Interpretations of the Bible throughout the centuries

Throughout the centuries there have been various interpretations and commentaries about the bible. Among the best-known are one from the 11th century, of Rabbi Shlomo Yitschaki (known as Rashi, 1040 – 1105) – a French rabbi of the Middle Ages, considered as the greatest scholar ever to interpret the Old Testament. Another well-valued interpretation of the Old Testament is from a much later date – the 19th century – the one of Moshe David Cassuto, an Italian Rabbi and Scholar (1883 – 1951).

Many of such interpretations are meant primarily to those who devote themselves to reading in and learning the Bible, and otherwise are too complicated for the average person to understand.

Bible stories told in simple language

In addition, there are many books which tell the Bible stories in a more "simple, readable" language. Many of such books, intended for adults as well as for children, attempt to be accurate to the Scripture, crafted in a simple, understandable language, aimed at having the reader (s) grasp and understand the main point (s) of the stories (I do not mention here any examples of such stories in order not to "advertise" any of them).

Yet, Mordechai Rimor, Ph.D., a psychologist, a philosopher, a college teacher and the author of many academic and literary works, has found a unique way to bring the bible's stories to our attention (Mordechai Rimor, Ph.D. : Variations on the Book: Glimpses from the Bible, Create Space Independent Publishing, 2012, 590 Pages).

The Uniqueness of Dr. Rimor's "Variations on the Book"

"Variations on the Book", is unique in form and style, featuring brief tales – one page or less. Each tale is based on one verse taken from the Old or the New Testament. In the more than 500 tales in "Variations on the Book" Rimor allows his imagination to carry him beyond "dry" interpretation of the verse and to a more poetic, interesting, compact story-line. In so doing he not only brings forth a unique approach (different from many others who tried to literally interpret the Bible), but also engages us, the readers, in visualizing the picture he draws in front of our eyes.

What's unique and refreshing about Dr. Rimor's "Variations on the Book" is that he does not try to interpret the bible stories, nor does he attempt to re-write or craft them in a simple language. Rather, he takes a paragraph which attracts his attention and, based on this single paragraph, he crafts a short, concise fictional story, applying his own imaginary powers.

In so doing Dr. Rimor gives us – the readers – the freedom and the "permission" to use our own imagination, psychological and philosophical perception – just as he does! – to relate to the Bible's stories in our own way , thus linking our own life-experiences and wisdom to the Bible's stories.

Many literary as well as religion scholars have long agreed on the premise that the Bible engulfs all possible "scenarios" of human kind, from love and death, to betrayal and war; from belief and devotion, to sadness and happiness. Dr. Rimor's book takes a note of such a well-known argument and uses his fruitful imagination to bring a new, current life-perspective to many of the Bible's verses.

As such, Rimor's "Variations on the Book" hints at the educational value of the Bible, by "allowing" and encouraging us to open our eyes and imagination to the Bible's stories – each from our own perception and life-experiences.

Is there any better way to get "involved" with these stories than on a personal level?

Does the coherent, scientific and intelligent brain of the human being help him ponder as to why the Earth plane presently is being wrapped up with natural catastrophe? Do the massive media realize the reason behind these disasters? Do they realize it is not the weather that is wicked but it is the mind of the humanity that has become wicked which is the sole reason to force the season of natural disasters? Though it sounds illogical, it is very true as there is a direct relationship between man and the nature. As is the nature of humanity, so is the reaction of nature.

Nature is not lifeless. It is full of life and so is the earth that shakes with its quake; trees that grow and wither away; fire that expands when raged; water that drowns any species when its noble aspirations are drowned in sorrow; omnipresent sky in which the Sun, Moon and the stars sojourn to witness the greed and selfishness of humanity. All these prove nature is not a toy to be played with but it is full of life, reaction and opposition. It ought to be nurtured and this is the reason why some people in different parts of the world refer nature as 'mother nature' and hence revere and worship it with love and devotion.

Nature reflect the human mind and living. Humanity is beautiful when noble. But the same humanity terrorizes the entire globe with its immeasurable ego and its selfishness which rules the entire world. Similarly nature can be as beautiful and scaring as it can be. Can we imagine how ferocious the nature can be if its might and patience are tested? Are we ready to face the Earth's grumble, Sky's fearful dark shadow, Clouds' shrieking transparent down pour, magnificent Mountain's tilt, Fire's silent expansion and Ocean's growl? If not, it is time for us to contemplate not only on the mercy of the Lord but on our faults too.

Until we make a step to point out at our own mistakes and try to rectify our age old selfish behavior, nature continues its sojourn towards its ultimate goal of hacking the roots of selfishness or even ending the lives of selfish people in this world. Present day human being takes pride in the modern Science, invention and discoveries but the same being tends to forget that there is a divine energy that created this very intelligent being.

Nature's fury is only to remind humanity to live as human beings and not to exceed limits; to live a life of human values ​​and not a materialistic and sophisticated life. Money comes and goes where as human values ​​come and grow. In ignorance, humanity assumes wealth to be the ultimate goal. They are so sure that wealth gives them immense happiness and security. But did the same wealth which they worshipped and loved grace their kith and kin and their lives? Did it grant them security? Did the nature discriminate between rich and poor while causing disasters? No, wealth is only for a living; it is not life itself. Life is worthy and has its own sacred purpose.

A life is not granted to a human being to struggle every minute to earn momentary riches and wealth, to enjoy pleasures, weep in times of sorrow, laugh in times of happiness, hurt the beings surrounding him, take pride in his materialistic talents and skills , be egoistic because of his knowledge and then to leave his last breath where in it has not felt God at heart. A life is only to be grateful to the Lord who created it. The only purpose of a being is to be humanitarian on his life sojourn and lead his life as an instrument of service to God and live his only life to meditate on the Lord, float in His mercy and thus merge in His divine love.

Until humanity learns, accepts and rectifies its mistakes, until humanity steps on to the ladder of spiritual realization, until humanity starts to crave to quench its thirst and hunger for God, until humanity realizes that wealth is not the ultimate goal, until humanity reveres nature , until humanity slashes the roots of ego, selfishness, hatred and jealousy, nature doesn't stop intensifying its poisonous pangs of devastation; doesn't spare destroying any part on the earth plane. The nature expects the humanity in the world to change to better. If humanity doesn't change, nature doesn't care even to change the form of the Earth plane itself in order to change the attitude and living of humanity.

As long as humanity is flooded with incalculable selfishness, thousands of lives are sure to be flooded with uncontrollable water oozing from every where; as long as the hearts of humanity are swathed with rage, the volcanoes keep erupting with ferocity; as long as humanity with its sins disregards and disrespects the very base it stands upon, the Earth keeps grumbling and quivering moving the entire roots of humanity; as long as the water of warmth and love are polluted, the ocean exceeds its limits and rumbles thus occupying the lives of humanity with grief. Not until we learn the life lessons of love, humility, selflessness and forbearance will the nature forgive humanity nor forget our sins.

Let us not be the reason for nature's wrath. Isn't it the responsibility of our Creator to expect humanity to tread on the path of Justice with every throat bedecked with nothing but Truth; to only spread the fragrance of Love; to have the feeling of Oneness; to let go of enmity forever from our hearts; to breathe Selflessness; to lead our only lives as instruments of Service to the needy; to have Respect for co-human beings; to have the leaders Serve the people than to rule over them; to realize and utilize Human Life; to contemplate on one's own mistakes rather than on others'? Above all isn't it our inbound responsibility to meditate on the Lord who deserves to be reminded every moment as the very breath of humanity? Until humanity sojourns from Darkness of leading a materialistic life to Light of judicious lives, until it craves for a change of life from Illusion to Illumination, until it pangs for Immortality instead of Immorality, nature keeps shuddering every sphere of the lives of humanity at every point of time with its various facets endangering every being with fear and insecurity. Why lead such an imprudent life? This is the time to act upon nature's reaction. Before the whole world is consumed by nature's fury, wake up, arise and march forward only to lead a valuable life of meaning and worth. Be humble towards the mighty nature; be loving and grateful to the gracious Lord by always encompassing His name in the minds and His form in the hearts and with those pure hearts pray every day for the entire globe to be enveloped in welcoming Peace and selfless Love.

"Nature warns humanity to change for the good; if not it will change the very living of humanity in such a way that they further do not have lives even to change."
– Sharmila Sanka

Desertification is the process whereby land areas originally supporting plant growth and human economic activities continually become deserts. The process is rendering many surfaces of the Earth uninhabitable and displacing communities originally residing in such areas. This has significantly reduced arable and pastoral lands and caused land related conflicts between groups who are moving away from the deserts and the indigenous communities. Deadly tribal and / or religious conflicts witnessed in Nigeria recently are attributed to conflicts over land use between the southern agrarian communities and the northern pastoral nomads. According to Aljazeera news bulletin of 31st March 2010, the Sahara desert is to blame for forcing the pastoral communities southwards in search of pasture leading to the conflicts.

Environmentalists and some climate scientists are blaming desertification on human economic activities. These groups maintain that by deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions, humans are contributing to global warming and desertification. Their contention is that humans can mitigate desertification by planting more trees and reducing greenhouse gas emissions especially CO2.

As hot deserts spread, many rivers and lakes are drying up in all of the world's five continents (WWF 2007, Vietfun 2009). But the magnitude of desertification and its history raise questions as to whether humans are really responsible for this phenomenon. This also raises another question as to whether the methods being used in combating desertification are appropriate.

According to 'Global Desertification-The Israeli Experience,' "desertification is nothing new … desertification was part of the natural development of our planet." The United States Geological Society (USGS) concurs thus; "the world's great deserts were formed by natural processes interacting over long intervals of time. During most of these times, deserts have grown and shrunk independent of human activities."

In the early ages human populations were relatively low for which reason it was possible to live as hunters and gatherers. The low population meant little pressure was exerted on the natural environment and it is not possible that their action caused deserts to occur. From history we learn that people have lived in deserts through nomadic lifestyles. The nomadic people adapted themselves to desert life by keeping livestock and migrating from regions worst hit by drought to relatively better areas in search of water and pasture. There is no evidence that pastoralist communities once practiced crop farming in the process of which they cleared the forests and later changed their lifestyles. Neither has it been observed that people change from crop farming to nomadic or pastoral lifestyles.

Places do not turn into deserts simply because forests have been cleared for crop farming. Instead they continue to support plant life much like they would support forests. It is true deforestation leads to soil erosion. But soil erosion is not desertification. A place can not turn into a desert because its top soils have been washed away. Deserts occur because of excess heat which dry the soil and kill its nutrients.

Before blaming desertification on human economic activities, it is necessary to identify what caused deserts in the early ages and if and when when these forces stopped acting. If they are still acting then we need to know to what extent they are responsible and to what extent humans are responsible if indeed they really are.

For along time humans were known to think with prejudice that they were God's special creation. This is characterized in religious books today like the Bible. But Charles Darwin and other evolutionists rubbished such ideas and endeavored to relate humans with other animals. This lead to major development in medicine especially when humans used animals to study the functioning of organisms and later used their findings to improve human health.

It is unfortunate that today anthropocentric thinking is manifesting itself in sciences which are shallow-rooted and inhibiting research and development similar to what transpired in the Dark Ages when the likes of St. Augustine of Hippo were considered thinkers.

Reference

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs "Combating Desertification – The Israeli Experience",
1999. Web. 30 October 2009
USGS "Desertification" 1997 Web. 30 October 2009
WWF "Drying Rivers", 2007. Web. 30 October 2009
VietFun For All "Drying Rivers, Lakes and Reservoirs", Web. 30 Oct 2009

For centuries now, human beings have perpetuated and disseminated certain limiting beliefs that result in limiting attitudes and behaviors. As a result, humanity has for centuries transmitted and preserved beliefs that only damage us as a species. Instead of uniting us and making us stronger, they weaken us. Only by identifying, questioning and changing those beliefs will humanity advance into a new and more accepting existence.

Let me give you an example. Most human beings consider theirs one of the best, if not THE best culture in the world. Many people believe things such as …

• Mine is the best culture in the world.
• My culture transmits values, principles and virtues like no other culture.
• Many of the traditions in my culture make us better than others

When new human beings are then born into one of those cultures, they learn to despise others, even though they originally had no choice at all where to be born. They will antagonize others, just based on those beliefs. And might even feel great insecurity or anxiety if anybody then proves them wrong.

That's the way in which conflict and crises are created. There are many of those limiting beliefs transmitted from generation to generation. Some examples are:

• My culture and inherited worldview hold THE truth
• Only those adhering to my culture are right
• Only WE are the chosen ones. All others are less than us
• We are whom we were born to be. By being born where we were born, we are superior to others because our culture offers us some principles, views or beliefs that make us better
• Success is humanity's ultimate goal
• Human beings need to be important. We need to strive and to always try and be better
• Life is a race we need to run
• Life is hard

When two people from different cultures but with the same belief meet, both are convinced that theirs is the superior one. By trying to prove the other one wrong, conflict arises. And because they firmly believe their opinion, they try to prove their views superior and try to convince the other person of their mistake.

By perpetuating certain beliefs, we also perpetuate limitations and conflict.

This doesn't need to be like this, though. Human beings have a choice. They can choose to modify the beliefs they transmit just a little bit so that they are not that limiting. Instead of: "Life is a race we need to run," the belief can be something like, "Life can be a race to run." Instead of: "My culture and inherited worldview hold THE truth," it could be, "my culture and inherited worldview hold my truth." Or even, instead of: "Life is hard." something like, "life can be hard or not". Just those changes in the wording open new possibilities. By not being so limiting, we give the next generation permission to question the rigidity of their beliefs and the choice to accept others more easily, thus helping humanity come to an understanding.

I know this approach will need some time, some generations, to become a reality. But no road is walked without taking a first step. I wish my little reflexion here today could help you take that tiny first step by making you at least think about this and about your own limiting beliefs from a slightly different perspective.

If you then discover that your own beliefs are limiting you, ask yourself how to change the way in which you express them every day when talking with others, with your children or any other children still growing, with others in society, with your peers and friends. Ask yourself how to contribute by planting the new seed of a less limiting belief that can grow into your culture. When somebody expresses a limiting cultural belief, offer a less rigid one instead so a little hope can be shared. We can all change those beliefs step by step, seed by seed, word by word. Help yourself and help generations to come do away with some of our obstacles, limitations and conflicts. Redefine your own beliefs.

I encourage you to consider and approach some more ideas:

• Replace limiting and sentencing words from your beliefs. Instead of saying, always, never, everyone, nobody, and so on, open your expression to wider terms such as, occasionally, seldom, most people, just some, and others.
• When speaking, be it with adults or children, add an extra layer of flexibility to your words. Leave a door open to doubt. After all, no human being knows it ALL; no human being has lived it ALL. Thus, begin expressing your beliefs by declaring that they are YOUR beliefs but there could be others as valid as yours.
• Ask yourself what is limiting you, what obstacles you face in life and check how you talk about them to yourself. There's very likely room for changes in the way you speak to yourself too.
• When thinking about the supremacy of your culture, remember that all other great cultures in history were finally replaced by newer ones. Question the historical basis of your belief. Question your beliefs from their roots.
• Give yourself permission to doubt. Allow doubt in others, too.
• Look for and define beliefs that trigger positive instead of negative feelings, thoughts and emotions in you.
• Give yourself permission to learn and continue growing.

Enjoy life, ALL of it,

The duty of a volunteer is to serve. We serve because we choose to and to make a positive difference in the world. It’s a wonderful thing. With volunteering comes great satisfaction in knowing your work will help others and bring them together. And though the joys are obvious to some, many people do not understand that the experience is an exchange of heart, and as a volunteer you are a recipient as well.

What’s incredible about volunteering is how much you’re able learn. With an organization like Habitat for Humanity, you can develop leadership skills, improve your communication, and network with licensed professionals. Volunteers can also expect to learn more about construction while working on exciting projects. All of this learning will make you a more dedicated, caring, and valuable person as well. When looking at the bigger picture, it’s not what you are doing that has the greatest impact on your life; its who you are becoming.

As a volunteer, you can expect to meet new friends. When you’re surrounded by like-minded, positive, and motivated people, you’re sure to feel happy and excited around them. These people will have a strong impact on your life. Soon, the experience will inspire you to do even more. For instance, with Habitat for Humanity, you could make presentations to promote the club, design a flyer for a fundraising event, or contribute an article to a newsletter or website. Then you can focus these new skills on advancing your career!

The work you do makes a powerful impact in your community. In fact, your work makes an impact on communities across the globe! Non-profit organizations like Habitat for Humanity have build homes for over a million people worldwide. An accomplishment of this size couldn’t have happened without dedicated volunteers, who are the backbone to such an organization. And what a feeling it is to look at a completed Habitat house and say, “I helped to make that happen!”

Once a person realizes how much there is to gain by volunteering, the experience will feel more like an opportunity to grow and learn. As a result, your attitude will change and others will see how happy you are. Then you can share with them what you are doing that’s changing your life. There are certainly many benefits to volunteering. I encourage you to become a volunteer, and join a Habitat affiliate or another organization dedicated to helping others. Your contribution, no matter how small, makes a difference.

In recent years, a lot has been said about mental health and how so many people are not in a good way. Now, although some people are not in a good way due to something that they have personally been through, it could be said that there are others are not in a good way due to what the modern day world is like.

When it comes to the former, someone may have experienced a loss or been in a car accident, for instance. On the other hand, when it comes to the latter, the stress of modern living and trying to adapt to a dysfunctional society may have messed them up, for instance.

Both Ways

However, although it would be easy to say that there are two categories, this wouldn’t be the complete truth. The reason for this is that even if something in ones personal life has affected them, their experience can still be influenced by what is taking place around them.

For example, if someone has experienced loss and they live in a society that doesn’t embrace the grieving process, it can be a lot harder for them to go through this. Most of the people that they come into contact with could basically encourage them to ‘move on’ and to ‘be strong’, meaning that they will live in an environment that is invalidating and it could then take them longer to heal.

Self-Sustaining

With that aside, it could be said that society traumatises people in a number of different ways and the people that it has traumatised help to maintain this society. This doesn’t mean that the average person goes out of their way to traumatise others, though.

Nonetheless, the way in which they behave can help to keep the society that does traumatise others in place. What this emphasises is how much power an individual has in the world, and while they might not be able to change the world, they can behave in a way and spread a message that does change the world.

One Need

When someone is in a traumatised state, their need to survive will be more important than any other need. What this means is that their so-called ‘higher’ needs will end up being overlooked.

Being happy, joyful and free is not going on be on their mind; what will be on their mind is feeling safe and secure, having enough resources to exist and removing anything that will cause them to feel uncertain or experience doubt.

The Norm

Yet, although this is how someone can be if they are in a traumatised state, this is how so many people experience life. But as living in this way will have become so normal, most of these people probably won’t even realise that they are in a traumatised state.

In this state, someone won’t be operating as a whole human being; they will be operating as a fractured human being. Still, someone like this can be the perfect obedient worker and they are unlikely to create any resistance either.

Broken Down

One is then going to be like a car that turns on but can only go about ten miles an hour; like this car, they won’t be functioning at full capacity. Or, instead of being an individual in their own right, they will just be a cog in another person’s wheel.

Along with this, they can look towards the government to look after them and to protect them. Without a sense of safety and security inside them, due to being in a traumatised state, they will look towards an external source to provide this.

Distracted

When someone lives in this way, they are not exactly going to have a fulfilling life. They will have a life of routine, a job that is mind numbing and they are unlikely to care that their freedoms are being taken away.

Someone like this will have been domesticated and, to top it off, they can be completely oblivious to the fact that the people in power are not willing to respect the fact that that they are a sovereign being. The trouble is that as one is in a traumatised state and has a strong need to be comfortable, not free, there is going to be no reason for them to notice what is taking place.

Cui Bono

An integrated human being – someone who can think critically, is capable of showing love and is not interested in controlling anyone – would want to do what they could to get another person, and society as a whole, out of a traumatised state. Nevertheless, if someone has no self and can only experience a sense of power by controlling others, the last thing that they are going to want is for another person to operate as a whole human being.

With this in mind, what if the people behind the scenes, so to speak, are working overtime to keep humanity in a traumatised state? It would be easy to see this as a ‘conspiracy theory’ – a term that is often used to dismiss anything that goes against the official narrative, in order to try to stop people from becoming aware of what is actually going on – but the evidence is there if someone has an open mind.

Nothing is Random

So whether it is the terrorism that is designed to terrorise people even more, the other countries that are portrayed as threats or the fairly new threat of the world ending at any moment, it all serves the same purpose. All these things, as well as others, help to keep a large part of the population in a very low place.

There is then no need for the people at the top to use weapons or to threaten anyone, as the people that are in a traumatised state will happily trade more freedom for security. Naturally, this is a lot easier and a lot smoother than using violence to make people do things.

Conclusion

The trauma that so many people have experienced in their present life may have gone on top of the trauma that was passed down to them from their ancestors. Thus, even if they hadn’t experienced anything traumatic, what their ancestors went through and were unable to deal with may have still made it hard for them to operate as whole human beings.

Undoubtedly, humanity has been traumatised for hundreds and hundreds of years, and this trauma is what most likely needs to be dealt with in order for the world to truly change. It is unlikely that humanity as a whole will get together and work through their trauma, which is why this is about individuals healing themselves.

The heroic and unselfish response to catastrophic Hurricane Harvey, which hit Texas on August 25, 2017, continues to inspire people to live in a way that shows compassion for their fellow humans. No matter what one’s religion or upbringing have been, one tends to develop empathy for people who need shelter, food, and other special attention. Humans learn to live compassionately by example, especially when they observe unselfish sacrifices made by others who assist people in need. These are the valuable lessons learned from the devastating scenes amidst the storm, those calls for help that we observe both on the ground and on television. Each heroic contribution made by volunteers opens hearts and minds while developing a degree of moral support for the environmental protection groups. In short, concerned people want to make efforts to make this a better world in which to live by finding out how to safeguard their neighbors.

It was inspirational to see the Navy rescuing citizens of Houston as well as others throughout southeastern Texas. Their heroic, humanitarian efforts were so admirable as they responded adeptly to the needs of people in danger. One helicopter saved seven stranded people and then courageously took off again to look for others trapped by the flood waters. The military acted so bravely during the flood although one naturally hopes they will not have to respond to such devastation again in the future.

Neighbors, journalists, foreigners, and people of all ethnicities and religions lent a hand when spontaneously put to the test. A group of journalists risked their lives to save a senior citizen in his car when he mistakenly drove into a deep stream of water. Rather than ignoring a domestic animal in danger, a group of men saved a dog that had been about to drown in the threatening waters. Nursing homes were evacuated while other vulnerable, hospitalized people were carried out by volunteers. Such courage abounded to accomplish great rescue missions!

People in Texas worked together regardless of race, origin, or nationality during the catastrophic event. It was soothing to know that homeless people were being supplied with shelter, with clothes, and with a place to sleep. Seeing others who do good deeds to help people in need encourages viewers to consider how everyone can assist one another. Although most people are too far away to assist in many humanitarian operations, one might consider living in a way that prevents future occurrences of other catastrophic weather events.

Many do not agree that climate change exists; however, the possibility is worth serious examination so as not to put future generations in harm’s way. Providing a fine and free science education for all young people and taking better care of our planet might prevent future tragedies related to climate. By considering these possibilities, we can make a positive difference, even from afar. Moreover, the time has come to re-examine our priorities. Do we really need a lot of material goods? Are we defined by our possessions? Would it be possible to utilize alternative forms of energy so as not to damage or pollute the environment? We can be heroic if we change our ways so as to protect the environment for future generations. We can be heroic if we accept others as they are and assist them in times of need, much like the first responders did in Texas.

Rowan Williams describes The Naked God as a "tremendously engaging and positive book", and indeed it is just that. The author, Vincent Strudwick, must be at least 84 years old but he writes with the fire, passion and conviction of a man half his age. And the book is a strange amalgam of autobiography, Twentieth Century church history, radical polemic, and cri de coeur for a better world, a better church, and a better outcome for all, especially the dispossessed, the poor and the suffering.

What is his book about then? Essentially, it is about the re-imagining of the role of the church, specifically the Anglican community (but his principles extend to all churches), in the modern world. Citing the ideas of Christopher Dawson that the church has had six different and distinctive ages – the Apostolic, the Fathers, the Carolingian, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and Reformation, and the Enlightenment – but that a seventh and very different age is now upon us. And, Strudwick argues, this new age is revealing the very real inadequacies of contemporary Anglican practices and beliefs both during the Twentieth Century and in the present. In the final part of the book Strudwick does present some glimmers of hope, although I must say I did not personally find them very hopeful, as they appeared to me patchy: patchy in that he describes small, isolated activities and also patchy in that commendably they cover a problem, but sadly only in a piecemeal way.

The essence of what is wrong with the Church is summed up in diagram in the chapter, Towards A Very Odd Church Indeed. Here we have three types of response to Christianity: the traditional, the liberal and the radical. There is little doubt where Strudwick's loyalties are: the radical. So, for example, in the series of contrasts he draws, under the heading 'Power', the traditional wants 'authority … mediated through a hierarchy'; whereas the liberal position is 'about management'; and finally the radical wants 'all contribute through participation and challenge'. Or take the topic of Ideology: the traditional want 'Divine right: it is all ordained'; whereas the liberal sees 'the market leads'; and the radical says, 'conflict must be recognized and worked at'.

It is all very admirable and I especially like his exhaustive and extremely interesting notes that consistently punctuate the text. Strudwick is well-versed in not only the history and traditions of the Anglican church, but also of other denominations, especially Catholics, too. Even the Quakers get a mention (though not in the Index, bizarrely). When near the end of his very long – and life time – tether with the Anglican church and its intransigent refusal to embrace radicalism, it is to the Quakers that he, via Richard Holloway, turns: "Quakers believed in the authority of the inner light … and if the Bible said otherwise, then the Bible was wrong ". On top of that Strudwick likes and cites frequently too the poets and literature. Wonderful – a small cornucopia of heaven for someone like me.

But that said, there are some less pleasing aspects of this narrative. The autobiographical weave reveals someone who has been at the center of things for a long time, but possibly too obsessed with the center. First, there is a slightly wearisome sense of name-dropping, especially of all the Archbishops of Canterbury over the decades but of other luminaries too. Then he also seems to think that re-hashing his notes or ideas from conferences held decades ago is going to prove useful or interesting. In his mind, clearly, he is still fighting those fights, but what I think we need is more core summaries and moving on to where we are now. A good example of this is where he repeats the 'guidelines' for the 1997 Quebec Conference where the' Anglican Bishop of Quebec, the Rt Rev. Bruce Stavert invited 'him to lead with the title' Models for a Changing Church '- and then half a page of guidelines. The whole thing is too micro-orientated and the big picture is somewhat blurred by all this detail; though, I do not doubt Strudwick was very pleased to be invited to speak, as is clear in other examples.

Perhaps my biggest criticism, however, would be that for all his energy and enthusiasm for his Church, I am not sure he really empathises with those who disagree, or sees accurately the nature of what he is debunking. As the book progresses, we sense more and more how in tune with John Robinson's 'Honest to God' position he is, and this position, of course, de-mythologises Christianity. It becomes apparent that Strudwick does not believe in miracles or in other core aspects of the Creeds as traditionally understood, and there are consequences of this which I think are important.

First, whilst he genuinely wants to help the poor, he seems not to realize that the de-mythologized version of Christianity he is advocating is not something the under-educated – often the poor – often readily 'understand' or 'get'; and what – despite his assertion about the personhood of Christ being central – this comes down to is that why bother with Christianity at all? We just need to love people and have plenty of soup-kitchens? But the problem with that, it seems for Strudwick, is that he'd miss his cathedrals! Behind the radical, perhaps, a traditionalist in some profound and uneasy ways.

Moreover, he writes, "Many were horrified by the sight of the bishops lining up in the House of Lords to vote against equal marriage, which had so much support in society at large, especially amongst the younger population that the church so desperately wanted to attract. " This is a complex issue, but one thing I think is certainly true: Christianity, and no other religion I know of, has its policies and beliefs dictated by popular vote or plebiscite. Indeed, the Bible wisely advises us not to conform to the thinking of this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. For all the analysis and learning, I suspect Strudwick is simply a partisan: even his phrase 'equal marriage' begs the question in advance of determining if such a thing is right or wrong, or good or bad. The early Christians went to their deaths because they did not conform with what society thought right and proper, but that doesn't seem to have occurred to Strudwick as even a spiritual possibility, so fixated is he on getting people into church and thus re- vitalising it.

There is a lot to commend in this book, and it is certainly an interesting read: I did not want to put it down, although I found plenty in it which I thought undigested, naïve and – yes – desperate. But for an overview of the Anglican church in the Twentieth Century this is a useful and gripping story., Despite getting overloaded at times with finicky details.

A World War II, that is how movie themes overcome depression is depression having nothing to do with movie themes losing to World War II.

Movie themes that lose to World War II are non-themes that lose to World War II; non-themes are actualities – depression that has nothing to do with actualities losing to World War II is World War II being how actualities overcome depression.

If the battle against Nazi Germany is the method in which truths overcome depression, an inevitable, and a fair interpretative outcome is depression being the antagonist to truths losing to the battle against Nazi Germany.

The conflict with Nazi Germany, it also seems fair to state, is a reference. Depression that prevents truths from losing to a reference is a reference that helps truths beat depression – depression is a psychological state, and thus, a reference that helps truths beat a psychological state (or just a psychology) is a psychology that prevents truths from losing to a reference.

A psychology that prevents truths from losing to a reference is a fiction that prevents truths from losing to a fiction – a fiction that prevents truths from losing to a fiction is a truth that helps lies beat a truth.

A truth that helps lies, to beat a truth, is the inability to help lies beat a truth; the inability to help lies beat truth is a truth that is opposed to truths losing to weakness.

A truth that opposes truths losing to weakness is a truth that opposes truths imitating weakness: a truth that stops truths imitating weakness is a physical that stops physicals from copying fiction.

A physical is a road; a road stops roads from imitating non-roads.

The imitation of non-roads is the presence of non-roads. The presence of non-roads is the absence of roads – a road that stops roads ending roads are roads helping roads create a road.

Roads that help roads create a road is copies that help copies create a single that is identical to the copies: copies that help copies does not help copies – not helping copies means to obstruct copies.

Stopping copies from creating a single that is identical to copies are differences that create a single that is identical to copies: differences that create a single are differences that ignore numerous – differences that ignore numerous which is identical to copies is differences that don’t ignore which is the same as copies.

The same as copies is non-copies. Differences that don’t ignore which are differences is differences that ignore which is copies.

Differences are personalities. Personalities that ignore which is non-personalities is personalities meaning avoidance which is non-personalities – avoidance which is non-personalities is non-personalities being attention.

Personalities mean non-personalities being attention – attention therefore means non-personalities being non-personalities.

Non-personalities being non-personalities is non-personalities being the same; attention is non-personalities being the same, which means that attention is personalities being different.

Conflict is personalities being non-attentive.

Morality is personalities being attentive.

Morality is war being attentive.

Morality is war being communication.

Morality is conflict being communication.

Communication is conflict being conflict.

Communication is war embodying itself, and so, communication is stability being outside of itself.

Human speech is stability seeing itself: humanity is chaos seeing itself.

Chaos is the absence of rules. The absence of rules is the absence of science, and so, humanity is non-science seeing non-science (or science seeing humanity).

Humanity that means science sees humanity – the potential to mean that humanity is science seeing science.

Over the past few decades, technology has grown at an exponential rate providing modern society with many of it's creature comforts. All these gadgets and devices have developed the standard of living for humanity so much that we simply cannot live without them. These gadgets and devices include cell phones, television, the internet, computers, iPhones, iPods, consoles like the Wii and many more. It is possible to live without them however. For all it's wonders, technology also has a downside, which is that fact that as it progresses; people will become and will continue to turn more lazy.

As mentioned already, modern technology has become ingrained the in fiber of all of human society but it has brought a terrible condition with it. Modern technology can make people lazy, selecting to sit on their butts looking at an electron screen for hours rather than doing something outside or exercising. The internet is a fountain of information but it has become more obvious over the last few years that people tend to go to communities that have similar ideologies and views and avoid those with differing opinions. What is created is homogeneous online communities with no discrepancy and a big subverting of the foundations of democracy.

Traveling by vehicles like cars or buses are a necessity in the modern world, but these habits are what makes the world appear so bone-lazy nowadays. Many people now are too lazy to even commit themselves to taking a walk around the block to your destination. Now a days everyone possesses a car that they can and do take everywhere, even if it's just a teensy walking distance down the street or around the corner. I am not trying to appear as a luddite as technology has evidently made cars and almost everything in life much safer to be in or around. Car companies love to brag about how their newest vehicle have high crash test ratings, and numerous of air bags which is something to be proud of. So while the new innovations in cars may make people more aloof, cars are essential in life so maybe the innovations in safety are more important then the lazy factor.

One of the great innovations, cell phones have connected humanity closer than ever before. Cellphones have allowed anybody, anywhere to call anyone, anywhere with a touch of a few buttons (assuming the signal is well and you are willing the pay additional fees). Cellphones have however led to the growth of the 'texting' culture and it's execrations of our language and conversation skills but it's just a small price to pay for the networking of the human race.

Video games have congealed themselves in modern culture as a great outlet for entertainment, learning and refreshment. Despite what you listen from soccer moms about how video games develop kids to become terrorists, video games actually have an result like to those movies you see in theaters. They allow you to become someone else and feel things from a brand new perspective which is great for personal maturation. Video games are also great for social gatherings and encountering people.

Technology is impressive, it has changed humanity for the better and bettered the standards of living for everyone in ways that we couldn't even believe were possible. Modern technology has some faults but for all the good it has done, it is more than worth it. Tools for social networking, better safety for everything, entertainment and a great deal more, technology is wonderful as long as you maintain a level of self-command.