One argues that today we have a crisis of belief, not a crisis of faith. To explain this crisis, I will briefly examine the relationship between faith and belief, explain why cultural shift is important to note when trying to understand religious issues, go into detail on the three hallmarks of each of the two cultures by showing how they compare to each other, show how Tillich’s notion of correlation deals with this idea of culture and a crisis of belief, and explain how Marsh’s notion of a “theology of negotiation” (33) fits with Lonergan’s definition and allows him to argue that film can help us raise theological questions. I will explore the relationship between faith and belief. At first glance, most of us will have the same thought that there is no difference between faith and belief. However, if we carefully examine them in detail, we will recognize their differences. Consider the difference in the meaning of “belief” in the following propositions: “I believe it will rain tomorrow” and “I believe 2+2=4.” Our general purpose is to express our thoughts to others and show them what things we want to believe. Shortly, our belief can be changed depending on our mood or our different cultures. When we’re talking about our faith, we must keep it in constancy. We can not say today our faith is this and tomorrow is on another. Therefore, the difference between faith and belief can be express as: faith is constant, and belief is varied. Faith shows “X-experiences and pre-cu...
The book A Prayer for Owen Meany brings forth various themes and questions that can't be answered easily. One of these questions is "Can religious faith exist alongside doubt, or are the two mutually exclusive?" There are several different possible takes on this question may be answered. How a person answers this question is related to their belief in faith.
In “Epameinondas, the Battle of Leuktra (371 B.C.), and the ‘Revolution’ in Greek Battle Tactics,” Victor Hanson argued that Epameinondas’s battle tactics at Leuktra were not revolutionary and thus his brief battle record reported by Herodotus was justified. Hanson broke down his argument into five parts. First, he considered Epameinondas’s innovations of considerable value. Second, he compared Leuktra and Mantineia for similarities. Third, he reviewed Xenophon’s version of the Theban battle plan. Fourth, he reviewed other historic accounts for their reliability. Finally, Hanson provided an explanation of the victory at Leuktra that required no revolutionary tactical maneuvers and followed the narrative of Xenophon.
Greeks and Romans are famous for the strategy's that they used. The Greeks main strategy was called the Phanlax. They basically have a rectangle of troops and each on...
However his soldiers rally around him and form a barriers with shields, “…friends around him crowding, bracing shields against their shoulders, spears brandished high…” (11.563-565). This type of warfare cannot be random; a hoplite must train for such confrontation. In book eight of the Iliad Ajax’s brother is described hiding behind Ajax’s shield and stepping out the fire arrows then returning behind the shield (8.266-334). This requires amazing coordination and training between soldiers to be as effective as it is n the Iliad. The same style is seen in Tyrtaeus’s depiction of the seventh-century Spartan phalanx. There are several passages that describer dense masses of soldiers packed tightly together evoking this image of hoplite phalanx
described from the setting in the sky, all the way to Achilles? spear ripping through the
Around 5th century BCE Sparta started to dominate the eastern Mediterranean. Sparta was never really big, but they were strong because of their perfect battle formation called a phalanx. In order for he phalanx to work, intensive training and education was required. However, did the intensive training and education outweigh the weaknesses? The strengths of their training and education did not outweigh the weaknesses because the Spartans trained their people too harshly, many forms of education were banned, and the Spartans mistreated the Helots. These flaws in the Spartan system could’ve caused uprisings and rebellion
a) Christians believe many different things about God’s nature; due to the huge spectrum of Christians that there are. However, as a general rule they perceive God as being one of the following four things:
Religion, which is meant to enhance the faith of it followers, has done the opposite. The practices of religion have become overwhelmingly factual that the faith component of religion has vanished. In order to be a genuine beliver one must comprise an authentic faith. Both religious leaders and followers must realize that their religion is not factual, but sustained through faith. The key to the gates of heaven is faith, not facts.
... This would put added pressure on the other man to make sure he doesn't look like a coward. The phalanx depended on every single individual in order to work right.
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
The main difference between Greek and Roman warfare was the formations that they fought in. The Grecian armies all used the phalanx as a fighting formation while the Romans used the maniple. The phalanx was one mass formation that consisted of infantry eight deep. The maniple formation was actually a group of formations in a checkerboard pattern. Each maniple consisted of about 120 men and when employed in Italy, the Romans used thirty maniples. The maniple proved to be a better formation, because the phalanx left no room for maneuvering after engagement.
...rated the superiority of the Greek long spear and armor over the weapons of the Persians, as well as the superior tactics of Miltiades and the military training of the Greek hoplites. The choice of weapons, training of warriors, selection of battle site, and timing had all worked together to help the Athenians prove that size doesn’t always matter.
The velites, were considered the entry class into the military, and consequently were the first used in battle. This infantry often consisted of the poorest soldiers, only given a small shield, cheap leather armor, and five javelins, which they had to buy themselves. When enemies would approach, they would be on the front lines of their army, and would quickly throw their pilum (throwing spears) to render enemy shields useless (Roman Empire Wars).
In today’s modern western society, it has become increasingly popular to not identify with any religion, namely Christianity. The outlook that people have today on the existence of God and the role that He plays in our world has changed drastically since the Enlightenment Period. Many look solely to the concept of reason, or the phenomenon that allows human beings to use their senses to draw conclusions about the world around them, to try and understand the environment that they live in. However, there are some that look to faith, or the concept of believing in a higher power as the reason for our existence. Being that this is a fundamental issue for humanity, there have been many attempts to explain what role each concept plays. It is my belief that faith and reason are both needed to gain knowledge for three reasons: first, both concepts coexist with one another; second, each deals with separate realms of reality, and third, one without the other can lead to cases of extremism.
I was unsure of what Faith and Reason were; I say that, because Faith and Reason seem to have the illusion of spiritual meanings and concepts, thus I could not accept the idea that a course of this nature would be taught in college. For me Faith and Reason express a person’s ideals, beliefs and theories on life. According to Webster’s Dictionary, faith and reason are defined as; faith being a belief and trust in and loyalty to God; fanciful or empty assumption. The images that we have come to express are not far from what the rest of the world has expressed or defined. As you continue to read my theories and ideas on the issue of Faith and Reason, you may come to understand the type of person that I am, and possibly understand how and why I believe as I do.