What is a Belief System an Example of the Topic Government and Law Essays by

What is a Belief System? From the dawn of the humankind history faith had played the vital role in the life of people. It was faith that helped them survive the hardships, protected them during the long windy dark nights beside the fire, it was the thing that made them continue forward when all the energies seemed to have been lost. The faith is composed of many small elements, small persuasions, the facts that have no real evidence as the basis, but people still take them for granted. Belief system is the phenomenon that organizes all this small facts, principles and persuasions into the full concept, the one that has the defined goals and methods of reaching them. The belief system has the rules its adepts have to follow, it usually explains the origins of those rules and the history of their appearance, it talks about the countenance that is presented to those who fulfill them, and the measures taken towards those who fail to do so. Mary Pat Fisher, the author of the book Living Religions says that every religion is a belief system, but not every belief system is a religion. Need essay sample on "What is a Belief System?" topic? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you Proceed Personally I was raised Catholic, but after reading The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz, The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield, & The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, I have become more moral and spiritual than religious. I question women's roles in the Bible, Koran, and Torah. At the moment I cannot say I am an adept of this or that religion, but the beliefs I share do compose a religious belief system. I believe that a high deity exists, the one who created this Universe, and who set the rule people have to follow for to ensure their safe and happy being on this planet, and that gives them the chance to continue their existence even after death. I realize that the commandments found in the Bible are just the guidelines for our behavior, and that the most important principles of the existence that corresponds to the God's intentions towards us were given by Jesus Christ. They are to love God and to love those who are near you. I believe that love is the kernel of the contemporary C hristianity, all rules given in the New Testament are just retelling of this two postulates. I believe it's of more important to live according to the spirit of the laws that God gave to us, than to live precisely to its letter. Undergraduates Often Tell EssayLab writers: How much do I have to pay someone to write my assignment online? Specialists advise: If You Think About Someone To Write Your Paper - Essaylab The Right Place! As you may've noticed my particular belief system is a combination of classical Catolicism, the interpretation of Bible by the religious philosophers and my own thoughts about the origins and destination of this particular religion. My parents raised me as a Catholic, I had to visit church every Sunday, but I never considered this to be boring. I've always seen the rules given in the Bible as useful recommendations that mostly allow leading happy and long life on our planet without hurting people who dwell around. Thus I've tried to live up to the expectations of my parents, who hoped I would grow up to be a faithful Catholic. To be honest I'm not really sure I'm a Catholic now, but it also would've been wrong to say that I'm not. I agree with all the principles given in the Bible, and I try to live according to their recommendations, but after reading The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz, The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield, he rather needed the followers who understood what lied behind those rules; people who saw the spirit of the commandments behind their letters. Personally I see a lot of benefits in having my particular belief system, as it is more flexible than the traditional religions, it lives me the place for my own apprehension of God and of his intentions towards us, his creations. My belief system allows me to analyze the words of God, instead of following them word by word or use the interpretations that are provided by the church officials. In my opinion every person has to read the Bible f himself or herself, and make is/her own conclusions about the God's intentions concerning us, people. My beliefs allow me to be guided by the spirit of the God's will rather than by its letter. Now when I do something I analyze my intentions and motivations for doing it, and it sometimes turns out that the things that are considered inappropriate by many Catholics do not carry anything sinful or bad, but some of the actions that seem to be totally innocent are sometimes the real sins, considering the intentions and the thoughts that accompany this or that move. The advantage of my belief system is also that I know what God actually wanted from me, and for what purpose were the commandments designed. It's obvious that the life for those who are persuaded they are guided and protected by the deity is easier than for the atheists. I have the ideals I aim to reach, and I have the reasons for to aim to reach them. Besides, I have the vigor to run up my goals, as God empowers me. I have the goals such as the mental and spiritual development, and I am aware about the methods of accomplishing this development. The disadvantages of my belief system also exist, like that most of the Catholics disagree with my religious views, and some of my friends even consider them to be heterodox. Some people I communicate with consider me to be the non-religious person, as they have the stereotype of the Catholic, and I do not coincide with it. When most people hear about my beliefs, they say it is too complicated for them, and that everyone who considers himself to be a "real Christian" has to live strictly according to the commandments found in the Bible. As I was actually raised as a Catholic, tradition plays a considerable role in my belief system. In my opinion tradition creates a kind of the bond between the generations of the believers, and between the believers in different parts of the world. I think it is good and inspiring when people know that their parents and grandparents followed this tradition and their kids will follow it after their death. (like celebrating Sunday as the Lord's Day or kneeling in the church.) As I've read some books of the philosophers of the past and the contemporary times, I'm sure that there were people before me, who chose the same path as I did, those, who longed for mental and spiritual development in the same time knowing that fulfillment of the principles provided by God is the best way to reach them, it's just the way to do it that has to be found. I consider myself the bearer of this tradition, and I'm proud with my religious views and goals. For most of the world religions traditions are the way to help the followers of this or that teaching to feel themselves protected, to sense the unity of all the believers worldwide. For example, in Catholicism, the traditions are the parts of the religious customs, part of the postulates that exist in the borders of the Catholic faith are also just traditions. Traditions help people feel themselves protected, they make the belief system more structured and more understandable for their adepts. We live in a world where we have to communicate with various people every day. Every one of them has his/her own set of beliefs, and it would be harmful for the cooperation to offend the religious feelings of the person we are trying to communicate with. For to avoid it, it is needed to be acquainted with the basic postulates of the most widespread religions, about the restraints they put on their adepts, and about the things that the followers of those religions can consider offensive. Besides understanding the basic principles of the religion your acquaintance possesses will allow to interpret his/her actions in a right way, and to understand his/her intentions and motivations better. Personal religious beliefs have always been for me one of the most complicated topics to talk about, as it is hard to explain people the peculiarities of your belief system. I hope I managed to do it correctly in this paper. Reference Fisher, M.P. Living Religions (5th Edition). Prentice Hall, 2002, ch.1-2

japan subdued essays

japan subdued essays It was the year of 1945 when the U.S. and it's Allies were in War with the country of Japan. Japan had previously attacked the United States Naval Force's in Pearl Harbor, which had resulted in a big loss to the U.S. This event had led to the beginning of a War between the two and some of the U.S. Allies. Japan was trying to take control of a lot of the land in the East and was battling for land control. The book written by Herbert Feis talks about the time era in which the U.S. tried to make Japan during 1945 unconditionally surrender its power to the them, which then led to the Atomic Bomb-S1 usage upon Japans pride to surrender. In the book, the author tries to tell us that the use of the Atomic Bomb could've been prevented if other agreements would've taken place between the two Countries. It also talked about how the second bomb that was used was unnecessary and should've have never been dropped but the U.S. Government said that is was dropped to make a clear statement to Japan. The whole reason the President and General MacArthur agreed the bomb would benefit the U.S., is that it would make Japan surrender unconditionally to the U.S. and could save lives of the U.S. Military from fighting a longer War. Japan would not agree on the surrender terms written in Potsdam Declaration because they did not want their Emperor to fall out of a Dynasty that was to be created. Then the U.S. and it's Allies such as the Germans, USSR, and China all gathered for a meeting with the U.S. informing them all that they were building a new weapon that was going to used on Japan to end war early. They told the Allies that the weapon would be ready early August and that one was ready to be tested on open grounds in New Mexico. It was early August and Japan still hadn't agreed on any terms with the U.S. and the new weapon was even closer to being ready to be dropped using B-29 aircrafts. At this time the USSR was waiting to declare wa...

Final Essays Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Final Essays - Essay Example Jesse Ventura didn’t talk down to people like Nader did, nor did he have the boring, stifling personality that Ross Perot projected. Ross Perot, it might be said, had some advantages over Ventura. He shared Ventura’s style of â€Å"straight talk† which appealed to a lot of Americans. With his Southern drawl and antebellum charm, Ross Perot was somewhat of an interesting character, especially due to the fact that he liked showing a lot of visuals (i.e., charts) whilst speaking. Perot also appeared more â€Å"serious† about life than Ventura, who most people might not have taken seriously because of his celebrity. Nader possessed the advantage over Ventura in that, he seemed like a more â€Å"serious† candidate, and a well-educated one at that. Ralph Nader is most famous for his exposure of hot dogs not having met FDA standards. Trained in both economics and green living, Nader cares about organizations like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of A nimals). These three candidacies show us that the likelihood of a third party in America—even if it were moderately strong—is not enough to defeat the two main parties of Democrat and Republican that are in place. Independent party candidates are not usually serious in scope, and thus, they undermine themselves. 2. E.E. Schattschnieder says "democracy without political parties is impossible." Is he correct? Why? (250 words) Democracy, as Schattschneider said, would probably most likely be impossible without political parties. Indeed, â€Å"†¦E.E. Schattschneider sought to redefine democracy and popular control of government by formulating a concept that has since become known as the ‘doctrine of responsible party government.’†1 Basically, without political parties, the best way that the government would be described is total anarchy. There would be complete chaos without political parties because it would be â€Å"every man for himself.† To be more politically correct, one could also say it would also be â€Å"every woman for herself.† Indeed, political parties in a democracy serve to help checks and balances stay in effect. The fact that there are two opposing political parties is ideal in the sense that one party can check the other by not allowing certain actions to happen based on the way the parties vote strategically in both houses of Congress—the Senate and the House. On the other hand, one of the disadvantages is not necessarily with not having parties, but with having two parties only—which many times makes politics in the United States a polarizing, partisan, all-out, knock-down, dragged-out war. Both political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, equally believe in their opinions. The problem is that many times, neither side wants to make concessions in order to get deals made and laws passed because both sides always have scruples when it comes to getting their particular leg islation passed. To this end, it is hoped that in the future both sides collaborate. 3. According to "Toward a More Responsible Party System All Over Again" is there a need to re-conceptualize and restructure our party system to establish programmatic-based political parties, disciplined parties, and party responsibility? (270 words) There is a dire need in the United States to definitely re-conceptualize and restructure the existing party system in this country. All types of parties should be considered as long as they only serve to help people and espouse a noteworthy cause or group of