the pain of rape.
Every individual has a responsibility to respect and to defend life. The tragedy of abortion affects society as a whole; the mother, the unborn, men, women and children. Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or atheist; all have a duty to protect the dignity of human life. Unborn children are just as human as children after birth. What difference is there between a child one day before birth, and one day after? As a human being, all children, including the unborn children, have a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The choice of life may be difficult, not easy, but to grant the life of a child is the best choice of all. To deprive a human being of life should not be a matter of choice.
The argument that would dictate that only children that are wanted by their parent(s) should be allowed to be born is a dangerous argument capable of great evil. A human being's right to life should never be dependent upon someone else wanting him or her. To base the worth, and value of a human life upon the criteria of whether a person is wanted by someone else should never be allowed. A person's right to live does not depend on some body else wanting him or her. The pro-choice argument used by its advocates for abortion is no different from Hitler who proclaimed that "life unworthy of life" was unwanted and therefore to be "terminated". Likewise, the rhetoric of Planned Parenthood, to make"every child a wanted child" is no more a justification for murder as is Hitler's.
The Agenda of Planned Parenthood
There exists enough evidence to prove that Planned Parenthood's main agenda is not to help women but to sell abortions to women. Women are not individuals who need help, but potential customers by which money can be made.
Planned Parenthoood has made many outrageous claims in order to push its product, abortion. Just as any other corporation, it must sell its product via advertising and the media. Planned Parenthood has even gone so far as to make the claim that for women who have had abortions it is a "learning" experience. In fact it has also stated that after having an abortion, such women are more mature, and even more self confident. They also cite that women feel relief after having an abortion, and that depression following an abortion is less common than the depression a women experiences after having a baby. The disclaimer provided by Planned Parenthood is this: if you do feel depressed after an abortion, it is either because you did not have an abortion for the "right" reasons, or that you have a mental condition and should seek a doctor.
According to Planned Parenthood having an abortion early in pregnancy is less health threatening than giving birth to a baby. This certainly seems as if they are advocating or trying to convince a women to have an abortion rather than have a baby. Self confidence, maturity, less health risk, relief ; these are words of persuasion used by Planned Parenthood's abortion industry in order to convince women that abortion, rather than giving life to a child is the choice to make. After all, what money would Planned Parenthood make if women chose to have babies rather than abortions. It is clearly in the interest for Planned Parenthood to convince women to have an abortion rather than to convince women to have a child. It is evident that Planned Parenthood will make any claim neccessary to make abortions seem more appealing. Decide for your self by checking out their home page on the internet!
Many argue that if abortions were made illegal, the number of backyard or illegal abortions would increase. Often choice advocated tell horror stories of the results back yard abortions before the days of legal abortions. It is a misconception, though, to believe that legal abortions are safe abortions. Abortion clinics are among the most unregulated health care industries.It is a million dollar industry. According to the testimony many former abortionists, and abortion providers, many women who receive legal abortions are "mutilated", made sterile or injured. Yet, even supposing if the argument that a legal abortion is safer than an illegal abortion is true, is that a reason to make abortion legal? Is it right to make abortion legal if only for the reason that women will procure abortions anyway? The argument for legalizing drugs, and domestic violence can be made on the same grounds. It is a fallacy to believe that that abortion laws save women from the hazards of backyard abortions, but that they do not pressure women who do not want abortion to be pressured into having an abortion. The argument that pro-choice individuals use to support legal abortions, though it may be made out of concern for women, does not aid women.
Discussion Forum
1.)..These are the words of a young woman after having an abortion: "I had an abortion [in] July...It was the biggest mistake of my life. I hurt every day, knowing that I caused the death of my baby... I am only 17 years old, but I do realize the mistake I made. I do wish more than ever that I could change the past [but] I cant...But I do want to help other people... I want them to know the pain they will feel after all is said and done... I am hurting so much, my whole life is falling apart, I am physically ill from the emotional wear on my body." 11/4/96
2.)The words of a young man, (member of Voices For Choice): "I would like to know for myself what your idea is for a new alternative to abortion. I know for a fact [it] has to be a new idea since the...main alternatives out there... adoption and having the child are completely ridiculous." 11/15/96
This individual refered to the choice of life: adoption and having a baby as "completely ridiculous". He claims to be an advocate of choice, yet he is not even for choice. To him, the only choice is abortion, not life.
3.)..A letter from a young woman: "I am unable to have children so therefore I think it gives me a deep respect and understanding of life and the beauty of reproduction and just how awesome it is! It's a gift from God that I haven't [taken for] granted and it makes me so sad when so many people take that gift for granted... many people have abortions for convenience- life just isn't fair I guess. Its not fair to all those unborn babies or to me who would be more than happy to take care of them someday (I'm only 18). Someday I will receive a child, there will be one who needs me, and I will be glad to know that he/she is in my arms instead of being killed." 11/21/96
4.)A letter from a young man: "PLEASE explain to me, why in the name of Jesus Christ or any other God would a Pro-lifer murder in cold blood an abortion doctor. How can the Pro-life movement defend these people? I find it interesting that you are against the killing of a life that is 5-7 weeks old but kill a life that is 30+ years old. How interesting..." 11/30/96
Reply to the above letter: I must stress that the pro life position does not advocate the murder of abortion doctors. Either this is a statement based on a sincere confusion that the pro life position advocates murder or an attempt by pro- choicers to defame and undermine and perpetuate ignorance of the pro life position. It is murder to kill an abortion doctor- and a grave evil, of which no one has the right to do. I as well as others who support the position of life, do not condone or advocate the murder of an abortion doctor and believe that such individuals who murder an abortion doctor are guilty of murder, and likewise should be punished..
5. A letter from a Pro-choice woman: "I am pro-choice, I have had 2 abortions and I grieve everyday for them... The only place that treated me like a human being was Planned Parenthood....How dare you tear down an organization that helps women...I think you need to step out into the REAL world befoe you start spewing your hate". 4/8/97
First of all it is ironic that this women praises Planned Parent Hood for treating her like an "human being". If she values being treated as a human being should not all persons born and unborn be treated as human beings also? Certainly the unborn are not treated as human beings. One must have compassion towards all- compassion should never be selective! Also even she herself admits to her grief, yet at the same time she praises planned parenthood. Nevertheless as many women find out after it is too late, Planned Parenthood is only there for you to get your business- it is after all like a multi million dollar coorporation. This woman, as well as other women who have had abortions suffer greatly. Does it sound as if Planned Parenthood is out for women? Why not offer aid in alternatives to abortion- such as housing, food and adoptive services rather than abortions?
..LIFE.. Choice of Options: A woman has many choices available for both her and her baby besides abortion. If she wishes to raise her child, there are many programs that are willing and able to provide a woman with counseling, housing, medical care, job training, food,clothing and other needed services to help her make a good life for herself and her child. If a woman feels that she cannot provide for her baby, adoption can be a good choice for both mother and child. Many justify abortion, neglecting the option of adoption. Life is worth sacrifice. The life of a human being should not be sacrificed as a means of solving the problems of others, be it the mother, the father, her family/loved ones, or for society.
"The moment a law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law." (Catechism, 2273)
......................
My soul also you knew full well; nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret.
I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works. Psalm 139:14,15
Supreme Court Cases
I. Roe V. Wade: January 22, 1973
The key decision which marked the beginning of legalized abortion in this Nation. With a 7-to-2 majority, the Supreme Court gave women an unrestricted right to obtain an abortion on demand from a physician during the first three months of pregnancy. Abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy would be controlled in the interest of preserving the mother's life or health, who at this point, would be carrying a viable child. Since this decision, over 35 million legal abortions have been performed in the U.S.
II. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: July 3, 1989
This case required physicians to determine if the embryo is viable prior to performing an abortion of a women who has passed twenty or more weeks of the pregnancy. In addition to this, the decision of this case forbade public employees from performing/assisting abortions, and the use of public facilities for abortions.
III. Rust v. Sullivan: May 23, 1991
This case declared that abortion must be distinguished from family planning, and that federal funds, although they may be used for family planning, must not be used for abortions. The fact that the government has made abortion a legal right does not mean that the federal government/ taxpayer must fund it.
IV. Planned Parenthood v. Casey: June 29, 1992
This decision declared that women who are seeking abortions must receive information in regards to risks, fetal development, and abortion alternatives. In addition to this, a women must wait at least 24 hours, after receiving all of this information, prior to obtaining an abortion. Also, medical offices must file and contain detailed, yet confidential reports about each abortion performed. Plus, a child under the age of 18, must have parental consent before receiving an abortion, nevertheless, a married women need not even consent her husband prior to obtaining an abortion.
In such cases, the supreme court has taken up the role of playing God. While many will claim that God does not exist, such individuals certainly would never advocate the ending of a life. Nor would anyone ever think to be an advocate for the right for one to have the choice to end the life of a human being. The unborn child is indeed a human being. His or her life must be protected. We too were once unborn children who lived in wombs. We had the opportunity to continue with our natural lives, so why shouldn't others. Those who support abortion or even the choice to have an abortion should think to themselves about what if you or your loved ones had been aborted in our mother's womb. Not all of us were born under the easiest or best circumstances, nor may we have the easiest lives, but we do have life, and with life comes opportunity to love and be loved, and also for compassion even if it does take sacrifice.
. It is true that women who receive abortions do so, often because they feel they have no other choice. It is not enough to support pro-life without offering these women a viable alternative. Our society is a society of death, where it has become easy to obtain an abortion, and difficult to have a baby.
............
Instead of lobbying for government supported abortions, we must lobby for government supported aid to help pregnant women in need. Society tells us that abortion is the easiest solution for many pregnant women. Many well meaning individuals fight for a women's right to choose. But, abortion ends a life. All life is worthy of life, and no one has the right to take it away. We must ask ourselves if abortion really does make what is wrong right? Does abortion really help women, is it a solution? Sadly, the effects of having the right to abortion results is women who are destroyed, and the death of unborn children. The right to have an abortion does not liberate women, rather it destroys and imprisons women.
**..*..*..**
..What is really depicted as a choice or a right is no longer a choice when so many women have an abortion because of the very reason that they feel they have no other choice. ..No matter what the rationale is or the reason, abortion ends a human life, depriving a human person of his or her right to life. ..The right of every single human being must never be left to choice. Whether "wanted" or "unwanted", rich or poor, black, white, asian or hispanic, no person within the womb, or outside the womb can be deprived of life. ..
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah1:5
Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mothers womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works. Psalm 139:13,14
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life." (Catholic catechism, 2270)
The Contents of This Blog Post:
Please scroll below to read each of the sections contained within this site.
..I. The Partial Birth Abortion, The Problem of Abortion
..II. The Choice of Life
..III. The Agenda Of Planned Parenthood
..IV. Supreme Court Abortion Decisions
Our society has become a society of death, where it has become easy to obtain an abortion, and difficult to have a baby. Instead of lobbying for government supported abortions, we must lobby for government supported aid to help pregnant women in need.....TABLE>
Since the decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973, which legalized abortion on demand, over 35 million unborn children have been aborted in this country.1.5 million children are aborted in the US each year and 43% of abortions are repeat abortions. (For a listing of Supreme Court cases concerning abortion, please scroll down to the appropriate section.)
..Abortion must never be a matter of choice.The beginning of human life is not solely a religious, moral or philosophical issue; it is a scientific and biological one. From that time of conception, the developing child within the womb is a living developing individual with a uniquely human genetic makeup...
..The right of every single human being must never be left to choice. Whether "wanted" or "unwanted", rich or poor, black, white, asian or hispanic, no person within the womb, or outside the womb can be deprived of life. ..
On April 10, 1996, President Bill Clinton vetoed a proposed congressional bill that sought to ban a procedure known as the partial birth abortion. A partial birth abortion is a procedure in which a viable, living baby during the last months of a mother's pregnancy, is partially delivered. In order to achieve the abortion, the child must be murdered so that it will not be born alive; prior to the completion of the delivery. This is because the child, as a living and viable being, would in many cases, survive outside the mother's womb. After the delivery of the baby's body; hands, feet, legs, and arms, the doctor stops the delivery. The doctor then uses a scissors, or other sharp tool through the back of the baby's head which at this point, is still in the mother's womb in order to induce death. Through the incision, a suction tube is inserted into the baby's head in order to remove the baby's brain to ensure the baby's death. Essentially, the reason the baby's head is not delivered is for the purposes of avoiding the illegal, criminal act of infanticide. In addition to this, 80% *of these late month abortions are "purely elective", meaning that they are for birth control, rather than for health reasons.
According to an article by Reuters' news service, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the national Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted to lying during a television appearance where he spoke in defense of late term abortions. After his appearance on television, he admitted that most late term abortions are in fact performed on healthy women who are carying healthy fetuses.
This statistic is from Robert H. Bork's book, Slouching Towards Gomorra.
Many Americans are unaware of what the partial birth abortion really is. There is not a great distinction between this procedure, and the procedure of infanticide. In fact supporters of the pro-life movement and the pro-choice movement would agree that infanticide is definatly wrong. There is no question that infanticide is murder. Nevertheless, what is the difference between a procedure which murders a baby one month before birth, from a procedure which seeks to murder a baby one month after birth.? A women's womb should not become a place of death, but of life. Just as the right to murder a human being outside the womb should never be legalized, neither should the right to end life in the womb be.
Approximately 4,500 babies are aborted a day. (EWTN) In the U.S. there were 1.53 million abortions performed in 1992. The state of New York alone had the highest rate of abortions at 46.2 abortions for every 1,000 women of reproductive age. Nationally, the rate of abortion is about 25.9 women per 1,000. (Planned Parenthood) Approximately 43% of all these abortions were repeat abortions.Most abortions are not performed out of medical neccesity, for the sake of the mother's life, but for the sake of either the mother's convenience or that of those individuals close to her, such as a husband, partner, or relative. Nor are most abortions performed because of rape.(Less than 1.5% abortions are for rape/interest) . 7% are to protect the mother's health or life. The remainder of abortions are basically for birth control which may include any number of social, convenience and economic reasons. . To save the life of an unborn child may require sacrifice, and it may not be easy or convenient, but life should not be a matter of choice...
These specific statistics, mentioned by Robert H. Bork in his book, Slouching Towards Gomorra, (c. 1996 By Harper Collins) illustrate that most abortions are purely for convenience. Please note that these numbers overlap because women have cited multiple reasons for having an abortion.
The first category of statistics concerns women who have abortions for the sake of convenience. Such women may be motivated by fear, embarrassment or shame. Nevertheless, whatever the reason, these reasons essentially are for convenience, either for that of the mother or somebody close to the mother. 76% abortions are performed because of the mother's concern about how a child will affect her life, 68% are performed for financial reasons, 51% are are because the mother is concerned about her relation ship with her partner/ husband, 23% because of pressure from partner/ husband, 7% because of pressure by the woman's parents, and 31% over a woman's fear that others will know she is pregnant or had sexual relations.
Finally,13% abortions are for reasons concerning the anticipation of possible health problem of the unborn child, and 7% of all abortions are performed for the sake of the mother's health. 1% are for rape or incest. As seen by this second category, abortions for reasons other than convenience are relatively small in proportion to the total number of abortions. Nevertheless even reasons such as these do not necessarily justify abortion either. (Please scroll below for a detailed discussion ..ions performed for rape and incest.)
Many women grieve after having an abortion. They mourn for the loss of their child, and often they regret their choice of having an abortion. Such information concerning the pain, and grief experienced by women is suppressed from women when they seek information ..ion. Pro-life testimony in public media such as in T.V., radio, newspapers, schools and women's health clinics is often suppressed and censored by the government, and the pro-choice establishment. Society tells women that the choice to be able to have an abortion is empowering. In fact, the choice to have an abortion is seen as a victory for women just as the right to vote (women's suffrage). While many pro choice advocates do not claim that they are promoting abortion, but merely the right for a woman to choose. But what is the outcome of this "freedom"? Does the legal right to have an abortion free women? The regrettable result is that many women have abortions because they feel they have no other choice. When a woman is faced with difficult financial, or personal circumstances, society prefers to offer women the easier option of abortion rather than the to seek alternatives. This certainly is not freedom.
..Individuals who support abortion are not evil. These women do not go into an abortion clinic saying to themselves, "I want to murder my baby." Often these women go to have abortions under grevious circumstances: they may feel fear or sorrow, yet they feel that they have no other option. They do not see the unborn child as a person or human being. Society does not see the unborn as a person. Personhood is defined by power and powerful individuals; by this definition, a powerless unborn being is not seen as being a person. Therefore, with this definition of what a person is and is not, abortion does not seem wrong. But, the dignity of human life does not begin at birth. It begins at the very moment that the child is conceived.
"The moment a law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law." (Catechism, 2273)
All human beings have rights which must be protected and preserved by society and the law. Just as woman has a right to protect her own body, an unborn child in her womb must also have the same right to protect his or her body. The unborn child is not a blob of tissue, a wart, cyst or mole. He or she is a human being, though dependent upon the mother's womb for nine months a life, he or she is a distinct person, nonetheless; whose unique genetic code from the moment of conception, is already determined to give forth a heart, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, and mind. Being dependent on others should not deprive a helpless human being of fundamental rights.
The choice of life....
The thought of carrying a rapist's child sounds like a horrendous injustice for a woman who has already suffered greatly. In fact, for a woman to cary a child of rape/incest is highly stigmatised in society. Yet, in the cases of evil and violent crimes such as rape and incest the victim who has become pregnant experiences more pain and anguish as a result of the trauma of rape than from the unwanted pregnancy, according to the studies of social scientists and experts. As evil and tragic as incest and incestuous pregnancies are, their harmful effects often depend largely upon reaction of others. While most of these women are traumatized over the violent crime itself, rather than the pregnancy, these women are consciously or subconsciously pressured critisised by society, or "well intentioned" family and loved ones, to have an abortion. Further pain , and suffering is experienced when these victims feel forced into obtaining abortions. Feelings such as remorse and pain at aborting the child should not be overlooked. The unborn child herself, is not guilty of the crime committed by the criminal rapist, and therefore should not be permitted to pay for the crime. While the baby herself may be vilified as the child of a criminal, the child is also that of the victim. While the mother may not be able to keep the child, there are others willing to adopt and love the child. And this is a decision that the victim may feel at peace with. Out of suffering and pain, the sacrifice, an act of supreme love for an innocent human being was made...
"I conceived my first child when I was 16. It was the result of a date rape. I had a miscarriage* at 8 weeks and I have to say that I suffered more from the loss of that life than Iever did from the rape...Even though I was young and I don't think I was ready to raise a child there are many people out there who are unable to have children and would have been more than happy to adopt my child." (a 21 year old young woman- December 12, 1996.) * A miscarriage is not an abortion. This example is used to illustrate that the pain of the loss of an unborn child is far worse than the pain of rape.
Every individual has a responsibility to respect and to defend life. The tragedy of abortion affects society as a whole; the mother, the unborn, men, women and children. Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or atheist; all have a duty to protect the dignity of human life. Unborn children are just as human as children after birth. What difference is there between a child one day before birth, and one day after? As a human being, all children, including the unborn children, have a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The choice of life may be difficult, not easy, but to grant the life of a child is the best choice of all. To deprive a human being of life should not be a matter of choice.
The argument that would dictate that only children that are wanted by their parent(s) should be allowed to be born is a dangerous argument capable of great evil. A human being's right to life should never be dependent upon someone else wanting him or her. To base the worth, and value of a human life upon the criteria of whether a person is wanted by someone else should never be allowed. A person's right to live does not depend on some body else wanting him or her. The pro-choice argument used by its advocates for abortion is no different from Hitler who proclaimed that "life unworthy of life" was unwanted and therefore to be "terminated". Likewise, the rhetoric of Planned Parenthood, to make"every child a wanted child" is no more a justification for murder as is Hitler's.
The Agenda of Planned Parenthood
There exists enough evidence to prove that Planned Parenthood's main agenda is not to help women but to sell abortions to women. Women are not individuals who need help, but potential customers by which money can be made.
Planned Parenthoood has made many outrageous claims in order to push its product, abortion. Just as any other corporation, it must sell its product via advertising and the media. Planned Parenthood has even gone so far as to make the claim that for women who have had abortions it is a "learning" experience. In fact it has also stated that after having an abortion, such women are more mature, and even more self confident. They also cite that women feel relief after having an abortion, and that depression following an abortion is less common than the depression a women experiences after having a baby. The disclaimer provided by Planned Parenthood is this: if you do feel depressed after an abortion, it is either because you did not have an abortion for the "right" reasons, or that you have a mental condition and should seek a doctor.
According to Planned Parenthood having an abortion early in pregnancy is less health threatening than giving birth to a baby. This certainly seems as if they are advocating or trying to convince a women to have an abortion rather than have a baby. Self confidence, maturity, less health risk, relief ; these are words of persuasion used by Planned Parenthood's abortion industry in order to convince women that abortion, rather than giving life to a child is the choice to make. After all, what money would Planned Parenthood make if women chose to have babies rather than abortions. It is clearly in the interest for Planned Parenthood to convince women to have an abortion rather than to convince women to have a child. It is evident that Planned Parenthood will make any claim neccessary to make abortions seem more appealing. Decide for your self by checking out their home page on the internet!
Many argue that if abortions were made illegal, the number of backyard or illegal abortions would increase. Often choice advocated tell horror stories of the results back yard abortions before the days of legal abortions. It is a misconception, though, to believe that legal abortions are safe abortions. Abortion clinics are among the most unregulated health care industries.It is a million dollar industry. According to the testimony many former abortionists, and abortion providers, many women who receive legal abortions are "mutilated", made sterile or injured. Yet, even supposing if the argument that a legal abortion is safer than an illegal abortion is true, is that a reason to make abortion legal? Is it right to make abortion legal if only for the reason that women will procure abortions anyway? The argument for legalizing drugs, and domestic violence can be made on the same grounds. It is a fallacy to believe that that abortion laws save women from the hazards of backyard abortions, but that they do not pressure women who do not want abortion to be pressured into having an abortion. The argument that pro-choice individuals use to support legal abortions, though it may be made out of concern for women, does not aid women.
Discussion Forum
1.)..These are the words of a young woman after having an abortion: "I had an abortion [in] July...It was the biggest mistake of my life. I hurt every day, knowing that I caused the death of my baby... I am only 17 years old, but I do realize the mistake I made. I do wish more than ever that I could change the past [but] I cant...But I do want to help other people... I want them to know the pain they will feel after all is said and done... I am hurting so much, my whole life is falling apart, I am physically ill from the emotional wear on my body." 11/4/96
2.)The words of a young man, (member of Voices For Choice): "I would like to know for myself what your idea is for a new alternative to abortion. I know for a fact [it] has to be a new idea since the...main alternatives out there... adoption and having the child are completely ridiculous." 11/15/96
This individual refered to the choice of life: adoption and having a baby as "completely ridiculous". He claims to be an advocate of choice, yet he is not even for choice. To him, the only choice is abortion, not life.
3.)..A letter from a young woman: "I am unable to have children so therefore I think it gives me a deep respect and understanding of life and the beauty of reproduction and just how awesome it is! It's a gift from God that I haven't [taken for] granted and it makes me so sad when so many people take that gift for granted... many people have abortions for convenience- life just isn't fair I guess. Its not fair to all those unborn babies or to me who would be more than happy to take care of them someday (I'm only 18). Someday I will receive a child, there will be one who needs me, and I will be glad to know that he/she is in my arms instead of being killed." 11/21/96
4.)A letter from a young man: "PLEASE explain to me, why in the name of Jesus Christ or any other God would a Pro-lifer murder in cold blood an abortion doctor. How can the Pro-life movement defend these people? I find it interesting that you are against the killing of a life that is 5-7 weeks old but kill a life that is 30+ years old. How interesting..." 11/30/96
Reply to the above letter: I must stress that the pro life position does not advocate the murder of abortion doctors. Either this is a statement based on a sincere confusion that the pro life position advocates murder or an attempt by pro- choicers to defame and undermine and perpetuate ignorance of the pro life position. It is murder to kill an abortion doctor- and a grave evil, of which no one has the right to do. I as well as others who support the position of life, do not condone or advocate the murder of an abortion doctor and believe that such individuals who murder an abortion doctor are guilty of murder, and likewise should be punished..
5. A letter from a Pro-choice woman: "I am pro-choice, I have had 2 abortions and I grieve everyday for them... The only place that treated me like a human being was Planned Parenthood....How dare you tear down an organization that helps women...I think you need to step out into the REAL world befoe you start spewing your hate". 4/8/97
First of all it is ironic that this women praises Planned Parent Hood for treating her like an "human being". If she values being treated as a human being should not all persons born and unborn be treated as human beings also? Certainly the unborn are not treated as human beings. One must have compassion towards all- compassion should never be selective! Also even she herself admits to her grief, yet at the same time she praises planned parenthood. Nevertheless as many women find out after it is too late, Planned Parenthood is only there for you to get your business- it is after all like a multi million dollar coorporation. This woman, as well as other women who have had abortions suffer greatly. Does it sound as if Planned Parenthood is out for women? Why not offer aid in alternatives to abortion- such as housing, food and adoptive services rather than abortions?
..LIFE.. Choice of Options: A woman has many choices available for both her and her baby besides abortion. If she wishes to raise her child, there are many programs that are willing and able to provide a woman with counseling, housing, medical care, job training, food,clothing and other needed services to help her make a good life for herself and her child. If a woman feels that she cannot provide for her baby, adoption can be a good choice for both mother and child. Many justify abortion, neglecting the option of adoption. Life is worth sacrifice. The life of a human being should not be sacrificed as a means of solving the problems of others, be it the mother, the father, her family/loved ones, or for society.
"The moment a law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law." (Catechism, 2273)
......................
My soul also you knew full well; nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret.
I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works. Psalm 139:14,15
Supreme Court Cases
I. Roe V. Wade: January 22, 1973
The key decision which marked the beginning of legalized abortion in this Nation. With a 7-to-2 majority, the Supreme Court gave women an unrestricted right to obtain an abortion on demand from a physician during the first three months of pregnancy. Abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy would be controlled in the interest of preserving the mother's life or health, who at this point, would be carrying a viable child. Since this decision, over 35 million legal abortions have been performed in the U.S.
II. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: July 3, 1989
This case required physicians to determine if the embryo is viable prior to performing an abortion of a women who has passed twenty or more weeks of the pregnancy. In addition to this, the decision of this case forbade public employees from performing/assisting abortions, and the use of public facilities for abortions.
III. Rust v. Sullivan: May 23, 1991
This case declared that abortion must be distinguished from family planning, and that federal funds, although they may be used for family planning, must not be used for abortions. The fact that the government has made abortion a legal right does not mean that the federal government/ taxpayer must fund it.
IV. Planned Parenthood v. Casey: June 29, 1992
This decision declared that women who are seeking abortions must receive information in regards to risks, fetal development, and abortion alternatives. In addition to this, a women must wait at least 24 hours, after receiving all of this information, prior to obtaining an abortion. Also, medical offices must file and contain detailed, yet confidential reports about each abortion performed. Plus, a child under the age of 18, must have parental consent before receiving an abortion, nevertheless, a married women need not even consent her husband prior to obtaining an abortion.
In such cases, the supreme court has taken up the role of playing God. While many will claim that God does not exist, such individuals certainly would never advocate the ending of a life. Nor would anyone ever think to be an advocate for the right for one to have the choice to end the life of a human being. The unborn child is indeed a human being. His or her life must be protected. We too were once unborn children who lived in wombs. We had the opportunity to continue with our natural lives, so why shouldn't others. Those who support abortion or even the choice to have an abortion should think to themselves about what if you or your loved ones had been aborted in our mother's womb. Not all of us were born under the easiest or best circumstances, nor may we have the easiest lives, but we do have life, and with life comes opportunity to love and be loved, and also for compassion even if it does take sacrifice.
. It is true that women who receive abortions do so, often because they feel they have no other choice. It is not enough to support pro-life without offering these women a viable alternative. Our society is a society of death, where it has become easy to obtain an abortion, and difficult to have a baby.
............
Instead of lobbying for government supported abortions, we must lobby for government supported aid to help pregnant women in need. Society tells us that abortion is the easiest solution for many pregnant women. Many well meaning individuals fight for a women's right to choose. But, abortion ends a life. All life is worthy of life, and no one has the right to take it away. We must ask ourselves if abortion really does make what is wrong right? Does abortion really help women, is it a solution? Sadly, the effects of having the right to abortion results is women who are destroyed, and the death of unborn children. The right to have an abortion does not liberate women, rather it destroys and imprisons women.
**..*..*..**
..What is really depicted as a choice or a right is no longer a choice when so many women have an abortion because of the very reason that they feel they have no other choice. ..No matter what the rationale is or the reason, abortion ends a human life, depriving a human person of his or her right to life. ..The right of every single human being must never be left to choice. Whether "wanted" or "unwanted", rich or poor, black, white, asian or hispanic, no person within the womb, or outside the womb can be deprived of life. ..
Not Our Will, But God's
Not Our Will, But God's
People are not robots they make free will choices and the bad choices of others impact others, even the innocent, for better or for worse. Not many people consider that this is the cause of much of the evil in this world. Even the innocent will blame God rather than sinful man who make bad choices. And furthermore, what about natural disasters a.k.a "acts of God", accidents and other things that are seemingly beyond the control of human beings? Regrettably there is a lot of bad in this world and understandably that that is a major impediment to belief for so many people. And is it any wonder why so many people cannot get past the fact that many innocent people really do suffer such as children, the terminally ill, the impoverished.
Obviously this is an imperfect world and it is not always true that we will prosper. In fact suffering in some form or another seems to be the rule rather than prospering for most of the human population.
Perhaps the purpose we are here is to suffer and have faith?
It wont be easy for many of us in this lifetime, that's for sure but it will be worth it in the end. There is no guarentee to prosper in this wordly imperfect world. The odds are aainst us. There is no justice in this lifetime and we must endure with faith and look for the world to come.
Some people have no wordly comfort except the knowledge that God is with those who mourn and that in heaven he has many mansions
Though many in this world or rich and well off, most are not; many are victims of crime, poverty, war, disease. Even babies and children
suffer at the hands of others, yet did they commit any wrong doing?
I do not put trust in prosperity in this world. Simply be thankful for what you do have and await the next world to come. In this world, do not expect to have prosperity. If you do, then good for you but dont expect it. God's word and friendship is sufficient.
Sometimes God's answer is simply "no" and we must suffer.
Suffering isn't a punishment it is a fact of life in this sinful evil world.
Everyday there are crimes of war, innocent children abused and murdered and other atrocities. So then how can those people prosper in this world? All they have is God's comfort in the next world to come
and not to fear those who harm the body. So many are complacent in their easy lives that they have no desire to seek truth.
Yet I say even those who suffer must still humble themselves and accept God's friedship. When you live in this world long enough and become aware of your surroundings, you lose that naive idea that those who believe in God will materially prosper.
God wants us to have faith in times of bad as well as good
and to say "not my will but your will be done" for better or worse.
Just like the old testament prophet, he did not even withhold his beloved son from God.
Even in suffering, terminal illness, death, & loss, God's answer may still be simply no. Sometimes we must suffer
and like Jesus in the garden of gethsemane, even though we ask for the cup of suffering to be taken, sometimes God's will is for us to endure no matter how great that pain or suffering may be...we must say God's will be done. Yes, that is an impediment for many people to have faith in God and those are exactly the people we must try to reach with God's word.
The harvest is ready and waiting. WEe must search through much chaff just to find a little wheat but its there if you dig deep enough and long enough. Be thankful and humble and willing to accept God's gift of grace because God is always deserving of praise.
There will be that day that comes- when God's kingdom comes to us and he shall wipe away every tear and the lame shall walk and everything will be perfect. We need to stand firm and ready while we are on earth to fight the devil's schemes and snares
and dont let the devil get a foothold, dont get angry, bitter or resentful. Have courage because Jesus has overcome the world.
Exploring the Bible: The Challange of James
Exploring the Bible: The Challenge of James
The letter from James is often an overlooked book. Small in size, it can be read in a mere twenty minutes. Nevertheless, it is packed with a wealth of relevant information. It is a challenging book. Not challanging as in being difficult to understand- on the contrary! I believe the book of James is so simple to understand. While it is clear, and simple, it is difficult to actually obey nevertheless. That is where the challange rests- actually obeying and following the words of the Lord. That is what fascinates me. If James were to have a title, I believe that title would have something to do with the condemnation of hypocracy. If I had to give it a title- a suitable one would be would be: "A Lesson in Integrity- Freedom from the world and hypocracy". Although on the surface God's word seems to be restrictive, it is liberating. Being friends with the world may seem to be easy but in the end, it leads to death.God knows what is best for us, in His wisdom. In contrast, our humanly wisdom is very dim or clouded. Therefore we must put our trust in the Lord. For example, there are specifics in James that are so contrary to the ways of this sinful godless world we live in. For example the sensless accumulation of wealt is condemned. Double mindendedness (which mean dishonesty), pride, competativeness, anger, revenge, slander (untrue accustations/ gosspip), quarrels/ fights and coveting (which means jealousy) are also condmened as well as many other "human" traits that are accepted in this this world and society. Think about the specific examples that I listed and consider how common they are in today. Everyone is guilty of at least one of hese things if not many more! I like this verse: James 5:1-5 Now listen you rich people weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.....You have lived on earth in luxery and self indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter! Think about the emphasis placed on prosperity and wealth by sociey and the media: on TV, in movies and magazines and just in general!!! Think about how many chase after wealth and material possessions like expensive homes, cars, money and other things. Well God condemns this single minded pursuit of wealth!! Conside how wealth is portrayed in a glamerous and appealing way in movies and TV. In today's society, the poor and underclass are treated as if they are second class citisens. Well that is the way of this world, and God wants us to have no part of it.
The letter from James is often an overlooked book. Small in size, it can be read in a mere twenty minutes. Nevertheless, it is packed with a wealth of relevant information. It is a challenging book. Not challanging as in being difficult to understand- on the contrary! I believe the book of James is so simple to understand. While it is clear, and simple, it is difficult to actually obey nevertheless. That is where the challange rests- actually obeying and following the words of the Lord. That is what fascinates me. If James were to have a title, I believe that title would have something to do with the condemnation of hypocracy. If I had to give it a title- a suitable one would be would be: "A Lesson in Integrity- Freedom from the world and hypocracy". Although on the surface God's word seems to be restrictive, it is liberating. Being friends with the world may seem to be easy but in the end, it leads to death.God knows what is best for us, in His wisdom. In contrast, our humanly wisdom is very dim or clouded. Therefore we must put our trust in the Lord. For example, there are specifics in James that are so contrary to the ways of this sinful godless world we live in. For example the sensless accumulation of wealt is condemned. Double mindendedness (which mean dishonesty), pride, competativeness, anger, revenge, slander (untrue accustations/ gosspip), quarrels/ fights and coveting (which means jealousy) are also condmened as well as many other "human" traits that are accepted in this this world and society. Think about the specific examples that I listed and consider how common they are in today. Everyone is guilty of at least one of hese things if not many more! I like this verse: James 5:1-5 Now listen you rich people weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.....You have lived on earth in luxery and self indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter! Think about the emphasis placed on prosperity and wealth by sociey and the media: on TV, in movies and magazines and just in general!!! Think about how many chase after wealth and material possessions like expensive homes, cars, money and other things. Well God condemns this single minded pursuit of wealth!! Conside how wealth is portrayed in a glamerous and appealing way in movies and TV. In today's society, the poor and underclass are treated as if they are second class citisens. Well that is the way of this world, and God wants us to have no part of it.
Monday, April 13, 2009
A member of Thomas Nelson's Review Blogger Program
As a member of Thomas Nelson’s Book Review Blogger program http://brb.thomasnelson.com/ I have submitted the book previous book review.
His Name is Jesus by Max Lucado
His Name is Jesus by Max Lucado
Beautifully bound, rich with full color photos and its own slip cover; this is the perfect gift book. With vivid imagery, Jesus’ life is reverently and boldly retold. Actual biblical passages are brought to life, presented alongside the story of Jesus’ birth, mission, death, resurrection and legacy. His Name is Jesus is a spiritual affirmation of the fullness of the divinity and humanity of Jesus.
Throughout the book, bold analogies are used to illustrate the intertwining of the humanity and divinity of Jesus. This theme is evident with the book’s opening: “Jesus…he could hold the universe in his palm but gave it up to float in the womb of a maiden”. The book’s message is clear: the acknowledgement of the divine nature of Jesus without neglecting His humanity- “Let him be as human as he intended to be. Let him into the mire and muck of our world.” (Page 19) Max Lucado does not shy away from representing the true Jesus of the bible. You will not find any secular concessions such as calling Jesus simply a teacher or relegating him to a myth.
This is a refreshing and spiritually satisfying book. It challenged and inspired me to consider the real Jesus Christ of the bible as well as the magnitude of His love for humankind. I highly recommend this gift book as a beautiful rendition of Jesus’ life and purpose.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Christian Philosophy Made Simple
This is a simplified introduction to the major Christian philosophers
St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways
Background: St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a Dominican priest, theologian, and philosopher. Called the Doctor Angelicus (the Angelic Doctor,) Aquinas is considered one the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. Two of his most famous works, the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles, are the finest examples of his work on Christian philosophy."The truth of the Christian faith...surpasses the capacity of reason, nevertheless that truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know can not be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith."
First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion.
Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.Second Way: Causation Of Existence This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it.
Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things.
Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.
Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God.
Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.
Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.
Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.
Crime and Punishment: Is man responsible for his actions?
I. Humanitarian Attitude Towards Crime:
i. Humanitarian Definition of Crime: Crime is an illness, a state of impared functioning. Crime is an illness which must be treated; and the people who commit crime must be cured.
ii. Method of Treating Crime: The Theraputic Paradigm A person who commits crime must not be punished. We must adopt a theraputic attitude towards crime. People who commit crime must be cared for so that their willingness and behavior be treated.
II. C.S. Lewis: The Injustice of Humanitarianismi. Justice: The Justification for Punishment
1. Equitable punishment can only be achieved if the concepts of deserving and justice are realised.
2. There can not be mercy and forgiveness without the idea of deserving. Deserving, mercy and forgiveness can not be given without the idea of wrong. With the idea of wrong, there must be an idea of punishment.
3. Therefore punishment is justified and also neccessary, because it is the recognition of a wrong doing and deserving, which ultimately enables the individual to recieve mercy and forgiveness.
ii. Humanitarianism: Devoid of Justice and Rights
1. If crime is considered an illness, and not a wrong doing, there is no justice, but only a so called cure.
2. If the wrong doing is not punished, but treated as if one would treat an illness, there is no justice. To cure someone of an illness that he "could not help" leaves us without justice. First of all the individual is no longer held responsible for his actions, as a result of this belief the individual is not punished.
3. The individual has no rights with the humanitarian view because the "ill" person is no longer a man, but merely a patient to be treated. He is not considered to be a man of free will, he becomes no differnt from an animal. As a result his treatment is not voluntary, therefore he has no rights. But, his rights are not lost merley in the regards of his choice to accept treatment, but also in the regards of the human quality of exersising free will. Not only this; he has also lost his right to freely repent. Just as an animal is not deemed worthy of forgiveness, the man who commited the crime can no longer be forgiven.
iii. The Abuse and Tyranny of Humanitarianism1. Once an individual commits a crime; his rights are lost. He is no longer a human being, but a sick person who needs a cure.
2. Morality, the concepts of right, wrong and punishment are replaced by narrow minded anamalistic views of human beings. The treatment for a person who commits a crime is no longer any different from the treatment given to an individual who truly has a mental sickness or a wild animal. This is a grave injustice to the dignity of the human person.
The problem of Evil :The Problem Of Evil
I) The Epicurian Paradox
i)Many have come to the conclusion that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God, hence the creation of the Epicurian paradox, created by Epicurus.
ii.)Epicurian Paradox:
1)God is all-powerful.
2)God is perfectly good.
3)Evil exists.
4)If God exists, then there would be no evil.
5)There is evil.
6)Therefore God does not exist.
II)Saint Augustine's Free- Will Defense
God created man with free will having the ability to do good or evil. As a result there is no assurance that man will not choose to do evil. There is no contradiction with the existence of both God and evil. It is logically impossible for God to create free creatures and guarantee that they will never do evil. Among the infinite number of possibilities in an infinite number of possible worlds, God could have chosen a less evil, (or less free) world, yet if man is truly free, God can not stop evil. It would be impossible or illogical for God, who is an all- powerful, omnipotent being, to have created a world in which he controlled the evilness or freeness, for this would remove the gift of free will that he had given to man. The existence of free will without evil is an illogical impossibility. Even though man has the capacity to commit great evil, he also has the capacity to perform great acts of goodness. According to Mackie, God does not eliminate first order evil such as pain because it is a logically necessary component for goods such as sympathy. God could have eliminated second order evils such as cruelty, but to do so would remove freedom of will. If God intervened in every evil, it would erode human responsibility, and the laws of nature.
III)Mackie's Critisism of Saint Augustine's Free- Will Defense
According to Mackie, the choice between robots who always do good or free men who can do good or evil is a false dilemma. There was an "obvious better possibility" in which God could have created beings who always act freely, yet nevertheless, always chooses to do good.
IV)Why God Permits Evil To Exist In the Worldi)Hick's "Soul- Making" Explanation For Evil's Existence: The world is a soul- making place. Man who is made in the image of god, but not in the likeness of God, is an incomplete being who must strive towards the perfect likeness and love of God. Qualities such as love, and courage would not make sense in a world without evil, because the world would be nothing more than a "play pen paradise." The existence of Evil is necessary in order to build character development of man into the likeness of God.
ii)Swinburne Explains The Advantages Of The Existence Of Evil:
according to Swinburne, there are advantages of a world in which free men face challenges, and have the capacity to affect others. The existence of evil, give men the opportunity to perform act which show men at their best. Many evils spur men into action. A world without evils, would be a world without which men could not show sympathy, forgiveness, compassion and self sacrifice. In conclusion, there is no easy proof to show the incompatibility between the existence of evil and God. It is the price of free actions that evil will exist The existence of evil is compatible with the existence of God and God's choice to create creatures with free will.
Free Will: Does it Exist :Does Free Will Exist?
Free Will Versus Determinism
I. Universal Determinism: According to the theory of universal determinism, every thing is governed by causal laws. Therefore if you knew all the properties of the universe(the world), you would be able to infallibly predict all future events. Any present event, including human behavior, is caused by an antecedent cause!
i. The Determinist Argument:
1. Every event must have a cause.
2. Human Actions are events.
3. Therefore, every human action is caused
4. So, determinism must be true.
ii. Evidence For Determinism
1. Science seems to eventually find a cause for everything.
2. We assume in everyday life that everything has a cause; we can not help but believe that every event has a cause. This belief is called the Issue of Universal Causality.
iii. Evidence Against Determinism Common sense tells us that we can change, we feel we are not compelled, we could have acted differently.iv. Soft Determinism: An Alternative? An action may result from having a reason that one could not change, but the reasons themselves are not considered actions. Therefore, as long as we are not coerced, we can have a free action. An act may be entirely determined, yet be free in the sense that it was voluntary and not coerced. Whether we are morally responsible or not, is determined depending on if the behavior is voluntary or involuntary. Refute: This theory is illogical; one can not have moral responsibility if reasons are determined. The libertarian, determinist and free will arguments differ, yet all uphold the paradigm that involuntary actions negate moral responsibility.
II. Free Will
i. The Free Will Argument:
1. The Argument of Moral Responsibility states that if determinism were true, no person would be able to change his actions, therefore no one could ever be held morally responsible for his own actions. Common sense tells us that we can change our actions by our own choice.
2. We can and have overcome our desires and inclinations. Both common sense and fact show that we can actively change our behavior. Determinist reply: We only perceive that we can change our actions and behavior.
3. We do not feel compelled to act. At the time of a decision, we feel we have had other choices. Determinist reply: Such feelings of control are illusions; we are just ignorant of all the irresistible forces acting upon us.
4. At a certain time we feel that we could have chosen to act differently.
Determinist reply: Our behavior is already determined by previous events. Therefore you can not change your behavior.
ii. The Implications of Determinism: Man becomes nothing more than a puppet.
III. Libertarianism: A compromise
i Libertarian Points:
1. We have free will in the sense that given the same previous conditions, one could have acted otherwise.
2. Agent Causality explains that the individual or agent is responsible for all actions even though the self itself, does not change.
3. Actions can be free and uncaused. If actions are caused, they are caused by inner states (the self). These inner states themselves are uncaused and unchanging.
ii. Argument:
1. Behavior and actions seem to be the outcome of personal deliberation.
2. It appears as if actions in fact are the result of such deliberation.
3. While determinists claim that actions are not the result of a person's deliberation, they have been unable to prove that pre-determined conditions actually cause all human behavior.
iii. Implications of Libertarianism While libertarianism avoids the puppet like man of the determinist, man is replaced with an even less human like image; an erratic, jerking phantom who behaves without without rhyme or reason.
Modern Film: Dracula Genre as a Reflection of Evolving Society
Dracula in Film: Reflections of an Evolving Society
Since the creation of Bram Stoker’s most famous fictional character Dracula with the publication of his most famous novel in 1897, both Dracula and the societal culture in which he is placed have represented a duality that movies have since tried to reconcile. The figure of Dracula, and the concept of evil of which he represents, have undergone a spectrum of changes over time. The metamorphosis of Dracula himself, as he is portrayed in films, is a direct reflection of the time and culture of which the film was produced. The vampire and Dracula films, which have been made through the years, present a unique historical perspective of the evolution of changes of both women and sexuality in society. Furthermore, the vampire character, and the heroines as portrayed in a particular film reflect the sexual ideas of the culture of the audience for whom the work is intended.
The original Dracula, as portrayed by Bram Stoker’s novel, is a product of the late Victorian age in which the story was written. In the novel, the distinction between good and evil is clear. Christianity held a place of high importance in the late 1800s. There is no doubt that Stoker’s intent was to represent vampirism as an evil that had to be eradicated. In fact, the evil of Dracula’s curse is equated with Satan, the adversary of the Christian God.
Nevertheless, it is clear that Dracula’s complex character represented many contradictions that have been difficult for society to accept and reconcile. While a gentleman of perfect English manners and intellect that has the capacity to mesmerize and swoon his female victims, he was also a putrid manifestation of corruption and evil. While discrete, sexuality between Dracula and his female victims plays a sublime role in Stoker’s novel. With these characteristics of Dracula in mind, it is not difficult to imagine the difficulty a movie producer might encounter in producing a readily accepted character that supposedly has the ability the mesmerize and charm its victims despite the fact that he is deficient in all the contemporary characteristics of a physically attractive man. Additionally, it is hard to mold together into one character proper manners, personality and intelligence with an uncouth bestial instinct for survival
Since the dawn of the age of film, beginning with the earlier half of the nineteenth century, Stoker’s novel has been altered and adapted into numerous films. Dracula, the novel, presented so many challenges that film makers had to reconcile in order to satisfactorily produce both a character and a story into a movie that would be deemed acceptable to the audience for whom it was aimed. The vampire films: 1931 “Dracula”, the 1970s film, Werner Herzog’s, “Nosferatu the Vampire”, the contemporary 1990s film based Ann Rice’s novel, “Interview With the Vampire”, and the modern cinematic remake of Stoker’s novel “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, clearly illustrate the ways that Dracula’s changing image reflects that ever changing cultural ideas of good and evil, and of women and sexuality. Each film is unique in the means by which the vampire and women are portrayed, the meaning of evil, and in the expression of sexuality.
In Stoker’s novel, Dracula, the distinction between goodness and evil are very clear. Dracula is the embodiment of evil and evil is equated with Satan. During the time period of which the book was written, the religion of Christianity was an important aspect of Western society. Therefore evil was associated with Satan, as the case with the myth of the vampire. There is no doubt whatsoever that it was Stoker’s intent to portray Dracula as evil with Satanic roots. Upon entering Dracula’s lair in Carfax Abbey, Jonathan Harker noted that “corruption had itself become corrupt” with even the odor described as “stagnant and foul… composed of all the ills of mortality…[with] the pungent, acrid smell of blood…[and] dry miasma” (Stoker, 276) According to the Professor Van Helsing, vampires were “Un-Dead” creatures whose souls were cursed, “growing more debased” (Stoker, 236) in wickedness and evil as their unholy existence continued.
Vampires began when the first vampire, centuries ago, made a pact with the Devil, otherwise referred to by the Professor as the “Evil One” (Stoker 265). To live, the vampire must consume human blood. “He can fatten on the blood of the living” (Stoker, 263) As the case with Lucy when she became infected by Dracula, (and as the case with any other vampire), the only way to free her soul so that it might go to heaven was to kill her Un-Dead vampiric body. After her infection from Count Dracula, she became a hideous, foul “Thing” that had to be destroyed. Yet, just like evil and Satan, the vampire can only be destroyed with the aid of the power of God. “There are things which so afflict him that he has no power… as for things sacred, [the] crucifix… he is nothing”(Stoker, 264) according to Professor Van Helsing. The vampire feared the crucifix, and could only be repelled by the Host, the Christian representation of Jesus’ body. In fact, Van Helsing, Harker and the other men used the Sacred Christian symbols such as the Host and Crucifix to protect themselves upon entering Dracula’s lair.
It is clear that the Victorian stereotypes of women persist throughout Stoker’s novel. Nevertheless women are presented in a respectful light, yet they are within the norm for English Victorian society. Mina and Lucy are both young women who are preoccupied with the concerns of their impending marriages and their fiancés in the beginning of Stoker’s novel. While they are basically represented in the story as victims of Dracula and his curse, they possess respectable personality character traits that are acceptable for women of the Victorian era. Although women were respected their husbands and fathers often believed them that they were in need of protection. Both Mina and Lucy were concerned about scandal and maintaining a respectable reputation. This is evident when Mina takes great effort to cover her bare feet with mud, and Lucy with a cloak during one of Lucy’s sleep walking episodes, lest anyone should see them indecently dressed. Additionally, Mina considered the shock that other woman would feel in reaction to their large and unfeminine appetites. Neither had a desire to challenge the role of women in their society.
Lucy is portrayed as sweet, pure, and lovable innocent girl. Quincey Morris even referred to her as a “little girl” in an endearing manner. Mina is described as sympathetic and motherly, such as the case according to Arthur Holmwood when he looked to Mina for support after Lucy’s death. Despite the fact that Stoker’s novel holds onto the persistent attitudes of the feminine woman, he does not hesitate to attach masculine attributes to the female characters. In fact, the Professor praised Mina’s mental strength in his statement, “Wonderful madam Mina! She has a man’s brain… were he much gifted- and a woman’s heart.” (Stoker, 258). Nevertheless, the Professor at times had a protective attitude toward women, when he insisted that Mina must be protected and could no longer be part of their dangerous quest. Additionally, in his confidential discussions with Lucy when attempting to discover what was making her ill, his attitude was condescending as he questioned her and spoke to her as if she were a child.
It is certainly difficult to correlate sexuality with Count Dracula who was described by Stoker as man with pale skin, “hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely elsewhere”, massive eyebrows, bushy hair, a mouth that was “fixed and cruel-looking… sharp white teeth” (Stoker, 19), pointed ears, hairy palms and long, yellowed fingernails. Nevertheless, there are some aspects of vampirism that appear to be sexual in nature. The act of biting the victim, and the exchange of blood that must occur suggests an intimate relationship between the vampire and his victim. During Harker’s imprisonment in Dracula’s castle, he described the beautiful, female vampires as both “thrilling and repulsive”, and possessing voluptuousness. Prior to her corruption by Dracula, Lucy was innocent and sweet. After succumbing to the curse of the vampire, as she transformed from her innocent nature and had acquired a “carnal and unspiritual appearance” she became a “devilish mockery” (Stoker, 235) of her former purity with her “pointed teeth, the bloodstained, voluptuous mouth” according Dr. Seward who had loved her greatly. Later in the novel, when Mina falls victim to Dracula, the blood exchange ritual she underwent with Count Dracula in her bedroom during the night appeared to be a perverse mockery of the genuine, pure love shared with her new husband Jonathan Harker. In the cases with Lucy and Mina, the transformation into a vampire transformed purity and innocence into debased wickedness and love into an unwholesome ,sexualized, carnal act of blood exchange.
The 1931 film, “Dracula”, directed by Todd Browning, which featured the actor Bela Lugosi,, represented a simplification of Stoker’s novel in many aspects. Rather than trying to produce a film integrating the complexities of Stoker’s complex character of Dracula, Browning discarded many of the count’s original characteristics and replaced them. Browning’s goal was to make a vampire that was visually and sexually attractive rather than grotesque. The physical attributes of Dracula therefore would be a means by which Dracula could hypnotize and swoon his female victims. In the early days of filmmaking, an audience most likely would not easily accept that a filthy, corpse- like beast could charm and swoon its victims without screaming in terror at his sight. Nor would the audience readily accept such a character. So, for the first time, with Browning’s 1931 film, Dracula, with his well groomed hair, tuxedo and cape, was portrayed as a sophisticated being that could blend well into proper English society. In fact, at their first meeting, long before she became his victim, Lucy was immediately attracted to the handsome, and exotic Count Dracula. In fact she referred to the Count as “fascinating”. Such could never have been the case if Stoker’s Dracula had been physically replicated on film. Additionally, In accordance with Stoker’s Novel, Browning’s Dracula was a man of proper manners. As a host, he welcomed Reinfield (who took the role as solicitor in the movie), into his castle with the well-known statement, “I bid you welcome”. Additionally, he provided a comfortable bed, cheery fire and attended to Reinfield’s needs. The clue that separated the count from ordinary man in the film was his glowing, piercing eyes that were evident in his hypnotic stare.
With the introduction of an attractive Count Dracula, sexuality was introduced into the film. While sexual scenes are entirely omitted from the story, it is alluded to in the fact that during the night, Dracula stealthily goes into the bedroom of his female victims as they sleep and bites them on the neck. The concept of Dracula biting his female victims on the neck seem analogous to an intimate kiss. In fact the actual movie omits the actual biting scene since obvious sexuality in film was not accepted in the early 1930s. Later in the film, Mina is swooned into Dracula’s hypnotic intimate embrace. While sexuality is not blatant in Browning’s film, it is present with Dracula’s handsome appearance, the attractiveness of Lucy and Mina, and the hypnotic embraces and biting of the neck in the bedroom.
The distinction between good and evil is not as clear cut in the film as in Stoker’s book. The evil represented by Dracula in Browning’s film seems analogous to a vague idea of horror that one might feel after reading a spooky story. Evil is not equated with the devil, and there are minimal references either to God or Christianity as being the means by which evil is combated. It is evident; by the way Professor Van Helsing and Dr. Seward methodically plan the means to kill Dracula, that the professor and the doctor basically see scientific and rational reasoning as the salvation to combat the evil of Dracula. This reflects the increasing secularization of 1930s culture as science and the scientific method are embraced instead of religion.
Produced in a society in which women’s rights and liberation were still in their infancy, this 1931 film reflects that fact that woman were not treated as equals to men. In fact women in society were equated with children, because it was believed that they needed men for direction, and protection in life. Consequently, in the film, women play a small role in the film other than as submissive victims. The females portrayed were either the naïve, overprotected young women Mina and Lucy, or the servile weak minded ignorant maids. In fact, after Mina falls ill after succumbing to Dracula’s bite, the men in her life are very condescending in the ways that they repeatedly question her as if she were a small child and not an adult woman. She is not taken seriously, and in response her fiancé tells her to “forget all these bad dreams and think of something cheerful”. Furthermore, it is Dracula who tells the men in Mina’s life not to worry because it was only her overactive imagination in response to the “grim tales” he told of his far off country in order to “amuse” her. Women are also portrayed as subservient to the men in their lives that cannot take responsibility for their own decisions, safety or welfare. On a number of occasions, Mina was ordered to bed or to get back indoors for her own good. Additionally, rather than speak up herself, Mina implores her father to speak to her fiancé on her behalf when Harker tries to convince the others to let him run off to London with Mina to keep her safe. It is clear that this film is a reflection of the cultural attitudes that women were the physically, and intellectually weaker sex. In the absence of religion, in a society that values physical strength and rational thought, where mostly men held position of power in higher education and medicine, women play little role and were treated in a condescending, child like manner.
Clearly, Werner Herzog’s film, “Nosferatu the Vampire”, is a product of the new culture of women’s liberation in of the 1970s in which it was produced. This film contrasts greatly in its portrayal of women from Browning’s film. While upholding the traditional ideas of good vs. evil, and that Dracula and the curse of vampirism is the embodiment of evil, the film deviates from the historically accepted roles of men and women. The character of Lucy challenges the Victorian notion that women are physically weak, submissive and helpless from evil. Furthermore, the film rejects the concept of the male figure as the savior against evil. In contrast, rather than a man, it is a woman who defeats evil and saves the town from the vampire curse.
As with Stoker’s novel, the curse of the vampire and the evil it represents is reinforced and expanded upon by the opening images of the dead, skeletal, decayed corpses, forever entombed in their horrific mask-like faces of death. The numbers of human remains of the victims entombed in the cave-like catacombs are analogous to the thousands of tortured, dead bodies of the victims of the Holocaust. Vampirism is an evil that is equated with a plague; something that is to be feared, rejected and overcome. In contrast to the original novel, to reflect the newly arising feminist movement appearing in modern culture, Jonathan Harker and Lucy switch roles. Harker assumes the role of the helpless victim who succumbs to the vampirism, while Lucy remains strong and seeks to destroy the vampire.
As with the Victorian novel, sexuality in Herzog’s film is very understated. In stark contrast to the debased horrible images in the opening scenes, Lucy is depicted as a beautiful, pure and proper woman, with long hair and dressed in flowing white gowns. In alignment with the sexual repression of the Victorian era, Lucy’s demeanor is stiff and unemotional, yet she is supportive of her husband. Lucy and her husband sleep in separate beds in night clothing that fully covers their bodies.
The inhuman, repulsive physical appearance of Count Dracula, with his sickly white skin, thin, bony fingers, long yellow nails, pointed ears, bald head and rat- like teeth, is a visible reflection of the evil that vampirism represents. Dracula’s lethargic and tired, appearance, and torn, tattered, dusty cape seem analogous to the symptoms experienced by one as he approaches death. Herzog’s conception of the vampire, Count Dracula is entirely different from both Stoker’s and Browning’s idea of Dracula. Unlike Stoker’s lively, vigorous and animated Dracula who began as perfect gentleman host to his guest, with the self-control to suppress the bestial aspects of his vampire nature, such was not the case with Herzog’s Dracula. While Dracula makes some feeble attempts towards acting like a proper host, he is subject to the vampiric disease, which enslaves him to his bestial and evil ways. As Harker takes his place at the dinner table to eat after a long journey to the castle, Dracula hawks over him, staring intently, just as a predator watches his prey. Dracula is unable to control is vampire nature as he impulsively reaches over to Harker when he accidentally cuts his finger, and in an uncouth fashion, sucks the blood. Upon his arrival to Harker’s homeland, the towns’ people succumb to rats, plague and death.
Traditional Christian ideas of God and faith are upheld, as evident in the fact that Dracula fears the crucifix which represent the power of good against evil, Lucy’s prayer to God for forgiveness and finally, the power of the Host, (which represents the body of Christ), to purify the coffins and restrain Harker in his corner after he is infected by the Count. Nevertheless, not all the ideas represented by the Christian religion are embraced. The idea of the male Christ figure that is the savior is rejected. According to the Christian religion, only a man, Jesus Christ, has the capacity to save the world from evil. In contrast, according to Herzog’s film, only “a woman pure of heart”, could save the town from the evil of Nosferatu’s curse. After attending a symbolic “Last Supper” (analogous to Jesus Christ’s Last Supper), with some townspeople who had realized they had fallen victim to the plague, Lucy assumes her special role as she sets off on her quest to seek out and destroy Dracula. Just as Jesus Christ, in accordance with Christianity, sacrificed his life to save the world, Lucy knowingly sacrifices her life to save the town from the vampiric plague. She sacrifices her life to Dracula’s fatal embrace, knowing it is the only way by which she might capture him in the daylight, thereby destroying him. In destroying Dracula, purity and strength of a woman defeats evil. The sunlight, which represented the power of goodness, destroyed the evil Dracula and his vampiric curse, shined upon Lucy illuminating her as she drew her final breath. Ironically at the end of the film, Harker, infected with the vampirism tricks escapes.
In the modern vampire movies of the 1990s, such as the 1990s remake of Stoker’s novel, “Bram Stocker’s Dracula” and “Interview With the Vampire”, there are several deviations from the trends of Stoker’s novel and the two filmmakers Browning, and Herzog. First of all, the notion that vampirism is evil and Satanic is rejected. Consequently, when the vampire is no longer associated with evil or Satan, he becomes humanized and seen as someone with whom to sympathize with. In a secular culture such as our modern American society, religion and Christianity play very little role. Therefore to appeal to modern audiences, less focus is devoted to religious explanations for vampirism in contrast to the earlier films and Stoker’s novel. Therefore it becomes necessary to find an alternative explanation for vampirism other than satanic evil. Furthermore, in a conversation with Armond, an ancient vampire, Louis learns that there is no such thing as God or the Devil, and that vampires are not doomed to Hell.
With the elimination of the idea that the vampire is evil or satanic, the character of the vampire becomes a being that can feel human emotion such as pain, regret and even love. In both of these modern films, it is established from the start that the condition of vampirism is not a result of evil, or choice but circumstance. Through the opening scenes, the audience can learn the sad circumstances, which led these emotional, caring men into the curse of vampirism. In fact the vampires of these film are depicted as loving devoted husbands during their mortal lives, who became victims after they had suffered greatly from the loss of their greatest loves, their wives.
In the case of Louis, the vampire from “Interview With the Vampire”, the loss of his wife and child led him into an unbearable depression, which led him to neglect himself, and left him vulnerable. In fact, according to Louis, “ I was attacked. It might have been anyone- and my invitation was open to sailors, thieves, maniacs, anyone. But it was a vampire.” Count Dracula from “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” became cursed after he renounced God and the Orthodox Church when he learned of the news of his wife’s suicide. The Orthodox priests proclaimed that since Elizabeth committed suicide she was ineligible to enter heaven. As a result, in sadness and anger he announced that he would forever seek vengeance for her death. In fact, in the film Religious Orthodoxy is portrayed as being evil for its responsibility for the vampire curse.
Additionally, as the concept of being a vampire is no longer treated with horror or disgust, vampirism becomes glorified like as exclusive club that must be guarded and protected against any outsiders. In both films, vampires are portrayed as physically attractive and beautiful, possessing great gifts such as strength, everlasting life, intelligence, wisdom and wealth. These vampires spend the movie protecting themselves from outside harm.
With physical attractiveness as one of the striking features of vampirism, along comes the onset of sexuality. In both films, there is heavy emphasis on the sexual aspect of vampirism. Both heterosexuality and homosexuality play a role in both films. When his youth was restored, after feasting on blood, Count Dracula became an attractive man who easily lured Mina to willingly become his lover. There are several intimate scenes between Dracula and Mina in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, with images of close contact, and bare skin. Additionally, Mina is depicted wearing suggestive, translucent night clothing as she rushes out during the night to find Lucy during one of her sleep walking episodes. Both Mina and Lucy join in a physical, intimate embrace in the night rain-, which subtly suggests homosexuality. In contrast to the traditional vampire films in which Dracula seeks out a female companion, the heterosexuality is secondary in the “Interview With the Vampire”. The subtle sexuality between the male vampire, Lestat with his male victims is evident during the film when Lestat seduces a young, naïve, and attractive, feminine man. In fact Lestat, with his flowing, curly blond hair, and delicate features is himself is feminized. Women are depicted as threatening and not to be trusted. The young cold and calculating female vampire Claudia murders Lestat. The other female vampires from the theater in Paris are aloof and emotionless. The relationships between the male vampires are stronger physically and emotionally than those between men and women. Woman are no longer portrayed as submissive victims, but rather as active participants in the sexual relationship.
When comparing Stoker’s original novel with the vampire films throughout the years we can see a clear evolution and transformation in the concepts of good and evil and of sexuality. We can see the historical change and growth of the cultural attitudes towards religions, sex and women that has occurred with the last 100 years. Films have ranged from depicting Dracula and the vampire as a grotesque, inhuman, animal-like, undead beast exhibiting no sexual appeal to an attractive, sophisticated being with the capacity to hypnotize and swoon its victims. The role of women in the vampire film originated as the helpless, naïve, and submissive victim to the strong, willful, determined heroine of the modern era. The degradation of the role of Christianity and religion in favor of humanism is also exhibited in the transformation of the condition of vampirism as being associated with Satanic evil which must be combated by God, to the rejection of the idea of evil in favor of the explanation that vampirism is a condition of circumstance.
Society and its ideas of women, sexuality and the role of religion have undergone a spectrum of changes over time which the novel and films about vampires have captured. The films’ portrayal of Dracula, the vampire, and the supporting male and female characters are a direct reflection of the time and culture of which the film was produced. The image of the original creature created by Stoker has been altered by the directors’ imaginations in reaction to the changing cultural concerns of its audience in the areas of sexuality, women and the concept of evil. The plethora of vampire and Dracula films available to today’s modern audiences, which have been made through the years, offer a unique historical perspective of the changes in cultural concerns undergone by our society.
Since the creation of Bram Stoker’s most famous fictional character Dracula with the publication of his most famous novel in 1897, both Dracula and the societal culture in which he is placed have represented a duality that movies have since tried to reconcile. The figure of Dracula, and the concept of evil of which he represents, have undergone a spectrum of changes over time. The metamorphosis of Dracula himself, as he is portrayed in films, is a direct reflection of the time and culture of which the film was produced. The vampire and Dracula films, which have been made through the years, present a unique historical perspective of the evolution of changes of both women and sexuality in society. Furthermore, the vampire character, and the heroines as portrayed in a particular film reflect the sexual ideas of the culture of the audience for whom the work is intended.
The original Dracula, as portrayed by Bram Stoker’s novel, is a product of the late Victorian age in which the story was written. In the novel, the distinction between good and evil is clear. Christianity held a place of high importance in the late 1800s. There is no doubt that Stoker’s intent was to represent vampirism as an evil that had to be eradicated. In fact, the evil of Dracula’s curse is equated with Satan, the adversary of the Christian God.
Nevertheless, it is clear that Dracula’s complex character represented many contradictions that have been difficult for society to accept and reconcile. While a gentleman of perfect English manners and intellect that has the capacity to mesmerize and swoon his female victims, he was also a putrid manifestation of corruption and evil. While discrete, sexuality between Dracula and his female victims plays a sublime role in Stoker’s novel. With these characteristics of Dracula in mind, it is not difficult to imagine the difficulty a movie producer might encounter in producing a readily accepted character that supposedly has the ability the mesmerize and charm its victims despite the fact that he is deficient in all the contemporary characteristics of a physically attractive man. Additionally, it is hard to mold together into one character proper manners, personality and intelligence with an uncouth bestial instinct for survival
Since the dawn of the age of film, beginning with the earlier half of the nineteenth century, Stoker’s novel has been altered and adapted into numerous films. Dracula, the novel, presented so many challenges that film makers had to reconcile in order to satisfactorily produce both a character and a story into a movie that would be deemed acceptable to the audience for whom it was aimed. The vampire films: 1931 “Dracula”, the 1970s film, Werner Herzog’s, “Nosferatu the Vampire”, the contemporary 1990s film based Ann Rice’s novel, “Interview With the Vampire”, and the modern cinematic remake of Stoker’s novel “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, clearly illustrate the ways that Dracula’s changing image reflects that ever changing cultural ideas of good and evil, and of women and sexuality. Each film is unique in the means by which the vampire and women are portrayed, the meaning of evil, and in the expression of sexuality.
In Stoker’s novel, Dracula, the distinction between goodness and evil are very clear. Dracula is the embodiment of evil and evil is equated with Satan. During the time period of which the book was written, the religion of Christianity was an important aspect of Western society. Therefore evil was associated with Satan, as the case with the myth of the vampire. There is no doubt whatsoever that it was Stoker’s intent to portray Dracula as evil with Satanic roots. Upon entering Dracula’s lair in Carfax Abbey, Jonathan Harker noted that “corruption had itself become corrupt” with even the odor described as “stagnant and foul… composed of all the ills of mortality…[with] the pungent, acrid smell of blood…[and] dry miasma” (Stoker, 276) According to the Professor Van Helsing, vampires were “Un-Dead” creatures whose souls were cursed, “growing more debased” (Stoker, 236) in wickedness and evil as their unholy existence continued.
Vampires began when the first vampire, centuries ago, made a pact with the Devil, otherwise referred to by the Professor as the “Evil One” (Stoker 265). To live, the vampire must consume human blood. “He can fatten on the blood of the living” (Stoker, 263) As the case with Lucy when she became infected by Dracula, (and as the case with any other vampire), the only way to free her soul so that it might go to heaven was to kill her Un-Dead vampiric body. After her infection from Count Dracula, she became a hideous, foul “Thing” that had to be destroyed. Yet, just like evil and Satan, the vampire can only be destroyed with the aid of the power of God. “There are things which so afflict him that he has no power… as for things sacred, [the] crucifix… he is nothing”(Stoker, 264) according to Professor Van Helsing. The vampire feared the crucifix, and could only be repelled by the Host, the Christian representation of Jesus’ body. In fact, Van Helsing, Harker and the other men used the Sacred Christian symbols such as the Host and Crucifix to protect themselves upon entering Dracula’s lair.
It is clear that the Victorian stereotypes of women persist throughout Stoker’s novel. Nevertheless women are presented in a respectful light, yet they are within the norm for English Victorian society. Mina and Lucy are both young women who are preoccupied with the concerns of their impending marriages and their fiancés in the beginning of Stoker’s novel. While they are basically represented in the story as victims of Dracula and his curse, they possess respectable personality character traits that are acceptable for women of the Victorian era. Although women were respected their husbands and fathers often believed them that they were in need of protection. Both Mina and Lucy were concerned about scandal and maintaining a respectable reputation. This is evident when Mina takes great effort to cover her bare feet with mud, and Lucy with a cloak during one of Lucy’s sleep walking episodes, lest anyone should see them indecently dressed. Additionally, Mina considered the shock that other woman would feel in reaction to their large and unfeminine appetites. Neither had a desire to challenge the role of women in their society.
Lucy is portrayed as sweet, pure, and lovable innocent girl. Quincey Morris even referred to her as a “little girl” in an endearing manner. Mina is described as sympathetic and motherly, such as the case according to Arthur Holmwood when he looked to Mina for support after Lucy’s death. Despite the fact that Stoker’s novel holds onto the persistent attitudes of the feminine woman, he does not hesitate to attach masculine attributes to the female characters. In fact, the Professor praised Mina’s mental strength in his statement, “Wonderful madam Mina! She has a man’s brain… were he much gifted- and a woman’s heart.” (Stoker, 258). Nevertheless, the Professor at times had a protective attitude toward women, when he insisted that Mina must be protected and could no longer be part of their dangerous quest. Additionally, in his confidential discussions with Lucy when attempting to discover what was making her ill, his attitude was condescending as he questioned her and spoke to her as if she were a child.
It is certainly difficult to correlate sexuality with Count Dracula who was described by Stoker as man with pale skin, “hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely elsewhere”, massive eyebrows, bushy hair, a mouth that was “fixed and cruel-looking… sharp white teeth” (Stoker, 19), pointed ears, hairy palms and long, yellowed fingernails. Nevertheless, there are some aspects of vampirism that appear to be sexual in nature. The act of biting the victim, and the exchange of blood that must occur suggests an intimate relationship between the vampire and his victim. During Harker’s imprisonment in Dracula’s castle, he described the beautiful, female vampires as both “thrilling and repulsive”, and possessing voluptuousness. Prior to her corruption by Dracula, Lucy was innocent and sweet. After succumbing to the curse of the vampire, as she transformed from her innocent nature and had acquired a “carnal and unspiritual appearance” she became a “devilish mockery” (Stoker, 235) of her former purity with her “pointed teeth, the bloodstained, voluptuous mouth” according Dr. Seward who had loved her greatly. Later in the novel, when Mina falls victim to Dracula, the blood exchange ritual she underwent with Count Dracula in her bedroom during the night appeared to be a perverse mockery of the genuine, pure love shared with her new husband Jonathan Harker. In the cases with Lucy and Mina, the transformation into a vampire transformed purity and innocence into debased wickedness and love into an unwholesome ,sexualized, carnal act of blood exchange.
The 1931 film, “Dracula”, directed by Todd Browning, which featured the actor Bela Lugosi,, represented a simplification of Stoker’s novel in many aspects. Rather than trying to produce a film integrating the complexities of Stoker’s complex character of Dracula, Browning discarded many of the count’s original characteristics and replaced them. Browning’s goal was to make a vampire that was visually and sexually attractive rather than grotesque. The physical attributes of Dracula therefore would be a means by which Dracula could hypnotize and swoon his female victims. In the early days of filmmaking, an audience most likely would not easily accept that a filthy, corpse- like beast could charm and swoon its victims without screaming in terror at his sight. Nor would the audience readily accept such a character. So, for the first time, with Browning’s 1931 film, Dracula, with his well groomed hair, tuxedo and cape, was portrayed as a sophisticated being that could blend well into proper English society. In fact, at their first meeting, long before she became his victim, Lucy was immediately attracted to the handsome, and exotic Count Dracula. In fact she referred to the Count as “fascinating”. Such could never have been the case if Stoker’s Dracula had been physically replicated on film. Additionally, In accordance with Stoker’s Novel, Browning’s Dracula was a man of proper manners. As a host, he welcomed Reinfield (who took the role as solicitor in the movie), into his castle with the well-known statement, “I bid you welcome”. Additionally, he provided a comfortable bed, cheery fire and attended to Reinfield’s needs. The clue that separated the count from ordinary man in the film was his glowing, piercing eyes that were evident in his hypnotic stare.
With the introduction of an attractive Count Dracula, sexuality was introduced into the film. While sexual scenes are entirely omitted from the story, it is alluded to in the fact that during the night, Dracula stealthily goes into the bedroom of his female victims as they sleep and bites them on the neck. The concept of Dracula biting his female victims on the neck seem analogous to an intimate kiss. In fact the actual movie omits the actual biting scene since obvious sexuality in film was not accepted in the early 1930s. Later in the film, Mina is swooned into Dracula’s hypnotic intimate embrace. While sexuality is not blatant in Browning’s film, it is present with Dracula’s handsome appearance, the attractiveness of Lucy and Mina, and the hypnotic embraces and biting of the neck in the bedroom.
The distinction between good and evil is not as clear cut in the film as in Stoker’s book. The evil represented by Dracula in Browning’s film seems analogous to a vague idea of horror that one might feel after reading a spooky story. Evil is not equated with the devil, and there are minimal references either to God or Christianity as being the means by which evil is combated. It is evident; by the way Professor Van Helsing and Dr. Seward methodically plan the means to kill Dracula, that the professor and the doctor basically see scientific and rational reasoning as the salvation to combat the evil of Dracula. This reflects the increasing secularization of 1930s culture as science and the scientific method are embraced instead of religion.
Produced in a society in which women’s rights and liberation were still in their infancy, this 1931 film reflects that fact that woman were not treated as equals to men. In fact women in society were equated with children, because it was believed that they needed men for direction, and protection in life. Consequently, in the film, women play a small role in the film other than as submissive victims. The females portrayed were either the naïve, overprotected young women Mina and Lucy, or the servile weak minded ignorant maids. In fact, after Mina falls ill after succumbing to Dracula’s bite, the men in her life are very condescending in the ways that they repeatedly question her as if she were a small child and not an adult woman. She is not taken seriously, and in response her fiancé tells her to “forget all these bad dreams and think of something cheerful”. Furthermore, it is Dracula who tells the men in Mina’s life not to worry because it was only her overactive imagination in response to the “grim tales” he told of his far off country in order to “amuse” her. Women are also portrayed as subservient to the men in their lives that cannot take responsibility for their own decisions, safety or welfare. On a number of occasions, Mina was ordered to bed or to get back indoors for her own good. Additionally, rather than speak up herself, Mina implores her father to speak to her fiancé on her behalf when Harker tries to convince the others to let him run off to London with Mina to keep her safe. It is clear that this film is a reflection of the cultural attitudes that women were the physically, and intellectually weaker sex. In the absence of religion, in a society that values physical strength and rational thought, where mostly men held position of power in higher education and medicine, women play little role and were treated in a condescending, child like manner.
Clearly, Werner Herzog’s film, “Nosferatu the Vampire”, is a product of the new culture of women’s liberation in of the 1970s in which it was produced. This film contrasts greatly in its portrayal of women from Browning’s film. While upholding the traditional ideas of good vs. evil, and that Dracula and the curse of vampirism is the embodiment of evil, the film deviates from the historically accepted roles of men and women. The character of Lucy challenges the Victorian notion that women are physically weak, submissive and helpless from evil. Furthermore, the film rejects the concept of the male figure as the savior against evil. In contrast, rather than a man, it is a woman who defeats evil and saves the town from the vampire curse.
As with Stoker’s novel, the curse of the vampire and the evil it represents is reinforced and expanded upon by the opening images of the dead, skeletal, decayed corpses, forever entombed in their horrific mask-like faces of death. The numbers of human remains of the victims entombed in the cave-like catacombs are analogous to the thousands of tortured, dead bodies of the victims of the Holocaust. Vampirism is an evil that is equated with a plague; something that is to be feared, rejected and overcome. In contrast to the original novel, to reflect the newly arising feminist movement appearing in modern culture, Jonathan Harker and Lucy switch roles. Harker assumes the role of the helpless victim who succumbs to the vampirism, while Lucy remains strong and seeks to destroy the vampire.
As with the Victorian novel, sexuality in Herzog’s film is very understated. In stark contrast to the debased horrible images in the opening scenes, Lucy is depicted as a beautiful, pure and proper woman, with long hair and dressed in flowing white gowns. In alignment with the sexual repression of the Victorian era, Lucy’s demeanor is stiff and unemotional, yet she is supportive of her husband. Lucy and her husband sleep in separate beds in night clothing that fully covers their bodies.
The inhuman, repulsive physical appearance of Count Dracula, with his sickly white skin, thin, bony fingers, long yellow nails, pointed ears, bald head and rat- like teeth, is a visible reflection of the evil that vampirism represents. Dracula’s lethargic and tired, appearance, and torn, tattered, dusty cape seem analogous to the symptoms experienced by one as he approaches death. Herzog’s conception of the vampire, Count Dracula is entirely different from both Stoker’s and Browning’s idea of Dracula. Unlike Stoker’s lively, vigorous and animated Dracula who began as perfect gentleman host to his guest, with the self-control to suppress the bestial aspects of his vampire nature, such was not the case with Herzog’s Dracula. While Dracula makes some feeble attempts towards acting like a proper host, he is subject to the vampiric disease, which enslaves him to his bestial and evil ways. As Harker takes his place at the dinner table to eat after a long journey to the castle, Dracula hawks over him, staring intently, just as a predator watches his prey. Dracula is unable to control is vampire nature as he impulsively reaches over to Harker when he accidentally cuts his finger, and in an uncouth fashion, sucks the blood. Upon his arrival to Harker’s homeland, the towns’ people succumb to rats, plague and death.
Traditional Christian ideas of God and faith are upheld, as evident in the fact that Dracula fears the crucifix which represent the power of good against evil, Lucy’s prayer to God for forgiveness and finally, the power of the Host, (which represents the body of Christ), to purify the coffins and restrain Harker in his corner after he is infected by the Count. Nevertheless, not all the ideas represented by the Christian religion are embraced. The idea of the male Christ figure that is the savior is rejected. According to the Christian religion, only a man, Jesus Christ, has the capacity to save the world from evil. In contrast, according to Herzog’s film, only “a woman pure of heart”, could save the town from the evil of Nosferatu’s curse. After attending a symbolic “Last Supper” (analogous to Jesus Christ’s Last Supper), with some townspeople who had realized they had fallen victim to the plague, Lucy assumes her special role as she sets off on her quest to seek out and destroy Dracula. Just as Jesus Christ, in accordance with Christianity, sacrificed his life to save the world, Lucy knowingly sacrifices her life to save the town from the vampiric plague. She sacrifices her life to Dracula’s fatal embrace, knowing it is the only way by which she might capture him in the daylight, thereby destroying him. In destroying Dracula, purity and strength of a woman defeats evil. The sunlight, which represented the power of goodness, destroyed the evil Dracula and his vampiric curse, shined upon Lucy illuminating her as she drew her final breath. Ironically at the end of the film, Harker, infected with the vampirism tricks escapes.
In the modern vampire movies of the 1990s, such as the 1990s remake of Stoker’s novel, “Bram Stocker’s Dracula” and “Interview With the Vampire”, there are several deviations from the trends of Stoker’s novel and the two filmmakers Browning, and Herzog. First of all, the notion that vampirism is evil and Satanic is rejected. Consequently, when the vampire is no longer associated with evil or Satan, he becomes humanized and seen as someone with whom to sympathize with. In a secular culture such as our modern American society, religion and Christianity play very little role. Therefore to appeal to modern audiences, less focus is devoted to religious explanations for vampirism in contrast to the earlier films and Stoker’s novel. Therefore it becomes necessary to find an alternative explanation for vampirism other than satanic evil. Furthermore, in a conversation with Armond, an ancient vampire, Louis learns that there is no such thing as God or the Devil, and that vampires are not doomed to Hell.
With the elimination of the idea that the vampire is evil or satanic, the character of the vampire becomes a being that can feel human emotion such as pain, regret and even love. In both of these modern films, it is established from the start that the condition of vampirism is not a result of evil, or choice but circumstance. Through the opening scenes, the audience can learn the sad circumstances, which led these emotional, caring men into the curse of vampirism. In fact the vampires of these film are depicted as loving devoted husbands during their mortal lives, who became victims after they had suffered greatly from the loss of their greatest loves, their wives.
In the case of Louis, the vampire from “Interview With the Vampire”, the loss of his wife and child led him into an unbearable depression, which led him to neglect himself, and left him vulnerable. In fact, according to Louis, “ I was attacked. It might have been anyone- and my invitation was open to sailors, thieves, maniacs, anyone. But it was a vampire.” Count Dracula from “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” became cursed after he renounced God and the Orthodox Church when he learned of the news of his wife’s suicide. The Orthodox priests proclaimed that since Elizabeth committed suicide she was ineligible to enter heaven. As a result, in sadness and anger he announced that he would forever seek vengeance for her death. In fact, in the film Religious Orthodoxy is portrayed as being evil for its responsibility for the vampire curse.
Additionally, as the concept of being a vampire is no longer treated with horror or disgust, vampirism becomes glorified like as exclusive club that must be guarded and protected against any outsiders. In both films, vampires are portrayed as physically attractive and beautiful, possessing great gifts such as strength, everlasting life, intelligence, wisdom and wealth. These vampires spend the movie protecting themselves from outside harm.
With physical attractiveness as one of the striking features of vampirism, along comes the onset of sexuality. In both films, there is heavy emphasis on the sexual aspect of vampirism. Both heterosexuality and homosexuality play a role in both films. When his youth was restored, after feasting on blood, Count Dracula became an attractive man who easily lured Mina to willingly become his lover. There are several intimate scenes between Dracula and Mina in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, with images of close contact, and bare skin. Additionally, Mina is depicted wearing suggestive, translucent night clothing as she rushes out during the night to find Lucy during one of her sleep walking episodes. Both Mina and Lucy join in a physical, intimate embrace in the night rain-, which subtly suggests homosexuality. In contrast to the traditional vampire films in which Dracula seeks out a female companion, the heterosexuality is secondary in the “Interview With the Vampire”. The subtle sexuality between the male vampire, Lestat with his male victims is evident during the film when Lestat seduces a young, naïve, and attractive, feminine man. In fact Lestat, with his flowing, curly blond hair, and delicate features is himself is feminized. Women are depicted as threatening and not to be trusted. The young cold and calculating female vampire Claudia murders Lestat. The other female vampires from the theater in Paris are aloof and emotionless. The relationships between the male vampires are stronger physically and emotionally than those between men and women. Woman are no longer portrayed as submissive victims, but rather as active participants in the sexual relationship.
When comparing Stoker’s original novel with the vampire films throughout the years we can see a clear evolution and transformation in the concepts of good and evil and of sexuality. We can see the historical change and growth of the cultural attitudes towards religions, sex and women that has occurred with the last 100 years. Films have ranged from depicting Dracula and the vampire as a grotesque, inhuman, animal-like, undead beast exhibiting no sexual appeal to an attractive, sophisticated being with the capacity to hypnotize and swoon its victims. The role of women in the vampire film originated as the helpless, naïve, and submissive victim to the strong, willful, determined heroine of the modern era. The degradation of the role of Christianity and religion in favor of humanism is also exhibited in the transformation of the condition of vampirism as being associated with Satanic evil which must be combated by God, to the rejection of the idea of evil in favor of the explanation that vampirism is a condition of circumstance.
Society and its ideas of women, sexuality and the role of religion have undergone a spectrum of changes over time which the novel and films about vampires have captured. The films’ portrayal of Dracula, the vampire, and the supporting male and female characters are a direct reflection of the time and culture of which the film was produced. The image of the original creature created by Stoker has been altered by the directors’ imaginations in reaction to the changing cultural concerns of its audience in the areas of sexuality, women and the concept of evil. The plethora of vampire and Dracula films available to today’s modern audiences, which have been made through the years, offer a unique historical perspective of the changes in cultural concerns undergone by our society.
Christian Philosophy Made Simple
Crime and Punishment: Is man responsible for his actions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Humanitarian Attitude Towards Crime:
i. Humanitarian Definition of Crime: Crime is an illness, a state of impared functioning. Crime is an illness which must be treated; and the people who commit crime must be cured.
ii. Method of Treating Crime: The Theraputic Paradigm A person who commits crime must not be punished. We must adopt a theraputic attitude towards crime. People who commit crime must be cared for so that their willingness and behavior be treated.
II. C.S. Lewis: The Injustice of Humanitarianism
i. Justice: The Justification for Punishment
1. Equitable punishment can only be achieved if the concepts of deserving and justice are realised.
2. There can not be mercy and forgiveness without the idea of deserving. Deserving, mercy and forgiveness can not be given without the idea of wrong. With the idea of wrong, there must be an idea of punishment.
3. Therefore punishment is justified and also neccessary, because it is the recognition of a wrong doing and deserving, which ultimately enables the individual to recieve mercy and forgiveness.
ii. Humanitarianism: Devoid of Justice and Rights
1. If crime is considered an illness, and not a wrong doing, there is no justice, but only a so called cure.
2. If the wrong doing is not punished, but treated as if one would treat an illness, there is no justice. To cure someone of an illness that he "could not help" leaves us without justice. First of all the individual is no longer held responsible for his actions, as a result of this belief the individual is not punished.
3. The individual has no rights with the humanitarian view because the "ill" person is no longer a man, but merely a patient to be treated. He is not considered to be a man of free will, he becomes no differnt from an animal. As a result his treatment is not voluntary, therefore he has no rights. But, his rights are not lost merley in the regards of his choice to accept treatment, but also in the regards of the human quality of exersising free will. Not only this; he has also lost his right to freely repent. Just as an animal is not deemed worthy of forgiveness, the man who commited the crime can no longer be forgiven.
iii. The Abuse and Tyranny of Humanitarianism
1. Once an individual commits a crime; his rights are lost. He is no longer a human being, but a sick person who needs a cure.
2. Morality, the concepts of right, wrong and punishment are replaced by narrow minded anamalistic views of human beings. The treatment for a person who commits a crime is no longer any different from the treatment given to an individual who truly has a mental sickness or a wild animal. This is a grave injustice to the dignity of the human person.
The problem of Evil Category:
The Problem Of Evil
I) The Epicurian Paradox
i)Many have come to the conclusion that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God, hence the creation of the Epicurian paradox, created by Epicurus.
ii.)Epicurian Paradox:
1)God is all-powerful.
2)God is perfectly good.
3)Evil exists.
4)If God exists, then there would be no evil.
5)There is evil.
6)Therefore God does not exist.
II)Saint Augustine's Free- Will Defense
God created man with free will having the ability to do good or evil. As a result there is no assurance that man will not choose to do evil. There is no contradiction with the existence of both God and evil. It is logically impossible for God to create free creatures and guarantee that they will never do evil. Among the infinite number of possibilities in an infinite number of possible worlds, God could have chosen a less evil, (or less free) world, yet if man is truly free, God can not stop evil. It would be impossible or illogical for God, who is an all- powerful, omnipotent being, to have created a world in which he controlled the evilness or freeness, for this would remove the gift of free will that he had given to man. The existence of free will without evil is an illogical impossibility. Even though man has the capacity to commit great evil, he also has the capacity to perform great acts of goodness. According to Mackie, God does not eliminate first order evil such as pain because it is a logically necessary component for goods such as sympathy. God could have eliminated second order evils such as cruelty, but to do so would remove freedom of will. If God intervened in every evil, it would erode human responsibility, and the laws of nature.
III)Mackie's Critisism of Saint Augustine's Free- Will Defense According to Mackie, the choice between robots who always do good or free men who can do good or evil is a false dilemma. There was an "obvious better possibility" in which God could have created beings who always act freely, yet nevertheless, always chooses to do good.
IV)Why God Permits Evil To Exist In the World
i)Hick's "Soul- Making" Explanation For Evil's Existence: The world is a soul- making place. Man who is made in the image of god, but not in the likeness of God, is an incomplete being who must strive towards the perfect likeness and love of God. Qualities such as love, and courage would not make sense in a world without evil, because the world would be nothing more than a "play pen paradise." The existence of Evil is necessary in order to build character development of man into the likeness of God.
ii)Swinburne Explains The Advantages Of The Existence Of Evil: according to Swinburne, there are advantages of a world in which free men face challenges, and have the capacity to affect others. The existence of evil, give men the opportunity to perform act which show men at their best. Many evils spur men into action. A world without evils, would be a world without which men could not show sympathy, forgiveness, compassion and self sacrifice. In conclusion, there is no easy proof to show the incompatibility between the existence of evil and God. It is the price of free actions that evil will exist The existence of evil is compatible with the existence of God and God's choice to create creatures with free will.
Free Will: Does it Exist Category: Life Does Free Will Exist?
Free Will Versus Determinism
I. Universal Determinism: According to the theory of universal determinism, every thing is governed by causal laws. Therefore if you knew all the properties of the universe(the world), you would be able to infallibly predict all future events. Any present event, including human behavior, is caused by an antecedent cause!
i. The Determinist Argument:
1. Every event must have a cause.
2. Human Actions are events.
3. Therefore, every human action is caused...
4. So, determinism must be true. ii. Evidence For Determinism
1. Science seems to eventually find a cause for everything.
2. We assume in everyday life that everything has a cause; we can not help but believe that every event has a cause. This belief is called the Issue of Universal Causality.
iii. Evidence Against Determinism Common sense tells us that we can change, we feel we are not compelled, we could have acted differently.
iv. Soft Determinism: An Alternative? An action may result from having a reason that one could not change, but the reasons themselves are not considered actions. Therefore, as long as we are not coerced, we can have a free action. An act may be entirely determined, yet be free in the sense that it was voluntary and not coerced. Whether we are morally responsible or not, is determined depending on if the behavior is voluntary or involuntary. Refute: This theory is illogical; one can not have moral responsibility if reasons are determined. The libertarian, determinist and free will arguments differ, yet all uphold the paradigm that involuntary actions negate moral responsibility.
II. Free Will i. The Free Will Argument:
1. The Argument of Moral Responsibility states that if determinism were true, no person would be able to change his actions, therefore no one could ever be held morally responsible for his own actions. Common sense tells us that we can change our actions by our own choice.
2. We can and have overcome our desires and inclinations. Both common sense and fact show that we can actively change our behavior. Determinist reply: We only perceive that we can change our actions and behavior.
3. We do not feel compelled to act. At the time of a decision, we feel we have had other choices. Determinist reply: Such feelings of control are illusions; we are just ignorant of all the irresistible forces acting upon us.
4. At a certain time we feel that we could have chosen to act differently. Determinist reply: Our behavior is already determined by previous events. Therefore you can not change your behavior.
ii. The Implications of Determinism: Man becomes nothing more than a puppet.
III. Libertarianism: A compromise
i Libertarian Points:
1. We have free will in the sense that given the same previous conditions, one could have acted otherwise.
2. Agent Causality explains that the individual or agent is responsible for all actions even though the self itself, does not change.
3. Actions can be free and uncaused. If actions are caused, they are caused by inner states (the self). These inner states themselves are uncaused and unchanging.
ii. Argument:
1. Behavior and actions seem to be the outcome of personal deliberation.
2. It appears as if actions in fact are the result of such deliberation.
3. While determinists claim that actions are not the result of a person's deliberation, they have been unable to prove that pre-determined conditions actually cause all human behavior.
iii. Implications of Libertarianism While libertarianism avoids the puppet like man of the determinist, man is replaced with an even less human like image; an erratic, jerking phantom who behaves without without rhyme or reason.
St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways
Background: St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a Dominican priest, theologian, and philosopher. Called the Doctor Angelicus (the Angelic Doctor,) Aquinas is considered one the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. Two of his most famous works, the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles, are the finest examples of his work on Christian philosophy.
"The truth of the Christian faith...surpasses the capacity of reason, nevertheless that truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know can not be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith."
First Way: The Argument From Motion St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion.
Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.
Second Way: Causation Of Existence This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things.
Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.
Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God.
Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.
Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.
Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)