Free Template For Community Service Hours

God and man

The true relationship of God to man is difficult to imagine, and all our attempts to describe that remain incomplete, no matter what we want to do well. It is certain that we can only get close to and such an approach will best operate on metaphors. Such a metaphor, I propose here only.
Imagine the world is a drama, a play that was written by a playwright. Suppose it is the play "Faust" by the poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. We humans are now presented in the position of the main character of the scholar Dr. Faust. This looks around in his world, makes his thoughts and draws his own conclusions. But how can attain certainty about something? How did he know that what he imagines is more than smoke and mirrors, a mere collection of ideas? On the presented alone, he can never know this, because everything he could ever know is based on assumptions, assumptions about his world and his sense perceptions. Yes, it goes further, for he has not even a real testament to his own existence! It is indeed our people, because none of us can say with absolute certainty that he was not a, say, butterfly who dreams of a man in the 21 Century on a planet called Earth to be.
is now able to "Faust" to make all sorts of considerations about its existence, its origin, the meaning of his existence and his life or not life after his death. But, what thoughts come to him while always mögen, so wäre er auf sich alleine gestellt doch niemals in der Lage mit Sicherheit sagen zu können, dass er von einem Autor geschaffen wurde. Zwar mag ihm sein Verstand, seine Phantasie und Kreativität auch diese Idee eingeben, doch bliebe diese allerdings eben eine metaphysische Vorstellung, nicht zu unterscheiden von einer bloßen Phantasie. Auch der Mensch befindet sich dergestalt im Universum stehend. Zwar kann er sich Gott vorstellen, doch weiß er aus sich selbst heraus niemals, ob es einen solches wirklich gibt, Gott bleibt Gedanke und wird nicht zur Realität. In diesem Stadium befinden sich alle Religionen, die einen Gott annehmen aber niemals eine tatsächliche Verbindung mit einem solchen hatten.
Und hier kommt das Entscheidende contributes to the revealed religions. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are religions such a revelation, as all three take claim for themselves that God had shown them. When the Jews, Abraham, Moses, to Christianity through the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ and in Islam by the word of God, the book, the Koran, was. In fact it is so that only by such a revelation man can gain assurance that he was created by a Creator, God.
Staying with our example, Faust. Where Faust now knows that Goethe has created him? We have already shown that he can not even know. It is even conceivable only when a contact between Goethe and Faust takes place. Goethe would have to be so even in his play "write in" Faust to announce that he is its creator. Now we imagine that Goethe would have done something, he would hand over fist a book of rules for how people should behave in his play, as they were created and what will be the future of the piece. Faust is replaced by the words "creator" of such a book and it shows the other people in his world (Mephistopheles, Marguerite, Kaiser, Chancellor, witches, etc.). As can now respond to his assertion that it had its dramatic figures and a creator named Goethe created them all? Some would probably not Another fist believe (especially if they are well disposed towards him), others would turn strenuously (his opponents), and others would be severely in doubt, could not decide (agnostic). We see today from the situation on the ground.
But the "book" that has given us the Creator (God), namely the Bible, means that, when read carefully, explanations for each question. The world itself can be detected with reason and when the heart is not hard, and you really "homework" does, then you realize that this Creator has told us in effect, that we are created by him. To experience God However, we have to stop too much trust in the left brain (seat of the diet) alone and to make use of the holistic right brain also detected. Atheists are not people who really know that God does not exist. There are people who have personal reasons to be against God, or have a high interest because there is no God. For the open heart and mind the wise God is easily accessible. Indeed, atheists have to believe a lot more than people who believe in God. An atheist is a person plays the lottery with a single tap, and actually win the chance for higher assessment functions, than to lose those. Sun verquert may be thinking, if you look at the all-embracing knowledge closes!
God respects the free will of man, so God will show up in any way that he imposes one, even the mind does not, as is 5 + 5 = 10. The possibility also "no" to God to say will remain forever. It is a mistake to assume that free will would pour the omnipotence of God. This is precisely not the case. Free will is not limiting the omnipotence of God, but an expression of love for his creatures. God wants not slaves, but children who love him freely out. Why is created so much confusion when it is in the suffering of World is, which does not come from God, but is caused by the misuse of free will of man. No matter what a man believes that he now believes to be true God or not, even the atheist has the following categories for its adoption: intellectual, personal and social reasons.
Who all to explore the reason of the mind, the feeling and the will goes, who comes to the true knowledge and this is to recognize that there is a God who created everything, where everything is and outside the nothing exists. What this really means to be free of space and time, our minds can not tell us, because these are precisely the limits thereof; but trusting in the Almighty, we can live in confidence our lives and if we accept the Savior Jesus Christ and acknowledge that he died for our sins and ascended on the third day bodily into heaven, then we will not be lost, but have eternal life. This is what I truly believe!

Brazilian Transvestites Images

Why not, only believe can

the start, the provocative thing of this article: It is not possible to man to know anything. Every human life is based on mere belief, no one is even theoretically, able to live a life based on facts or the mind! The
above statements may very well based on the controversy atheism - theism are shown. That the assumption of the existence of a God an article of faith, is readily view. It is more difficult even if it is atheism. Say the disciples of this world view but persistently, they would be anything but faithful, and generally feel superior to my faith to be. This is a completely wrong view of things. So we approach the question of God. Every person in the world is faced with the question of God and everyone has to answer this question. It is a very hard question because there is only one clear "yes" or a resounding "No", an undecided or neutral Position, gibt es nicht. Deshalb sind auch Agnostiker keine „Neutralen“, sondern Atheisten, die meist zu feig sind, sich dazu zu bekennen. Ihre Antwort zu Gott ist ein „Nein“. Verwenden wir also den Verstand und die Beobachtung. Können wir beweisen, dass es einen Gott gibt? Nein, das können wir nicht. Können wir beweisen, dass es Gott nicht gibt? Nein, das können wir auch nicht. Wir haben also diesbezüglich eine Pattsituation und stehen weiter vor der Frage.
Jetzt gehen viele Menschen folgendermaßen vor: Sie sagen, dass man Gott zwar nicht widerlegen könne, doch wer etwas behaupte, habe es zu beweisen. Und nachdem Gott nicht beweisbar sei, könne man ihn nicht annehmen. Hört sich verständlich an. Doch hat dies mit der Wahrheit nichts zu tun. Die Wahrheit bleibt die Wahrheit, auch wenn sie nicht bewiesen werden kann. Viele Menschen entscheiden sich aus der eben genannten Überlegung heraus für ein „Nein“ gegenüber Gott. Dieses „Nein“ beruht aber bewusst oder unbewusst auf der Anwendung der Wissenschaftlichen Methode, die fordert, dass Wahrheiten bewiesen werden müssen. Wie rechtfertigt man aber die Anwendung der wissenschaftlichen Methode auf Gott? Man kann es nicht rechtfertigen, denn derjenigen, der dies tut macht Gott zu einem Objekt der wissenschaftlichen Betrachtung. So jemand Macht Gott kleiner, als seinen eigenen Verstand. Ein solcher Gott ist aber nicht Gott, sondern eine menschliche Schöpfung (In this case, man makes himself even for God). But that is not God but a caricature of a God of such a God, religion has never spoken. There is no evidence that the scientific method leads to truth or even close to her. Yes you can not even say that the scientific method is a more advanced or cheaper method of knowledge than any other (former) system. The application of science is itself not a decision that is taken from science, but a decision of faith, namely the belief in the science itself, it is clear that science has its limits there, where the human mind has its limits. Doch wie geht der Mensch mit den Dingen um, die über den Verstand hinausgehen? Darauf bleiben viele eine Antwort schuldig.
Der (intellektuelle) Atheismus beruht hauptsächlich auf der Anwendung der wissenschaftlichen Methodik auf Gott. Der Atheist entscheidet sich für eine „Nein“ und es gibt verstandesmäßig keine besseren Gründe für ein „Nein“ als für ein „Ja“. Atheismus ist ein Glaubenssystem, denn er beruht ebenso auf einer Annahme, wie der Glauben, die Anwendung des Erkenntnissystems kann nämlich nicht selbst bewiesen werden. Und selbst wenn es bewiesen werden könnte, müsste das System, aufgrund dessen jenes System gewählt worden wäre, selbst bewiesen etc. This results in an endless chain. But so it is with all things in human life. The decision for a "no" can not be regarded as "superior" as the decision for a "yes".
Thus we see that science itself is based on an assumption, namely that the scientific method leads to truth, or at least more than other systems. But this can not itself be proved. At best, even in relation to the world around us, but never on the excess of the matter. The lightest is it to say that it's not something Such common. But that is irrelevant, because then you would have to reflect the non-existence To prove what does not turn. To say: "Something can only be regarded as true, if it can be proved" is a dogma of a belief, not knowledge! Thus, we see clearly that the science and its impact on knowledge and not atheism, but is based on faith.
Man stands before the world and must give answers. But it is not even proven that people do themselves. We simply assume, and we are ignored by most. "I think therefore I am" is not proof of anything, not even for existence. Because: "I think therefore I am not," is made from a fundamental standpoint, just as acceptable. Therefore, one speaks in philosophy and not on facts or the truth but only of theories. That I exist is a theory, not truth. None of us can prove that he is not a blue elephant who dreams he is a man. That this seems so absurd to us comes from the fact that we all accept that we exist. But for the most abstract position that we even can not think, can make man in general impossible to predict anything, and the dream of the elephant is then absolutely no more absurdity.
What we call knowledge is something that takes place within an accepted system. The fact that 2 + 2 = 4, can not be proved. To do that, I have to my mind, meine Logik verwenden (wobei ich annehmen muss, dass es so etwas überhaupt gibt, wie auch mich selbst, selbstredend). Unter dieser Annahme komme ich zum Ergebnis dass 2 + 2 wirklich 4 ist. Gehen wir aber unserem Leben auf den Grund, sehen wir, dass wir auf einem ganzen Berg von Annahmen stehen, die uns nicht bewusst sind. Die Philosophie trägt nun Schicht für Schicht ab und am Ende kommen wir zu Sokrates berühmter Erkenntnis „Ich weiß, dass ich nichts weiß“. So ist es tatsächlich (nicht nur im übertragenen Sinn). Es lässt sich kein Mensch finden, der irgendetwas weiß, noch hat es einen solchen Menschen je gegeben. Die Grundlage jeden Lebens ist bloße Annahme (Glauben). Was wir Wissen nennen, sind nur Ableitungen aus Glaubenssätzen. Meist ist es jedoch so, dass dies nicht erkannt wird und Menschen deshalb meinen sie müssten sich für die als Wissen getarnten Glaubenssätze eines anderen entscheiden, weil sie dem nichts entgegen zu setzen haben.
Obwohl kein Mensch irgendetwas weiß, benehmen sich die Menschen aber im Leben so, als ob sie über Wissen verfügten. Ich glaube eine wichtige Aufgabe könnte es sein, allen zu zeigen, dass sie einsehen sollen, nichts zu wissen und auch sehen, dass auch sonst niemand etwas weiß. Es gibt nichts Schlimmeres als Menschen, die glauben sie hätten Wissen, oder die glauben, dass Wissen überhaupt existierte. Junge Menschen glauben meist sehr viel zu wissen (und wissen least of all), but the older one gets, the more likely he will be ready to take things easy, not out of naivete, but out of a deeper insight into the world and more so in itself
Another small example of the religions. There are people who say all religions were right somewhere. Many nod when they hear something like that, without questioning that statement. How someone could make a statement? Such a person shall claim for themselves, together know more than all the religions that have so themselves about superior knowledge. Similar is the statement that would have to give up their religions Absolute claims. Such a statement is itself an absolute statement und die Person, die sie trifft, tut selbst genau das, was sie die anderen vorwirft!
P.S.: Natürlich ist alles, was in diesem Artikel geschrieben wurde, selbst aus einer ganzen Reihe von bloßen Annahmen entstanden.

The Ultimate Attraction Gabriella Hall

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

Mit Michel de Montaigne begegnen wir einem der größten Denker des 16. Jahrhunderts, einem der bedeutendsten Franzosen überhaupt und einem Philosophen, der immer bodenständig blieb und der höchsten Wert auf die praktische Anwendbarkeit seiner Überlegungen legte. Seine Gedanken entstanden denn auch größtenteils aus der Beobachtung des Lebens, oft von recht einfachen Menschen, die er, obwohl aus dem Adel stammend, nicht geringer schätzte, als die „Edlen“. Sein tief humanistisches Denken bereitete unter anderem der Aufklärung den Boden. Viele seiner Ideen waren zu seiner Zeit bereits revolutionär und sind es bis heute geblieben. In Montaigne begegnet uns ein Freund und Vorbild, der uns praktisch in bedeutenden Lebensfragen beraten kann und praktikabel Lösungen anbietet.
Montaigne kam aus einer Kaufmannsfamilie, die erst vor kurzem zu großem Reichtum gelangt war. Der Vater kaufte östlich von Bordeaux das Schloss Montaigne, nachdem sich das Geschlecht nun auch benannte. Der vormalige Familienname lautete Eyquem. Der Vater begleitete den französischen König nach Italien und kam dort mit den Ideen der Renaissance in Berührung. Voller Enthusiasm he himself took over the education of his son Michel, and had this Latin to learn the natural method. Soon, Michel said that language just as well as his native language and it will be reported even happened that he had cursed in arousal in Latin. He was further trained in Bordeaux and Toulouse and established himself as a young man as a lawyer. In 1565 he married. Sprang from the marriage six children, of whom only one survived. Michels father died in 1568 and Michel's Castle and other estates inherited. At age 38 he retired from public life and devoted himself to the study of life, especially his own. Montaigne is because even an atypical philosopher not only in that it is just as devoted to the corporeality of man, as his mind and gave practical advice, but also that he tells us in his philosophy the most about his own person.
From 1580, he made long trips to German and Italy. During this time, despite his absence, he was elected for the second time as mayor of Bordeaux. From 1585 he worked on his "Essays" and lived, so quiet and withdrawn as possible and in his castle. He was a man of restless ambition, was always ready to question everything, and he could not be satisfied with a final opinion, which he had not studied in every detail. The Frage, die er sich ständig stellt lautete: „Was weiß ich?“; Damit trat er an die Welt und ihre Meinungen heran.
Montaigne untersuchte das Leben und stellte fest, dass der Mensch sich oft minderwertig fühlten und zwar aus drei Gründen: 1.) körperliche Nachteile, wie etwa Hässlichkeit, Übergewicht, Körpergröße oder andere Mängel, 2.) durch die Meinung anderer Menschen, die uns für ungenügend halten und 3.) durch das Gefühl mit dem Verstand einer Sache nicht gewachsen zu sein, das Empfinden von intellektuelle Minderwertigkeit.
Montaigne akzeptierte die Natur des Menschen und wies darauf hin, dass der Mensch viel Tierisches an sich hat und dass dies nichts Schlechtes sei, vor allem die Sexualität und die Geschlechtsteile sah er als positiv an. Wir sollten beim Körperlichen die Tiere zum Vorbild nehmen, die sich niemals schämen würden, sich niemals minderwertig fühlten, egal wie auch immer sie aussehen mögen. Das Schlimmste, was ein Mensch tun kann, ist sich selbst zu verachten, leider eine Fähigkeit des Geistes, der sich gegen seinen Körper stellen kann. Bis zu Montaigne glaubten Philosophen, dass der Mensch glücklich werden könne, weil er denken kann, weil er einen Geist hat. Montaigne hingegen fand heraus, dass gerade der Geist die Ursache für das Unglück des Menschen werden kann, vor allem durch die Erschaffung von innerer Idealvorstellungen und durch Vergleiche mit others that do not correspond with reality and can very easily lead to feelings of inferiority. The next problem is the mind that he can imagine that he would know what is right, makes us arrogant and leads us to that view to transfer to other people, get them to see the world as we . do
Each culture has its views on what is normal to deviate from it very quickly brings into conflict with her. People decide very quickly and without reflection, what is right and what does not follow the nonconformists. Prejudices they fought very well in that it goes on tour and looks at other cultures. We see that "normal" a completely relative term. Through travel is seen more clearly as one's own faith was formed and how it arises. When one is confronted with others' prejudice, travel is a good help.
If one feels inferior because of what other people think of one, then Montaigne recommends that you as the people present at the toilet bowl. Even if you sit on the throne, he is still sitting on his backside.
Montaigne criticized the view that academic qualification has to do with wisdom. The school system rewards learning, not wisdom. It is quite possible that one is totally unwise, but has several doctorates, just as a may have never attended high school, but very wise. A stupidity of our society, this is not to believe and to close title and awards made on skills. It is thus understandable that people tend to academic qualifications than seek true wisdom. Most of the academics is not interested in the truth, but of success, wealth and prestige and that requires no wisdom.
act against the third kind of inferiority, intellectual, these considerations very well. Everyone has the ability to think, everyone can be a philosopher, that is, a person who uses his intellect and thinking, provides freedom from the opinions of others. Who can think for themselves, who feel more confident with himself and requires the consent of the other. The fool always needs the other and therefore the slave of society and its authorities.
A famous quote from Montaigne states: "glory and peace of mind can never be bedfellows."


questions about the wisdom (my questions, not those of Montaigne):

• Are the feelings and thoughts of other people matter?
• How is a man happy?
• What to do when you are angry, frustrated or sad?
• How to lead a good relationship? How do you build on it? As finished it?
• Why live their lives on the way as they do each?
• Is it better to be successful and truly dishonest or this lonely, poor and ineffective?
• Has something to do education with wisdom?
• What is a valuable life?
• Are there people who are different compared to higher quality?
• Is it right to accept things as true, even though one's mind can not prove it? What then is the basis of this assumption? Can one justify to his own conscience?
• When you have the three to things that you believe to be true that you can not justify.
• Was ist das Gewissen des Menschen? Wie entsteht es? Soll man immer darauf hören?
• Was ist der Maßstab, nachdem man das Leben und die Welt bemessen soll?
• Gibt es in der heutigen Zeit noch eine Rechtfertigung für Autoritäten? Und wenn ja, welche?
• Gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen Mehrheitsmeinung und Richtigkeit?