Admiration

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 260 of 288 · 20 per page

• From In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom (2005)

  Just through the atrium there was a nearly 1,000-square-foot triclinium decorated with an exquisite mosaic with Dionysiac themes. It was laid out in a typical fashion, bordered on three sides by large white-colored areas without any mosaic but with marks for the couches. Those wooden couches have not survived, but some of their bronze decorative attachments are still extant. One is shaped like a horse’s head, another like a satyr’s bust, another like Heracles’s head, and all are masterpieces of Macedonian metalworking. The central panel of the mosaic itself shows Dionysos riding his chariot and emerging from the sea, wreath and staff in one hand, drinking cup in the other, surrounded by two centaurs holding a vase and wine krater. Is this banquet hall evidence that the cult of Dionysos met in this house? Diners were certainly invited to enjoy wine, but also to do so in luxury, especially in the luxury of what the Romans called otium, or “leisure.” The patron of the house was no doubt honored to the point of worship by some of those clients lucky enough to taste both wine and otium. Social Patronage and Street Frontage If, as John Chow has argued persuasively, Paul first encountered “powerful patrons” at Corinth, how did he get into contact with them? Furthermore, what about that married couple, Prisc[ill]a and her husband Aquila, who, on the one hand, seem to be patrons of Paul at Corinth, but, on the other, continue as his employers, friends, and co-working artisans? Notice, first of all, that Priscilla is often mentioned in first place, as being more important than her husband. They are located sequentially in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and finally back in Rome. They are clearly very, very important, something on which both Luke’s Acts and Paul’s letters agree. They are at Corinth in Acts 18:2–3: “There he [Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, and, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them, and they worked together—by trade they were tentmakers.” That, by the way, was a difficult trade, whether in linen or leather, because much of it was monopolized by the military or for the military. Then, in Acts 18:18–19, they move to Ephesus: “After staying there [at Corinth] for a considerable time, Paul said farewell to the believers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila…. When they reached Ephesus, he left them there, but first he himself went into the synagogue and had a discussion with the Jews.” They are still there in Acts 18:26: “He [the missionary Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately.”

• From How to Be Yourself: Quiet Your Inner Critic and Rise Above Social Anxiety (2018)

  But most of all, inseparable from caring what people think is, simply, caring about people. Think of the Hallmark slogan, “When You Care Enough to Send the Very Best.” By caring enough, you send into the world your best efforts. By caring enough, you offer the world incredible strength and value. So while it’s important to turn down the dimmer switch of social anxiety to the point where it no longer freaks you out or gets in the way of living the life you want, don’t lose your care and concern for others. We care about people. We make wonderful friends and partners for the people who are lucky enough to know us. Ironically, the individuals I work with who experience social anxiety—the same people who think they’re inadequate, awkward failures—are, time and again, the most interesting, beautiful, and kind people one could ever hope to meet. I love working with people who experience social anxiety because they are invariably brave and amazing, and I am privileged to help them discover exactly that. For the introverts among us, your true self may be quiet and contemplative. For the extroverts, your true self may be vocal and gregarious. I maintain that who you are when you’re not afraid is your authentic self. Remember Gandhi’s appreciation of his social anxiety? “It has allowed me to grow. It has helped me in my discernment of the truth.” Go forth and do. Stretch. Grow. And in doing so, you will find your truth—your authentic self. My Quiet Road to How to Be Yourself: A Conversation with Susan Cain Quiet came into my life in 2012, the year it was published. How it happened was unremarkable—I don’t remember if it was a gift or a purchase, whether it came recommended or was an impulse buy. But what it sparked was remarkable, not only to introverts the world over, but also, on a very different scale, to me. That year, my family and I had uprooted ourselves from our longtime New England community and moved to the opposite coast to finish my husband’s education. We were juggling a four-year-old and a one-year-old and felt overwhelmed by our jobs and unsettled by starting over in a new city. Nightly, I would lie in bed and think, I need to figure out what I’m doing. Ostensibly, this was a career conundrum, but I realize now it was deeper and more existential.

• From The City of God

  18. _Against those who deny that the books of the Church are to be believed about the miracles whereby the people of God were educated._ Will some one say that these miracles are false, that they never happened, and that the records of them are lies? Whoever says so, and asserts that in such matters no records whatever can be credited, may also say that there are no gods who care for human affairs. For they have induced men to worship them only by means of miraculous works, which the heathen histories testify, and by which the gods have made a display of their own power rather than done any real service. This is the reason why we have not undertaken in this work, of which we are now writing the tenth book, to refute those who either deny that there is any divine power, or contend that it does not interfere with human affairs, but those who prefer their own god to our God, the Founder of the holy and most glorious city, not knowing that He is also the invisible and unchangeable Founder of this visible and changing world, and the truest bestower of the blessed life which resides not in things created, but in Himself. For thus speaks His most trustworthy prophet: "It is good for me to be united to God."[408] Among philosophers it is a question, what is that end and good to the attainment of which all our duties are to have a relation? The Psalmist did not say, It is good for me to have great wealth, or to wear imperial insignia, purple, sceptre, and diadem; or, as some even of the philosophers have not blushed to say, It is good for me to enjoy sensual pleasure; or, as the better men among them seemed to say, My good is my spiritual strength; but, "It is good for me to be united to God." This he had learned from Him whom the holy angels, with the accompanying witness of miracles, presented as the sole object of worship. And hence he himself became the sacrifice of God, whose spiritual love inflamed him, and into whose ineffable and incorporeal embrace he yearned to cast himself. Moreover, if the worshippers of many gods (whatever kind of gods they fancy their own to be) believe that the miracles recorded in their civil histories, or in the books of magic, or of the more respectable theurgy, were wrought by these gods, what reason have they for refusing to believe the miracles recorded in those writings, to which we owe a credence as much greater as He is greater to whom alone these writings teach us to sacrifice? 19. _On the reasonableness of offering, as the true religion teaches, a visible sacrifice to the one true and invisible God._

• From A History of Christianity (1976)

  imminent parousia but by the 140s the Church had settled down to the long haul, and procreation had to be carried on. Marcion’s departure was a heavy financial blow to the Rome Church and his money enabled him to attract a huge following in the east. But belief in celibacy necessarily proves fatal to a heretical movement. Tertullian and Marcion never met: they were of quite different generations and Tertullian was attacking an attitude of mind rather than a real personality. Both had powerful intellects. Tertullian, in addition, was a master of prose, the prose of the rhetorician and the controversialist. He was at home in both Latin and Greek but he usually employed Latin – the first Christian theologian to do so. His influence, indeed, was enormous precisely because he created ecclesiastical latinity, hammered out its linguistic concepts and formulations and, thanks to his eloquence, endowed it with unforgettable and influential phrases: ‘The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church’; ‘The unity of the heretics is schism’; ‘I believe because it is absurd.’ The last indicates the distance which separates him from the rationalist Marcion. Tertullian came from Carthage where, even in the closing decades of the second century, a distinctive regional Church had emerged: enthusiastic, immensely courageous, utterly defiant of the secular authorities, much persecuted, narrow- minded, intolerant, venomous and indeed violent in controversy. There is some evidence that Carthage and other areas of the African littoral were evangelized by Christian Zealots and Essenes and had a very early tradition of militancy and resistance to authority and persecution. Tertullian embodied this tradition. To him the Church was a precious elite of believers, to be defended against contamination from whatever quarter; the Devil, he thought, roamed the earth seeking to corrupt. Christians should limit their contacts with the state to the minimum; they should refuse to serve in the army, or the civil service, or even in state schools; they might not earn their living in any trade connected, even indirectly, with pagan religion. He particularly deplored the attempts of rationalists, like Marcion, to reconcile Christian teaching to Greek philosophy: ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity!’ In his contempt for intellectual inquiry, Tertullian appeared anti-Pauline. Yet in another sense he sprang from the Pauline tradition. He stressed the overwhelming

• From Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907)

  His modern brother is the proletarian immigrant of our cities, who also has no share in the modern means of production and no political power to protect his interests. When the prophets conceived Jehovah as the special vindicator of these voiceless classes, it was another way of saying that it is the chief duty in religious morality to stand for the rights of the helpless. A man’s sympathy is a more decisive fact in his activity than his judgment. One man to-day may disapprove of a given action of a railway or of a coal-combine, but his instinctive sympathy is always with “property” and “the vested interests.” Another man may lament and condemn a foolish strike or headlong violence, but he will dwell on the extenuating circumstances and hold to the fundamental justice of “the cause of labor.” This division of sympathy is now coming to be the real line of cleavage in our public affairs. There is no question on which side the sympathy of the prophets was enlisted. Their protest against injustice and oppression, to the neglect of all other social evils, is almost monotonous. To the more judicial and scientific temper of our day their invective would seem overdrawn and their sympathy would seem partisanship. In Jeremiah and in the prophetic psalms the poor as a class are made identical with the meek and godly, and “rich” and “wicked” are almost synonymous terms. How did the championship of the oppressed come to be so essential a part of prophetic morality? It would be hard to find a parallel to it anywhere. What other nation has a library of classics in which the spokesmen of the common people have the dominant voice? If any one cares to assert that divine inspiration alone will account for the fact, I should have no quarrel with the assertion. If the people ever come to their own in days to come, it may be that this trait of the Old Testament will come to be a stronger proof of its inspiration than the arguments that have hitherto done duty in theology. But there were good historical causes for the attitude of the prophets in contemporary social movements. When the nomad tribes of Israel settled in Canaan and gradually became an agricultural people, they set out on their development toward civilization with ancient customs and rooted ideas that long protected primitive democracy and equality. Some tribes and clans claimed an aristocratic superiority of descent over others. Within the tribe there were elders and men of power to whom deference was due as a matter of course, but there was no hereditary social boundary line, no graded aristocracy or caste, no distinction between blue blood and red. The idea of a mésalliance , which plays so great a part in the social life of European nations and in the plots of their romantic literature, is wholly wanting in the Old Testament.

• From Lower than the Angels: A History of Sex and Christianity (2024)

  Within the fourth-century Christian Church, the network of monastic life spread steadily outwards from its beginnings in Syria and Egypt. In early fourth-century Egypt, a former soldier called Pachomios imitated the Syrians in steering most Egyptian ascetics towards life in communities (above, Chapter 7). Far to the west, probably in the early 360s, Martin (another ex-soldier, from what is now Hungary) drastically reshaped a pre-Christian sacred site in Gaul; he created the first known Christian monastery in the western Mediterranean at a place now called Ligugé, near the Gaulish city of Pictavia (the modern Poitiers, in west-central France).[20] It is probably significant that these two charismatic pioneers emerged from the regulated single-sex life of the imperial army. Originally the Church had frowned on Christian men joining the imperial army, largely because of the regular religious rituals involved in swearing loyalty to the Emperor. That consideration no longer applied now that emperors were Christians. Effectively Pachomios and Martin were redeploying and remodelling military discipline for their communities, although their campaigns were now waged by prayer against the Satanic spiritual powers surrounding Christians. Supportive of that main end was an often spectacularly strenuous physical asceticism exceeding anything demanded of a legionary. Among the most picturesque examples of such feats were those ‘stylite’ hermits in Syria and Asia Minor, some 120 over seven centuries from the early fifth, who built themselves a stone pillar on which to live and preach, generally in positions frequented by travellers that would become public landmarks for devotion and instruction.[21] Even without such spiritual athleticism, monastic or eremitical life offered the chance for individuals to approach union with God by embracing a sort of living martyrdom: actual martyrdom was no longer a possibility at the hands of a Roman imperial power that had inconveniently replaced persecution with financial subsidies. All this was invitingly heroic, and not only the stylites aloft their strategically placed columns experienced the complicated enjoyment of a good deal of public admiration and even political influence. They were unmistakably a spiritual elite, when once all Christians could have been regarded as an elite. Just as the early Syrian phase of monasticism had overlapped with so-called ‘encratism’ and rebellion against Church authority, these monastic communities posed potential problems of authority for a Christian Church now firmly committed to government by monarchical male bishops. Very few hermits or monks were also priests, so if they were in some remote desert place, they had little connection with the Eucharistic life of a church congregation over which a bishop presided. Equally seriously, the manifest and strenuous holiness of spiritual leaders like Antony of Egypt, Pachomios or Martin of Tours offered a charismatic alternative to the episcopal hierarchy which based itself on cities of the Empire, and which owed its legitimacy to recognition and consecration by fellow bishops.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  AUGUSTINE. (De Op. Monach. 23.) The Jews rather charged the Lord’s disciples with the breach of the sabbath than with theft; because it was commanded the people of Israel in the Law (Deut. 23:25.), that they should not lay hold of any as a thief in their fields, unless he sought to carry ought away with him; but if any touched only what he needed to eat, him they suffered to depart with impunity free. JEROME. Observe, that the first Apostles of the Saviour broke the letter of the sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionitesa, who receive the other Apostles, but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law. Then it proceeds to their excuse; But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred? To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He calls to mind the ancient history, that David flying from Saul came to Nobba, and being entertained by Achimelech the Priest, asked for food; (1 Sam. 21.) he having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for any to eat, but the Priests only and Levites; esteeming it a better action to deliver men from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God; for the preservation of man is a sacrifice acceptable to God. Thus then the Lord meets their objection, saying, If David be a holy man, and if you blame not the high-priest Achimelech, but consider their excuse for their transgression of the Law to be valid, and that was hunger; how do ye not approve in the Apostles the same plea which you approve in others? Though even here there is much difference. These rub ears of corn in their hands on the sabbath, those ate the Levitical bread, and over and above the solemn sabbath it was the season of new moon, during which when sought for at the banquet he fled from the royal palace. CHRYSOSTOM. To clear His disciples, He brings forward the instance of David, whose glory as a Prophet was great among the Jews. Yet they could not here answer that this was lawful for him, because he was a Prophet; for it was not Prophets, but Priests only who might eat. And the greater was he who did this, the greater is the defence of the disciples; yet though David was a Prophet, they that were with him were not. JEROME. Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of shew-bread, before they had made answer that they were pure from women.

• From Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907)

  The prophets were public men and their interest was in public affairs. Some of them were statesmen of the highest type. All of them interpreted past history, shaped present history, and foretold future history on the basis of the conviction that God rules with righteousness in the affairs of nations, and that only what is just, and not what is expedient and profitable, shall endure. Samuel was the creator of two dynasties. Nathan and Gad were the political advisers of David. Nathan determined the succession of Solomon. The seed of revolutionary aspirations against the dynasty of David was dropped into the heart of Jeroboam by the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh. Some of the prophets would get short shrift in a European State as religious demagogues. The overthrow of the dynasty of Omri in the Northern Kingdom was the result of a conspiracy between the prophetic party under Elisha and General Jehu, and resulted in a massacre so fearful that it staggered even the Oriental political conscience. On the other hand the insight of Isaiah into the international situation of his day saved his people for a long time from being embroiled in the destructive upheavals that buried other peoples, and gave it thirty years of peace amid almost universal war. The sufferings of Jeremiah came upon him chiefly because he took the unpopular side in national politics. If he and others had confined themselves to “religion,” they could have said what they liked. Our modern religious horizon and our conception of the character of a religious leader and teacher are so different that it is not easy to understand men who saw the province of religion chiefly in the broad reaches of civic affairs and international relations. Our philosophical and economic individualism has affected our religious thought so deeply that we hardly comprehend the prophetic views of an organic national life and of national sin and salvation. We usually conceive of the community as a loose sand-heap of individuals and this difference in the fundamental point of view distorts the utterances of the prophets as soon as we handle them. For instance, one of our most beautiful revival texts is the invitation: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” The words are part of the first chapter of Isaiah, to which reference has been made. The prophet throughout the chapter deals with the national condition of the kingdom of Judah and its capital. He describes its devastation; he ridicules the attempts to appease the national God by redoubled sacrifices; he urges instead the abolition of social oppression and injustice as the only way of regaining God’s favor for the nation. If they would vindicate the cause of the helpless and oppressed, then he would freely pardon; then their scarlet and crimson guilt would be washed away.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  CHRYSOSTOM. But some one will say, How is this instance applicable to the question in hand? For David did not transgress the sabbath. Herein is shewn the wisdom of Christ, that He brings forward an instance stronger than the sabbath. For it is by no means the same thing to violate the sabbath, and to touch that sacred table, which is lawful for none. And again, He adds yet another answer, saying, Or have ye not read in the Law, that on the sabbath days the Priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? JEROME. As though He had said, Ye bring complaints against my disciples, that on the sabbath they rub ears of corn in their hands, under stress of hunger, and ye yourselves profane the sabbath, slaying victims in the temple, killing bulls, burning holocausts on piles of wood; also, on the testimony of another Gospel (John 7:23.), ye circumcise infants on the sabbath; so that in keeping one law, ye break that concerning the sabbath. But the laws of God are never contrary one to another; wisely therefore, wherein His disciples might be accused of having transgressed them, He shews that therein they followed the examples of Achimelech and David; and this their pretended charge of breaking the sabbath He retorts truly, and not having the plea of necessity, upon those who had brought the accusation. CHRYSOSTOM. But that you should not say to me, that to find an instance of another’s sin is not to excuse our own—indeed where the thing done and not the doer of it is accused, we excuse the thing done. But this is not enough, He said what is yet more, that they are blameless. But see how great things He brings in; first, the place, in the Temple; secondly, the time, on the sabbath; the setting aside the Law, in the word profane, not merely break; and that they are not only free from punishment but from blame; and are blameless. And this second instance is not like the first which He gave respecting David; for that was done but once, by David who was not a Priest, and was a case of necessity; but this second is done every sabbath, and by the Priests, and according to the Law. So that not only by indulgence, as the first case would establish, but by the strict law the disciples are to be held blameless. But are the disciples Priests? yea, they are yet greater than Priests, forasmuch as He was there who is the Lord of the Temple, who is the reality and not the type; and therefore it is added, But I say unto you, one greater than the Temple is here. JEROME. The word Hic is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place here, for that place is greater than the Temple which contains the Lord of the Temple.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Lastly, the Summa contra Gentiles is mega tekmerion—considering the ravages of six and a half centuries of time upon what was once the most harmonious blending of faith with the science of the day,—it is a fact of solemn admonition to all Doctors and Professors of Philosophy and Theology within the Church of Christ, that they should be at least as solicitous as an English Dean and Chapter now are, for the keeping in yearly repair of the great edifice given over to their custody; that they should regard with watchful and intelligent eyes the advance of history, anthropology, criticism and physical science; and that in their own special sciences they should welcome, and make every sane endeavour to promote, what since 1845 has been known as the Development of Doctrine. ON KINGSHIPTO THE KING OF CYPRUS SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS COPYRIGHT © 2015 BY AETERNA PRESS . ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. AVAILABLE IN PAPERBACK. TRANSLATED BY GERALD B. PHELAN, REVISED BY I. TH. ESCHMANN, O.P. TORONTO: THE PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES, 1949 CONTENTSON KINGSHIP: TO THE KING OF CYPRUS TO THE KING OF CYPRUS BOOK ONE CHAPTER 1 WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD ‘KING’ CHAPTER 2 DIFFERENT KINDS OF RULE CHAPTER 3 WHETHER IT IS MORE EXPEDIENT FOR A CITY OR PROVINCE TO BE RULED BY ONE MAN OR BY MANY CHAPTER 4 THAT THE DOMINION OF A TYRANT IS THE WORST CHAPTER 5 WHY THE ROYAL DIGNITY IS RENDERED HATEFUL TO THE SUBJECTS CHAPTER 6 THAT IT IS A LESSER EVIL WHEN A MONARCHY TURNS INTO TYRANNY THAN WHEN AN ARISTOCRACY BECOMES CORRUPT CHAPTER 7 HOW PROVISION MIGHT BE MADE THAT THE KING MAY NOT FALL INTO TYRANNY CHAPTER 8 THAT MUNDANE HONOUR AND GLORY ARE NOT AN ADEQUATE REWARD FOR A KING CHAPTER 9 THAT THE KING SHOULD LOOK TO GOD FOR ADEQUATE REWARD CHAPTER 10 WHAT DEGREE OF HEAVENLY BEATITUDE THE KING MAY OBTAIN CHAPTER 11 WHAT ADVANTAGES WHICH ARE RENDERED TO KINGS ARE LOST BY THE TYRANT CHAPTER 12 WHAT PUNISHMENTS ARE IN STORE FOR A TYRANT CHAPTER 13 ON THE DUTIES OF A KING CHAPTER 14 WHAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON A KING TO DO AND HOW HE SHOULD GO ABOUT DOING IT CHAPTER 15 THAT THE OFFICE OF GOVERNING THE KINGDOM SHOULD BE LEARNED FROM THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 16 THAT REGAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ORDAINED PRINCIPALLY TO ETERNAL BEATITUDE PART II CHAPTER 1 THAT IT BELONGS TO THE OFFICE OF A KING TO FOUND THE CITY CHAPTER 2 THAT THE CITY SHOULD HAVE WHOLESOME AIR CHAPTER 3 THAT THE CITY SHOULD HAVE AN ABUNDANT SUPPLY OF FOOD CHAPTER 4 THAT THE CITY SHOULD HAVE A PLEASANT SITE APPENDIX SELECTED PARALLEL TEXTS 1. CONTRA IMPUGNANTES DEI CULTUM ET RELIGIONEM, CH. 5 2. IN LIBROS ETHICORUM ARISTOTELIS EXPOSITIO, LIB. I, LECT. 1 3. IN LIBROS POLITICORUM ARISTOTELIS EXPOSITIO, LIB. I, LECT. 1. [POL. I, 2; 1252B 12: THE DEFINITION OF THE HOUSEHOLD.] 4. IN LIBROS ETHICORUM ARISTOTELIS EXPOSITIO, LIB. VIII, LECT. 10

• From Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907)

  Amos and Jeremiah even tried to cut away the foundation of antiquity on which the sacrificial system rested, by denying that God had commanded sacrifices at all when he constituted the nation after the exodus from Egypt. Obedience was all that he had required. This insistence on religious morality as the only thing God cares about is of fundamental importance for the question before us. The social problems are moral problems on a large scale. Religion is a tremendous generator of self-sacrificing action. Under its impulse men have burned up the animals they had laboriously raised; they have sacrificed their first-born whom they loved and prized; they have tapped their own veins and died with a shout of triumph. But this unparalleled force has been largely diverted to ceremonial actions which wasted property and labor, and were either useless to social health or injurious to it. In so far as men believed that the traditional ceremonial was what God wanted of them, they would be indifferent to the reformation of social ethics. If the hydraulic force of religion could be turned toward conduct, there is nothing which it could not accomplish. This is still a living question. Under the influence of non-Christian customs and conceptions Christianity early developed its own ceremonial system. It is, of course, far more refined. Our places of worship have no stench of blood and entrails; our priests are not expert butchers. But the immense majority of people in Christendom have holy places, where they recite a sacred ritual and go through sacred motions. They receive holy food and submit to washings that cleanse from sin. They have a priesthood with magic powers which offers a bloodless sacrifice. This Christian ritual grew up, not as the appropriate and æsthetic expression of spiritual emotions, but as the indispensable means of pleasing and appeasing God, and of securing his favors, temporal and eternal, for those who put their heart into these processes. This Christian ceremonial system does not differ essentially from that against which the prophets protested; with a few verbal changes their invectives would still apply. But the point that here concerns us is that a very large part of the fervor of willing devotion which religion always generates in human hearts has spent itself on these religious acts. The force that would have been competent to “seek justice and relieve the oppressed” has been consumed in weaving the tinsel fringes for the garment of religion.

• From The Trembling of the Veil (1922)

  “He exclaimed with virulence against Uncles and Aunts; Accused the laws of England for allowing them to Possess their Estates when wanted by their Nephews or Neices, and wished he were in the House of Commons, that he might reform the Legislature, and rectify all its abuses.” “Oh! the sweet Man! What a spirit he has!” said I. “He could not flatter himself he added, that the adorable Henrietta would condescend for his sake to resign those Luxuries and that splendor to which she had been used, and accept only in exchange the Comforts and Elegancies which his limited Income could afford her, even supposing that his house were in Readiness to receive her. I told him that it could not be expected that she would; it would be doing her an injustice to suppose her capable of giving up the power she now possesses and so nobly uses of doing such extensive Good to the poorer part of her fellow Creatures, merely for the gratification of you and herself.” “To be sure said I, I am very Charitable every now and then. And what did Mr Musgrove say to this?” “He replied that he was under a melancholy necessity of owning the truth of what I said, and that therefore if he should be the happy Creature destined to be the Husband of the Beautiful Henrietta he must bring himself to wait, however impatiently, for the fortunate day, when she might be freed from the power of worthless Relations and able to bestow herself on him.” What a noble Creature he is! Oh! Matilda what a fortunate one I am, who am to be his Wife! My Aunt is calling me to come and make the pies, so adeiu my dear freind, and beleive me yours etc— H. Halton. Finis. * * * SCRAPS To Miss FANNY CATHERINE AUSTEN MY DEAR NEICE As I am prevented by the great distance between Rowling and Steventon from superintending your Education myself, the care of which will probably on that account devolve on your Father and Mother, I think it is my particular Duty to Prevent your feeling as much as possible the want of my personal instructions, by addressing to you on paper my Opinions and Admonitions on the conduct of Young Women, which you will find expressed in the following pages.— I am my dear Neice Your affectionate Aunt The Author. THE FEMALE PHILOSOPHER A LETTER MY DEAR LOUISA Your friend Mr Millar called upon us yesterday in his way to Bath, whither he is going for his health; two of his daughters were with him, but the eldest and the three Boys are with their Mother in Sussex. Though you have often told me that Miss Millar was remarkably handsome, you never mentioned anything of her Sisters’ beauty; yet they are certainly extremely pretty. I’ll give you their description.—Julia is eighteen; with a countenance in which

• From A History of God (1993)

  Thus Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi (d. ca. 870), the first Muslim to apply the rational method to the Koran, was closely associated with the Mutazilis and disagreed with Aristotle on several major issues. He had been educated at Basra but settled in Baghdad, where he enjoyed the patronage of the Caliph al-Mamun. His output and influence were immense, including mathematics, science and philosophy. But his chief concern was religion. With his Mutazili background, he could only see philosophy as the handmaid of revelation: the inspired knowledge of the prophets had always transcended the merely human insights of the philosophers. Most later Faylasufs would not share this perspective. Al-Kindi was also anxious to seek out the truth in other religious traditions, however. Truth was one, and it was the task of the philosopher to search for it in whatever cultural or linguistic garments it had assumed over the centuries. We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth and to assimilate it from whatever source it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is nothing of higher value than truth itself; it never cheapens or debases him who reaches for it but ennobles and honors him.1 Here al-Kindi was in line with the Koran. But he went further, since he did not confine himself to the prophets but also turned to the Greek philosophers. He used Aristotle’s arguments for the existence of a Prime Mover. In a rational world, he argued, everything had a cause. There must, therefore, be an Unmoved Mover to start the ball rolling. This First Principle was Being itself, unchangeable, perfect and indestructible. But having reached this conclusion, al-Kindi departed from Aristotle by adhering to the Koranic doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Action can be defined as the bringing of something out of nothing. This, al-Kindi maintained, was God’s prerogative. He is the only Being who can truly act in this sense, and it is he who is the real cause of all the activity that we see in the world around us.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  AUGUSTINE. (Quæst. in Matt. q. 10.) It should be observed, that one example is taken from royal persons, as David, the other from priestly, as those who profane the sabbath for the service of the Temple, so that much less can the charge concerning the rubbing the ears of corn attach to Him who is indeed King and Priest. CHRYSOSTOM. And because what He had said seemed hard to those that heard it, He again exhorts to mercy, introducing His discourse with emphasis, saying, But had ye known what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would never have condemned the innocent. JEROME. What I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, signifies, we have explained above. The words, Ye mould never have condemned the innocent, are to be referred to the Apostles, and the meaning is, If ye allow the mercy of Achimelech, in that he refreshed David when in danger of famishing, why do ye condemn My disciples? CHRYSOSTOM. Observe again how in leading the discourse towards an apology for them, He shews His disciples to be above the need of any apology, and to be indeed blameless, as He had said above of the Priests. And He adds yet another plea which clears them of blame, For the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath. REMIGIUS. He calls Himself the Son of Man, and the meaning is, He whom ye suppose a mere man is God, the Lord of all creatures, and also of the sabbath, and He has therefore power to change the law after His pleasure, because He made it. AUGUSTINE. (cont. Faust. xvi. 28.) He did not forbid His disciples to pluck the ears of corn on the sabbath, that so He might convict both the Jews who then were, and the Manichæans who were to come, who will not pluck up a herb lest they should be committing a murder. HILARY. Figuratively; First consider that this discourse was held at that time, namely, when He had given thanks to the Father for giving salvation to the Gentiles. The field is the world, the sabbath is rest, the corn the ripening of them that believe for the harvest; thus His passing through the corn field on the sabbath, is the coming of the Lord into the world in the rest of the Law; the hunger of the disciples is their desire for the salvation of men. RABANUS. They pluck the ears of corn when they withdraw men from devotion to the world; they rub them in their hands when they tear away their hearts from the lusts of the flesh; they eat the grain when they transfer such as are amended into the body of the Church. AUGUSTINE. (Quæst. Ev. i. 2.) But no man passes into the body of Christ, until he has been stripped of his fleshly raiment; according to that of the Apostle, Put ye off the old man. (Eph. 4:22.)

• From Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907)

  Jehovah was the tribal god of Israel. Fortunately he was stronger and more terrible than the gods of the neighboring tribes, so that he was able to drive them out and give their land to his own people, but he was not fundamentally different from them and they were believed to be quite as real as Jehovah. There were certain forms of moral evil which he hated and certain social duties which he loved and blessed, but the surest way of remaining in his favor was to sacrifice duly and plentifully. If a man had offended against his fellow or his tribe, Jehovah would forgive when the rich smell of burnt meat filled his nostrils. Against this current conception of religion the prophets insisted on a right life as the true worship of God. Morality to them was not merely a prerequisite of effective ceremonial worship. They brushed sacrificial ritual aside altogether as trifling compared with righteousness, nay, as a harmful substitute and a hindrance for ethical religion. “I desire goodness and not sacrifice,” said Hosea, and Jesus was fond of quoting the words. The Book of Isaiah begins with a description of the disasters which had overtaken the nation, and then in impassioned words the prophet spurns the means taken to appease Jehovah’s anger. He said the herds of beasts trampling his temple-court, the burning fat, the reek of blood, the clouds of incense, were a weariness and an abomination to the God whom they were meant to please. Their festivals and solemn meetings, their prayers and prostrations, were iniquity from which he averted his face. What he wanted was a right life and the righting of social wrongs: “Your hands are full of blood. Wash you! Make you clean! Put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes! Cease to do evil! Learn to do right! Seek justice! Relieve the oppressed! Secure justice for the orphaned and plead for the widow.” Perhaps the simplest and most beautiful expression of that reformatory conception of true religion is contained in the words of Micah: “Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?”

• From The Trembling of the Veil (1922)

  “And then added he, Ah! Cousin imagine what my transports will be when I feel the dear precious drops trickle on my face! Who would not die to haste such extacy! And when I am interred, may the divine Henrietta bless some happier Youth with her affection, May he be as tenderly attached to her as the hapless Musgrove and while he crumbles to dust, May they live an example of Felicity in the Conjugal state!” Did you ever hear any thing so pathetic? What a charming wish, to be lain at my feet when he was dead! Oh! what an exalted mind he must have to be capable of such a wish! Lady Scudamore went on. “Ah! my dear Cousin replied I to him, such noble behaviour as this, must melt the heart of any woman however obdurate it may naturally be; and could the divine Henrietta but hear your generous wishes for her happiness, all gentle as is her mind, I have not a doubt but that she would pity your affection and endeavour to return it.” “Oh! Cousin answered he, do not endeavour to raise my hopes by such flattering assurances. No, I cannot hope to please this angel of a Woman, and the only thing which remains for me to do, is to die.” “True Love is ever desponding replied I, but I my dear Tom will give you even greater hopes of conquering this fair one’s heart, than I have yet given you, by assuring you that I watched her with the strictest attention during the whole day, and could plainly discover that she cherishes in her bosom though unknown to herself, a most tender affection for you.” “Dear Lady Scudamore cried I, This is more than I ever knew!” “Did not I say that it was unknown to yourself? I did not, continued I to him, encourage you by saying this at first, that surprise might render the pleasure still Greater.” “No Cousin replied he in a languid voice, nothing will convince me that I can have touched the heart of Henrietta Halton, and if you are deceived yourself, do not attempt deceiving me.” “In short my Love it was the work of some hours for me to Persuade the poor despairing Youth that you had really a preference for him; but when at last he could no longer deny the force of my arguments, or discredit what I told him, his transports, his Raptures, his Extacies are beyond my power to describe.” “Oh! the dear Creature, cried I, how passionately he loves me! But dear Lady Scudamore did you tell him that I was totally dependant on my Uncle and Aunt?” “Yes, I told him every thing.” “And what did he say.”

• From Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907)

  With them he linked his points of view, the convictions which he regarded as axiomatic. Their spirit was to him what the soil and climate of a country are to its flora. The real meaning of his life and the real direction of his purposes can be understood only in that historical connection. Thus a study of the prophets is not only an interesting part in the history of social movements but it is indispensable for any full comprehension of the social influence exerted by historical Christianity, and for any true comprehension of the mind of Jesus Christ. For the purposes of this book it is not necessary to follow the work of the prophets in their historical sequence. We shall simply try to lay bare those large and permanent characteristics which are common to that remarkable series of men and which bear on the question in hand. Religion ethical and therefore social The fundamental conviction of the prophets, which distinguished them from the ordinary religious life of their day, was the conviction that God demands righteousness and demands nothing but righteousness. Primitive religions consisted mainly in the worship of the powers of nature. Each tribe worshipped its local tribal god, who dwelt in some gloomy ravine or on some mountaintop and sent rain and fertility to his people when he was pleased, or drought and pestilence on crops and herds when he was offended. Like every other despot, the god must be kept in good humor by valuable gifts and prayers, offered in the right places, in the right manner, and by the duly qualified persons. If the sacrifices were neglected, the god was sure to be angry and then had to be propitiated by redoubled offerings, incantations, and dances. There was always some connection between religion and morality. It was always understood that the tribal god had instituted the tribal customs and was displeased with any violation of them. But the essential thing in religion was not morality, but the ceremonial method of placating the god, securing his gifts, and ascertaining his wishes. He might even be pleased best by immoral actions, by the immolation of human victims, by the sacrifice of woman’s chastity, or by the burning of the first-born. In the primitive life of the Israelitish tribes the religion of the common folk was probably much of this kind.

• From Generation Anxiety: A Millennial and Gen Z Guide to Staying Afloat in an Uncertain World (2023)

  They told me one day, “I never knew that I could care about something so much. I would never wish this experience on anyone, but going through this has opened my eyes to just how dire our situation is.” I shared with Sam how inspiring their passion was. It was contagious. It even motivated me to do my own research on climate change. I started eating less red meat and talking with Greg about how we could save more energy in our home. It reminded me of how change can have powerful ripple effects that touch lives even beyond what we’re aware of. It’s true, you can’t solve a problem if you don’t realize it’s a problem in the first place. Accept what is. Face it head-on. After all, you can’t ride a wave if you don’t know how big it is. And then, once you’re strong enough to paddle, get on the freaking board and ride that wave. Own the water. Your voice has more power than you think. Anxious or not, use what you’ve got. Help us turn these tides of tragedy in the direction that we all need to go. We need you more than ever—and I’d venture to guess that you need it for yourself, too. CHAPTER ELEVEN GETTING BACK OUT THERE AFTER A WIPEOUTMost therapists either love or hate couples therapy. I happen to love it. It’s a whole different ball game when you have three people in the room (the couple and the therapist, though sometimes more if it’s a polyamorous relationship). Typically there is one partner who is more inclined to do the work. The other one is along for the ride. While I love when couples come for preventative reasons to benefit the overall health of their relationship, many couples wait until they’re at their wit’s end. Couples therapy is their Hail Mary pass. At its most morbid level, couples therapy can feel more like hospice care than restorative work. Sometimes it’s more a matter of a relationship dying peacefully than ending tragically without closure. Why does this matter, given that this is a book about anxiety? Well, if ever there was a place for anxiety to rear its ugly head, it’s in a relationship. Whether it’s spurred by anxious attachment, obsessive thoughts about the relationship, or an inability to commit, there are all kinds of ways that anxiety can rock a relationship. And that’s when everything may be going generally well. When things really turn sour, our relationships can wreck us completely. As we just finished the chapter on grief and what to do when we’ve been tossed and turned in our waters, we’ll now cover how you can get yourself back out there again when someone has broken your heart or your world has been flipped on its head. While you may be swearing off love if someone has done you wrong, you can’t let that damage stop you from connecting ever again.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  RABANUS. Whom I have chosen, he says, for a work which none else has done, that He should redeem the human race, and make peace between God and the world. It follows, My beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased, for He alone is the Lamb without spot of sin, of whom the Father speaks, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Mat. 17:5) REMIGIUS. That he says, My soul, is not to be understood as though God the Father had a soul, but by way of adaptation, shewing how God is disposed towards Him. And it is no wonder that a soul is ascribed to God in this manner, seeing that all other members of the body are likewise. CHRYSOSTOM. This the Prophet puts in the beginning, that you might learn that that which is here said was according to the counsel of the Father. For he that is beloved does according to his will who loveth him. And again, he that is chosen, does not as an enemy break the law, nor as one being an adversary of the legislator, but as one in agreement with Him. Because therefore He is beloved, I will put my Spirit upon him. REMIGIUS. Then also God the Father put His Spirit upon Him, when by the working of the Holy Spirit He took flesh of the Virgin; and as soon as He became man, He took the fulness of the Holy Spirit. JEROME. But the Holy Spirit is put, not on the Word of God, but on the Only-Begotten, who came forth from the bosom of the Father; on Him, that is, of whom it is said, Behold my servant. And what He will do by Him He adds, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles. AUGUSTINE. (De Civ. Dei, xx. 30.) Seeing He preached the judgment to come which was hidden from the Gentiles. CHRYSOSTOM. Further, to shew His lowliness, He says, He shall not strive; and so He was offered up as the Father had willed, and gave Himself willingly into the hands of His persecutors. Neither shall he cry; so He was dumb as a lamb before his shearer. Nor shall any hear voice in the streets. JEROME. For the way is broad and wide which leads to destruction, and many walk in it; and being many, they will not hear the voice of the Saviour, because they are not in the narrow but in the broad way. REMIGIUS. The Greek πλατεῖα, is in Latin called ‘latitudo.’ No one therefore has heard His voice in the streets, because He has not promised pleasant things in this world to those that love Him, but hardships.

• From Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907)

  They are an integral part of the thought-life of Christianity. From the beginning the Christian Church appropriated the Bible of Israel as its own book and thereby made the history of Israel part of the history of Christendom. That history lives in the heart of the Christian nations with a very real spiritual force. The average American knows more about David than about King Arthur, and more about the exodus from Egypt than about the emigration of the Puritans. Throughout the Christian centuries the historical material embodied in the Old Testament has been regarded as not merely instructive, but as authoritative. The social ideas drawn from it have been powerful factors in all attempts of Christianity to influence social and political life. In so far as men have attempted to use the Old Testament as a code of model laws and institutions and have applied these to modern conditions, regardless of the historical connections, these attempts have left a trail of blunder and disaster. In so far as they have caught the spirit that burned in the hearts of the prophets and breathed in gentle humanity through the Mosaic Law, the influence of the Old Testament has been one of the great permanent forces making for democracy and social justice. However our views of the Bible may change, every religious man will continue to recognize that to the elect minds of the Jewish people God gave so vivid a consciousness of the divine will that, in its main tendencies at least, their life and thought carries a permanent authority for all who wish to know the higher right of God. Their writings are like channel-buoys anchored by God, and we shall do well to heed them now that the roar of an angry surf is in our ears. We shall confine this brief study of the Old Testament to the prophets, because they are the beating heart of the Old Testament. Modern study has shown that they were the real makers of the unique religious life of Israel. If all that proceeded from them, directly or indirectly, were eliminated from the Old Testament, there would be little left to appeal to the moral and religious judgment of the modern world. Moreover, a comprehension of the essential purpose and spirit of the prophets is necessary for a comprehension of the purpose and spirit of Jesus and of genuine Christianity. In Jesus and the primitive Church the prophetic spirit rose from the dead. To the ceremonial aspects of Jewish religion Jesus was either indifferent or hostile; the thought of the prophets was the spiritual food that he assimilated in his own process of growth.