Confusion

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 108 of 112 · 20 per page

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  fourth century, and found in the second and third in different longer or shorter forms, it is in substance altogether apostolic, and exhibits an incomparable summary of the leading facts in the revelation of the triune God from the creation of the world to the resurrection of the body; and that in a form intelligible to all, and admirably suited for public worship and catechetical use. We shall return to it more fully in the second period. 6. Finally, the administration of the Sacraments, or sacred rites instituted by Christ, by which, under appropriate symbols and visible signs, spiritual gifts and invisible grace are represented, sealed, and applied to the worthy participators. The two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the antitypes of circumcision and the passover under the Old Testament, were instituted by Christ as efficacious signs, pledges, and means of the grace of the new covenant. They are related to each other as regeneration and sanctification, or as the beginning and the growth of the Christian life. The other religious rites mentioned in the New Testament, as confirmation and ordination, cannot be ranked in dignity with the sacraments, as they are not commanded by Christ. § 54. Baptism. Literature. The commentaries on Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 8:13, 16, 18, 37; Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21. G. J. Vossius: De Baptismo Disputationes XX. Amsterdam, 1648. W. Wall (Episcopalian): The History of Infant Baptism (a very learned work), first published in London, 1705, 2 vols., best edition by H. Cotton, Oxford, 1836, 4 vols., and 1862, 2 vols., together with Gale’s (Baptist) Reflections and Wall’s Defense. A Latin translation by Schlosser appeared, vol. I., at Bremen, 1743, and vol. II at Hamburg, 1753. F. Brenner (R. Cath.): Geschichtliche Darstellung der Verrichtung der Taufe von Christus his auf unsere Zeiten. Bamberg, 1818. Moses Stuart (Congregat.): Mode of Christian Baptism Prescribed in the New Testament. Andover, 1833 (reprinted 1876). Höfling (Lutheran): Das Sacrament der Taufe. Erlangen, 1846 and 1848, 2 vols. Samuel Miller (Presbyterian): Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable; And Baptism By Sprinkling Or Affusion, The Most Suitable and Edifying Mode. Philadelphia, 1840. Alex. Carson (Baptist): Baptism in its Mode and Subjects. London, 1844; 5th Amer. ed., Philadelphia, 1850. Alex. Campbell (founder of the Church of the Disciples, who teach that baptism by immersion is regeneration): Christian Baptism, with its Antecedents and Consequents. Bethany, 1848, and Cincinnati, 1876. T. J. Conant (Baptist): The Meaning and Use of Baptism Philologically and Historically Investigated for the American (Baptist) Bible Union. New York, 1861. James W. Dale (Presbyterian, d. 1881): Classic Baptism. An inquiry into the meaning of the word baptizo. Philadelphia, 1867. Judaic Baptism, 1871. Johannic Baptism, 1872. Christic and Patristic Baptism, 1874. In all, 4 vols. Against the immersion theory. R. Ingham (Baptist): A Handbook on Christian Baptism, in 2 parts. London, 1868. D. B. Ford (Baptist): Studies on Baptism. New York, 1879. (Against Dale.) G. D.

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

  AUGUSTINE. (de Con. Evang. l. iii. c. vii) According to Matthew, When the morning came, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate. (Mat. 27:1, 2) But He was to have been led to Caiaphas at first. How is it then that He was brought to him so late? The truth is, now He was going as it were a committed criminal, Caiaphas having already determined on His death. And He was to be given up to Pilate immediately. And it was early. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. lxxxiii) He was led to Caiaphas before the cock crew, but early in the morning to Pilate. Whereby the Evangelist shews, that all that night of examination, ended in proving nothing against Him; and that He was sent to Pilate in consequence. But leaving what passed then to the other Evangelists, he goes to what followed. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. xiv) And they themselves entered not into the judgment hall: i. e. into that part of the house which Pilate occupied, supposing it to be the house of Caiaphas. Why they did not enter is next explained: Lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. lxxxiii) For the Jews were then celebrating the passover; He Himself celebrated it one day before, reserving His own death for the sixth day; on which day the old passover was kept. Or, perhaps, the passover means the whole season. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. cxiv) The days of unleavened bread were beginning; during which time it was defilement to enter the house of a stranger. ALCUIN. The passover was strictly the fourteenth day of the month, the day on which the lamb was killed in the evening: the seven days following were called the days of unleavened bread, in which nothing leavened ought to be found in their houses. Yet we find the day of the passover reckoned among the days of unleavened bread: Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the passover? (Mat. 26:17) And here also in like manner: That they might eat the passover; the passover here signifying not the sacrifice of the lamb, which took place the fourteenth day at evening, but the great festival which was celebrated on the fifteenth day, after the sacrifice of the lamb. Our Lord, like the rest of the Jews, kept the passover on the fourteenth day: on the fifteenth day, when the great festival was held, He was crucified. His immolation however began on the fourteenth day, from the time that He was taken in the garden. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. cxiv) O impious blindness! They feared to be defiled by the judgment hall of a foreign prefect, to shed the blood of an innocent brother they feared not. For that He Whom they killed was the Lord and Giver of life, their blindness saved them from knowing.

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

  Reply to Objection 1: This objection considers principality on the part of the ruler, inasmuch as a multitude is best ruled by one ruler, as the Philosopher asserts in those passages. Reply to Objection 2: As regards knowing God Himself, Whom all see in one way—that is, in His essence—there is no hierarchical distinction among the angels; but there is such a distinction as regards the types of created things, as above explained. Reply to Objection 3: All men are of one species, and have one connatural mode of understanding; which is not the case in the angels: and hence the same argument does not apply to both. Whether there are several orders in one hierarchy?Objection 1: It would seem that in the one hierarchy there are not several orders. For when a definition is multiplied, the thing defined is also multiplied. But hierarchy is order, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iii). Therefore, if there are many orders, there is not one hierarchy only, but many. Objection 2: Further, different orders are different grades, and grades among spirits are constituted by different spiritual gifts. But among the angels all the spiritual gifts are common to all, for “nothing is possessed individually” (Sent. ii, D, ix). Therefore there are not different orders of angels. Objection 3: Further, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the orders are distinguished according to the actions of “cleansing,” “enlightening,” and “perfecting.” For the order of deacons is “cleansing,” the order of priests, is “enlightening,” and of bishops “perfecting,” as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). But each of the angels cleanses, enlightens, and perfects. Therefore there is no distinction of orders among the angels. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 1:20,21) that “God has set the Man Christ above all principality and power, and virtue, and dominion”: which are the various orders of the angels, and some of them belong to one hierarchy, as will be explained [871](A[6]). I answer that, As explained above, one hierarchy is one principality—that is, one multitude ordered in one way under the rule of a prince. Now such a multitude would not be ordered, but confused, if there were not in it different orders. So the nature of a hierarchy requires diversity of orders. This diversity of order arises from the diversity of offices and actions, as appears in one city where there are different orders according to the different actions; for there is one order of those who judge, and another of those who fight, and another of those who labor in the fields, and so forth.

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

  Now names are thus used in two ways: either according as many things are proportionate to one, thus for example “healthy” predicated of medicine and urine in relation and in proportion to health of a body, of which the former is the sign and the latter the cause: or according as one thing is proportionate to another, thus “healthy” is said of medicine and animal, since medicine is the cause of health in the animal body. And in this way some things are said of God and creatures analogically, and not in a purely equivocal nor in a purely univocal sense. For we can name God only from creatures [66](A[1]). Thus whatever is said of God and creatures, is said according to the relation of a creature to God as its principle and cause, wherein all perfections of things pre-exist excellently. Now this mode of community of idea is a mean between pure equivocation and simple univocation. For in analogies the idea is not, as it is in univocals, one and the same, yet it is not totally diverse as in equivocals; but a term which is thus used in a multiple sense signifies various proportions to some one thing; thus “healthy” applied to urine signifies the sign of animal health, and applied to medicine signifies the cause of the same health. Reply to Objection 1: Although equivocal predications must be reduced to univocal, still in actions, the non-univocal agent must precede the univocal agent. For the non-univocal agent is the universal cause of the whole species, as for instance the sun is the cause of the generation of all men; whereas the univocal agent is not the universal efficient cause of the whole species (otherwise it would be the cause of itself, since it is contained in the species), but is a particular cause of this individual which it places under the species by way of participation. Therefore the universal cause of the whole species is not an univocal agent; and the universal cause comes before the particular cause. But this universal agent, whilst it is not univocal, nevertheless is not altogether equivocal, otherwise it could not produce its own likeness, but rather it is to be called an analogical agent, as all univocal predications are reduced to one first non-univocal analogical predication, which is being. Reply to Objection 2: The likeness of the creature to God is imperfect, for it does not represent one and the same generic thing ([67]Q[4], A[3]). Reply to Objection 3: God is not the measure proportioned to things measured; hence it is not necessary that God and creatures should be in the same genus. The arguments adduced in the contrary sense prove indeed that these names are not predicated univocally of God and creatures; yet they do not prove that they are predicated equivocally.

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

  But these cavillers seem to be ignorant of the nature of necessity. For there is a twofold necessity: a necessity of constraint, and this diminishes the praiseworthiness of virtuous acts, as telling against their voluntariness: for that is done under constraint, which is contrary to the will. There is again a necessity springing out of interior inclination; and this, far from diminishing, increases the credit of a virtuous act: for it makes the will tend to the act of virtue all the more earnestly. For evidently, the more perfect the habit of virtue is, with all the more force does it urge the will to the act of virtue and leaves it less chance of swerving. Nay, if it attains to the highest pitch of perfection, it induces a sort of necessity of well-doing, as will appear in the case of the Blessed, who cannot sin (B. IV, Chap.XCII); nor yet is there anything thereby lost either to the freedom of the wilt or to the goodness of the act. There is another necessity derived from the bearing of the means on the end in view, as when it is said to be necessary for one to find a ship in order to cross the sea. But neither does this necessity diminish the freedom of the will or the goodness of the acts: nay rather, for one to act as doing something necessary to an end is in itself praiseworthy, and all the more praiseworthy the better the end. But it will be seen that the necessity of observing what one has vowed to observe, or obeying the superior under whom one has placed oneself, is not a necessity of constraint: nor again is it a necessity arising out of interior inclination, but out of the bearing of means on the end: for it is necessary for the votary to do this or that, if the vow is to be fulfilled, or the obedience kept. Since then these are praiseworthy ends, inasmuch as they are acts whereby a man submits himself to God, the aforesaid necessity takes off nothing from the praise of virtue.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  (7.) Finally, we must mention four more Greek fragments of Irenaeus, which Pfaff discovered at Turin in 1715, and first published. Their genuineness has been called in question by some Roman divines, chiefly for doctrinal reasons.1413 The first treats of the true knowledge,1414 which consists not in the solution of subtle questions, but in divine wisdom and the imitation of Christ; the second is on the eucharist;1415 the third, on the duty of toleration in subordinate points of difference, with reference to the Paschal controversies;1416 the fourth, on the object of the incarnation, which is stated to be the purging away of sin and the annihilation of all evil.1417 § 183. Hippolytus. (I.) S. Hippolyti episcopi et martyris Opera, Graece et Lat. ed. J. Afabricius, Hamb. 1716–18, 2 vols. fol.; ed. Gallandi in "Biblioth. Patrum," Ven. 1760, Vol. II.; Migne: Patr. Gr., vol. x. Col. 583–982. P. Ant. de Lagarde: Hippolyti Romani quae feruntur omnia Graece, Lips. et Lond. 1858 (216 pages). Lagarde has also published some Syriac and Arabic fragments, of Hippol., in his Analecta Syriaca (p. 79–91) and Appendix, Leipz. and Lond. 1858. Patristic notices of Hippolytus. Euseb.: H. E. VI. 20, 22; Prudentius in the 11th of his Martyr Hymns (pervi; stefavnwn) Hieron De Vir. ill. c. 61; Photius, Cod. 48 and 121. Epiphanius barely mentions Hippol. (Haer. 31). Theodoret quotes several passages and calls him "holy Hippol. bishop and martyr" (Haer. Fab. III. 1 and Dial. I., II. and III.). See Fabricius, Hippol. I. VIII.-XX. S. Hippolyti EpIs. et Mart. Refutationis omnium haeresium librorum decem quae supersunt, ed. Duncker et Schneidewin. Gött. 1859. The first ed. appeared under the name of Origen: jWrigevnou" filosofuvmena h} kata; pasw'n aiJrevewn e[legco". Origenis Philosophumena, sive omnium haeresium refutatio. E codice Parisino ninc primum ed. Emmanuel Miller. Oxon. (Clarendon Press), 1851. Another ed. by Abbe Cruice, Par. 1860. An English translation by J. H. Macmahon, in the "Ante-Nicene Christian Library, " Edinb. 1868. A MS. of this important work from the 14th century was discovered at, Mt. Athos in Greece in 1842, by a learned Greek, Minoïdes Mynas (who had been sent by M. Villemain, minister of public instruction under Louis Philippe, to Greece in search of MSS.), and deposited in the national library at Paris. The first book had been long known among the works of Origen, but had justly been already denied to him by Huet and De la Rue; the second and third, and beginning of the fourth, are still wanting; the tenth lacks the conclusion. This work is now universally ascribed to Hippolytus. Canones S. Hippolyti Arabice e codicibus Romanis cum versione Latina, ed. D. B. de Haneberg. Monach. 1870. The canons are very rigoristic, but "certain evidence as to their authorship is wanting." O. Bardenhewer: Des heil. Hippolyt von Rom. Commentar zum B. Daniel. Freib. i. B. 1877, (II.) E. F. Kimmel: De Hippolyti vita et scriptis. Jen. 1839. Möhler: Patrol. p. 584 sqq. Both are confined to the older confused sources of information.

• From White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America (2016)

  superior to that of Englishmen. But the truth lay in an ability to work collectively, a desire to understand and appreciate the demands of subsistence farming—a commitment to long-term survival in a sparsely settled colony. Many English settlers were unwilling to work hard, because they lacked any background in farming. Apothecaries, cheese mongers, tinkers, wig makers, and weavers abounded. There were too few who could cultivate the soil. Patrick Tailfer, who drafted one of the petitions in support of slaveholding, refused to cultivate a single acre of the land he had been granted. 51 We should make clear that Oglethorpe was not a modern egalitarian. He did not imagine his colony as a multiracial community, nor did he surmount common prejudices with respect to Africans. He permitted there to be a small number of Indian slaves in the colony. His plan centered on class: he restricted slavery principally because he believed it would shift the balance of class power in Georgia and “starve the poor white laborer.” In the larger scheme of things, his reform philosophy recognized that weak and desperate men could be led to choose a path that dictated against their own interests. A man might sell his land for a glass of rum; debt and idleness were always a temptation. 52 Despite his good intentions, the colony failed to eliminate all class divisions. In addition to the fifty acres allotted to charity cases, settlers who paid their own way might be granted as many as five hundred acres. They were expected to employ between four and ten servants. But five hundred acres was the maximum limit for freeholders. The trustees wanted settlers to occupy the land, not to speculate in land. Absentee landholders were not welcome. Georgia also instituted a policy of keeping the land “tail-male,” which meant that land descended to the eldest male child. This feudal rule bound men to their families. The tail-male provision protected heirs whose poor fathers might otherwise feel pressure to sell their land. 53 Many settlers disliked the practice. Hardworking families worried about the fate of their unmarried daughters, who might be left with nothing. One such complaint came from Reverend Dumont, a leader of French Protestants interested in migrating to Georgia. What would happen to widows “too old to marry or beget children,” he asked. And how could daughters survive, especially those “unfit for Marriage, either by Sickness or Evil Construction of their Body”? 54 Dumont’s questions went to the core of Oglethorpe’s and the trustees’ philosophy. Young widows and daughters were seen as breeders of the next generation of free white laborers. Georgia’s policy was to nurture the natural

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

  Whether one person has an aureole more excellently than another person?Objection 1: It would seem that one person has not the aureole either of virginity, or of martyrdom, or of doctrine more perfectly than another person. For things which have reached their term are not subject to intension or remission. Now the aureole is due to works which have reached their term of perfection. Therefore an aureole is not subject to intension or remission. Objection 2: Further, virginity is not subject to being more or less, since it denotes a kind of privation; and privations are not subject to intension or remission. Therefore neither does the reward of virginity, the virgin’s aureole to wit, receive intension or remission. On the contrary, The aureole is added to the aurea. But the aurea is more intense in one than in another. Therefore the aureole is also. I answer that, Since merit is somewhat the cause of reward, rewards must needs be diversified, according as merits are diversified: for the intension or remission of a thing follows from the intension or remission of its cause. Now the merit of the aureole may be greater or lesser: wherefore the aureole may also be greater or lesser. We must observe, however, that the merit of an aureole may be intensified in two ways: first, on the part of its cause, secondly on the part of the work. For there may happen to be two persons, one of whom, out of lesser charity, suffers greater torments of martyrdom, or is more constant in preaching, or again withdraws himself more from carnal pleasures. Accordingly, intension not of the aureole but of the aurea corresponds to the intension of merit derived from its root; while intension of the aureole corresponds to intension of merit derived from the kind of act. Consequently it is possible for one who merits less in martyrdom as to his essential reward, to receive a greater aureole for his martyrdom. Reply to Objection 1: The merits to which an aureole is due do not reach the term of their perfection simply, but according to their species: even as fire is specifically the most subtle of bodies. Hence nothing hinders one aureole being more excellent than another, even as one fire is more subtle than another. Reply to Objection 2: The virginity of one may be greater than the virginity of another, by reason of a greater withdrawal from that which is contrary to virginity: so that virginity is stated to be greater in one who avoids more the occasions of corruption. For in this way privations may increase, as when a man is said to be more blind, if he be removed further from the possession of sight.

• From The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World—and Us (2017)

  Trut, L. N. 2001. “Experimental Studies of Early Canid Domestication.” In The Genetics of the Dog, edited by A. Ruvinsky and J. Sampson, 15–41. Wallingford, U.K.: CABI. Uy, J. A., and G. Borgia. 2000. “Sexual Selection Drives Rapid Divergence in Bowerbird Display Traits.” Evolution 54:273–78. Uy, J. A., G. L. Patricelli, and G. Borgia. 2001. “Complex Mate Searching in the Satin Bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus.” American Naturalist 158:530–42. Vinther, J., D. E. G. Briggs, R. O. Prum, and V. Saranathan. 2008. “The Colour of Fossil Feathers.” Biology Letters 4:522–25. Wagner, G. P. 2015. Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Walker, A. 1984. “Mechanisms of Honing in the Male Baboon Canine.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 65:47–60. Wallace, A. R. 1889. Darwinism. London: Macmillan. ———. 1895. Natural Selection and Tropical Nature. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan. Wallen, K., and E. A. Lloyd. 2011. “Female Sexual Arousal: Genital Anatomy and Orgasm in Intercourse.” Hormones and Behavior 59:780–92. Warner, M. 1999. The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Weiner, J. 1994. The Beak of the Finch. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Wekker, G. 1999. “ ‘What’s Identity Got to Do with It?’: Rethinking Identity in Light of the Mati Work in Suriname.” In Female Desires: Same-Sex and Transgender Practices Across Cultures, edited by E. Blackwood and S. E. Wieringa, 119–38. New York: Columbia University Press. Welty, J. C. 1982. The Life of Birds. 2nd ed. New York: Saunders. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1979. “Sexual Selection, Social Competition, and Evolution.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 123:222–34. ———. 1983. “Sexual Selection, Social Competition, and Speciation.” Quarterly Review of Biology 58:155–83. ———. 2014. “Darwin’s Forgotten Idea: The Social Essence of Sexual Selection.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 46:501–8. Willis, E. O. 1966. “Notes on a Display and Nest of the Club-winged Manakin.” Auk 83:475–76. Wilson, G., and Q. Rahman. 2008. Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen. Zahavi, A. 1975. “Mate Selection—a Selection for a Handicap.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 53:205–14. Zuk, M. 2013. Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us About Sex, Diet, and How We Live. New York: Norton. ABOUT THE AUTHORRichard O. Prum is William Robertson Coe Professor of Ornithology at Yale University and Head Curator of Vertebrate Zoology at the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History. He has conducted ornithological fieldwork throughout the world and has studied fossil theropod dinosaurs in China. He received a MacArthur Fellowship in 2010. [image "Blackburnian Warbler, Dendroica fusca male. June in Maine." file=image_rsrc3P8.jpg] 1. A male Blackburnian Warbler (Setophaga fusca) perched in a balsam fir on its breeding grounds in northern Maine. Photo by Jim Zipp

• From Reliability and Validity Assessment (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences) (1979)

  Methodological research suggests excluding at least very implausible combinations that rarely occur in reality and therefore might not be taken seriously by respondents. 3. NUMBER OF CASES ✓ Is the number of vignettes per respondent sufficiently small to avoid fatigue effects? The recommendation is to use no more than 10 vignettes per respondent. ✓ Is the overall number of vignettes divisible by the number of vignettes per respondent or deck? ✓ Do the numbers of vignettes and respondents ensure sufficient statistical power to detect all the effects of interest, including cross-level interactions between vignette dimensions and respondents’ characteristics, with sufficient precision? ✓ Can one expect sufficient ratings of vignettes and decks from different respondents to avoid a confounding of vignette dimensions and decks with respondents’ variables? The first rule of thumb is to ensure that each vignette is rated by at least five different respondents; as the heterogeneity of the respondents increases, the number of respondents per single vignette should increase. 4. SETTING UP THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ✓ Does the design allow the identification of the impact of all vignette dimensions and interactions that might have a nonnegligible impact on the vignette ratings? This identifiability of parameters is the most important issue when setting up the experimental design. ✓ When excluding some combinations (because they are illogical or implausible): Did one consider this restriction when setting up the design? If these combinations are deleted after this point, some desirable features of the design will be lost. ✓ Does the design allow a satisfying amount of information about the impacts of vignette dimensions (and their interactions)—that is, does it achieve a satisfying level of D -efficiency? If not, one should return to Steps 1 to 3 and test designs with smaller numbers of dimensions and levels, higher numbers of vignettes to be sampled, or fewer restrictions such as combinations of dimensions that must be excluded from the candidate set for the experimental design. ✓ Does one intend to estimate nonlinear models, such as logistic regressions or probit models, with the vignette outcomes, and is one interested in a very high amount of precision of parameter estimates (statistical power)? If yes, one might consider the special suggestions for categorical outcomes in Section 3.2.3 . 5. BLOCKING TO DECKS ✓ Do single decks allow the identification of the most important parameters (because they are not confounded with decks)? ✓ Does the blocking to decks conserve a high D -efficiency value for the single decks, and is the D -efficiency similar across decks? These aspects are particularly important if one wishes to estimate respondent-specific parameters, such as random slopes. 6. GENERAL REMARKS Because there are many trade-offs between the target criteria, one must often repeat former steps.

• From the social construction of reality (1966)

  In principle, at any rate, its definitions of reality must encompass the totality of being. The conceptual machineries by which this totalization is attempted vary historically in their degree of sophistication. In nuce they appear as soon as a symbolic universe has been crystallized. c. Social Organization for Universe-Maintenance Because they are historical products of human activity, all socially constructed universes change, and the change is brought about by the concrete actions of human beings. If one gets absorbed in the intricacies of the conceptual machineries by which any specific universe is maintained, one may forget this fundamental sociological fact. Reality is socially defined. But the definitions are always embodied, that is, concrete individuals and groups of individuals serve as definers of reality. To understand the state of the socially constructed universe at any given time, or its change over time, one must understand the social organization that permits the definers to do their defining. Put a little crudely, it is essential to keep pushing questions about the historically available conceptualizations of reality from the abstract “What?” to the sociologically concrete “Says who?” 90 As we have seen, the specialization of knowledge and the concomitant organization of personnel for the administration of the specialized bodies of knowledge develop as a result of the division of labor. It is possible to conceive of an early stage of this development in which there is no competition between the different experts. Each area of expertise is defined by the pragmatic facts of the division of labor. The hunting expert will not claim fishing expertise and will thus have no ground for competing with the one who does. As more complex forms of knowledge emerge and an economic surplus is built up, experts devote themselves full-time to the subjects of their expertise, which, with the development of conceptual machineries, may become increasingly removed from the pragmatic necessities of everyday life. Experts in these rarefied bodies of knowledge lay claim to a novel status. They are not only experts in this or that sector of the societal stock of knowledge, they claim ultimate jurisdiction over that stock of knowledge in its totality. They are, literally, universal experts. This does not mean that they claim to know everything, but rather that they claim to know the ultimate significance of what everybody knows and does. Other men may continue to stake out particular sectors of reality, but they claim expertise in the ultimate definitions of reality as such. This stage in the development of knowledge has a number of consequences.

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

  I answer that, As stated above (OBJ[2]), “pudicitia” [purity] takes its name from “pudor,” which signifies shame. Hence purity must needs be properly about the things of which man is most ashamed. Now men are most ashamed of venereal acts, as Augustine remarks (De Civ. Dei xiv, 18), so much so that even the conjugal act, which is adorned by the honesty [*Cf. Q[145]] of marriage, is not devoid of shame: and this because the movement of the organs of generation is not subject to the command of reason, as are the movements of the other external members. Now man is ashamed not only of this sexual union but also of all the signs thereof, as the Philosopher observes (Rhet. ii, 6). Consequently purity regards venereal matters properly, and especially the signs thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and touches. And since the latter are more wont to be observed, purity regards rather these external signs, while chastity regards rather sexual union. Therefore purity is directed to chastity, not as a virtue distinct therefrom, but as expressing a circumstance of chastity. Nevertheless the one is sometimes used to designate the other. Reply to Objection 1: Augustine is here speaking of purity as designating chastity. Reply to Objection 2: Although every vice has a certain disgrace, the vices of intemperance are especially disgraceful, as stated above ([3513]Q[142], A[4]). Reply to Objection 3: Among the vices of intemperance, venereal sins are most deserving of reproach, both on account of the insubordination of the genital organs, and because by these sins especially, the reason is absorbed. OF VIRGINITY (FIVE ARTICLES)We must now consider virginity: and under this head there are five points of inquiry: (1) In what does virginity consist? (2) Whether it is lawful? (3) Whether it is a virtue? (4) Of its excellence in comparison with marriage; (5) Of its excellence in comparison with the other virtues. Whether virginity consists in integrity of the flesh?Objection 1: It would seem that virginity does not consist in integrity of the flesh. For Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup.) [*The quotation is from De Sancta Virgin. xiii] that “virginity is the continual meditation on incorruption in a corruptible flesh.” But meditation does not concern the flesh. Therefore virginity is not situated in the flesh. Objection 2: Further, virginity denotes a kind of purity. Now Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 18) that “purity dwells in the soul.” Therefore virginity is not incorruption of the flesh.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  23 “f You shall eat the tithe (tenth) of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock before the LORD your God in the place where He chooses to establish His Name (Presence), so that you may learn to fear [and worship] the LORD your God [with awe-filled reverence and profound respect] always. 24 “If the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His Name (Presence) is a great distance from you and you are not able to carry your tithe, because the LORD your God has blessed you [with such an abundance], 25 then you shall exchange your tithe for money, and take the money in your hand and go to the place [of worship] which the LORD your God chooses. 26 “You may spend the money for g anything your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or [other] strong drink, or h anything else you want. You shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household. 27 “Also you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your [city] gates, for he does not have a share [of land] or an inheritance among you. 28 “At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce for that year, and shall store it up within your [city] gates. 29 “The Levite, because he has no share [of land] or an inheritance among you, and the stranger, and the orphan and the widow who are within your [city] gates, shall come and eat and be satisfied, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. Deuteronomy 15 The Sabbatical Year 1 “A T THE end of every seven years you shall grant a release (remission, pardon) from debt. 2 “This is the regulation for the release: every a creditor shall forgive what he has loaned to his neighbor; he shall not b require repayment from his neighbor and his brother, because the LORD ’s release has been proclaimed. 3 “You may require repayment from a foreigner, but whatever of yours is with your brother [Israelite] your hand shall release. 4 “However, there will be no poor among you, since the LORD will most certainly bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, 5 if only you will listen to and obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all these commandments which I am commanding you today. 6 “When the LORD your God blesses c you as He has promised you, then you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.

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

  I answer: some have held that grace and virtue differ only as different aspects of one identical essence, which we call grace in so far as it is freely given, or makes men pleasing to God, and which we call virtue in so far as it perfects us in well-doing. So indeed the Master seems to have thought, in 2 Sent., Dist. 26. But this cannot be maintained if one pays due attention to the meaning of virtue. As the philosopher says in 7 Physics, text 17: “ virtue is the disposition of the perfect, and I call that perfect which is disposed according to nature. ” This makes it clear that the virtue of any particular thing is determined by a nature which is prior to it, and means the disposition of all its elements according to what is best for its nature. Now the virtues which a man acquires through practice, of which we spoke in Q. 55 fF., are obviously dispositions by which he is disposed in a manner which befits his nature as a man. But the infused virtues dispose men in a higher way to a higher end, and therefore according to a higher nature, indeed according to the divine nature in which he participates. We call this participation “ the light of grace, ” on account of what is said in II Peter 1:4: “ Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature. ” It is in fact as receiving this nature that we are said to be born again as sons of God. Hence just as the natural light of reason is something over and above the acquired virtues, which are called virtues because they are ordered by this light, so the light of grace, which is a partaking of the divine nature, is something over and above the infused virtues, which are derived from it and ordered by it. Thus the apostle says in Eph. 5:8: “ For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light. ” Just as the acquired virtues enable a man to walk by the natural light of reason, so do the infused virtues enable him to walk by the light of grace. On the first point: Augustine gives the name of grace to “ faith that works by love ” because the act of faith which works by love is the first act in which sanctifying grace is manifest. On the second point: the term “ good, ” as used in the definition of virtue, means conformity with a nature which is either prior, essential, or partaken. It is not applied in this sense to grace, but to the root of goodness in man, as we have said.

• From The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (1967)

  The world-building potency of religion is thus restricted to the construction of subworlds, of fragmented universes of meaning, the plausibility structure of which may in some cases be no larger than the nuclear family. Since the modern family is notoriously fragile as an institution (a trait it shares with all other formations of the private sphere), this means that religion resting on this kind of plausibility structure is of necessity a tenuous construction. Put simply, a “religious preference” can be abandoned as readily as it was first adopted. This tenuousness can (indeed must) be mitigated by seeking more broadly based plausibility structures. Typically, these are the churches or other wider religious groupings. By the very nature of their social character as voluntary associations “located” primarily in the private sphere, however, such churches can only augment the strength and durability of the required plausibility structures to a limited extent. The “polarization” of religion brought about by secularization, and the concomitant loss of commonality and/or “reality,” can also be described by saying that secularization ipso facto leads to a pluralistic situation. The term “pluralism,” to be sure, has usually been applied only to those cases (of which the American one is prototypical) in which different religious groups are tolerated by the state and engage in free competition with each other. There is little point to arguments over terminology and there is nothing wrong with this limited use of the term. If, however, one looks at the underlying social forces producing even this limited kind of pluralism, the deeper linkage between secularization and pluralism becomes apparent. One may then say that, as we have seen, secularization brings about a demonopolization of religious traditions and thus, ipso facto, leads to a pluralistic situation. Through most of human history religious establishments have existed as monopolies in society—monopolies, that is, in the ultimate legitimation of individual and collective life. Religious institutions really were institutions properly speaking, that is, regulatory agencies for both thought and action. The world as defined by the religious institution in question was the world, maintained not just by the mundane powers of the society and their instruments of social control, but much more fundamentally maintained by the “common sense” of the members of that society. To step outside the world as religiously defined was to step into a chaotic darkness, into anomy, possibly into madness. This did not necessarily mean that the monopolistic religious institutions were externally tyrannical in the enforcement of their definitions of reality. Indeed, religious “tyranny” in this sense has been mainly the prerogative of the religious traditions derived from the Biblical orbit, is generally absent in the orbit of the great religions of eastern Asia. But the fact that Hinduism, for instance, did not produce an inquisition does not mean that it did not establish an effective monopoly of reality-definition and legitimation in classical Indian society.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The Anabaptists went still farther, and rejected infant-baptism because it lacks the element of faith on the part of the baptized. They were the forerunners of the Quakers, who dispensed with the external sacraments altogether, retaining, however, the spiritual fact of regeneration and communion with Christ, which the sacraments symbolize to the senses. The Quakers protested against forms when they were made substitutes for the spirit, and furnished the historic proof that the spirit in cases of necessity may live without forms, while forms without the spirit are dead. It was the will of Providence that different theories on the means of grace should be developed. These theories are not isolated; they proceed from different philosophical and theological standpoints, and affect other doctrines. Luther was not quite wrong when he said to Zwingli at Marburg "You have a different spirit." Luther took his stand on the doctrine of justification by faith; Zwingli and Calvin, on the doctrine of divine causality and sovereignty, or eternal election. Luther proceeded anthropologically and soteriologically from man to God, Zwingli and Calvin proceeded theologically from God to man. The difference culminates in the doctrine of the eucharistic presence, which called forth the fiercest controversies, and still divides Western Christendom into hostile camps. The eucharistic theories reveal an underlying difference of views on the relation of God to man, of the supernatural to the natural, of invisible grace to the visible means. The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is the outgrowth of a magical supernaturalism which absorbs and annihilates the natural and human, leaving only the empty form. The Lutheran doctrine implies an interpenetration of the divine and human. The commemorative theory of Zwingli saves the integrity and peculiar character of the divine and human, but keeps them separate and distinct. The eucharistic theory affects Christology, the relation of church and state, and in some measure the character of piety. Lutheranism inclines to the Eutychian, Zwinglianism to the Nestorian, Christology. The former fosters a mystical, the latter a practical, type of piety. Calvin, who appeared on the stage of public action five years after Zwingli’s, and ten years before Luther’s, death, advocated with great ability a eucharistic theory which mediates between the Lutheran realism and the Zwinglian spiritualism, and which passed into the Reformed confessions Luther had to deal with Zwingli, and never came into contact with Calvin. If he had, the controversy might have taken a different shape; but he would have maintained his own view of the real presence, and refused the figurative interpretation of the words of institution. With the doctrine of the eucharist are connected some minor ritualistic differences, as the use of the wafer, and the kneeling posture of the communicants, which the Lutherans retained from the Catholic Church; while the Reformed restored the primitive practice of the breaking of bread, and the standing or sitting posture. Some Lutheran churches retained also the elevation of the host; Luther himself declared it a matter of indifference, and abolished it at Wittenberg in 1542.818

• From Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty (1999)

  _____ & Sauer, K. P. Genetic sire effects on the fighting ability of sons and daughters and mating success of sons in the scorpionfly (Panorpa vulgaris). Animal Behavior, 43, 1992, 255–264. Tichet, J., Vol, S., Balkau, B., Le Clesiau, H. & D’Hour, A. Android fat distribution by age and sex: The waist hip ratio. Diabetes Metabolism, 19, 1993, 273–276. Tolstoy, L. Childhood, Boyhood, Youth. Trans. Michael Scammel. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Tooby, J. & Cosmides, “Introduction: Evolutionary Psychology and Conceptual Integration.” In Barkow, Cosmides & Tooby, 1992, 3–15. _____ & Cosmides, “The psychological foundations of culture.” In Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992, 19–136. _____ & Cosmides, L. “Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer,” unpublished ms. University of California, Santa Barbara, Tovee, M. J., Mason, S. M., Emery, J. L., McClusky, S. E. & Cohen-Tovee, E. M. Supermodels: stick insects or hourglasses? Lancet, 350, 1997, 1474–1475. Townsend, J. M. Mate selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 1989, 241–253. _____ & Levy, G. D. Effect of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Journal of Sexual Behavior, 19, 1990, 149–164. _____. & Levy, G. D. Effects of potential partners’ costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. Journal of Psychology, 124, 1990, 371–389. Trasko, M. Daring Do’s: A History of Extraordinary Hair. Paris: Flammarion, 1994. Udry, J. R. Structural correlates of feminine beauty preferences in Britain and the United States: A comparison. Sociology and Social Research, 49, 1965, 330–342. _____ & Eckland, B. K. Benefits of being attractive: Differential payoffs for men and women. Psychological Reports, 54, 1984, 47–56. Vale, V. & Juno, A. Modern Primitives: An Investigation of Contemporary Adornment and Ritual. San Francisco: Re/Search Publications, 1989. Valéry, P. “Some simple reflections on the body.” In Fragments for a History of the Human Body. Part 2. Ed. Michel Feher with Ramona Naddaff and Nadia Tazi. New York: Zone, 1989. Van den Berghe, P. L. & Frost, P. Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: A case of gene culture co-evolution? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9, 1986, 87–113. Veblen, T. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Penguin, 1994. Voloshinov, A. V. Symmetry as a superprinciple of science and art. Leonardo, 29, 1996, 109–113. Vroon, P. Smell: The Secret Seducer. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1994. de Waal, F. Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes (London: Cape, 1982). _____. Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. Wagatsuma, E. & Kleinke, C. L. Ratings of facial beauty by Asian-American and Caucasian females, Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 1979, 299–300. Wagatsuma, H. The social perception of skin color in Japan. Daedalus, 96, 1967, 407–443. Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D. & Rottman, L. Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 1966, 508–516. Warner, M. From the Beast to the Blonde: On Fairy Tales and Their Tellers. New York: Noonday (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux), 1995.

• From The John Dominic Crossan Essential Set (Jesus; The Birth of Christianity; The Power of Parable; The Greatest Prayer) (2004)

  While that is true, it is much more significant that both the Life Tradition and the Death Tradition share a story pattern— the general persecution-vindication theme, with its emphasis on communal rather than individual persecution and on corporate rather than personal vindication. Jesus, of course, was steadily exalted over others within that pattern, but he was not originally isolated from others within it. Furthermore, that story pattern shared by the great inaugural traditions underlies the historical plot in the Cross Gospel , the corporate destiny in the Q Gospel , and the mythical hymn in Philippians 2:6–11. The next point is to seek an historical setting for that Cross Gospel composition. My conclusion will involve a response similar to the one I made to Nickelsburg in this present section. He argued for the narrative genre of vindicated innocence behind the composition of Mark’s passion-resurrection account. I found that his proposal worked as well or better for the Cross Gospel . In the next section Gerd Theissen proposes an historical setting in the early 40s for a hypothetical source in Mark’s passion-resurrection narrative. I find that his proposal works as well or better for the hypothetical Cross Gospel . Historical Setting Taking for granted that narratives are marked by the conditions under which their narrating community lives, we wish to develop the hypothesis that the choice, shaping, and stylizing of traditions into a connected Passion account was especially feasible in the 40s…. Under Agrippa I the conditions could have existed in which accounts of the Passion of Jesus could exaggerate the role of the Jewish court beyond historical reality [at the time of Jesus]…. Probably we can limit the phase in which this Passion tradition underwent its critical shaping still more: it could well have been composed in light of the persecutions that occurred during Agrippa I’s reign (41–44 C.E. ). Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context , pp. 189, 193, 198 In the view of most scholars Mark gives the earliest extant account of the passion story. Many commentators go on to seek and propose a pre-Markan version, however, believing that Mark did not create that entire story in the early 70s. According to prevailing opinion, he must have worked from some earlier version. In Appendix IX of The Death of the Messiah , Brown adapted from Marion Soards a list of authors who distinguished pre-Markan passion sources from their present Markan redaction, and he presented thirty-four of them in tabular and parallel-column format. Brown concluded that “the sharp differences among them suggest that the project is self-defeating, for no theory will ever get wide or enduring acceptance” (1994:23). Neirynck (1994:408) criticized the list’s alphabetical rather than chronological order, pointing out that it made it more difficult to assess influences and add new suggestions, such as that of Adela Yarbro Collins.

• From Composition & Photography: Working with Photography Using Design Concepts (2022)

  Go beyond the conventional; for example, you could even tear up a print and create a collage. Anthropomorphism is the human tendency to translate shapes into human, and by extension animal, form. For example, when someone looks up at a cloud in the sky and says, “I see a whale!” this is anthropomorphism (actually, “animal-morphism,” but let’s not quibble!). Both pareidolia and anthropomorphism are related to the idea behind the Rorschach test. The Rorschach test uses apparently abstract art as a projective device where the subject picks out supposed meanings based on patterns and anthropomorphisms. Trained psychologists can then, supposedly, derive insights about the test subject. So along the more reality-based end of the abstraction spectrum, the artist is rendering a real object. That object can be stylized, distorted, or exaggerated, using colors and textures to communicate emotions and feelings, rather than with the goal of producing a replica. As an example, consider the Russian artist Wassily Kandinsky, a founder of Abstraction, and the author of On the Spiritual in Art , written in 1911 and one of the most influential theoretical books on abstract art. Kandinsky was born with synaesthesia —a rare condition that for him translated sounds into colors. He believed that his paintings used different shades of color to provoke a range of sounds and emotions, and to touch the portions of the brain connected with music. Heading further along the abstraction spectrum, abstract art gets even more abstract, meaning it goes well beyond any representation of “the facts.” Abstract art attempts to build a new self-contained reality. In the case of a photograph, this reality is on a two-dimensional plane. One point of view is that abstract art on a two-dimensional plane should be created by pure patterns of form, color, and line. This is a line of aesthetics that goes back at least as far as Plato. The Platonic ideal of beauty consists of an arrangement of integral parts into a coherent whole, according to order, proportion, and symmetry. In this world view, the main purpose of abstraction in art is not to tell a story, but to encourage involvement and imagination. Abstraction goes back a long way, perhaps to the birth of humanity. The Paleolithic cave paintings in Lascaux—from more than 15,000 years ago—contain abstractions. Even once you grant that the purpose of a photograph is to create a symbolic generalization, there remains the question of whether this should be done following neat, ordered, and structured patterns, or as a matter of emotional gesture. Abstract Expressionism has room for both the order of a Mark Rothko color-field painting and the drippings of a Jackson Pollack. Certainly, a completely abstract work of art—at the far end of the abstraction spectrum—can convey emotion. For example, Mark Rothko’s black paintings in the Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas, are deeply moving.

• From The Divine Comedy (1950)

  Now by these words, if thou hast gleaned them as thou should’st, the argument which would have troubled thee more times than this, is rendered void. But now across thy path another strait confronts thine eyes, through which ere thou should’st win thy way alone, thou should’st be weary. I have set it in thy mind for sure, that no blessed soul may lie because hard by the Primal Truth it ever doth abide;13 and then thou mightest hear from Piccarda14 that her devotion to the veil Constance still held, so that here she seemeth me to contradict. Many a time ere now, my brother, hath it come to pass that to flee peril things were done, against the grain, that were unmeet to do; so did Alcmæon, moved by his father’s prayer, slay his own mother,15 and not to sacrifice his filial piety became an impious son. At this point, I would have thee think, violence receiveth mixture from the will, and they so work that the offences may not plead excuse. The absolute will consenteth not to the ill, but yet consenteth in so far as it doth fear, should it draw back, to fall into a worse annoy. Wherefore, when Piccarda expresseth this, she meaneth it of the absolute will, and I of the other; so that we both speak truth together.”16 Such the rippling of the sacred stream which issued from the Spring whence all truth down-floweth; and being such, it set at peace one and the other longing. “O love of the primal Lover, O divine one,” said I then, “whose speech o’erfloweth me and warmeth, so that more and more it quickeneth me, my love hath no such depth as to suffice to render grace for grace; but may he who seeth it, and hath the power, answer thereto. Now do I see that never can our intellect be sated, unless that Truth shine on it, beyond which no truth hath range. Therein it resteth as a wild beast in his den so soon as it hath reached it; and reach it may; else were all longing futile. Wherefore there springeth, like a shoot, questioning17 at the foot of truth; which is a thing that trusteth us towards the summit, on from ridge to ridge. This doth invite me and giveth me assurance, with reverence, lady, to make question to thee as to another truth which is dark to me. I would know if man can satisfy you so for broken vows, with other goods, as not to weigh too short upon your balance.” Beatrice looked on me with eves filled so divine with sparks of love, that my vanquished power turned away, and I became as lost with eyes downcast.