How has the development of Political Islam since 1979 affected the Essay

How has the development of Political Islam since 1979 affected the Greater Middle East - Essay Example Iran is one example where the Iranian revolution took place. Islamist forces have seemingly taken control of their countries at the expense of other religions that make up a minority (Choueiri, 2008). As political Islam has developed, Islamic institutions have gained more power and the scrutiny on these institutions has reduced leading to a dictatorship like scenario. Religious institutions like those of Sunni Islam have been brought under the control of the state. Due to this power gain by Islamic institutions, along with the lack of opposition by secular forces, there has been a development of Islamic forces. These forces have created a threat to the power of the state all over the greater Middle East (Choueiri, 2008). Conflict has been at the heart of the development of political Islam. The conflict has disturbed the stability of the greater Middle East. Examples of these conflicts include Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980 and the Iraq-Kuwait war. There has also been an increased opposition to the existence of Israel as a state along with an increase in development of weapons by the greater Middle East nations (Freedman,

Christianity in the Middle East Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Christianity in the Middle East - Assignment Example Secondly, from the interview with the leader of Christian Peoples Alliance highlights two issues of importance. The first is that Christian girls are being hijacked in Egypt and forced to marry Muslim men so that they can be converted to Islam. In Syria and Jordan, Christians are being treated to incredible persecution because they are not supporting the uprising in the Arab world. These two issues are of great importance to any Christian, not just in the Middle East but also in the rest of the world as cases of kidnapping may happen anywhere in the world. To a large extent, this is reducing the number of Christians in the Middle East. Thirdly, the whole video is information to the entire world as the reported cases of migration to other parts of the world is not a case of light importance. This calls for caution on all the Christians wherever they are and contribution to these people who are suffering. Background Information The persecution of Christians in the east is not a direct issue. As stated earlier, there is a desire by the Muslims to be supported in the spring. However, there is a feeling that the Christians are not doing anything to support them. They feel that the country belongs to all of them yet the fight for freedom is being done by the Muslims only. Therefore, to force Christians to join the Muslims, there is a direct attack especially on the girls who are being kidnapped and forcefully converted to Islam. This is strong because, from a basic perspective, it can be seen that the number of Christians will continue dwindling. Starting as the political issue in northern Africa in a bid to topple the ruling regimes, the revolution turned into a bloody war that has claimed the lives of so many people all over the region. The Middle East regions of Syria and Jordan have witnessed a high level of hijackings to foreigners especially from the western nations who have been on the ground to offer humanitarian services. The other background reason is the s ocial strife between the Muslim world and the western world. That is why there is a high-level anxiety in London that the spring would later turn into a Christian winter. This is because they are likely to be most affected by that given their position on neighboring Israel that has also been a source of hatred from the Muslims. Lessons from the Video There are several lessons that can be learned from the Arab spring in the east. One of the lessons is that there is persecution of Christians and this persecution is intentional. There is a high possibility that there is a plot to wipe out the Christian faithful from the east. This is seen by the statement given by the leader of the Christian peoples’ alliance in which he states that Christian girls are being hijacked and forced to marry Muslim men in a bid to convert them to Islam. To this effect, there is the need for action to be taken to avoid this trend. The same lesson is supported by the fact that all the Christians are fo rced to live an unstable life in which they are forced to migrate to other relatively peaceful places all over the world. The forced migration is an indication of the strength of the persecution and lack of peace that is exhibited in the region.

An expository sermon on holy living

An expository sermon on holy living An expository sermon on Holy Living Introduction How many of you feel Holy this morning? Dont worry you dont have to lift up your hands. When some one talks about Holiness the first thing I think about it God and His holiness. This morning I want to talk about our call to a holy livinglife. We all know that we are called to live a holy life but what do we do about it. DO we make any effort towards it or are we just praying for God to make us Holy and waiting for fire to fall down from heaven to make us Holy. We live in a world where holiness has lost its meaning. In this contemporary society everything goes, we can do anything as long as we feel good about it. What is our responsibility in this world, What are we called to do in this un holy situation? So we are going to look at the reasons why we are called to live a Holy life. Main Points 1. We are called to live a holy life because He is holy (1: 16) A] Real meaning of holy The word Holy is derived from a cluster of words in Greek. It means to be pure, to be set apart, sanctify and so on. But no meaning of this word can describe it properly.[1] Christ was the perfect example for Holiness. Be Holy for I am Holy is mentioned for about 5 times in the Bible. Holiness is not a new thing which the apostles discovered in the New Testament, it was present from the beginning of the Old Testament. He God gave Moses all the laws not to make their life difficult but to bring them one step closer to holiness; one step closer to Himself. B] One of the fundamental characteristics of God Gods Holiness can neither be understood nor grasped by our human minds. Holiness is one of the images of God which was lost in the garden of Eden. It could be only replaced by God Himself, by dying on the cross and making us pure. HE is always Holy. We are called to live like Him. So we are called to be Holy. When we were made we were made in the image of God. One of His fundamental images is holiness. So we were obviously made Holy. But we fell from our holiness because of our disobedience. We are missing out in one of the fundamental images of God. We have to be made into his image so one day we can see His face. If we are not made into His image we will not see Him face to face. It is just as simple as that; if we are not holy, we will not see God. C] Illustration Once, as an experiment, the great scientist Isaac Newton stared at the image of the sun reflected in a mirror. The brightness burned into his retina, and he suffered temporary blindness. Even after he hid for three days behind closed shutters, still the bright spot would not fade from his vision. I used all means to divert my imagination from the sun, he writes, But if I thought upon him I presently saw his picture though I was in the dark. If he had stared a few minutes longer, Newton might have permanently lost all vision. The chemical receptors that govern eyesight cannot withstand the full force of unfiltered sunlight. There is a parable in Isaac Newtons experiment, This is what the Israelites experienced in the wilderness. They had attempted to live with the Lord of the Universe visibly present in their midst; but, in the end, out of all the thousands who had so gladly fled Egypt, only two survived Gods Presence. They were all revealed and called to be Holy as God. But only two survived in the end.[2] 2. We are called to live a holy life because we do not conform to evil desires (1: 14) A] We also have our share in Holiness (Hebrews 12: 14) It is true that when we come to salvation in Christ He washes all our sins away and makes us Holy. We become perfect and clean through Jesus, but it is our duty to then keep ourselves clean. Holiness is not only what God can give to us but it is also what we can manifest with what He gave us. Paul says it quite clearly in Hebrews 12 : 14 (NIV) To make Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be Holy. ; Without without which we cannot see Godholiness no one will see the Lord. Holiness is a serious matter. We tend to take God for granted. When we give in or conform to the evil desires of the world, we say that it wasnt our fault but it is our flesh. We blame it on our human nature. Paul challenges us not to try to be holy but take every effort possible in other words we must strive or even fight to be Holy. Effort means to use energy to get something done.[3] Holiness should be such a longing of our heart that we would put our whole energy to get it done. B] No compromise in Holiness Holiness is being spotlessly clean. Without Holiness we can never enter the presence of God. The Old Testament priests were the perfect example of this. The priest entered the presence of God only once a year. They dreaded that moment. Thought it was regarded very high to enter the Holy of Holies, it was dreadful at the same time. In that moment if they were found guilty of sin , there was no time for explanation they were just struck dead. They prepared themselves for the whole year for that one day in Gods presence, the presence of the Holy God. We are so privileged that there is no curtain between God and us, we dont need a high priest to stand in for us anymore, Christ has already done it for us. We can enter Gods presence anytime anywhere we want. As for us its not a once a year thing its an every day thing. WE are living in the age of grace, God does not strike us dead anymore, though grace is available for free it is not cheap, so let us not take it for granted. C] Illustration In the forests of northern Europe and Asia lives little animal called the ermine, known for his snow-white fur in winter. He instinctively protects his white coat against anything that would soil it. Fur hunters take advantage of this unusual trait of the ermine. They dont set a snare to catch him, but instead they find his home, which is usually a cleft in a rock or a hollow in an old tree. They smear the entrance and interior with grime. Then the hunters set their dogs loose to find and chase the ermine. The frightened animal flees toward home but doesnt enter because of the filth. Rather than soil his white coat, he is trapped by the dogs and captured while preserving his purity. For the ermine, purity is more precious than life. HGB[4] It doesnt always cost our lives to be Holy. But most of the time it could cost things or people that are dear to our hearts. When we are of this world, we make the things of the world our own. We usually cling to things and people which could take Gods place in our lives. So when we come to Christ we ought to replace them with Christ. When we do the right thing, even our own friends might not understand us, their there might even come times where we have to give them up for holiness, for there is no compromise on Holiness. 3. We are called to live a holy life because we were redeemed by the precious blood. (1: 23) A] Free access to Holiness The way of Holiness (Isaiah 35 : 8) It is true that we dont have to do anything to become Holy because we are washed by His blood. But we have to take effort in keeping it. It is quite clear in Isaiah 35: 8 that the way to God is holiness, there is no other way. Christ has done his part, by making the way. But to keep our self on the highway or to get kicked off lies on our hands. There is no place for unclean or wicked people on this road. B] Set Apart to be an example We are set apart and called to be holy not to seclude ourselves from the world but to be the light. D.L. Moody, A holy life will make the deepest impression. Lighthouses blow no horns, they just shine. One of the misconceptions in the churches today is that they become holy and they become literally set apart. They dont associate or mingle with the people of this world. They develop something which is famously called as the Holy huddle. They become so holy that the people of this world cannot even get close to them, they just have to be set apart. But that is not what God has called us to be. The difference between the Pharisees and Jesus was that Jesus toughed touched the unclean but they didnt. The Pharisees where were Holy as well, they did everything God commanded them to, but they didnt understand it. We are not called to be a Pharisee but we are called to be more like Him. We are not made Holy to be set in museums as specimens but to reach out to the unclean in turn. When we be come holy day by day let us be humbled by the fact that we dont deserve it , but it is through grace. Reach out to make them Holy. As the story of Isaac Newtons experience let our holiness hurt their eyes, not to chase them away from us but to draw them closer to Him who has called us to be Set apart, to be Holy. In conclusion let us make every effort to be more like Him every day. Let us just not sit back and pray for holiness but take every effort to be holy. Holiness is not only what God gives us but it is what we manifest with what He gave. Let us not compromise with the things of the world. Are we willing to lay down everything to pursue holiness? Holiness is not only works and deeds but is also passionately pursuing a relationship with God. Let us never compromise with holiness. If you are thinking that you have done all these all through out your life. Youve always been pursuing God for holiness and have a wonderful relationship with God, then dont become a Pharisee. Let us not settle down in that place in a holy huddle but let us affect others with our holiness. Let us be a light shining in this unholy land. We are set apart not to be in a museum but to be a light, that hurts the eyes but still draws them closer. Bibliography http://bible.org/illustration/ermine [03 September 2009] Fwd. Ogilvie, L. J. Nelsons Three in One Bible Reference Companion Nashville: Thomas nelson Publisher, 1982 [03 September 2009] Ed.. Martin Ralph p. and Davids, Peter H, Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its development Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1997. [1] Ed. Ralh P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its development (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), p. 485. [2] [03 September 2009] [3] Fwd. Dr. Llyod John Ogilvie, Nelsons Three in One Bible Reference Companion (Nashville: Thomas nelson Publisher, 1982), p. 206. [4] http://bible.org/illustration/ermine [03 September 2009]

dickinson and angelou Essay -- essays research papers

Emily Dickinson & Maya Angelou Essay Q. Analyse the presentation of human suffering in the poetry of Maya Angelou & Emily Dickinson. Many of Emily Dickinson’s poems touch on topics dealing with loss and human suffering. While loss and suffering is generally considered a sad or unfortunate thing, Dickinson uses this theme to explain and promote the positive aspects of absence. Throughout many of her poems, one can see clearly that see is an advocate of respecting and accepting the state of being without. Dickinson implies that through these types of losses, one can gain a richer and stronger appreciation for both success and belongings. Poems 2 and 1036 are two that capture the extent of Dickinson’s feelings on loss. By understanding and comparing these two works, it is easy to recognise that Dickinson believes that possessing neither material possessions nor the joy of success are the real keys to happiness. Poem 2 focuses on a battle that could be considered either literal in the sense of war, or more symbolic as it could act as the anthem for any type of loss or failure. Lines 1 and 2 of the poem explain that success or winning is most valued by those who never prevail. Dickinson is saying that loss creates the strongest appreciation for a win. The lines 3 and 4 state: To comprehend a nectar Requires sorest need. This implies that necessity is the only way in which to understand what you want. Next, in the second stanza, Dickinson uses words that...

Business Related Articles

What does the network layer do? Where does it sit in relationship to the other four layers of our simplified network model? Network layer is the third layer of the OSI model. It performs switching and  routing by creating logical paths, known as  virtual circuits, for transferring data from  one node to another node. Routing and forwarding are the major functions of this layer. It also performs other operations such as  addressing, internetworking, error handling,  congestion,  control and packet sequencing. It maintains the quality of service requested by the transportation layer. It determines how data are transferred between network devices. It Routes packets according to unique network device addresses and Provides flow and congestion control to prevent network resource depletion. The network layer provides the functional and procedural means of transferring variable length  data sequences from a source to a destination host via one or more networks while maintaining the  quality of service  and  error control functions. At this layer, the computer system engages in a dialogue with the network to specify the destination address and to request certain network facilities, such as priority   Network Layer consists of three sub layers: Sub network Access: This layer considers protocols that deal with the interface to networks, such as X. 25. Sub network Dependent Convergence: This layer is necessary to bring the level of a transit network up to the level of networks on either side. Sub network Independent Convergence: It handles transfer across multiple networks. The major Functions of the network layer are: Routing: The most outstanding function of network layer is routing which includes Moving data across a series of interconnected networks the network layer. At the network layer, the devices and software routines handles incoming packets from various sources, determines their final destination, and then transfers the data to their destination. Logical Addressing: Every communication device in a network of an logical address, which is also called as â€Å"layer three address†. The  Internet Protocol (IP) is the network layer protocol which is the best known example of network layer and every machine consists of its own IP address. It manages the connectionless transfer of data one hop at a time, from end system to ingress router, to router to router, and from egress router to destination end system. It is not responsible for reliable delivery to a next hop, but only for the detection of eroded packets so they may be removed. Connection model: The OSI Network Layer protocol can be either connection-oriented, or connectionless. In general, the  TCP/IP Internet Layer supports only the connectionless Internet Protocol (IP). Message forwarding: This is the most important function of network layer. Since many networks are partitioned into sub networks and connect to other networks for wide-area communications, networks use specialized hosts, called gateways or  routers to forward packets between networks. Datagram Encapsulation: Network layer performs encapsulation of messages received from higher layers by placing them into  datagrams  which are also referred to as packets with a network layer header. Fragmentation and Reassembly: The major function of the network layer is transmitting messages down to the data link layer. Some data link layer technologies consist of certain limitations on the length of any message that can be sent. If the packet that the network layer wants to send is too large, the network layer has to fragment the packet before transmitting it to data link layer. It transmits each piece to the data link layer. The fragmented pieces are then reassembled once they arrive at the network layer on the destination machine. Handling and Diagnostics: At the network layer Special protocols are used to allow devices that are logically connected, or that are trying to route traffic, to exchange information about the status of hosts on the network or the devices themselves.

A critical discussion on the ethics of abortion?

Most cultures accept the premises that it is wrong to kill another human being. If murder is an absolute truth, cultures, which allow killing, can be persuaded through reason that murder is wrong. For example the Aztec empire when discovered in the 16th century would keep human blood pouring down the steps of their teocallis (Aztec temples). They did this because they believed without constant human sacrifices the cosmos would stop existing. Simple reasoning tells us this is not the case; human sacrifice doesn't make a difference to the cosmos. However, are we wrong to judge other cultures and people by are own standards? Are we not being liberal and open minded enough? Well if that is the case I will make up my own rules and kill YOU now! I believe you disagree with that. Absolute truths are there for a reason, to be obeyed. If absolute truths exist, it is logical to assume that there are absolute truths for everyone; otherwise it wouldn't be an absolute truth. For the person who cries out â€Å"I am the god of my own universe†¦ there are no absolutes,† I ask them, â€Å"are they ABSOLUTELY sure about that!!! † and, if you are the â€Å"god of your own universe†, then I am the god of mine and I say it is fine for me to kill you. Surely this is ridiculous? However the wrongness of killing is not primarily explained by the brutalisation of the killer but rather the premature ceasing of life for the individual. What the individual is being deprived of is not a past life but a future existence, a loss of future consciousness. So IF it is wrong to kill other human beings, what IS a human? Biologically humans are made when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins a sperm with 23 chromosomes; this creates a fertilised egg called a zygote, which has 46 chromosomes. Therefore this is the beginning of life. The egg by itself is not alive and the sperm by itself is not alive. Life can only come into existence when the sperm meets the egg and develops. Therefore I say to Catholics, that using contraception in sex is no more killing a potential baby than a Catholic person masturbating. A potential life is ONLY formed when the egg meets the sperm and growth begins. A sperm or egg on it's own is not a potential life just the ingredients for life. For a sperm or egg on their own do not contain the complete DNA of a human. Life is only formed when both the egg and sperm meet (we are all DNA, we are all life). SCIENCE tells us that the instance the egg meets the sperm; a complete set of unique DNA is formed that will last a lifetime. Everyone in the world is unique and science tells us this uniqueness was formed mile-seconds after conception. The unique DNA holds the complete characteristics of the future baby, child, teenager and old man. For the fetus, the baby and the old man are one in the same DNA. Therefore from the moment of conception the complete characteristic's of what we will be is established. Defendants of abortion disagree with the premises that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception and instead believe as Thomas states â€Å"only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth. † Therefore this statement suggests a person's rights only begins after birth. This statement therefore is saying a fetus in its first weeks has the same rights as a fetus hours before birth. However how many people would accept to aborting a baby just before birth? Though according to the pro-abortionist the fetus is only a bit of tissue, until birth when it becomes a person with rights. However to determine the moral status of abortion you must distinguish what attributes are needed to be a member of the moral community, what does it means to be a person with rights? Mary Anne Warren defines a human being as â€Å"a full-fledged member of the moral community that is also a human being. † These are moral entities capable of respecting and inventing moral rights. To be morally human Warren identifies certain traits that must be present such as sentience, emotionality, reason and self-awareness. Therefore you can spot species, which deserve moral respect from these traits. She uses an example of an alien arriving and using these qualities to determine whether it deserves moral respect. If these behaviours cannot be identified in certain species then they cannot be given moral respect and be regarded as â€Å"a person. † She distinguishes this â€Å"moral sense† from the â€Å"genetic sense† of a human. Warren believes that for abortion to be wrong you must prove whatever is genetically human to also be morally human. She believes fetus's can only be genetically human and therefore do not fall under the category of a human, thus forfeiting human moral rights. Despite Warren's observation that a seven-month-old fetus can feel pain and respond to external stimuli, she reasons that this still does not put the fetus under the category of personhood. Therefore she concludes a seven month fetus is no more a person than none human animals. However if only those people who have psychological attributes of a person can enter into moral contracts with others, what then is our duty not to inflict pain and suffering on animals or to another level small babies. Suffering however is a misfortune when experienced by us, so we should therefore uphold and shun away from participating in the suffering of animals or other humans. For if we are going to kill animals or infants we will do so in a way, which brings about the least amount of suffering. Regarding animals Kant has argued that treating animals with care is important for the sole reason that in doing so mans heart won't harden in their treatment of humans. However Feinburg shows treating infants with care is important because they need to be trained in moral behaviour so by treating them with care benefits us. However this argument shows, just as we can treat with care the infants we intend to keep we can kill the infants we intend to discard. In the same way we can treat with care the fetus's we intend to keep but discard the fetus's we don't want. Warren argues in some situations it can be practical anyway to abort babies or even young infants. This is in cases when the current population is unable to sustain new life. It seems barbaric that creatures, which possess developed social structures and morals could result to such behaviour. From a utilitarian perspective however in some circumstances this outcome could be argued the most beneficial to the majority of society. However in normal circumstances it seems absurd to pick and choose infants who can live or die which could be argued have the same moral standing as fetus's or animals. Bearing in mind this Don marquis believes a different approach is needed, this approach regards the question of whether the fetus deserves the right to life. A premature death results in the loss of the future goods of consciousness therefore killing is wrong because it deprives a person of a â€Å"future like ours. Fetus's will became human and develop and grow into sentient creatures therefore having dispositions like ours, so does this mean they deserve the same chance as us? The misfortune of contracting an incurable disease is that the disease denies that person a future like ours that they would otherwise have and which they would no doubt rather have. The will to live is strong for life is sweet, and because we recognise this, doctors will do their up most to preserve someone's life who is unconscious or suicidal because they don't want to deny the person the chance to have a future like ours. In the same way a fetus or infant whether unconscious or not deserves a chance to experience future consciousness for no one would like their future conscious or the chance to have a future consciousness prematurely eliminated. However the future like ours argument does pose some problems. The degrees of wrongness in killing do seem to be in proportion with the victim's age. For a 5-year-old child has more potential future than an 80-year-old man, leading from this it would seem more right to deny an 80 year old man a future like ours than a 5 year old child. However stating as Marquis puts it, â€Å"adopting the legal equality of murder†, can put down this criticism. Some have argued that contraception is denying a potential FLO when conception is possible. However since at the time of conception there is no individual to be harmed, there is no entity with a FLO, there is just millions of possible potential FLO but nothing with an actual one. For in the case of contraception nothing has been harmed therefore their was no potential suffering. Despite pro-abortionists disagreeing to â€Å"drawing a line† to where a fetus becomes a human with rights, many agree that the fetus has become a person with characteristics well before birth. Are they drawing a line here? Do you draw the line at the birth of the child which when born still does not necessarily posses the qualities of personhood. Does this mean you can treat small babies like animal's which its characteristics are more similar to, however as I mentioned earlier, causing suffering is wrong. Surely you should treat the baby like the species it is from with the set of morals that it will grow into. All species under the banner of the same DNA should be treated with the same moral respect even if they haven't developed the capacity or will never – such as disabled people. These people have observed and agreed that a young fetus does have human characteristics such as internal organs, limbs and brain activity. However the developments of this young fetus have all come from the DNA initiated moments after conception, therefore the moment of conception is the beginning of the person, which then will grow. However pro-abortionists still argue that at conception the fetus is just a clump of cells and no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree and no more valuable than a lifeless rock. Thomson suggests that even if life begins at conception it does not necessarily follow that abortion is morally impermissible. He suggests the possibility that a women's right to decide is stronger than a fetus's right to life and that to deny a women the choice of abortion is to deny her the right to control her own body. This is outlined by the use of an analogy of a famous violinist. I would like to suggest that this is not an acceptable argument in the debate about abortion because there is a different duty in sustaining life and looking after new life, which originates in you. The analogy states that you have been kidnapped and connected to a violinist in order to keep him alive and only you have the qualities for this purpose, to unplug yourself from him would result in the violinists' death. This analogy is suggesting that all human beings have a right to life and dispite unwillingly being connected to the violinist, disconnecting yourself would not be giving the violinist a right to life. To stay consistent the anti-abortionist would have to stay in bed with the violinist however long that may be because all humans have a right to life. This analogy is trying to suggest that someone's right to decide what they do to their body is greater than someone's right to life? I'm sure you would be outraged if you were unwillingly and knowingly put in this situation. Although if you were feeling generous you might decide to save the violinist by staying connected, if 1 hour of being connected to him would save his life. However that is the individual personal decision to make. A law, which required you to stay in bed with the violinist, would be an unjust law. If the right to decide is greater then the right to life, Thomson is saying, then the anti-abortionists premise of life beginning at conception is irrelevant. This analogy is trying to distinguish whether people who oppose abortion will make an acceptation, if the conception was due to rape and therefore as the violinist analogy puts forward, the participant was unwilling. Therefore do some people have a less of a right to life than others? Surely there is no distinction between the circumstance that life is created, life is life and people have the same feelings however conception takes place. A test tube baby is still an original, unique life. Rape is wrong but is it right to punish the innocent party (the baby). If anyone is going to be killed as a result of rape, surely that should be the rapist?! A pro-abortionist could argue that the mother is the innocent party and therefore is being punished through the conception. Again the question comes down to the premises of whether a right to life is greater than the right to choose. However just because a fetus is down to rape doesn't make that new life any less important – it is still a life. However I would like to suggest that there is a difference in sustaining life and promoting new life. There is a difference of responsibility in life as a result of a pregnant women (regarding the fetus. For all of us need our organs to function and we don't have a responsibility to sacrifice ourselves and are organs or freedom to sustain life randomly because we are life ourselves and have the same right to sustain our life and not give are bodies to the goodness of life for everyone. If this statement is wrong I challenge everyone to go down to the hospital tomorrow and willingly sacrifice themselves for the good of sustaining life (or violinists! ). However new life is the result of conception, this conception is not sustaining life but rather giving new life, this is completely different. The violinist analogy poses the question that there is a ladder of people who have more right to life than others. A human chose that the violinist's life was more important to sustain than the person who was attached to him, what about the violinists responsibility to promote life. If someone is being forced to keep you alive, life isn't being promoted but the opposite is occurring. The violinist analogy automatically assumes that one person is more valuable to sustain than another. Therefore this leads us to the question; can we use a person who is less valuable to society in order to sustain the life of someone who brings more value to society, such as use murderers and rapists in this way and their organs? The question this raises is, what human has the right to decide who lives or dies or how you use your body. In the violinist analogy a human decided that someone's life was not as valuable as the violinist's. The anti-abortionist can argue that this example is not acceptable to the debate. There is a difference in sacrificing yourself to SUSTAIN existing life and sacrificing yourself to KEEP new life. Existing life was their before you decided or were forced to sustain it (e. g. sustaining the violinist) but new life originates in the person and wasn't around before. The person who was attached to the violinist was attached to sustain the violinist's life NOT to keep a new unique life. A new life comes into existence though conception at birth. The person attached to the violinist was sustaining his life but the violinist did not originate in the person that was attached to him, it was a different situation and not properly relevant to the abortion debate. The issue is complicated if the mothers life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy. If we conclude that all have a right to life, can we add to the mothers write to life the right to decide? Theirs no doubt the mother unlike the fetus has the opportunity to decide and if she is acting in a way as to save herself, she is acting in self-defence. Thomson here uses the house analogy here to illustrating that a women has a write to defend herself from the threat of an innocent baby in the example a women and child are both in a house, the child is growing and will eventually unknowingly crush the women. This illustration is designed to provoke us. However is it the women's body to decide? For the women is a carrier and the baby is a separate life. Thomson does say that it is indecent for seven-month pregnant women to have an abortion so she can go on a trip to Europe. People instead should get their priorities in order. Thomson believes each situation should be judged on its own merits. For an example she believes it acceptable for a 14-year-old pregnant rape victim to have an abortion to relieve the trauma but the situation changes if a pregnant women changes her mind or became pregnant because of no contraception. In other words a person behaves in a way that could have been avoided. However as more and more people start using abortion as a form of contraception we should ask the question, what did the sexual revolution of the sixties bring us? It brought us, sexual diseases, single parents, less stability, aids, increased abortions – â€Å"free love† is starting to look more like â€Å"free death†. The issue of abortion comes down to people's own moral belief. Human logic can dictate, which I have highlighted that abortion could be justified in extreme circumstances although should not be used constantly as a form of contraception. However the biblical view states very clearly that abortion is a sin. From the moment of conception the DNA cells have divided into areas and the characteristics of that life has been established. In the eyes of God therefore it has been given the breath of life.

Concept and idea of chivalry Sir Gawain and the Green Knig essays

Concept and idea of chivalry Sir Gawain and the Green Knig essays Sir Gawain and the Green Knight poem is an example of medieval verse romance. It was composed in the second half of the fourteenth century. The author of the piece remains unknown and is usually referred to as the Gawain poet or the Pearl poet. The author wrote the poem in an old-fashioned style with northwestern dialect of Middle English. Medieval romances often contain magical and supernatural elements and often treat love between aristocratic characters. Stories of the chivalric adventures of knights and their ladies were very popular in Anglo-Norman England. The audience was largely made up of women queen, duchess or countess who were, naturally, interested in stories in which women played more central roles (unlike in German epics were womans role was insignificant and the story mainly focused on male warriors Beowulf). Sir Gawain contains many themes addressed throughout the story. Some of the themes are more obvious than others. Love, lust, loyalty, deceit, trust, courage, values and righteousness are most of the themes within the poem. The most important, however, are chivalry love between Sir Gawain, the knight, and Lady of the castle, and chivalry code of conduct between Sir Gawain and the Lord. On the first day, as planned, the Lord arises early to go hunting. The poet describes in detail the hunting party. Then, almost drastically, the scene switches to the interior of the castle, to Gawain's bedroom where he still lies beneath the covers in the early morning. The Lady silently enters his bedroom and sits on Gawains bed, watching him. The knight is already awake, but he pretends to sleep, cautious of the situation and the Lady's intentions. Eventually, he wakes up and acts surprised to find the Lady there. A careful dialogue follows between Gawain and the Lady, where he delicately and diplomatically avoids her sexual offers. First, the Lady threatens flirtatiously to ...