Ethics

Creative writing carries with it a myriad of challenges that are more than often conflicting or ironically similar. Let me start off by setting aside specific characteristics of languages. For instance, general talk typically employs ordinary language. Hence, verbs do what they are developed to do, and this also applies to nouns.  Therefore, by examining diverse characteristics of language, it is crucial to assert that, such aspects as rhymes are characteristically poetic attribute of language and rarely is it employed in everyday language when we do, we cackle because it assumes unnatural tone. And, yet, when employed decisively, or when brought to the forefront of an incident of lingo, rhyme acquires the dimensions of exquisiteness. In this regard, we have definitely treaded from mere lingo into sphere of literature. All in all, poetry and prose have common characteristics noticeably.

This examination concludes that, there subsists a realm of equally poetic prose and prose poetry, meaning there subsists no broader variation involving the two. However, a poet cannot do without a well developed organization of language this is due to the fact that, poem thrives on the concepts of stanzas and rhymes among others. On the other hand, sentences lean towards prose, while metaphors are applicable to both poetry and prose (Bortolussi, et al, 2003). Prose writing generally tags along the standard regulations in syntax, punctuation, sentence structure and capitalization. Poetry time and again do not, this is commonly attributed to expressive grounds, and each word, interlude, is cautiously selected to say the most by using the minimal words.

Therefore, for an individual to answer this question without being a poet, the remedy is to shun the use of stanzas, lines as well as meter. This is due to the fact that, prose is more of fiction or non fiction writing. Prose is the lingo of everyday communication, or the symbols medium that apes it. Sister Carrie (1900) is a classic novel authored by the reknowned American Theodore Dreiser.  The novel revolves around the dramatic live of a young country girl who had moved to the big city in order to realize her own American dream. Examining this narration in the manner that Shakespeare treats his work, it would be pivotal to assert that, perhaps he could have developed a tragic sequel or another romantic episode.  Consider the fact that, Shakespeare is commonly viewed as a feminist therefore, there is a possibility that, he could have developed a satirical drama that resonate with the broader context of ordinary American folks. And this points to the fact that, he could have attempted to inject life to the characters as is exposed by his previous works.

Equally, looking the manner by which Theodore Dreiser presented his case, it would be paramount to assert that, he could have changed the entire scope presented in The Tempest to fit his short stories fascinations. It is notable that, as an author he strongly employed prose to present his works which strongly departed from the realms of highly plotted fiction work. Therefore, if he was the one who had authored The Tempest, there is a possibility that, he could have presented a well articulated but a long novel. This has been established by the fact that, most of his works are crowded by bulk or long novels rather than short narratives. In essence, he could have revolved within an axis of creating a novel that catered for his audience who perhaps includes the middle class citizens. Moreover, Dreisers works extensively influenced the pragmatic writings by such authors as Stephen Crane, Jack London, as well as Ernest Hemingway.

The Idiot is basically on the thought that, Myshkin is not naturally bright, this is due to the fact that, as the author point, the lad was not educated, and typically criss-crossed the world with a mindset of simplistic virtuousness. When verbalizing his views, he struggles to clear himself with Charlie Brown-like stuttering and insipidity. It is on this ground that, the inhabitants reputed that he was an idiot, but actually, he was a fine, sincere, considerate, and gracious being. The novel appears to posit that a pious man, navigating his paths in a people that are apprehensive with covetousness and ruthless avarice, will be judged as foolish idiot for valuing integrity, kindness, and the plain things in life.

Possibly, it is due to his ingenuousness that all and sundry, including Dr. Schneider referred to him as an idiot. From the novel, Prince Myshkin appears to subsist as if in an undying status of contemplation, of absolute-calmness. Equally, it looks as if that via Myshkin, Dostoyevsky perceives the spiritual familiarity as an enjoyable unknowingness.

Therefore, in regard to chapter eleven, it can be assumed that, though the Prince was treated as an idiot, he loved to keep it simple and sincere. Hence, he opted to be uncomplicated rather than be wicked. In principal, the prince could not have objected or denied to be called an idiot, this can be linked to the fact that, he had spent a quite long time in the sanitarium where he had gone to seek medication. This coupled with his personal principles made him to withstand despite the fact that, he was innocent and candid in his ways.

In as far as he was concerned, the remark fits considerably. Conceivably, this is why Dostoevsky prefers to use it now and then. Examining the kind of people who were surrounding the Prince, it is instrumental to realize that, the nature of their characteristics conflicted with what the Prince believed. Therefore, the features of virtue which he cherished and treasured were viewed and interpreted as a sign of weakness. Hence, the usage and application of the word idiot acquired another shape and meaning.

A name or a title carries a wealth of honor and prestige. Therefore, a name can be said to be a sign of honor or as well prestige. To answer the question posed, it would be pragmatic to posit that, there are deep-rooted mystical powers in the names we give to others or objects. For instance, on Christian perspective, it is widely claimed that, one of the major act after creation that Adam was assigned was to name each and every beast. Hence, one of the most instrumental aspect of a parental power or authority is to decide and determining the nature of the name to be given to his or her child.

Thus a name or a title may depict personality or ones social status as well as ones position in any given community. Also a name carries with it cultural and ethnic identity. Exploring the aspects of the novel The Idiot Fyodor Dostoyevsky, one cannot fail to realize the effect of a name on an individual. It is on that principle that, when the prince is addressed or viewed as an idiot because of his views and moral uprightness, the larger society perceived him to be so. Thus a name holds particular attributes that are allied to the bearer of that given name or title. From the ancient time, to the contemporary world today, names or titles are held in high. I consider that a name can assist to mould you into what you become but not establish who you will be.

In conclusion, names as well as titles are given to reflect a sort of identity. There are those who take certain names or title due to ethnic identity, while others are propelled to do due to religious obligations. However, going back to the query what is in a name or a title Perhaps the answer may look ridiculous, but the general answer to this question is typically that nothing is in a name, and the factual person is within. Nevertheless, at some point in a time when individuals were graded in a class, it would be quite clear to assert that literature had a system of bringing or creating a new connotation to that subject (Bortolussi, et al, 2003).

Information technology has been continuously booming with new technological products that create a more diverse information environment.  There have been dramatic changes associated with the IT, and these changes create ethical problems and upheavals that usually have something to do with ethics.  True, there has been technological development in the arenaone that occurs when either the technological paradigm is elaborated in terms of improved concepts, theories, and methods, or in instances of the paradigm are improved (Moor, 2008, p.27), such as in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and safety.  This creates an enormous social impact, and it has led to a technological revolution that considerably takes time and is difficult to predict.  Information technology has gone over the introduction stage and the permeation stage.  We are on the power stage wherein the technology is readily available, affecting people directly and indirectly.  This creates an impact that is superbly enormous yet, there are always the ethical problems that springs forth in the arena.

Ethical problems that surround the self-identity, anonymity, and privacy of a person are always attached when it comes to IT.  The technological revolution has a large-scale effect that transforms the society, while affecting the manner in which the society functions (Moor, 2008, p.29).  It is evident that open technological revolutions in open societies still need some enhancements, so that the ethical problems would be controlled and maximized.

Main Body
There are a number of important issues that surround the technological paradigm of IT, especially in relation to ethics.  Some of these are in the form of self-identity, anonymity, as well as privacy.  There are also other unethical issues (e.g., cheating, hacking, wardriving) that are attached to the technological paradigm of IT.

Ethical problems in self-identity
The self-identity is being constructed according to how the individual interacts with the society and with himself or herself.  In the social landscape of modernity, there are numerous major changes in the external social environment that affects the individual during this social transformation.  In the age of the IT, people get to have the capacity to reconstruct the universe through the everyday realities and circumstances that take place in their specific worlds.  It is a continuous state of affairs that largely creates the self-identity and the personal feelings attached to this paradigm.  This new sense of identity are being formed with the intrusion of the IT in a persons life, and people get to have personal relationship even with people who are unknown to thempeople who suddenly pop out in their computers screens, with names that may or may not be factual.  Personal relationships help form the self-identity, offering opportunities for self-expression and the self-renewal.  According to Giddens (1991),

The modern world is a runaway world not only is the pace of social change much faster than in any prior system, so also is its scope, and the profoundness with which it affects pre-existing social practices and modes of behavior. (Giddens, 1991, p.16)

With this, it is apparent that the IT becomes an active component in the continuous transformation of a persons identity, as it creates and affects the social practices and the modes of a persons behavior.  Thus, problems that affect the personal life of the individual could affect not only the self-identity, but the social practices and the environment as a whole.  Ethical problems in terms of anonymity and privacy, for example, can lead to an identity that is blemished because of unethical conduct.  Despite the fact that people always carry discursive interpretations of their behavior, this practical consciousness drives the person into creating or destroying the ontological security of human activity in a culture.  As an effect, people tend to write comments anonymously while hiding their true identities.

Ethical problems in anonymity
According to the article that Richard Perez-Pea (2010) wrote entitled News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments, it says that Internet users usually make use of the digital disguise, revealing their power and their sentiments without acknowledging their true identities to the viewers.  This constitutes a sort of freedom for the digital users, and this is most typical in news sites, wherein the viewers are allowed to post comments without indicating their true identities, keeping their privacy in a world that is being presented in public.  As indicated in the article, Anyone could weigh in and remain anonymous (Perez-Pea, 2010, p.1), and this leads to the question on whether or not viewers of Internet sites should be allowed to remain anonymous when dictating their comments and suggestions.  This is a very significant ethical problem associated to IT, since it has been ethically accepted that any type of idea or sentiment should be associated to the respectful person who has formed the idea.  According to Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post,
Anonymity is just the way things are done. Its an accepted part of the Internet, but theres no question that people hide behind anonymity to make vile or controversial comments.  (Perez-Pea, 2010, p.1)
It has, therefore, been advised that viewers should indicate their factual names, especially when making a significant commentary about the society.  They should use their real names, and this may be done by requiring people to register first before posting their commentaries.  

Ethical problems in privacy
According to the article that Scott Rosenberg (2010) wrote entitled Online Comments Need Moderation, Not Real Names, there is also the statement that defines how newspaper website managers have been reacting in terms of anonymity and privacy keeping.  As stated, If only they could make people sign their real names, surely the atmosphere would improve (Rosenberg, 2010, p.1).  Online conversation spaces make media outlets turn the common software on and then leave them as it is, as if the discussions would magically take care of themselves (Rosenberg, 2010, p.1).  The problem, however, is that the commenters should not be faceless and should carry identities that are open for the other viewers.  This problem is in the identity system, with the Web having no identity system that would ethically reconnect the idea to the person who has declared it.  As stated in the article,
The Web has no identity system, and though the FBI can track you down if the provocation is dire enough, and if you get editors mad enough they can track you down, too, most media companies arent going to waste the time and money.

Ethical privacy problems can also be in the form of hacking or using unauthorized access to an information system (Floridi, 2008, p.43).  This indulges privacy and confidentiality.

Conclusion
There are other ethical problems associated with the IT of the modern social world, such as using the new technology in order to cheat ones taxes, or deviating the user from his or her true name or identity.  It can also be in the form of wardriving wherein people try to connect wirelessly to other peoples networks (Moor, 2008, p.33).  All these unethical conducts can create an enormous social impact that leads to technological revolution that can contract IT in its power stage.  With proper management, it can develop the IT into something that is more powerful and enormous, without the ethical problems that have large-scale effects on the society.  It is evident, therefore, that open societies through the IT still need some enhancements, so that the ethical problems would be controlled and maximized.

Introduction
Hacking refers to reconfiguration or re-programming of a system so that it can function in ways that are not expected by the owner. Others view hacking as modification of programs or devices to provide access to features and utilities that are otherwise unavailable (Sderberg, 2007). Irrespective of the minor differences in the definitions, cases of hacking are on the increase. Hacking for purposes of expressing views have also increased with major corporations and trade blocks being the key targets. The existence of the phrase political hacking emphasizes the notion that hacking is viewed as an avenue for expressing views. Hacking is a political act irrespective of the ultimate goals.

Discussion
Computer scientists categorize hackers as white, grey and black hat hackers. This categorization is based on their intent when seeking access to a network or a system. Black hat hackers are viewed as evil hackers whose intent is to cause damage and engage in criminal activities for instance funds transfer and access of confidential information. White hat hackers are perceived as hackers with noble intents whose main interest is revealing weakness of a system so that it can be corrected by the administrators. Gray hat hackers have both noble and evil intentions.

The internet is a medium that can be used effectively to share ideas and disseminate information faster. Furthermore, the internet provides an effective platform for searching and addressing issues relating to public policy. The existence of blogs and social networking sites provide multiple opportunities for people to share views on activities on their ecology. These are among some of the factors that have led to the internet being referred to as a great boon for democracy. A review of the mass media and other information avenues reveals that they have over the years been used for political purposes (Schofield, 2006). It is therefore expected that the internet as a mass media can be used for political purposes. However, this does not explain how hackings is a political tool though it raises awareness on the use of the internet and other new technologies for political reasons. It is noteworthy that involvement of the public sphere into the public structure results in a different definitions of deliberative political activity. This implies that entitlements cannot be automatically analyzed with reference to the governed and the governing (van den Hoven,  Weckert, 2008). Moreover, democratic politics plays an important role in mediating interaction between civil societies and political institutions. It is thus evident that neither top-down nor bottom-up strategies to global politics can stand on their own (Schofield, 2006). A review of hacking in information and internet technology reveals  that it has played an important role in the development that have been made in browser and internet technology. Hackers have highlighted technological flaws that have been analyzed and corrective measures developed. Basing decisions on hackers actions essentially shows that hackers are essential in political processes on issues pertaining to web security and internet transactions. Any action that has a political bearing on the decisions that are made by software developers is a political act thus hacking can be viewed as a political act.

State oriented public spheres display different characteristics. Even though there are cases where citizens do not have a direct influence on decisions, there are certain normative powers that they can use (van den Hoven,  Weckert, 2008). In a case where political authority has strayed outside the available mechanisms to exercise democracy, contestatory sovereignty of the demos can be used to create awareness on different views (van den Hoven,  Weckert, 2008). Public demonstrations, strikes and go slows are some of the avenues that are traditionally used to disrupt activities and create awareness on the need for inclusion of others views in making changes. Such strategies are common in cases where the institutions that exercise authority are unresponsive (van den Hoven,  Weckert, 2008). However, with change in technology it is likely that the contestatory sovereignty strategies may also embrace technology. There are reported cases of hackers jamming website and internet pathways with denial of service attacks so as to create awareness on their differential views and need for corrective action. In such cases, hacking is used as a tool for demonstration and creating awareness on the need for inclusion of varied viewpoints which is essential. Such corrective demos do not necessarily have to be within the defined protocols (van den Hoven,  Weckert, 2008). This is true for hacking, strikes and go slows that are often outlawed by organizations though they play a role in consensus building between different stakeholders.

 Information technology is a field defined by polarized views on whether information is public or private. The existence of open source and commercial software is testament to the differences that exist in opinion between different parties involved in shaping developments in information technology. It is noteworthy that the activities of both open source and commercial software developers play roles in shaping development in IT. Interaction between commercial and open source software developers is vital in improving the quality of software though this is impeded by copyright laws and polarized view on use of information availability for profit (Sderberg, 2007). Hackers provide a conduit for interaction between commercial and open source software developers and in so doing they develop a technological environment that is open to new ideas. The current notion that technology is changing fast and organizations have to upgrade their information systems to keep in touch with new threats is partly a result of the activities of hackers (Sderberg, 2007). Thus hackers play a role in creating an environment that is appreciative of the nature of information technology thus objective decisions and developments.

Computer scientists have categorized hackers with reference to the factors that motivate their involvement in hacking. In any political process involving many stakeholders, there are varied interests and motivation for engagement. The strategy used in any political process depends on the level of organization and available facilitators which is the case in hacking. The outcomes in hacking differ though they are dependent on the initial motivation for engagement. In a political process, the outcome is seldom predetermined and is affected by various internal variables. The technology used by a company, the expertise displayed by a hacker and the tools at his disposal are some of the factors that may influence the outcome in hacking. Evidently, there is an alignment between procedures in political processes and in hacking.

Conclusion
Hacking plays an important role in shaping development in computer technology through influencing decision making by organizations and software developers. Additionally, hacking can be used as a tool for creating awareness on differential views thus facilitating the adoption of democratic political processes. This implies that hacking can be used to change the views held by managers regarding organizational issues. Moreover, hacking can be used to create awareness on changes in technology. Lastly, hacking is a process that displays similar procedural requirements and outcomes as political processes. Evidently, hacking is a process that may affect decisions and share the same procedural requirement as a political process. This is only possible if hacking is a political process.

All throughout the history of mans existence on Earth, it was evidently seen that man made use of language as a tool to communicate concepts that are produced by their respective mental processes (Larochie, Pons  Richard, 2009). The utilization of language to represent the messages that one wants to convey and share to his or her fellow men is in conjunction to the role of language in describing and representing the world around us (Larochie, Pons  Richard, 2009). In both terms, language is used as a tool or a channel to put into words and understandable concepts the underlying meaning and explanations to daily life events, and other phenomena (Larochie, Pons  Richard, 2009). The effectiveness of language in serving as a tool in accomplishing these purposes is evidently seen on its functionality in ethnic  identity, individual recognition (Larochie, Pons  Richard, 2009), and general global communication (Gabbott  Hogg, 2000).

Unfortunately, despite of the cited effectiveness of language, it is still not free of weaknesses and an example of which is depicted on the argument of explicitness which states that the effectiveness of language as a vehicle of thought is affected by the explicitness of the instrument of thought and the explicitness of the natural language (Gabbott  Hogg, 2000, pg. 384). It argues that the interpretation of language is dependent on the completeness and stability of the meaning in different states and cultural subgroups (Gabbott  Hogg, 2000). Hence, it is being said here that the weakness of language is seen on the subjectivity that may be attributed in the interpretation of individuals on major concepts or ideas that are given to them (Gabbott  Hogg, 2000). One practical illustration of this is seen in the event whenever non-verbal communications are misinterpreted (Vicente  Martinez-Manrique, 2008). This misinterpretation is a product of the pre-formed biases of the individual regarding the different types of meaning that may be attributed to each of the non-verbal gestures (Vicente  Martinez-Manrique, 2008). In general, it can be said that language is an effective tool in describing the word but proper interpretations are still limited by the subjectivity and biases that each individual possess in relation to his or her cultural origins.

The Augustinian philosophical thought is attributed to Aurelius Augustine, a North African native who in spite of being geographically far from the intellectual capitals at the time made substantial contributions to Western philosophy. He spent most of his life in his native country of North Africa and in his early years, he subscribed to a movement that was at the time known as Manichean propaganda. The Manichean propagandas ideals were the complete contrast of what became of his thoughts later in life after renouncing the movement. His thoughts are contained in his writings such as on the trinity and on the free will. Augustine did convert to Christianity later and became an ecclesiastical writer and thinker but of his thoughts pointed to a neo Platonist philosophical dispensation. Indeed, he had a high regard for Platonism terming it as a philosophical thought that managed to transcend generations because of its adaptability.

The high regard, with which he held the neo platonic philosophy, especially having termed it transcendent, meant that the philosophy acted as the template for his entire life. That put him in a unique position as far as western philosophy is concerned because then he had to combine his belief in an ancient philosophy with Christianity. The two were not necessarily compatible. This paper explores the Augustinian philosophy and in particular delves in its views regarding Gods existence.

As noted earlier, the Augustinian philosophy is wide, and it is important that before narrowing down to its views on the existence of God, it would be prudent to first take a general look at some of its key concepts. The philosophy covers a wide area of human existence and to understand it, one would have to deduce some of its major pillars. However, given that it is not an orderly or compartmentalized presentation of philosophical thoughts an attempt to apportion them in to definite themes may carry a risk of distorting the view.Knowledge

The Augustinian philosophy classifies the acquisition of knowledge in two by reason and by authority. Acquisition of knowledge through reason entails using logics and evidence to arrive at a conclusion. Using this form of knowledge acquisition, one has to be inquisitive and interrogate the sources of information available and thereafter make an inference. The latter source of knowledge is based more of belief than logic. One may unquestionably believe certain things without caring much about the credibility of the sources. All human beings for example, believe their births to be a result of interaction of two particular people, whose identities they have come to believe as true.

 If the by reason form of knowledge acquisition were to be used then one would want to question the credibility of the people giving the information on the parents. These may be the midwives, doctors and other witnesses. Another feature of Augustinian Philosophy on knowledge is the rejection of skeptics. One of the hallmarks of skepticism is doubt. The philosophy however finds doubt a necessary ingredient in proving that which is being doubted.  Accordingly, our very doubt, for example, regarding mans existence is evidence of existence is the first place.

Human nature
On happiness, Augustinian philosophy terms a happy person as one who has all that he wants and wants nothing wrongly. He however says that people have different aims in life and for that reason everyone will find happiness in different places. In addition, everybody is in pursuit of happiness. The philosophy also extols the importance of education, perceiving it as one of the mind opening endeavors a person can engage in. Being a philosophy written by an ecclesiastic, it pays homage to a Supreme Being and in fact, points to a respect for God as the ultimate sign of ethics. In other words, one cannot claim to live a life of righteousness if there is no respect and love for God.

The philosophy has a view on human freedoms as well. Freedom is of two forms one is the absolute freedom and the second one is the freedom with consequences. This understanding of freedom implies that man may be free to make choices but this is very limited because in the end the choices made may have a great bearing on how life will turn out. Human beings cannot exercise freedoms the way a falling fruit will exercise directional freedom when falling. A fruit does not have to worry about the place its final destination during a fall instead it will just rely on its weight for such a determination. For the human being however, an equivalent action will imply thoughtless actions, which will obviously be accompanied by consequences. From that, it is clear that the philosophy does not believe that absolute human freedom exists it may in an ideal situation.

Existence of God
This is perhaps the most important aspect of the philosophy for the purposes of this paper. A look at this philosophy should reveal how the author of the philosophy perceived the doubts and theories related to the existence of a God. Theories trying to support or refute the existence of a God or Supreme Being have been advanced by philosophers, scientists and other thinkers. The main philosophical arguments can be summed up in to four these are ontological, design, moral and first cause arguments. The classification is a summary of philosophical thoughts and not by any means, an attempt to classify the philosophers. They all present their independent thoughts, which do not necessarily conform to the four groups.

The Augustinian philosophical thought was authored by a theologian and for that reason such a thinker may have had little time to focus on the existence of a God. The interest of such persons would be to convince as many people as possible to follow the teachings of this Supreme Being and may not have therefore, had the time to convince the people that a God exists because that is an inherent truth according to them. In any case, most of the people who have gone in search of such truths have mostly been skeptics out to prove a point. Scientists for example, would want to prove there is no God so as to lend credence to their theory of evolution. Philosophers on the other hand would want to prove or disapprove the existence of a God so as to propagate certain schools of thought. Augustine may have been a philosopher and a great thinker but his philosophical thought on the existence of a God may have been clouded by his conversion to Christianity. It is possible that from then henceforth he could have lost his objectivity and only looked up to theories in support of Gods existence. For that reason his theories have to be properly dissected because of the resultant conflict of interest. The Augustinian philosophy is guided by eternal truths in its beliefs that a God exists. Within the philosophy, eternal truths are represented symbolically using geometry and mathematics.

Trinity
The philosophy cannot be complete without the mention of trinity. According to the philosophy, trinity finds a wide application as opposed to the commonly held view of it being that of the father, son and the Holy Spirit. A practicing Christian will, if asked, offer that the embodiment of trinity. For the philosophy however, trinity is a near omnipresent phenomenon. Firstly, there is the trinity that exists within the human soul. For the human, trinity is conceptualized by the presence of three aspects within the same person these are being, knowing and willing. The symbolic importance of this concept according to the philosophy is that indeed, the idea of the trinity is applicable in any situation and that using this one should not find it hard to conceptualize how the same can be said of God. The philosophy, having convinced one to accept the idea of trinity within the human being, then attempts to connect human existence with Gods presence without creating an ideological tension on the question of potential rivalry between the two.

Eternal truths
Augustinian philosophy likens the existence of eternal truths as evidence of the existence of a God. Before analyzing the veracity of this contention, it is important to first of all understand the meaning of eternal truths-according to the philosophy. Eternal truths are part and parcel of the human beings everyday life. Eternal truths are absolute and have no room for modification or inquisition they are static. Going against such truths will be mere contradiction and may not change anything.

For instance, in the 17th century, Isaac Newton came up with the law of gravity. Within it, he specified that if an object is left in the atmosphere, it will fall in a particular direction. He did not create this law as it was already in existence. What he did was to merely promulgate it and come up with the specifics. If the case were to the contrary then objects would have been falling in the opposite direction up until the time he discovered the law. If one therefore defies such a law, he is not defying Isaac Newton, rather it will just be going against an unalterable truth, and it may be fraught with consequences.

On the other hand, the result of the Presidential election in 2008 implied that president Barack Obama was the best leader America could have had at the time. This truth can be interrogated, and it was, because not all people agreed with it, going by the way Americans voted. If there was any eternal truth in politics for example, so that going against a certain politician or party would amount to going against an eternal truth then by now a number of countries would be extinct. Instead, when such a thing happens the countries just undergo a period of economic recession, or experience human rights abuses. To sum it all, eternal truths are cast in stone.

Non-Euclidean geometry
Another element, closely related to the concept of eternal truth, is geometry. The philosophy uses geometry to deduce some inferences and it is equally important to understand it before going ahead to interrogate the validity the arguments contained thereof. To understand the non-Euclidean geometry, which is a branch curved out of the mainstream geometry. Non-Euclidean, as the name suggests, is the alternate presentation of the Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry is the study of conventional geometrical shapes such as triangles and squares. Euclidean geometry came in to practice from the work of Euclid (330-275 BC), a Greek mathematician who came up with postulates that became the laws of geometry. The most important of these postulates is the parallel lines postulate, which is the fifth postulate. In the non-Euclidean postulate, the sum of angles within a shape does not necessarily conform to that which is the Euclidean geometry would assume.

For instance, the sum of angles within a triangular shape would be 1800 . That arises out of the assumption that the lines that will make up the shape will all be straight. What if one of the three lines making up the shape would be is a curved line. The resultant shape would obviously fail to add up to the required number of degrees because the points of interaction between them would not allow. Non-Euclidean geometry would mostly apply to shapes that are hyperbolic or elliptic they cannot be treated using the same rules of geometry that apply to Euclidean geometry.

Existence of God
Having understood the concept of eternal truths and geometry, it is now time to explore the Augustinian philosophy with regards to the existence of God. The philosophy makes substantial reference to the existence of a Supreme Being and although it does not make a direct reference to the reasons of its existence, it does give pointers as to why there may be such a being on earth.

Eternal truths and existence of a God
Eternal truths are not there to be challenged, and so is Gods presence. For this theory to hold any water two things have to be proven one is that there is that there are eternal truths and two, that these eternal truths can prove the existence of a God. According to the philosophy, people come to the conclusion of the existence of a triangle via a sequence of mental processes. The mental process is simply the authors thought of how the human mind perceives things. The mind will appreciate the shape of a triangle by continuously seeing the triangles and their similarities.

With time, one gets to associate the triangular shape with that of a triangle, which makes objects with similar shapes triangles. This is the argument by analogy which was first used by Augustine, the philosophys author. It attempts to explain how a human being comes to appreciate that another being with similar characteristics is indeed a fellow human being. In accordance to the learning theories from the philosophical thought explored earlier, getting to appreciate a fellow human being is a matter of reason and not authority.

When one sees a body that has a similar shape and the same body carries out functions in a similar manner then the other body has to be a human being as well. Similarly, after seeing a number of particular shapes one is convinced that they belong to a particular class. The thought process here appears insulated from challenges because indeed, the argument has just concluded that all three sided geometrical shapes have similarities and should therefore be called triangles and classified as such. However, much as the thought process appears to lend credence to the fact the shapes can only be triangles one may still question the validity of assuming that just because the human mind has perceived them to be so then they are eternally triangles. To put in another way is to ask whether the definition of triangle would remain valid beyond the current universe or life.

Descartes, another great philosopher in the seventeenth century relied on the existence of eternal in his attempt to explain Gods existence.  Should the arguments on eternal truths prove to be nonexistent or feeble then the whole of Descartes argument will be invalidated. According to Descartes, the existence of an eternal truth is evident enough that there is a God because this God is responsible for the creation of this eternal truth.

There is a slight contradiction of these theory with that of the philosophy. A contradiction with any other school of thought would have been acceptable, but in this case, the two are interdependent and for that reason they have to show maximum congruence. God created man with sufficient freedom to differentiate the right from the wrong. The idea is that by creating man God wanted to put a being on earth that would govern itself in the best interest of all the earth. God would then allow himself to sit back and watch the creature he had created using all its capabilities and be impressed whenever it did things accordingly.

It is therefore questionable for the same God to create eternal truths and thereby impose rigidity upon the same human beings that were supposed to use the God given discretion to differentiate right from wrong. Assuming that God intended the triangle to be a three sided figure, it would have been more appropriate to create triangles with a multiplicity of sides so that the human being would be able to differentiate and say the true triangle according to God is the three sided triangle. That would in turn give God a sense of pride because according to the philosophy God created man in his own image, meaning that anything right a man does gives God a sense of pride. After all, one of the objectives of creating mankind with the sort of freedom enjoyed is to create genuine good. Gods intention here is to create a universe in which any good that comes out of it is genuine and not out of coercion.

To dispute Gods role in the creation of eternal truths is not tantamount to questioning Gods freedom in the creation of the universe. There is no question as to how free God was during the creation, only that in the process he may have restricted himself for the sake of achieving certain ends. In any case, Descartes appears to tear in to Gods independence because one may find it hard to conceive where these truths were before God declared them as eternal truths.

This may particularly arise if one were to imagine what the world would have been like had God chosen other truths as the eternal truths. Or put in another way, God could have had a choice of creating other truths but instead, chose to create the ones in play at the moment. That then implies that God is not free because before creation there were a set of truths that were already there and it was just for him to pick the ones that would be appropriate. Therefore it gives one the idea that these truths were preordained, something that is unacceptable for anyone who believes in the superiority of God.

Staying with the idea of Gods superiority (and therefore independence), another matter that arises with regards to Gods independence is how much freedom this God has in as far as altering the truths are concerned. God, being the Supreme Being cannot be bound by anything (including the eternal truths), and for that reason one can question the extent to which these truths can be altered. In short, it is unacceptable for God to be bound by anything be they laws or beings.

Giving it a consideration however, one finds that these are eternal truths (according to Descartes). The doctrine implies that God created eternal truths, meaning that they cannot be altered. Matters are not made any better by the fact these are truths and any attempt to alter them will result in a contradiction, which equates to a lie. In other words, were God to alter the truths sometime in future, then the new truths would render the old truths lies. Of course, God cannot want to be called a liar, and to prevent such an occurrence the truths have to remain as they are. Effectively that means God is bound to leave them untouched. Accordingly, God loses his power as far as that is concerned.

A further questionable aspect of geometry is the introduction of non Euclidean geometry.

Non Euclidean geometry
When Euclidean geometry was introduced by Greek mathematicians around 300 BC, led to the systemization of geometry using the five postulates that had been derived by Euclid. For the next two thousand years, this geometry enjoyed a monopoly until the emergence of no Euclidean geometry later. The assumption during all this time must have been that use of non straight lines in the geometrical shape would lead to a figure that could not be analyzed mathematically. However, things changed in 19th century when Gauss and Lobachevsky, in their works came up with non Euclidean geometry. With the successful introduction of non Euclidian geometry, the previous monopoly was cut short. In effect, this meant that postulates that had been earlier on been advanced by Euclid and taken as gospel truth were now being put under the microscope. For the two thousand years that the Euclid geometry enjoyed a monopoly for example, there was a strict belief that the angles within a triangle added up to one hundred and eighty degree.

In one of its references to the truths, the Augustinian philosophy refers to the truths found within the Euclidean system as eternal truths. It is on the basis of the existence of these eternal truths that it alleges the existence of a supreme being. The Augustinian philosophy was authored centuries ago and by the time the author died the only school of geometry was the Euclid one. However, a lot has since changed. In addition to the fifth and most important postulate being challenged, a new school of geometry emerged. More importantly, the school has provided important developments in the fields of architecture, engineering and mathematics and is responsible to some of the most magnificent structures in the worlds. The most magnificent structures during Augustines time could have been the pyramids only, which were all constructed in accordance with the Euclidean geometry.

The philosophy therefore, relied on Euclidean geometry as an indication that a Supreme Being existed. Hence, if the author of the philosophy awoke today and found the role played by non Euclidean geometry in the advancement of humanity, it would be a big surprise. This then calls to question the earlier assumption that there are eternal truths. Truths cannot come in halves. This is especially so when one is referring to such a matter. The paper made such a reference earlier in reference to Gods inability alter the truth in relation his powers.  An inalienable characteristic of telling the truth is credibility. For one to lay claim to being truthful, there has to be consistency a lack of it in the smallest proportions kills disqualifies all other truths notwithstanding the truthfulness of the previous pronouncements.

A good illustration of this would be a witness in a court of law. All an attorney needs a times is to show that the witness lacks credibility and the whole evidence adduced by the said witness will be thrown out by the courts. This may fail to make sense to everyone because the fact that I have some issues with my credibility does not make what I said an automatic lie.

Similarly, the fact that Euclidean geometry has been supplemented by the emergence of a non Euclidean geometry makes the whole idea of eternal truths questionable. It does not just dismiss the idea of geometry being an eternal truth it questions the whole philosophys belief that there are eternal truths.

Furthermore, the truth according to the philosophy is neither created nor changed and above all it is eternal. This accordingly leads the philosopher to believe that since these qualities are unique to the truth, it is indeed eternal and only God can have such characteristics. The only problem is that the discovery of non Euclidean geometry appears to have created a new truth. The difference between this and the discovery of Newtons laws of gravity is that while the non Euclidean geometry was a modification of earlier beliefs, the latter was a mere awakening to a reality that had been in existence for a long time. People were already aware that anything falling would fall in the direction of gravity, what they were not aware of perhaps was why that was the case. For the case of the geometry however, it was assumed for a long time that the geometry could only exist in the form of triangles, squares and circles.

Consequently, the discovery of non Euclidean geometry was a new creation of truth. That goes contrary to the principles of truth as laid down by the philosophy. The truth is supposed to be created or changed and yet, the emergence of this other school of geometry does that. Those whose lives were between the two thousand years of Euclidean monopoly will find it hard to understand how the sum of angles within a triangle can fail to add up to one hundred and eighty degrees. By contrast, those who lived in the pre-Newtonian times will not be surprised that there are equations describing how an object falls down.

At the end of the paragraph the philosophy says of the relationship between the eternal truths and God

..Thus, our view is that we see God when we see eternal truths, and not that these truths are God, because the ideas that these truths depend on are in God

Given that God is responsible for eternal truths, and that existence of these truths appears to be in doubt, it simply follows that Gods existence as well is in doubt. On a more positive note, the philosophy does not make a direct connection between the eternal truths and God. It would have been worse for example, had the philosophy called the eternal truths God. Such a direct relationship would have meant that inexistence of a direct truth would also mean that no God exists. The kind of relationship implied here is just cause for doubt regarding the school of thought so that one is able to just dismiss the rationale without having to connect the ineligibility of the rationale with the existence of a God. For that reason the failure of that theory does not directly imply that there is no Supreme Being, it just dismisses the argument, but other means may prove its existence.

Relativism in eternal truths
Closely related to the discovery of non Euclidean geometry is the theory of relativism. In one of its attempts to illustrate eternal truths, the philosophy makes reference to arithmetic, something that latter day subscribers to the philosophy question its rationale. For example, two times two is four. Using computations as evidence of eternal truths may be all that reliable because there is no guarantee. That is the exact question posed by the philosophys subscribers, when they use an example of how two and two can be combined to give four.

The arguments weakness is that there is no guarantee that algebra, or any other computations for that reason have an absolute truth. The first loophole can be seen in the disapproval of the fifth postulate of the Euclid geometry. If that could be rendered impotent then it is very possible that all truths created using human logic can equally go the same way. A good place to start from will be the holy trinity. This is one doctrine that the philosophy very much ascribes to. Yet, it is one of the contradictions to the eternality of the truth regarding additions. The first instance of trinity is applied on the human being. In an attempt to sell this concept to its readers, the philosophy starts by postulating that the human being is a three in one. Those are three beings in one.

Applying the same concept to the Supreme Being, the philosophy then makes reference to a God who is three in one. The philosophy was obviously aware of the implications of these and one can therefore, be at pains to comprehend how it could have intentionally decided to contradict itself. In all fairness, the philosopher may have been fully aware of this, meaning that their perception of trinity could have been much different from the usual understanding one may have for a three in one. However, it just provides a very simple contradiction because whichever the case, trinity has shown that one times three can still be one.

Additionally, the concept has been applied to the human being as well, meaning that even if one cannot even cut it some slack by assuming that it only applies to the Supreme Being only. This brings in the theory of relativism. Proponents of relativism in philosophy argue that some of the predicates such as is right, is rational or is right would be best if they were accompanied another predicate so that its form is for example, is rational according to. According to this theory therefore, the supposition that seven added to three equals to ten cannot be held as true.

As it stands, the philosophy only equates a combination of seven and three as ten, making to attempt to first understand whether this three and seven are constant. In another example within the philosophy, God uses plural when he says let us make man in our own image and likeness An ordinary mortal would not have used said our instead my would have been the most appropriate preposition. What comes out of this is that logics as we understand them do not necessarily conform to those of other places for example, the extra terrestrials.

Those contradictions in fact, need not go beyond the earthly understandings in to the world of extra terrestrials there are examples already such as computer programming. Anyone familiar with mathematics used by engineers and computers scientist would readily attest to this fact. In creating their program, these engineers do not use the computations as it is conventionally understood one added to one may equate to zero. It is therefore not an eternal truth to say that four plus four is equal to eight, and even if it were, it would need relativity for it to be valid.

It is therefore important for proponents of this school of thought to recognize the futility of trying to impose what is true for a particular group of beings in total disregard of what others may consider true. Relativism in fact, appears to be the missing ingredient in both postulations because both of them were not necessarily wrong one was overtaken by time while the other appears to fall short of universality that it associated with in the context of the philosophy.

Had the author to the philosophy been forward looking enough, these truths would have had their predicates so that the truth surrounding Euclidean geometry would have been considered true for as long as non straight lines had not been incorporated in to triangular shapes. Of course it would be unfair to expect that the philosophers would have had the foresight to make such predictions. Unfortunately, it is not a question of them being able to make predictions the bottom line is whether there is anything known as an eternal truth.

The introduction of relativism is not an attempt to provide the author with a safety so as to justify any postulation that has been found to be wrong with the fullness of time it is a test of whether there is any validity in their constructs. Simply put, the question is on whether there is such a thing as an eternal truth. It therefore becomes hard to conceive what it would be to have an eternal truth in light of the two that have already failed the test. For instance, according the theory of relativism, the geometrical truth would have been true had the author included a disclaimer outlining the limits of this truth. Instead, the author posted as an inviolable truth thereby immunizing it from any modifications.

Within relativism, this situation could have been mitigated had the author added an addendum to the effect that the truth was limited to particular situation or time period. However, much as that lends credence to the theory, it denies it the element of eternity. It would stop being an eternal truth and the author would have to acknowledge as much thus robbing the works of a vital tool in its quest prove Gods existence.

The underlying inference is that eternal truth does not exist. Relativism is not there to convert a truth in to eternity it is simply there to increase the applicability of that truth. After all, the philosophy preempts such an attempt by referring to the truth (eternal) as unchangeable or not capable of being created. An attempt to introduce relativism in to the truth in this case would amount to changing or mutating it, something that goes contrary to the postulates of the philosophy. Evidently, eternal truths as a way of proving Gods existence are not viable. At best, they are contradictory while at worst they are simply nonexistent.

Although for the purpose of sparing this philosophy, it is better off for it to have the truths being false. The main advantage with this philosophy is that it has not directly linked the presence of eternal truths to God. It has just associated the presence of eternal truths to existence of a God. To better illustrate this it would be worthwhile to consider the scripture in the Christian bible that says In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This is a popular bible scripture that Christians sometimes rely on to show the infiniteness of their God.

Had the wording of the philosophy also followed the same lines then the invalidation of the eternal truths would have rendered the whole philosophys reference to a God invalid. Hence, had the philosophy been about God being the eternal truths as is the case with the bible, then absence of invalid truths would have meant absolute lack of a God. That fact gives the sympathizers of the philosophy some leeway of mending it or at least trying to rationalize some of the things. Matters are even made worse by the philosophys frequent reference to God because the absence of a God makes substantial portions of it inapplicable. For now however, the philosophy just needs to get rid of its reference to eternal truths and probably presents its argument regarding the presence of a God in another way. That is of course a much better outcome than having the whole of it invalidated just because non Euclidean geometry was discovered.

Conclusion
A plausible reason for the failure of this philosophy to give a substantial explanation on the matter of Gods existence is the ecclesiastical nature of its author. Indeed, Augustine had so much belief in God that his definition his views on happiness were centered on complete love for God. Subsequently, such a person could not have been expected to actively inquire about the existence of God because that must have been a foregone conclusion. His philosophy cannot therefore be judged on that basis alone. If anything, the author should get some credit for even contemplating the possibility of the absence of a God. A good analogy for that would be having the pope trying to come with thoughts of a God being present.

Dismissing the philosophy on the basis of it failing to give a satisfactory explanation on Gods existence is synonymous with throwing the baby with the bath water. Going through the philosophy, one finds equally important and valuable teachings on matters such as human nature and education. Perhaps the responsibility of refining the philosophy should have been done by later philosophers such as Descartes, who found the Augustinian philosophy valuable. This group should have found ways of modifying the philosophy to suit the changing times especially given that they lived at time when non Euclidean geometry had just been discovered. It is this failure by Descartes and similar minded philosophers to provide a heat sink that exposed the philosophy to such forms of sacrilege.

For me, the bible is the most popular and controversial text available in history.  Many of the stories in the bible have been transformed into various media including lego versions, cartoons and even movies.  Some people find the newer versions as forms of hypocrisy but I believe that this is a good way to introduce the bible to the younger generation.  Just a few years ago, I heard that a new book for children was published and it has the theme of the bible  the protagonistsversion The Simpsons.  I havent read that book but I heard that sequels were published a few years after and it seems to be geared to a much mature audience.

Popularity however, does not connote proper knowledge on it.  I will not admit expertise in the Bible because that may take up a Theology course or even a lifetime, but I will try my best to congest my opinion on the book in the collective sense (or at least in terms of the Old and New Testament).  I do believe that the Bible (and each of its book) does require an in-depth review that cannot fit a 2-page paper.

The Bible, as a sacred text, contains the recurring theme of faith, hope and love.  It contains many lessons that can be applied in life.  It teaches a person to be socially responsible and with social, it includes everyone in the community, from the smallest unit (family) to the largest (society).  We can even say, to the extended community as the church in one country belongs in the same church of the entire globe.  Now, if I look at the bible in that perspective, that this book has the ability to bind the entire world, I cant help but take great awe of its power.

I was born and raised in the Protestant faith and although the Bible is very important in our faith, it is fairly common for any individual to have lived a lifetime but not completed reading the entire bible from cover to cover.  Even hearing mass within a lifetime will not cover all of the books in the bible.  Ive read somewhere that it is decent to make reading the Bible before you die as a goal.  Apparently, some people find it impossible and hard to achieve.  

Far worse is that many people seem to summarize the Old Testament into a few popular stories about Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah Ark, Moses, David and Solomon.  Thats a bit of an understatement, considering that these seem to be contained in only a few books including Genesis, Exodus, Kings, Samuel, Songs, Psalms and Proverbs.  Fact is the other books that are not focused on talks about battle stories, raids and even politics, done in the name of faith.  This is the part that I dont like about the Bible.  The Old Testament is a book of faith and power but its not really a peaceful book.  It makes me think of the wars in the Middle East where the Muslims claim to do exactly that and media sometimes make it sound like there is something wrong and twisted with their reason for war.
I think this is why the Bible has the New Testament.  Christ is the King of Peace and His teachings, as well as what the apostles and what Paul wrote in his epistles are summarized into one message love.  Some people even refer to the Bible as the greatest love story of all time.  In a way, it is true because the Bible is not about a man-woman relationship that most books talk about today.  It is about brotherhood and family, bound in love.

If given the opportunity, Id like to explore three specific books in the bible Daniel, John and Revelation.  This is because these books made references of the Second Coming and my initial understanding of this is scary.  I believe in Life after Death but I am human and I cant help but be visual with this.  The books I least liked were Psalms and Proverbs, although they are very poetic.  It doesnt say much about the story although it says a lot about Gods greatness.

I think there is more about the Bible but I have yet to discover it.

Funerals are a constant reminder of how short life is.  We were created for forever to live eternally in harmony with others and in close relationship with God, but our desire to become like God and rule ourselves stripped us of our happiness.  

It all began with that one simple act of disobedience. We listened to a voice other than that of our maker giving birth to sin and opening the doorway to death.  What is a just God to do but to punish us for our disobedience we went against the word of the King  But He restrained himself and redeemed us instead and this redemption is not only one faceted Its not just deliverance from sin and atonement for guilt but a repurchase.  God in the process of salvation is buying us back from the one whose voice we have listened to in the garden and restoring us to our right state of children. Yet to all who received him, to who believe in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. John 112
Paul helps us to further understand our need for salvation in Romans 714-24

14We know that the law is spiritual but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do no, the evil I do not want to dothis I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in Gods law 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am Who will rescue me from this body of death

Im sure we can relate.  Those who suffer from a form of addiction or a bad habit like smoking can perhaps relate better.  They want to quit, but their desire alone is not enough and at times it is only after falling many times that one becomes victorious.

Now we know why, at least a big part of the why salvation is necessary, the question now is how  Who and how will we be rescued from this body of death The following verses give us a glimpse.
Death entered through sin and sin through Adam, just as sin entered the world through one man, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.  Death reigned from the time Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass.  For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did Gods grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through one man, how much more will those who receive Gods abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Redemption from the penalty of sin comes from one man, Jesus Christ.  The right to become Gods children again and the way to regain communion with God is only through Christ.

As for you believers, you were dead in your transgressions and sins before you became believers, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air Satan, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. . . .We were by nature objects of Gods wrath. But because of his great love for us, God who is rich in Mercy, made us a live with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been save.

We dont deserve Gods response (thats why it a gift and an act of Grace) but because of His great love for us God sent his son so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
The key word is believeswhoever believes in Him shall not perish.  Paul states that the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes For in the gospel righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written The righteous will live by faith.

Through salvation we see Gods love.  In a moment of crisis, God responded by giving up himself to save us.  So then Faith is the only way for us to receive this gracious act of God and thus be saved from eternal damnation.

There is big emphasis on salvation being accomplished through faith in Christ.  Ive heard some say that well Im a good person, I treat people well, and I dont steal or commit murder or adultery isnt that enough to go to heaven

The Jews were guilty of something similar they prided themselves in their relationship with God and went as far to think that in order to be saved one had to follow a set of rules, for example one had to observe the Sabbath, and follow certain dietary laws and be circumcised.  Salvation was for them and them only.  But God wanted everyone to have a chance.  Salvation was not just for the Jews but for us as well.  God was telling the Jews, youre not saved because you follow a series of laws, there is now righteousness apart from the law to which the very Law that you claim to follow testify.  This righteousness comes from God through faith in Christ to all who believe.  There is no difference for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (from Rom. 321).

Were saved not by being nice or good but though Faith.  Why Faith  Faith comes in so that we dont believe it is by our own power so that we dont think because Im a nice person thats why Im going to heaven.  It helps us to face our humanity and deal with the realization that were sinners and in need of a savior and no amount of promises made or how many rules followed can guarantee being with him in His heavenly dwelling.  Faith also restores our relationship with Him back to where it belongs.  We trust Him once again to take care of us and we totally depend on Him.  It helps put things back in their place where He is God and we the created.

Through faith in Christ the moment a man believes he becomes righteous an exchange takes placeChrist takes on the penalty of our sins and his righteous is imputed unto us.  Because of this we can rest in peace knowing that its not over for us every time we fall.  God remembers how we are formed and John tells us in 1 John 19 that when we repent of our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.  So we run humbly yet, boldly to His throne of grace and ask for His forgives knowing that He will grant it to us.

Weve learned that due to our disobedience, our relationship was severed with God and since we cant live without our life line we needed a savior.  God sent His sent so that whoever believes will become His once more and be delivered from the power of sin and death. The only way for this to happen though is not by following a set of rules but by believing in His son, Jesus Christ.

9What shall we conclude then Are we any better Not at all We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written There is no one righteous, not even one 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away,they have together become worthlessthere is no one who does good, not even one. Romans 323-25

8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

How is your faith nowadays said the main character in a demonic voice from the 1990s movie Stigmata.  That small piece of dialogue in the movie began to raise questions from all of the faithful questions that had to do with the strength of ones belief in the Divine and the Almighty, questions of whether ones faith is in fact strong enough to qualify one as a good follower.  Asking that same question nowadays would enable one to re-visit ones faith in a very critical yet valid manner because the modern era has brought with it many changes and developments that have served to rattle even the very foundations of faith.  The modern faithful, amid developments in science and technology should begin to recollect and review hisher concept of faith and if this faith is in fact consistent with what was intended in the Old Testament, the earliest books of the Bible.  The above question is therefore a very valid question.  Followers of the faith nowadays should be able to qualify faith based on a certain criteria to ensure that ones faith is in fact in line with the teachings of the Old Testament.  Followers with strong faith should go back to the Torah, the Prophets, and their Writings to confirm whether for them faith remains as believing without seeing, trusting in the promise of salvation, and living life according to the scriptures despite lifes painful endeavors and pursuits.

The Old Testament confirmedly defines faith as believing in the presence of a higher and greater power even without the affirmation acquired from any of ones human faculties.  I am that I am. (Exodus, 314) Here in this passage from the Old Testament is the first criterion for knowing whether ones faith is in fact genuine.  This particular passage from the book of Exodus can be further divided into two major components, first, that faith is confidence in this claim which according to the Old Testament is a claim made by God, Himself, and the second, that for one to acquire that confidence one has to go beyond what is known to be human and corporeal.  A further explanation of this passage with reference to faith is found in another passage, this being, Thou canst not see my face for there shall no man see me, and live. (Exodus 3320)  This basically explains why man should believe in the presence of an omniscient God even without material evidence of His presence.  As humans belief is based on the response of the five faculties to stimuli.  Belief in the inanimate is not as it is literally translated as belief is that which is not alive, rather it is a belief that something exists beyond physical or biological life.  Loosely translated, this means that belief in the inanimate is belief in the existence of life beyond corporeal life.  In the context of religion, this means that for genuine faith to exist one has to believe that there is a being other than the ones defined by the faculties of biological life.  These two passages from the old testament expressly state that the virtue of faith is based on the ideal of trust, which can further be broken down into three elements trust in the existence of a God, trust that this unseen presence is able to shape and affect humanity, and trust that when one believes in the presence of this omniscient being one is inevitably moved towards a path that could only lead to greater benefit and salvation.  If one is not able to nurture this trust that leads to the virtue of faith, what then is in store  The consequences of the absence of faith are also succinctly written in the Old Testament, the passage being, And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be for they are a very forward generation, children in whom is no faith. (Deuteronomy 3220) Now, if one has already acquired the trust required for genuine faith to exist, then one begins to move on to fulfill the second criteria for the basis of this particular virtue.  This second criteria states that in the Old Testament, God had verbalized promises for those with genuine faith and it is based on these promises that one is able to illicit the deepening of the acquired trust that one has in the omniscient being.

For one to truly claim that heshe possesses the virtue of faith, heshe has to exercise trust and belief in the promises delivered by the eternal Divine found in the Holy Scriptures.  This promise is summed up in the passages, The Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him. (Deuteronomy 47), It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with you he will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed. (Deuteronomy 318), Behold I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest. (Genesis 2815), Know therefore that the Lord your God is God he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. (Deuteronomy 79)  All these passages all refer to only two things, knowing that with faith in God, one will always have God on hisher side, and having faith in God means following His commands.  In return, these passages specifically state that for one who has faith, God fulfills everything that He has promised, these being that He will protect the faithful, shower the faithful with graces, and keep the faithful in His favor.  All these promises create for one an explicit manifestation of faith  one who has genuine faith will be confident in all that heshe does, that everything that heshe does will have the approval of the Divine, and that all that is done in the name of faith will always lead to good things as this is the covenant of love that God had made with His chosen people.  So, other than just believing in the presence of an unseen being, faith also requires that one has to exercise hope and trust in the promises of the Divine and that these promises will be materially manifested in the lives of the faithful.  Finally, the third criterion for genuine faith is more external when compared to the two initial criteria.

Possessing genuine faith means that one should remain steadfast in the belief of the Almighty despite the challenges and obstacles that one encounters in life.  Again, this final criteria is expressed in the old testament in the passages, My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest. (Exodus 3314) and After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision Do not be afraid, Abraham. I am your shield, your very great reward.  (Genesis 151) These two passages ensure the faithful that even in the direst moments of their lives the Divine will be there to see them through.   Genuine faith, therefore, remains even with obstacles and challenges on the basis of these two passages and the hope of divine emancipation.  Most of the time, people pass the first two criteria for genuine faith and fail terribly in this third criteria because this is the most difficult of the three.  The difficulty comes from ones being human and vulnerable to tangible and material threats to his comfort.  These challenges serve to shake the very foundations of faith.  However, even with human nature and even with the challenges presented one with genuine faith has to remain hopeful in the assurance of the Almighty that He will give respite to all the faithful who need it.

While there is often dispute as to the genuineness of faith based on these criteria because the modern Christian believes that faith is belief in Christ, this does not necessarily disagree with the Old Testaments definitions of the faithful because the new testament is based fully on the old, and is merely a restatement of what has already been written in the first five books of the bible.

So, how is your faith nowadays  Will it stand up to the scrutiny of the criteria put forward by the Old Testament  Genuine faith is within you when you are confident in the presence of an unseen God, when you are hopeful in the promises of the Divine and when you shun away lifes challenges that may compromise the strength of your faith.  Genuine faith may not be literally verbalized, but it always works to ones advantage if heshe is able to review ones faith based on the recollection and the contemplation of these criteria.

Understanding the natural world on the sole basis of reason without  any influence from religious dogmas was the goal of the intellectual movement called enlightenment. This movement was dominated by the thinkers of the 18th century and was called by Thomas Paine as the age of reason. Age of enlightenment is an intellectual movement that started in England in the 18th century and with it came the rebirth and recreation of the internationally-accepted view brought  about by scientific revolution (Lewis 1992).  Enlightenment  is a term provided for by historians which describes a period during Western philosophy and culture in which reason was declared as the main source for  authority.  It was often characterized by rational  and scientific views about religion, social and political issues and it led to the American and French Revolution.  The 18th century was an era filed with changes and when the Westerns entered the dawn  of the 19th century, they found themselves in a world completely different from the start of the 18th century. Western civilization was greatly influenced by the development brought  about by modern science and the aftermath of religious clash. The Enlightenment that began in the 18th century changed the world in more ways than one and it created many controversies towards then 19th century and even  until today.

The age of enlightenment  took place after the renaissance period. It was characterized by several changes not only in mind but in body of many Europeans. For many centuries, the Roman Catholic Church was the leading force in the society before there was enlightenment. The people then believed that thought their acceptance of their hardships in life and their devotion to God, they have earned their right to a better life after death but all of these ideals were deeply shaken  by the age of enlightenment  because many believers started to question  their religious principles. The authority of the church was undermined by philosophers such as Galileo and Descartes whose ideas about the universe caused many to doubt their Christianity. This was the time wherein the interest of the people to gain knowledge widened. People were willing to learn new concepts and accept  rational ways of solving their problems ( New World Encyclopedia 2008).

There were many intellectuals with mixed views about the age of enlightenment  and one of them was the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. More than two hundred years ago, Kant  wrote an essay about what enlightenment  is and for  him, it was none other than mankinds coming of age. It is the emancipation of the human  consciousness from a state of immaturity and ignorance. He believed in the process of mental liberation and he was one of the few who confidently declared that what men known today as the Enlightenment of the 8th century, the body of liberal ideas that are advanced by the intellectuals amounted to a critical state in the human improvement (Porter 2001).

Contrary to popular  belief, the enlightenment is not about a single movement, it was a set of principles and ideals which is is said to be the source of critical concepts such as freedom and democracy which are two of the values that exist the society today. The age of enlightenment was a time of scientific awakening and the believers of this age confronted the church leaders head on  by discussing the often avoided controversies. As compared to the church, the enlightenment encouraged people to think and allow them to ask any kind of question. There were four  areas significant to change during this period and the first was the religious change. The Catholic and the Protestants beliefs were questioned and this led to the tolerance of new concepts. The second change happened in the intellectual aspect when the free intellectuals dominated the era which resulted from an opposition to the religious intolerance. The third change was an economic one when the industrial revolution led to the increasingly richer and a more independent middle class. Lastly, there were political changes that caused the emergence of the nation states ruled by Kings and parliaments (Changing Minds 2010).

In understanding the acceptance and rejection of the world as to the matter of enlightenment, it is important to look back the early exchanges of cultures between the East and the West. Islam was quickly looming in the Middle East in the 7th century . The story of the enlightenment in the East began with global explorations and expansions of the economic and political power of Europe and any attempt to reconcile a meeting of the minds between Europe and Asia must be interpreted from this context. These series of exploits signalled a massive period of exploration of the regions of south and eastern Asia and opened the way for trade and commercial expansion which  in turn facilitated the economic and political changes that were taking place in Europe. What motivated these European  expansions range from the curiosity and intellectual challenged posed by the renaissance in order to out flank the Islam religion in a quest to find commercial routes to the East. Eastern philosophers such as Montaigne, Adam Smith and Wolff Leibniz were fascinated by the idea of enlightenment , by the government and its education system and in more ways than one, it served as a mirror to examine the inadequacies in the philosophies and institutions of Europe. Much like the philosophers in Europe, Voltaire from the played an important role in the enlightenment of the east against Christianity and one of the greatest controversies that dominated his time was the issue about human race and its origin which was related to the controversy about the age of the earth. The growth and expansion of the European  awareness that came together with the voyages of exploration became the subject of plenty of criticisms and more particularly, the discovery of the Eastern civilizations. The interest of Voltaire in the issue of biblical chronology went far and wide and according to another  historian, Voltaire was the first person who attempted to include his culture and that of other civilizations in the world history .The use that Voltaire made about the Jesuit-filtered representation of China in order to attack the orthodoxy of the state and the church was repeated by many philosophers. These thinkers were the popular representatives of the enlightenment  in the East (Clarke 1998).

The question as to the validity and acceptance of the age of enlightenment in the non-western countries became the subject of many studies. In the West, Central and Eastern Europe, the enlightenment  brought about many changes that led to deep gaps between the traditional Jewish religions and modernist who are advocates of change. However, there were differences from region to region. The enlightenment quickly led to conversion in the west while in the east, it resulted in a split between religious, secular and cultural worlds. There were those who do not want to give up Judaism, instead, they wanted to convert  it to something different  (Jewish Gen.org n.d.).

Another concrete evidence on the validity of the influence of the Enlightenment ideals not only to the Western countries but also to the other countries was the wide spread of the Western culture to many parts of the world. The Western influence was widely spread to the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Asia and other non-Western countries by the year 1400. During that time, most of the non-Western indigenous society which were influenced by the Western Culture experienced fundamental and massive changes. The Germanic, Slavic and Celtic traditions of Europe had been widely adopted by the said societies in terms of their cultural system such as force, persuasion and education. During the Middle Ages, most of the people in non-Western countries abandoned many of their traditional faiths and ethics just to give way on the Westerns culture of Enlightenment. In fact, within Europe, only few people in the Arctic regions were not greatly affected by the Western Culture before the 16th century. By the late 19th century, Western Culture made its strong influence in North America where native Americans ways of life were abruptly changed by the European faith, laws and perspectives. This event also happened on the case of Australia. Similar neo-European societies dominated the Central and North America which caused great changes on the religion, culture and traditional ways of the natives on the said countries. Moreover, Western influence further expanded during the 20th century with the rise of the mass media such as motion pictures, radio, television and the like (Eze 2001).      

After the wide spread of the Western culture to many non-Western countries, different parts of the world had experienced a lot of changes in terms of their ways of life, religion, traditions and the like. It is through the influence of the Enlightenment period where many countries were characterized by breakthroughs in thinking which paved the way for the people to embrace secularism, humanism, individualise, rationalism and nationalism. But among these concepts, rationalism had the strongest effect that defined the Enlightenment which made this to be called as  Age of Reason .  Before, the Middle or Dark Ages were dominated by the Church and the life of the people was only focused on religious concerns. Nevertheless, because of the Enlightenment or the Renaissance Period, people learned how to focus not only to church and religion but also to humanity with emphasis on classical knowledge and the arts. The Enlightenment period had widened the man-focus idea further and this brought rational thought and empirical sciences to take the centre stage and bring changes to the way of thinking and living of the people (Judaism Online 2010).

Since people had shifted their concern from God-focused and Church-driven motivation to the focus on individuality and rationalism, the world had eventually seen many positive ideas and institutions which include the liberal democracy, industrialization and scientific revolution. It is believed that without the influence of the Western Enlightenment, people will remain in the Dark Age forever. There will be no scientific and industrial revolutions. There will be no advances in terms of the peoples way of life and thinking. Hence, it can be considered that the influence of the Enlightenment Period is indeed valid even in the non-Western countries since its influences are indeed manifested in todays life of the people.

Nevertheless, along with these changes in terms of education, scientific and rational revolutions, and many others brought about by the Western Enlightenment is the ideological attacks against some of the fundamental institutions of the Western culture primarily the religion. Many thinkers of the Enlightenment Period believed that religion is an intellectual failure that causes the body of knowledge not to explain the unexplainable in the world. Because of this, the secular culture emerged as a strong alternative to religion. And this is one of the most influential concepts that the Western world had brought to the people. The Western culture of Enlightenment taught the people with the idea of a world without God which impacted significant implications to Europe and the Jewish people (Judaism Online 2010).

In total, the Western Enlightenment brought light and darkness to different aspects of living of not only the Western countries but also the non-Western countries. The period enlightened the world from the different scientific and industrial revolutions that caused sudden changes and development not only on the way of thinking of the people but also on the way of living of most of the countries. Likewise, Enlightenment Age also somehow brought darkness or chaos on the religious belief of the people since this period regarded religion as an intellectual failure. But what matters most here is that the Western countries became successful in spreading and enlightening their concept of enlightenment since it is clearly and justifiably manifested in most parts of the world.

Jean-Paul Sartre
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a renowned French philosopher of twentieth century Europe. His highly unique political philosophy was merely influenced by the work of Marx and Hegel. From 1945 and onwards, his writings had dominated political themes which further recognized him as Europes best public intellectual of the century. One of his famous essays was Anti-Semite and Jew which had criticized French complicity in the Holocaust and defined oppression as an interpersonal recognition distortion (Sartres Political Philosophy IEP). He co-founded Les Temps Modernes, a journal which published seminal essays on world affairs and political theory.

It was only in 1950 when Sartres political inclination bent towards Marxism he eventually released Critique of Dialectic Reason, Vol. 1 in 1960, a systematic account which massively spoke of group struggle and history (Sartres Political Philosophy IEP). Critique embodied Sartres earlier radical view and philosophy of existential freedom which had further led to his pioneering fusion of Marxism and Existentialism  an original political philosophy which touched the tension between historical forces and individual freedom. Marxism implied that societies can be better understood through struggle which existed between powerless and powerful groups. Existentialism viewed individuals as entities responsible for the numerous authorless social ills (Sartres Political Philosophy IEP). It is in this respect that authenticity is considered a primary existential virtue that is, it is a requirement for a person to critically examine ones social situation prior to his or her acceptance of personal culpability with respect to the choices one made within that certain situation. In short, his new political philosophy embodied theories of both moral responsibility and individual agency.

His well recognized work Existentialism is a Humanism although which was presented and shared a common argument of the categorical imperative of Kant, spoke largely of Marxism and Hegelianism. With respect to Marx and Hegel, Sartre developed his very own political view as reflected on his Notebooks for an Ethics (1982) (Sartres Political Philosophy IEP). He agreed with Hegel who claimed that in order to win recognition, humans need to undergo a mutual struggle (Being and Nothingness). Initially, Sartre rejected the notion of transcending struggle by relations of mutual and reciprocal recognition that is, all human relations according to Sartre, were by products of the master and slave relation. However, his idea on human relations was altered as he made the Notebooks. This may be summarized into four parts (1) that there is a possibility for struggle to be transcended by both reciprocal and mutual recognition (2) that struggle is located in history and society rather than in onthology (3) that the struggle for recognition is a significant component in analyzing oppression as a form of domination and (4) that social solidarity was an ontological reality (dependent on recognition ties) rather than psychological projection which Hegel had claimed.

Sartres theory of Existentialism had always accompanied Marxism. His description of social reality utilized Marxs structural analysis which he further used to rescue Marxisms categorization as lazy dogmatism (Sartres Political Philosophy IEP). The combination of Existentialism and Marxism into a single unique theory criticized not only the economic class being a significant structural factor, but also human situation as dictated by gender, family, death and birth. An individuals intention, he further claimed, can be sufficiently explained not by objective interests alone but through the combination of class analysis and personal history.

Soren Kierkegaard
Another renowned philosopher and Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard relied on the theory of Existentialism with respect to understanding human relations and individual particularity. Prior the release of his famous work The Sickness unto Death, Kierkegaard had claimed that there are forces at work in society and history which when projected, tend to focus on sheer oneness defined by singleness and particularity rather than by unity with others (Kierkegaard, Soren 1989). The European societys massive industrialization in the nineteenth century had led to the disruption of rurally-based societies and organic groupings with their respective identified function. Kierkegaard claimed that the age of rationalization had further drained the ethical content with respect to a well-defined groups membership (intensive division of labor, multiple social roles and loss of corporate identity) and promoted rational reorganization (Kierkegaard, Soren 1989). It was in this respect that he emphasized the worlds need of absolute particularity in oppose to universality.

The notion of particularity, as Kierkegaard claimed, is precisely reflected in the principle of Christianity. Individuals find themselves in a lonely self emancipating situation, by which they are considered single human beings who stand before God. The more individual lose ones social identity, the more spiritual and undifferentiated one becomes. Kierkegaards notion of the true self is one which conforms to the image of humanity as reflected by God through Christ (Kierkegaard, Soren 1989).

With respect to this principle, there are two theoretical dilemmas which other public intellectuals like Sartre may be facing (1) in such a manner by which an individual stood before God, there is a possibility that the split between social and personal life is further accentuated (in oppose to Sartres dependence on both social and personal analysis) that is, the self and social life cannot be combined into one and (2) the situational status itself and that an individual identity for instance, cannot be placed over social and familial roles (which again contradicts Sartres notion of human situation as a by product of family, gender and other social structures).

The Existentialist Thinker
If it is in fact true to say that neither Kierkegaard nor Sartre agree with each others philosophy, why are they both considered existentialists any way The very notion of Existentialism suggests that individual essence can only be realized after the existence of an individual had occurred and not the other way around and that human beings cannot be understood in terms of science (Existentialism 2010 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). As per Sartres definition, Existentialism viewed individuals as entities who are responsible for a certain social situation. In respect to this, an individuals authentic value (so to speak ones personal originality) is considered as the theorys existential virtue necessary to examine ones individual situation within a given social phenomenon.

Kierkegaard, like Sartre, recognized the value for individual authenticity. Instead of relying on universality, he emphasized on the importance of absolute particularity of individuals. Placing a high regard for individual particularity over a more collective and universal approach to human relations and the society, Sartre and Kierkegaard somehow shared a common ground with respect to political philosophy.

Thus, the accuracy of such theory may be defined in subjective terms rather than objective. Kierkegaard and Sartre viewed individuals as the center of rationalization that is, when an individual is born, he or she is authentic by nature, one who dictated rather than be dictated by social condition however, individual existentialism can be deemed applicable not only towards understanding human action and intention along with other social structures (for instance familial and social roles) but also towards absolute particularity which rejected the very notion of social influence.