Category Archives: Pantheism

Location: Sun City West, Arizona

Reputation: 27518

Quote:

In part because I'm no longer learning anything new about anything Mystic has to explain. My shortcomings and deficiencies included. Here too we see how "perspective is everything." One man's lazy is another man's prudence. AKA good judgement and better use of time. Though I do falter along these lines more often than I would like.

Sometimes it's hard not to scratch an itch...

Reputation: 7010

Quote:

I have to admit that my eyes begin to glaze over.

Location: Sun City West, Arizona

Reputation: 27518

Quote:

That does tend to be the reaction that accompanies a lack of comprehension which seems to be fairly widespread among the atheists here.

There is always a lot of repetition in forums like this one...including me. After a while with almost any particular poster, it's just time to change the channel.

I may love Chinese orange chicken, but I can't eat it 365 days a year.

Location: Germany

Reputation: 1469

Quote:

That does tend to be the reaction that accompanies a lack of comprehension which seems to be fairly widespread among the atheists here.

So once again, instead of your usual arrogant pretense at being a superior intellect, start providing actual, rational evidence for your position instead of your usual fallacies and creationist arguments.

Location: Germany

Reputation: 1469

Quote:

What is strange is that you seem unable to recognize when someone has read the entire article and provided a summary of its essential features as they apply to those who do NOT comprehend what issues are involved.

2) Your 'summary' included elements NOT in the paper ('AI computational equivalence' which also shows an inability on your part to understand my actual position). That part of your 'summary' was just another invented excuse to ignore my extrapolation from data that you do not like.

3) Once again you falsely accuse me of an 'inability to conceive of the universe holistically' while pretending your composition fallacy nonsense is a legitimate argument.

4) it is still strange you have not talked about what is in the paper (your 'summary' is just that, and showed no awareness of the flaws in the paper), and still seems to be ignoring my post (8) where I showed what some of those flaws in the paper are.

Reputation: 784

Quote:

Ha, you still fail to understand the flaws in your arguments. Your Dueling Banjos Patois suggests why, but I do hate to generalize.

You remain all hung up on literal (mis)interpretations of allegorical and metaphorical ancient Theological writings...and base your opinion on the existence of God as to whether some Entity objectively exists that mirrors the Deity characters found in those writings.But it is YOUR argument that doesn't pan out.It's like saying that unless Superman, Batman, and The Flash actually exist...there is no such thing as a "Hero" that exists. And you conclude that, because you have read books that tell about those characters and their attributes, and call them "Heros".

Location: West Virginia

Reputation: 9591

Quote:

That does tend to be the reaction that accompanies a lack of comprehension which seems to be fairly widespread among the atheists here.

Location: Sun City West, Arizona

Reputation: 27518

Quote:

I don't think it is a lack of comprehension.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Read the original here:
New free book from Cambridge Press: Pantheism - Religion ...

During his youth as an acclaimed pianist, Hermann Cohen dubbed Puzzi by his adoring admirers would have been the first to discount any notion that in 1858, he would become the first priest to lead a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in France.

As Carmelite Father Timothy Tierney explained in his biography, The Life of Hermann Cohen, from Franz Liszt to John of the Cross, Cohen was born to a Jewish family in 1821, in Hamburg, Germany, and grew up, steeped in the materialistic values of his father, a wealthy financier. God and eternal values were far from his mind. Following his conversion, Cohen later described in a sermon his futile search for happiness during his concertizing days and career, and said:

According to Father Tierney, Cohens vacuous pleasures began at the age of 6, when he began piano studies with the most famous professor in Hamburg, who declared him a genius. Cohen admitted the flattery was enough to justify his teachers scandalous behavior with women and to desire to ape his behaviors. He dressed in the latest fashions like him. He went with him to social events. He mimicked his conceited airs and learned from him how to mingle with the elite, all doting over Hermann like a little pop star.

At age 12, following the financial collapse of his fathers business, Cohen was taken by his distraught mother, determined to secure her sons success, to Paris where he was accepted as a student at the Conservatoire under the auspices of Franz Liszt, the most revered pianist of that time. Liszt guided Cohen to pianistic perfection, and within two years, was garnering for him high fees in recitals, and in Geneva where he was awarded a teaching professorship at the age of 15. Then, without warning, Liszt suddenly walked out on both his long-time mistress and Cohen, leaving Cohen for the first time without an idol or mentor. Lost, he returned to Paris to resume his former concertizing circuit, and began socializing with ideologues in the salons, among them, novelist George Sand and fallen-away priest, Flicit Lamennais. Cohen said they used him as a scapegoat for all their reprehensible ideas, including atheism, pantheism, Communism, terrorism, anarchy and the abolition of marriage.

More deleterious, however, was gambling, which Cohen quickly became a slave to in the casinos. He explained the horrors of his addiction in a sermon, and wrote:

Cohen said the gambler has nightmares, grapples with insomnia and desolation, and contemplates suicide. But again, he concludes, he returns to the tables once again in hopes of one more go at gaining a fortune.

Perhaps it was the memory of hearing or performing music on the organ that rekindled faith in his heart and encouraged him to take a step toward freedom. As he described later in a prayer:

The answer, he knew, had been revealed to him by Mary while conducting the choir at a special service in her honor at the church of St. Valre in May of 1847. Cohen said he initially agreed to participate in the event purely from his interest in music and to do the job well. But as he turned and the Blessed Sacrament was elevated in Benediction before the congregation, he said he suddenly felt as if he had found himself like the prodigal son facing himself.

Humbled, he bowed his head in adoration, began to attend Mass daily, and was baptized on Aug. 28, the feast of St. Augustine.

From that moment, he became an unstoppable missionary. He helped to establish and to promote a movement known as the Nocturnal Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. In 1849, he entered the Carmelite Order, taking the name Augustine Mary of the Blessed Sacrament, and was ordained to the priesthood four years later. In 1858, while working to establish new monasteries near Lourdes in southern France, it was then that he led his historic pilgrimage to pray at the grotto on Sept. 20, two months after Marys final appearance to St. Bernadette Soubirous. That day, the tiny niche had been barricaded off from entry by Commissar Jacomet, a fierce adversary of the events.

In his book, Bernadette Speaks: A Life of Bernadette Soubirous in Her Own Words, author Father Ren Laurentin recounted the remarkable scene as described by Jacomet in his official report:

No doubt a sign of Marys approval of Cohens witness and of the power of her intercession, nine days later the barricades were removed.

Lourdes continued to be a source of grace for Cohen in the following years, particularly in 1868, after being diagnosed with glaucoma. Suffering and in great pain, he traveled to Lourdes and began a novena, each day praying through Marys intercession at the grotto and washing his eyes in the miraculous waters of the spring. On the final day, realizing the last symptoms of the disease had disappeared, he was overjoyed and shared the news in a letter to a confraternity of friends: I am completely and totally cured! It is my inmost conviction that this cure is due to the intercession of Our Blessed Lady.

Cohen attributed every grace in his life, most especially his conversion, to Mary. She it was, he told others, who showed him the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. She was the one that led him to the holy desert of Carmel and guided him to his ordination as a priest. Mary had guided him throughout his missionary journeys, and finally, back to his native home of Hamburg where he attended to the spiritual needs of French prisoners, forbidden by the ruling Prussian government from receiving the assistance of French chaplains. From morning until night, Cohen offered words of counsel and hope for their troubled souls and administered the sacraments. It was during his time among the prisoners that Cohen contracted smallpox and died shortly afterward on Jan. 20, 1871.

The cause for Hermann Cohens beatification is now underway. He is model of hope for all those suffering addiction, physical or emotional illness, or have been led astray by idols of materialism, false religious practices and dangerous ideologies afflicting our world today. Turn to him as a friend. Ask his intercession for favors. And trust with firm faith in Gods Word, as Mary did, that Nothing is impossible with God.

View original post here:
When This Jewish Musician Visited a Church During Benediction, He Never Expected This to Happen - National Catholic Register

About 800 years ago, St. Francis of Assisi wrote a hymn that personified the elements of creation with familial gender terms: He referred to the Sun, wind, and fire as, our brothers.

The moon and water he called our sisters. And he revered the earth as our Our Mother, our dear Mother.

Now thats weird but, in his defense, some hymnologists and church historians have suggested that those phrases were only used, symbolically, to praise the Lord in the way the psalmist personified creation in Psalm 145 which says, All Your works shall praise You, O Lord, And Your saints shall bless You. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom and talk of Your power.

That might be true but, in the biographical accounts we have on St. Francis, there are good reasons to be skeptical. In fact, if a strict translation of that poem was the actual text of the song, we wouldnt be singing it today because St. Francis lyrics imply some serious theological problems.

St. Francis was canonized as the patron saint of animals, and he is venerated by ecologists for his love of nature. So, his hymn could be construed to endorse all kinds of false doctrinal beliefs such as mysticism, animism, pantheism, and other aberrations of non-Christian religions, some of which have crept into and are embraced by some Christian sects even today.

Just to be clear, we should, and we do see evidence of Gods handiwork in His creation. We marvel at the way He works all things according to His purposes.

But there is an absolute distinction between God and His creation. God is God over all creation; He is not part of it.

I am not saying that Francis intended or even believed in a pantheistic worldview, but there are plenty of people in our churches today, who are willing to read some kind of earth-worshiping theology into his words. And so, theologians have been right to approach this hymn with caution.

Early in the twentieth century, William Henry Draper rescued and wrote a loose translation of St. Francis hymn. It was originally intended for use as a childrens hymn.

ALL CREATURES OF OUR GOD AND KING is a good, doctrinally sound, hymn that reads like a paraphrase of Psalm 148 where we see that everything was created by God and everything exists for the praise of His Glory. And, in the last stanza, Draper inserted a doxology that affirms the triune nature of our God.

His, much-improved hymn is the song that we sing today. Its been published in almost all English hymnals for nearly a century and is listed among the most loved Christian hymns of all times.

About five years ago, Sovereign Grace Music released a new version of the hymn. Three stanzas were removed, leaving only the first and last. And then, two new ones have been added. Stanza three is a gospel-centered verse about Christs atoning work, and the last stanza affirms our hope; Jesus is coming again.

Here are the new lyrics:

(3) All the redeemed washed by His blood,

Come and rejoice in His great love.

O praise Him! Alleluia!

Christ has defeated every sin.

Cast all your burdens now on Him.

O praise Him! O praise Him!

Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

(4) He shall return in powr to reign.

Heaven and earth will join to say,

O praise Him! Alleluia!

Then who shall fall on bended knee?

All creatures of our God and King.

O praise Him! O praise Him!

Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

In my opinion, this new version is a great improvement that turns a good hymn into an excellent hymn and still retains a respectful attitude toward the decrees of Psalm 148:13 Let (all creation) praise the name of the Lord, For His name alone is exalted; His glory is above the earth and heaven.

Ralph M. Petersen and his wife, Kathy, are the owners of the OLDE TOWNE EMPORIUM at 212 E. Main St. in Rogersville. Comments are welcome. You may contact him at ralphmpetersen@gmail.com or by phone at (951) 321 9235.

See the original post:
Hymn Notes: All Creatures of Our God and King - Longview News-Journal

In ancient Hebrew thought, the health of the earth itself was intimately connected to the morality of its inhabitants. The sinfulness or holiness of Gods image bearers, of mankind, related directly to the vitality of the physical land in which they lived. This idea is conveyed most directly, and direly, by the Prophet Isaiah:

Look! The Lord is about to destroy the earth

and make it a vast wasteland.He devastates the surface of the earthand scatters the people.2Priests and laypeople,servants and masters,maids and mistresses,buyers and sellers,lenders and borrowers,bankers and debtorsnone will be spared.3The earth will be completely emptied and looted.The Lord has spoken!

4The earth mourns and dries up,and the land wastes away and withers.Even the greatest people on earth waste away.5The earth suffers for the sins of its people,for they have twisted Gods instructions,violated his laws,and broken his everlasting covenant.6Therefore, a curse consumes the earth.Its people must pay the price for their sin.They are destroyed by fire,and only a few are left alive.

Isaiah 24:1-6 (NLT)

The Bible consistently affirms that God remains entirely sovereign over His creation and its secondary causes. This means nature is never left to itself (unlike Platos theory of unguided eras) or entirely handed over to humankind. Nevertheless, mans participation in Gods natural world affects environmental conditions for better or worse. Unlike contemporary scientific and a-theological accounts of our natural climate, the biblical view of creation tells us it is mankinds moral actions in light of Gods moral law which, in part, determine the health of the planet in which we live.

This biblical teaching wars against two modern assumptions: first, that nature, or more precisely natures laws, are not under divine control. According to scientistic naturalists, while the laws of nature may be spooky, they are either (a) necessary, (b) random or (c) man-made conventions, helpful in discussing natural phenomena but not real. What they are not, however, are laws that conform to the intentions and aims of a divine will a will that constantly presides over them.

There is a much longer discussion to be had here about natural laws, but I will forgo that discussion for a later post. The only point I am trying to make is that the biblical view of natural laws and the scientistic view are fundamentally opposed. Further, being so opposed, the scientistic naturalist will not see mans moral behavior as directly tied to environmental changes, because mans moral behavior is not tied to the God who created and oversees the environment in which man lives. This is the second modern assumption the biblical view resists.

This does not mean the scientistic naturalist cannot say there are certain ways we live that have deleterious effects on our natural surroundings. Of course he can do this. But, it does mean he cannot say that those ways of living are aspects of or are related to morality. They are amoral modes of living that have certain amoral consequences. Man does stuff that causes other stuff to happen.

If natures laws are necessary, random or simply man-made conventions, then it cannot be that moral behavior has any direct relation to what nature does. Other kinds of human behavior that directly interact with natural objects certainly do affect the environment. But how a husband treats his wife in the home or whether one humbles himself before his Creator has no bearing on environmental health for the scientistic materialist.

Of course, there is one more assumption that the biblical teaching competes against. It is an assumption made not by scientistic naturalists, and it is by no means modern. This assumption is made by pantheists, panentheists and animists of various religious traditions whose voices now permeate global environmentalism. In regard to those who do not see natural processes as purely physical, what matters is which divine agent has ultimate control over natural processes and what is the source of the moral laws that man transgresses.

Pantheistic, panentheistic or animist views make no distinction between the universe and God. There is no Creator-creature distinction. At face value one might think treating the earth as itself divine would be the best means to solving our climate crisis. But that would be wrong. Earth worship is not the key to a better earth,and one must point out that countries like India, whose entire culture is grounded in pantheistic religion, have been notoriously poor stewards of creation.

There are other theological reasons for pantheism and animism being problematic that I cannot address in detail here. But one might consider that if all of nature is divine, then what would motivate us to prevent viruses like COVID from propagating itself? Is not COVID also part of divinity, and should it also not be allowed to flourish?

But the only point I need to make is that the biblical view and the pantheistic or animistic approaches to nature are also irreconcilable. Only moral behavior in light of natures Creator would matter to the health of the creation. Impersonal divinity does not communicate intent to us, nor do spirits indwelling physical objects inspire us to moral goodness.

Therefore, in lieu of contemporary discussions about the causes of climate change and the role of human agency in the earths pollution, the Christian must first attend to the biblical data. There she will find the truth about the relationship between God, man and mans world. Only then might we find a reasonable way forward with regard to the issue of the environment.

Commenting on Genesis 6:13, Gods decision to cleanse the earth with a great flood, Nahum Sarna points out this dynamic connection between mans morality and the health of the environment:

Genesis Rabba 31:7 interprets that the topsoil of the earth is to be removed [by the flood]. This reflects the biblical idea that moral corruption physically contaminates the earth, which must be purged of its pollution.

Of course, we find this idea earlier in the Old Testament when Cain slays Abel:

Cain said to his brother Abeland when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him. The LORD said to Cain, Where is your brother Abel? And he said, I do not know. Am I my brothers keeper? Then He said, What have you done? Hark, your brothers blood cries out to Me from the ground! Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brothers blood from your hand. If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you.

Genesis: 4:8-12 (JPS Torah Translation)

The first sin of man against man, the sin of murder, poisons the very earth upon which mankind walks. Abels innocent blood cries out to God from the ground. As sin, especially murder, multiplies over time in the proto-history of Genesis, God ultimately must cleanse the very ground itself. He does so by means of the flood waters, waters whose sole purpose is to re-consecrate Gods creation by sanitizing it of the consequences of immoral human action. Blood shed in unrighteous action necessitates a righteous flood. The human agents who perpetrated the action must be destroyed and the ground that they contaminated must be renewed.

This connection between human moral behavior, especially bloodshed, and the purity of the earth doesnt just apply to inanimate nature, like soil. It also applies to the animal kingdom as well. Upon Gods accommodation to allow the eating of animals after the flood, Noah receives the first kosher law. This new law prohibits the eating of live animals and demands the draining of as much blood as possible before the consumption of meat.

While this sounds esoteric to us today, kosher is meant to remind mankind of the value of Gods creation on the one hand and the source of that value on the other. Blood being the source of animate life and God being the source of blood, blood becomes the tangible symbol that points to God as the source of all life. The life-blood belongs to God, not man.

Kosher laws thus acted as a polemic against pagan practices, which saw the drinking of blood (both animal and human) as a means to revitalize ones own life source. The idea that mans life depended on the God of nature, as opposed to nature alone, is at the heart of this moral law. Naive internet critics who mock the Old Testament dietary laws are simply clueless as to the deeper meaning of the biblical text and its revelation about ultimate reality.

The Noachide Laws, which Sarna points out provided a basis for natural law theory, are universal to all humanity. Rabbis considered them revelation in the same sense as the more specified commands given to Moses. However, these general laws were applicable to all nations, not just Israel. In a Christian theological register one might say they are part of general as opposed to special revelation. Either way, they are not reserved for any one part of humanity, they apply to all humans everywhere and always.

Over time, the Rabbis elucidated, based on the Noahic narrative of Genesis 6-9, some basic moral laws. Sarna lists these basic laws as 6 fundamental prohibitions and one injunction:

The prohibitions against (1) idolatry, (2) blasphemy, (3) bloodshed, (4) incest and adultery, (5) robbery, (6) the injunction to establish a court of law [Gen. 9:6]; and (7) the prohibition against eating flesh cut from a living animal.

Sarna, 377

Sarna goes on to say it was these foundational moral laws that were the minimum requirement for an ordered and wholesome society (377). Without an ordered and wholesome society grounded in a minimal moral law, not only would there be a breaking of fellowship with the God of nature, there would inevitably be a breaking of nature itself.

Few today might actually consider that our contemporary environmental challenges may be directly connected to man breaking Gods basic moral laws. One doubts such a thought has ever crossed the mind of child demagogues like Greta Thunberg; or, better said, the minds of those who handle her as such. Instead, our modern malady centers on the fact we have relegated our stewardship of creation entirely to the realm of secular politics and endless discussions over how our human technology is utilized. Man, placing himself at the center of a (non)-created order, fails to see that his own morality could possibly be part of the climate problem.

Or, more precisely, he does not see that it is his moral actions in light of a universal and divinely ordained moral law that could be part of that problem. Instead, secular humanists create moral categories of their own which are meant to displace the universal moral law of God. They then use the language of morality to push a particular political ideology, playing off the innate sense of shame and guilt that inheres in each of us.

However, without a universal and divine law, this project devolves into the morality of one subset of society being labeled as the problematic or immoral (usually conservatives or capitalists), while the morality of some other subset of society is asserted to be the solution, or the true morality (usually leftists and socialists). The media then becomes complicit in this game, and then social and political belligerence ensues. Unfortunately, the only arbiter in this battle of whose morality wins out is which side wrests power from the other. In rejecting Gods design for manin nature, we have no reference point other than our own sentiments to determine how we should live with nature.

Unfortunately for secular humanists, transgressing what God has prohibited is the central factor in deleterious environmental change. As such, climate change advocates are barking up the wrong tree (of life) in their attempt to save the planet. By looking to themselves or, possibly, to other gods like those of the animists among them, environmentalists miss the mark.

Is it surprising then that among the so-called civilized nations who endlessly debate the reality of climate change, we find an atrocious record on the first 5 prohibitions extracted from the Genesis text?

What do we see in the Western nations especially, except the following: idolatry, usually in the form of secular humanism and its multifarious political ideologies; blasphemy, the cultural manifestations of that idolatry; bloodshed, most poignantly in the destruction of the unborn through legalized abortion; incest and adultery, represented most vividly in the constant attack on biblical marriage and total dissolution of the biblical sexual ethic; and finally theft, most flagrant in unethical business practices by major, multi-national corporations.

What about the final prohibition, the kosher law itself? Although the dietary laws of Moses were lifted by God when He revealed the gentile mission to Peter (Acts 10), perhaps there is still something to glean about our relationship to animal life. In a day when most of us barely, if ever, witness the process of meat production, we might bring the kosher law to mind as we partake of the animal flesh God has allowed us to eat, even the blood. Further, Christians who have not given sufficient thought to the inhumane treatment of animals that still occurs in our times, may need to do some hard thinking in this area.

The hard scientific data of environmentalismdoes not warrant the existential alarmism proffered by todays global media, even if climate change is real and will affect societies in the future. However, young people around the world experience existential angst as they are told their lives matter to the future of the natural world. But they have been lied to. For they have been told it is their political activity that matters and not their attitude and behavior vis-a-vis Gods universal moral law. Instead they are told to not have children, another transgression of Gods command to be fruitful and multiply, and one based on the entirely manufactured myth of overpopulation, a myth that also has racist roots.

So, in sum, as moderns and post-moderns we expect to be able to save our earth though our intellectual ingenuity, our techniques and our political activism. But we neglect to take into account that maybe to save our environment we should first stop the slaughter of innocent babies in wombs around the world. Or perhaps stop the internment of religious minorities in totalitarian countries like China. Or maybe stop our incessant desire to pursue sensuality in all its forms, most especially in our endless toying with Gods design plan for human sex.

Perhaps we should start here in our noble quest to save our earth. But to do that would be to admit that this earth is not ours but His.

See the original post here:
His Blood Cries Out From the Ground!: Climate Change And Moral Corruption - Patheos

There is a palpable difference between an entombed human body, ashes left over from cremation and effluent remaining from alkaline hydrolysis.

On Oct. 20, Archbishop Michael Jackels of Dubuque, Iowa, published a letter. In his letter, he argues:

As a theologian, I find Archbishop Jackels arguments unconvincing and suggest they skirt dangerously near (if not over) some very problematic lines that contribute to the contemporary cultures denigration of human dignity.

In his letter, Archbishop Jackels repeatedly speaks about respect for the body, regardless of whether an intact body is buried or incinerated or liquefied and laid to rest in a place blessed by clergy, whether in the earth, water, fire, or air, cemetery or not.

Jackels body is a rather equivocal term. There is a palpable difference that any child would recognize between an intact human body, ashes left over from cremation, and effluent remaining from alkaline hydrolysis. In saying that any child would recognize the difference, I do not intend disrespect for the archbishop, but to underscore a most basic reality that anyone would see before a torrent of words often stretched far beyond their common meaningobscures the reality.

Ashes are not bodies. Effluent is not a body. Bodies do not turn into ashes or effluent days after death except through active and violent human intervention that destroys a human body to turn it into ashes or effluent.

Our culture tends to see most things through the lens of technical efficiency (i.e., processes) but, in doing so, loses sight of what we are doing. Treating the body with respect is what we are intending, but what we are doing is burning it or chemically melting it down. Doesnt that figure into the respect equation?

I have no issue with green burial if it means no embalming or vaults, biodegradable burial containers, and no headstones. That is how most people have been buried for millennia. It is wholly natural. It respects the integrity of the body, which is a human body that was the temple of the Holy Spirit, to decay according to that natural law that governs human mortality.

But to lump green burial and traditional burial into the same basket as cremation, alkaline hydrolysis and recomposting is to yield to the temptation of technical efficiency i.e., taking a practical problem (what to do with a corpse) and resorting to any technological solution that, in the end, gets the job done.

The treatment of resting place in this letter strikes me as cavalier.

A cemetery is not just a useful place to put dead bodies. A cemetery is a part of the Church (Ad resurgendum cum Christo). It is a recognition that the Christian community is not limited by space and time. A cemetery is a community, of the dead, in which the faithful should be gathered, as opposed to a mantelpiece or closet shelf. A cemetery is a recognition that respect is due to the dead in their place.

Archbishop Jackels letter in fact strips the dead of place, something his own letter admits when he speaks of cemetery or not. The truth is that water, fire or air are not places. There is no place there where one can again encounter the remains of ones beloved.

He apparently sees any ongoing relationship to the remains of ones beloved as optional. That is a far departure from Christian tradition. And, while the Archbishop quotes the Vatican 2016 instruction on cremation, Ad Resurgendum Cum Christo to note the Church tolerates cremation for sanitary, economic, or social reasons, his treatment of the documents perspective on conservation of ashes is somewhat fast and loose.

He does admit that the Church demands the reverential disposition of remains. But Ad Resurgendum is explicit that the proper conservation of remains entails their being kept together, with interment of ashes in an urn in the ground. The document explicitly rejects the scattering of ashes.

Archbishop Jackels tries to avoid that problem by speaking of the body (which, arguably, is no longer a body) being laid to rest in a place blessed by clergy. But, as noted, there is no place here and the ashes or effluent laid to rest are in reality scattered because (a) water, fire, or air are inherently impermanent environments and (b) fluid by its nature inherently runs off.

The archbishops overriding concern in his letter appears to be Gods good, green earth. But the human person is not just another species inhabiting that earth. Genesis 1:27 makes the creation of man distinct, setting him over creation, not just in it, its viceroy, not just its inhabitant.

Ad Resurgendum voices concern about scattering ashes to avoid every appearance of pantheism. While garbed in religious language, the perspective of this letter can arguably be deemed quasi-pantheistic, reducing the human person, the sole creature God wanted for himself to just another part of nature, implicitly one with a heavy carbon footprint.

This has been the flaw of deep ecology but also remains a challenge for every ecology: human distinctiveness is far more under threat today by disregard than by climate change, with huge implications for how we make social policy.

The Anglican George Berkeley was famous for the question whether a tree falling in the wood makes a sound if no one hears it. Far more relevant today is the question: what does it matter? Absent man, whats a world for?

Original post:
Respect for the Body: A Response to Archbishop Jackels - National Catholic Register

Thursday, 4 November 2021

Abidjan (Agenzia Fides) - An African saying goes: "It is on the old mat that we sit down to weave the new one". To say that at the center of our stories, our African cultures sometimes find adequate answers to the major problems we face. Based on this reflection, the Ivorian missionary Father Donald Zagore, priest of the Society of African Missions (SMA), commented with Fides on the latest events of the 2021 United Nations Conference on climate change underway in Glasgow (Cop 26 ). "For example, one of the riches of African culture was its education in preserving the forest by clothing it with sacredness. The history of the sacred forests was not just a myth but a true cultural art with educational and moral purposes for their protection - explains the missionary from Abidjan. The idea of the forest as sacred referred to the idea of the forest as a sanctuary, that is to say an inviolable place, to be treated with deference, veneration and love". "A value also shared with European culture through its philosophical art. Authors like Spinoza, with his pantheism, saw in the order of nature an effective presence of God. Chateaubriand defined the forest as the first temples of Divinity. These days, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, who chairs the Conference until November 12, 2021, has not hesitated to describe the forests as cathedrals of nature". For Fr. Zagore, at a time when more than a hundred countries are committed to fighting against global warming by fighting to stop deforestation by 2030, "we must not deify the forest, but give birth to it in the heart of men and women this desire for the sacred with respect for nature in general and the forest in particular, by moderating its material exploitation for the benefit of economic interests". Placing the sacred at the center of creation would allow man to remember his true place in creation: that of administrator and not of master and owner of nature". (DZ /AP) (Agenzia Fides, 4/11/2021)

Read the original post:
AFRICA - "It is on the old mat that we sit and weave the new one": Cop 26, for a return to the sacred - Agenzia Fides

A few days ago, another 47 ethnic Santal received the sacrament of Christian initiation in the parish of Bhutahara Quasi. We have been visiting these villages for over seven years, said Fr Swapon Purification.More than 70 people will receive the baptism this Wednesday. In the past I worshipped nature and trees, one of the newly baptised said. Now I turn to Jesus in my prayers.

Naogaon (AsiaNews) A group of 47 adults were baptised last Wednesday in Korbala, a village in Bhutahara Quasi parish, Diocese of Rajshahi, northern Bangladesh. PIME missionaries founded the parish in 2005, which now has more than 2,500 members.

For years the missionaries worked among ethnic Santal and Oraon, tribal peoples indigenous to the area, who traditionally practise a form of pantheism closely linked to nature worship and the veneration of ancestral spirits.

We have been visiting these villages for over seven years, explained Fr Swapon Purification, speaking to AsiasNews.

We brought the Bible and the Word of God, celebrated Masses and proposed catechetical courses. The result has been surprising: 47 adults from 15 families received the baptism in Korbala. In another village in our parish, more than 70 people will receive the baptism this Wednesday.

Fr Swapon praised the catechists who, through their work, managed to enter the hearts of the new believers.

It seems to me that catechists have played a significant role and their commitment has been exemplary; they have continuously visited these remote areas that can only be reached after long hours of walking.

On each trip they stopped in the village for three to seven days to bring the word of God. The rest of the work was done by us priests together with the sisters.

Bernabas Hasda played a leading role in the new baptisms. An ethnic Santal, the 66-year-old catechist has been engaged in this precious task for 40 years.

For him, "There are huge opportunities to enter into people's hearts and bring Bangladeshs tribal community closer to Christianity. PIME missionaries have been at the forefront in this region of the country for years. We are following the path traced by them.

One of the newly baptised is Durga Joachim Basra, a 40-year-old farmer who shared his joy after receiving the sacrament.

In the past I worshipped nature and trees and practised, together with the tribe, rituals related to natures fruitfulness. I didn't have a specific God. Now I turn to Jesus in my prayers. I believe that thanks to him I will obtain salvation. I am very happy to have received baptism.

Another new believer, Buddhinath Hembrom, also expressed his joy. I thank the priests, nuns and catechists for bringing me closer to Jesus and for giving me the joy of baptism, he said.

Bangladesh is a Muslim-majority country. Christians constitute less than 1 per cent of the population.

Thanks to the work of priests, nuns and catechists, especially in remote villages and regions, the number of Bangladeshi Catholics is rising despite ongoing tensions with majority Muslims, which often lead to violence against Christians.

Continue reading here:
BANGLADESH Rising number of baptised among tribal people in Rajshahi - AsiaNews

According to Richard Dawkins, the gifted exponent of evolution, Einstein was an atheist: Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God, and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so, inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim the illustrious thinker as their own.[1] Dawkins gives a definition of atheism as believing that there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe.[2]

He explains that some scientists sound religious, but if you delve more deeply into their thinking, they are in fact atheists. He presents Einstein as a prime example, and describes Einsteins religion as pantheism, which he calls sexed-up atheism.[3] According to Dawkins, The one thing his theistic critics got right, was that Einstein was not one of them. He was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion he was a theist.[4] But has Dawkins totally misunderstood Einstein? Is there clear unequivocal evidence that Einstein did believe in God?

It is important to get some definitions straight at the outset, because Dawkins tells us that in his opinion to deliberately confuse the two understandings of God is an act of intellectual high treason.[5] Strong words indeed. In the Oxford English Dictionary we find the following definitions: theism is the belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism; and the belief in one God, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism. It is important to note that, firstly, the definition of theism does not necessarily include the notion that God is personal. Secondly, atheism is defined as a disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Thirdly, pantheism is a belief or philosophical theory that God is not only immanent (indwelling and sustaining the universe) but also identical with the universe.

Dawkins explains that in dealing with Einsteins religious views he relied on Max Jammers book Einstein and Religion. Dawkins wrote: The extracts that follow are taken from Max Jammers book (which is also my main source of quotations from Einstein himself on religious matters).[6] However a very different picture emerges when we study what Einstein actually said, again as recorded in Jammers book. It seems Dawkins needs to be reminded of the Ten New Commandments he lists in his own book. The seventh reads: Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.[7] The following quotations from Einstein are all in Jammers book:

Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.[8]

Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.[9]

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to that of man.[10]

The divine reveals itself in the physical world.[11]

My God created laws His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.[12]

I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.[13]

What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.[14]

This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.[15]

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.[16]

What gives the lie to Dawkins claim that Einstein was an atheist is Einsteins repeated references to a superior spirit, a superior mind, "a spirit vastly superior to men, a veneration for this force etc. etc. This is not atheism. It is clear Einstein believed that there is something beyond the natural, physical world a supernatural creative intelligence. Further confirmation that Einstein believed in a transcendent God comes from his conversations with his friends. David Ben-Gurion, the former Prime Minister of Israel, records Einstein saying There must be something behind the energy.[17] And the distinguished physicist Max Born commented, He did not think religious belief a sign of stupidity, not unbelief a sign of intelligence.[18] Therefore on Dawkins own definition, Einstein is not an atheist. On one point however Dawkins is correct: Einstein did not believe in a personal God, who answers prayers and interferes in the universe. But he did believe in an intelligent mind or spirit, which created the universe with its immutable laws.

According to Dawkins, Einstein was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion he was a theist.[19] The evidence from Jammers book is the exact opposite. What Einstein actually said is:

I am not an atheist, and I dont think I can call myself a pantheist.[20]

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.[21]

"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."[22]

According to Jammer, Einstein always protested against being regarded as an atheist.[23] What evidence then does Dawkins have that Einstein was indignant at being called a theist? Dawkins needs to explain this very peculiar discrepancy. Lastly Dawkins argues that science and religion are incompatible. Again Einstein takes the opposite point of view: A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.[24]

Max Jammer was a personal friend of Einstein and Professor of Physics at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. His book is a comprehensive survey of Einsteins writing, conversations and speeches on God and religion. In his book, Jammer wrote, Einstein was neither an atheist nor an agnostic[25] and he added, Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. This subtle but decisive distinction has long been ignored.[26] His conclusion is that Einstein believed in God, albeit not a God who answers prayers. Eduard Bsching sent a copy of his book Es gibt keinen Gott (There is no God) to Einstein, who suggested a different title: Es gibt keinen persnlichen Gott (There is no personal God).[27] However in his letter to Bsching, Einstein commented, A belief in a personal God is preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook.[28] According to Jammer, Not only was Einstein not an atheist, but his writings have turned many away from atheism, although he did not set out to convert anyone.[29] Einstein was very religious; he wrote, Thus I came despite the fact that I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents to a deep religiosity.[30]

On Spinoza, Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."[31] Some like Dawkins think Spinoza equated God with the material universe (pantheism), but Spinoza himself made clear this is mistaken. Spinoza wrote, "The view of certain people that I identify God with nature is quite mistaken."[32] The French philosopher Martial Guroult suggested the term panentheism, rather than pantheism, to describe Spinozas view of the relation between God and the universe. The Oxford English Dictionary defines panentheism as the theory or belief that God encompasses and interpenetrates the universe, but at the same time is greater than, and independent of it. So panentheism is similar to pantheism, but crucially in addition believes that God exists as a mind or a spirit. The idea that God is both transcendent and immanent is also a major tenet of both Christianity and Judaism.

Richard Dawkins describes faith as evil: I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion.[33] However some of Einsteins theories were not demonstrated scientifically until years after publication. Yet Einstein had faith in them. Nor were all Newtons theories established at the time. Newton, Darwin and Einstein all had faith in their theories, before they were shown to be true. We all have many intuitive beliefs that we are justified in holding, even if we cannot demonstrate their validity, such as belief in the past, belief in rationality and belief that we are not dreaming. It is impossible to live life without faith. Indeed Einstein like many other scientists believed that science is based on a faith in the rationality of the universe. In his own words, Ultimately the belief in the existence of fundamental all-embracing laws rests on a sort of faith.[34] Therefore to describe faith as being as evil as smallpox is frankly absurd.

But isnt Einsteins understanding of an impersonal God totally removed from Christian, Jewish and Muslim thinking? Max Jammer refers in his book to the leading theologian Hans Kng, who pointed out that the Bible never refers to God as a person. Kng explains, Of course in my youth I had a simple, nave, anthropomorphic understanding of God. At the beginning of life that is normal. It is less normal for a grown man or woman to preserve his or her childlike understanding.[35] For Kng, God is not a person as man is a person. God transcends the concept of person.[36] Or as C.S. Lewis put it, God is not less than personal but is beyond personality.[37] Kng explains that part of the problem here lies in the meaning of the word person derived from the Latin persona which has changed over time. It originally meant a mask used by an actor on the stage.[38] So one actor could play several parts, using different personae. In this way Jesus may be seen above all as the persona of God entering the human stage. This original meaning of the word has been almost completely lost.

To sum up: Einstein was like Newton before him deeply religious and a firm believer in a transcendent God. However Einstein rejected anthropomorphic and personal understandings of the word God. His beliefs may be seen as a form of Deism: "the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being as the source of finite existence, with rejection of revelation and the supernatural doctrines of Christianity" (The Oxford English Dictionary). If any intellectual high treason has been committed, it has been committed by Dawkins himself, who has failed to deal carefully with what Einstein actually said, thereby confusing two very different understandings of God. He should have paid more attention to Max Jammers book, and to the conclusions Jammer reached after studying all the evidence. There is another conclusion to be drawn from this: Dawkins has pointed out the attempt in America to rebrand atheists as brights, implying atheists are clever and theists stupid. If Einstein was clearly a theist, like Newton, this is arrant nonsense. This should help to stop the bullying of Christian children, who are told they are stupid to believe in God. One girl personally known to the author was bullied so much for being a Christian that she had to move schools. So, after all of Dawkins rhetorical bluster and verbal swagger, we are left with fallacious reasoning and factual errors a case of argument weak, shout louder.

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London Transworld 2006), p.34.[2] Dawkins, p.35.[3] Dawkins, p.40.[4] Dawkins, p.39.[5] Dawkins, p.41.[6] Dawkins, p.37.[7] Dawkins, p.299.[8] H.G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.322, quoted in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1999), p.40.[9] A. Einstein to P. Wright 24 January 1936, Einstein Archive reel 52-337; Jammer, p.93.[10] Quoted in H. Dukas and B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein The Human Side (USA Princeton University Press 1981); Jammer, p.144.[11] Z. Rosenkranz, Albert through the Looking Glass (Jewish National Library Jerusalem, 1998), pp.xi, 80; Jammer, p.151.[12] Einstein in conversation with W. Hermann in Hermanns book Einstein and the Poet (USA Branden Press, 1983), p.132; Jammer, p.123.[13] E. Salaman, A Talk with Einstein The Listener 54 (1955):370-371; Jammer, p.123.[14] E. Strauss, Assistant bei Albert Einstein in C. Seelig, Helle Zeit-Dunkle Zeit (Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1956), p.72; Jammer, p.124.[15] Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (New York: Random House 1954), p.255; Jammer, p.132.[16] Albert Einstein, The Quotable Einstein, ed. Alice Calaprice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp.195-6.[17] Jammer, p.96.[18] Jammer, p.96.[19] Jammer, p.39.[20] G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (Macaulay, New York 1936) p.186; Jammer, p.48.[21] Einstein to an unidentified addressee dated 7th August 1941. Einstein archive reel 54-927; Jammer p.97.[22] Einstein in a conversation with Hubertus zu Lwenstein, in Lwensteins book Towards the Further Shore (London Victor Gollancz 1968), p.156; Jammer, p.97.[23] Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p.150.[24] Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, printed in A. Einstein Ideas and Opinions (Crown, New York 1954,) pp.44-49 quote on p.46; Jammer p.31.[25] Jammer, p.96.[26] Jammer, p.150.[27] Jammer, p.50.[28] A. Einstein letter to Bsching; Jammer, p.149.[29] Jammer, p.151.[30] Jammer, p.19.[31] In 1929, Einstein was asked by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram. Jammer, p.49.[32] B. Spinoza, Correspondence of Benedict de Spinoza, Wilder Publications (March 26, 2009), letter 73.[33] Richard Dawkins, 'Is Science a Religion?', The Humanist (January/February 1997, American Humanist Association).[34] Einstein to P. Wright, 24 January 1936. Einstein archive reel 52-337; Jammer, p.93.[35] Hans Kng, What I Believe (London Continuum 2010), p.102.[36] Hans Kng, Does God Exist? (London SCM 1984), pp.631-633.[37] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London Fontana 1955), p.136.[38] Hans Kng, Does God Exist?, pp.631-633.

2011 John MarshThis article is published on bethinking.org by the kind permission of the author.A slightly revised version of this article forms part of 'Chapter 7: Liberal Delusions: Religion is Untrue and Harmful' in the author's book The Liberal Delusion (Arena Books, 2012).

Read the original here:
Did Einstein Believe in God? - bethinking.org

All forms of divination are to be rejected. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. [CCC 2116]

Jesuit Father Mitch Pacwa is an EWTN host who is president and founder of Ignatius Productions and senior fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. Among his many books is Catholics and the New Age, a book he published in 1992 which tells of his own experience of the New Age movement and warning Catholics to stay away from it.

In a conversation with this writer in which he addressed this topic, he said, New Age is a mega-trend in religion and it has received its newest impetus from within the Catholic Church.

Father Pacwa described New Age as a combination of monism and pantheism which leads the individual to make himself God. Monism is the belief that everything is one and pantheism holds that everything is God.

The element of monism comes when New Age experimenters begin their search for an altered state of consciousness, seeking to break down the barriers between themselves and the world around them. This altered state, explained the priest, can be achieved by the use of illegal drugs, meditation and various breathing techniques.

(New Agers) try to see themselves as one with the Universe, said Father Pacwa. Theyre big supporters of such things as one-world religion and one-world government.

New Age also has elements of pantheism, deriving its ideas from Hinduism and other eastern philosophies. If everything is God, then necessarily you are God.

Combining these aspects of monism and pantheism, continued Father Pacwa, the New Age believer then awaits the coming of the millennium or New Age, when all people realize theyre God and there will be a new era of peace, love and tranquility. Our problem now, believes the New Ager, is that we dont realize were God and we resort to crime, war and violence.

Father Pacwa contended that New Age is a multi-billion dollar industry. The profits on such things as New Age books, retreats, meditation aids, items related to the occult, speaking engagements and the like add up to billions of dollars annually.

Over half of the Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. hire New Agers to give seminars to their employees, the priest stated. Father Pacwa discussed the lucrative work of a number of New Age advocates, including actress Shirley MacLaine, who has become rich selling New Age books.

New Agers believe in the concepts of karma and re-incarnation, similar to beliefs held in Hinduism. Transposed onto New Age philosophy, Father Pacwa opined, many New Agers believe that people are continually reborn into new bodies as they strive to reach their end goal of enlightenment the realization that they are God. Christianity condemns such beliefs: It is appointed that men die once, and after this comes judgment. (Hebrews 9:27)

Father Pacwa provided recommendations for responding to New Age believers. The first way to respond is dont. Let the [New Age] madness take its course.

He reasoned that New Agers will recognize the irrationality of many of their beliefs and choose to leave on their own.

A second response is, Know your faith. The Bible clearly condemns the work of spiritists, he explained. Christianity and New Age are obviously at odds with one another.

Additionally, the priest recommended that listeners dust off their Baltimore Catechism, which explicitly condemns sances, charms, spells, believing in dreams, fortune telling or spiritists. It also frowns upon palm reading, astrology and use of Ouija board.

Father Pacwa explained that many of these activities which can play a role in the New Age movement are forbidden by God, giving his power to creatures. If youve been involved in any of these things, go to confession and ask Gods forgiveness.

The solution to the New Age movement, Father Pacwa concluded, is encouraging New Agers to study the Gospels and learn about Christ. People involved in New Age are searching for meaning in life, the true meaning being found only in Christ. People are often attracted to New Age for selfish reasons, he asserted, because they dont want to believe in objective good and evil and dont want to obey Gods law, preferring instead to create their own.

Here is the original post:
Three Decades Later, This Classic Book About the New Age Is More Relevant Than Ever - National Catholic Register

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was required reading for literature undergraduates 40 years ago, and it has stayed with me ever since, though nowadays I seldom return to the original Middle English. Thats laziness, and it deprives me of some of the best alliterative poetry in English. But what translations do give is the story, which has everything necessary for a good novel: a perfectly-formed plot, a protagonist with a tormented inner life, stirring action with neatly counter-pointed violence and sex, startling metaphors and superb natural description. Gawains winter journey and the hunting sequences in the snow-bound forest remind us that nature, in the 14th century, was not the object of nostalgic quest, but simply the world as it was: beautiful, dangerous, uncomfortable and Other. The poem also carries a trailing weight of symbolism that you can drag as far as you like into the realms of Celtic myth and pagan pantheism. Green Men, fertility rituals, nature spirits and shamanic games have enjoyed a comeback since my dusty undergraduate days.

The poet takes three themes from folk-tale and weaves them into a seamless whole that far surpasses the sum of the disparate ingredients. First, the beheading game: the Green Knight appears on New Years Day and challenges King Arthurs knights to an exchange of blows. Gawain accepts, and strikes off the Green Knights head. Not a whit abashed, the Green Knight picks up his head, mounts his horse, and rides away. A year and a day later, Gawain treks into the wild forest to keep his part of the bargain. The beheading game is interwoven with a seduction game: three times the lady of Bertilaks mysterious castle makes a startlingly upfront proposal to Gawain ye ar welcum to my cors and twice he resists, but the third time... Its also an exchange of winnings story thrice Bertilak gives Gawain the animals he has killed in the days hunt, and thrice Gawain honourably passes on to his host the kisses he has received. All classic folk-tale motifs, but this is also (stretching a generic point just a little) a novel. Gawain is a modern, if to be modern is to suffer inner torment, to feel unsure and inadequate, to be torn between outmoded belief systems and desire to live, and love, while life and love are on offer. The poet makes a half-hearted attempt to keep the poem within the bounds of Arthurian romance: the chivalric ideal is upheld, because in the end the whole thing turns out to be - inevitably - the fault of a powerful old woman. When I was 19, Gawain was my undisputed hero of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Now I see a whole cast of troubled, resolute characters the lady, Bertilak, Morgan La Faye herself whose voices reach out from their 14th-century trappings of lost language and chivalric tale, and sound as clearly human today as ever they did.

Read this article:
Book of a Lifetime: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight - The Independent