Religion and Theology

Divinity is the very nature of God. Jesus Christs divinity is exposed over and over again in the Holy Scripture or the Bible from the New Testament to the Old Testament. Jesus reveals His deity in many ways. The passage I and the Father are one (John 14 6-9) is one of the evidences that Jesus is God. When the devil tempts Him in Matthew 410, He bluffs him by saying You shall not tempt the Lord your God (147). It means that the devil himself knows already the divinity of Christ from the very beginning based from the way he tempts the Lord and Jesus doesnt commit any sin. The same story is found in Mark 1 21  28 when Jesus sees a man possesses by a demon. He tells him to Be quiet and come out of him (26) and the demon knows him I know who You are  the Holy One of God (24). This passage means that even the devil recognizes him as God and only the Almighty One can command the devil out of someone else. Another example that reveals His holiness is the content of His sermons. Jesus proudly shares His divinity through His teachings without any hesitation. Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM (John 858) and called God His Father, making himself equal with God (John 518).  No one can rebuke the nature but Jesus ceases the wind and calms the sea when the windstorm happens in Mark 4 35-41. Only God can control the natural world because He is the creator of it, this shows His attribute as God. From John 14 6, Jesus directly reveals that He is the way, the truth, and the life. No one will come to the Father except through Me (6). Another example that shows the divinity of Jesus is when He rises from the dead (Mark 161  8). No individual can do the same as Jesus does. Furthermore, He allows Thomas to experience the insertion of his finger to the print of the nails on His hand (John 20 25  29) just to open up fully the faith of His disciples. The prophesy in the past, happens in the present and still clinging in the near future about and according to Jesus is a very convincing proof of His divinity.

Humanity is the state of showing the human attributes or qualities. Jesus as a human has flesh and blood. When Jesus is conceived and born by Mary in Bethlehem of Judea (Matthew 118-25), He is already considered as human because He experiences the process on how the human is given birth. One more thing, Jesus preaches the good news to all the people who follow them just like the parents to his children. He wants them to know about God and Him at the same time. The statement of Jesus Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nest, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head (Matthew 820), states that since He is human during that time He also feels tired and exhausted.

Another example is when He is sleeping (24) during the windstorm which can be read from Mark 823  25, this simply shows that he is resting the whole hour of their journey. Jesus as a human also eats and drinks just like what He does together with his disciples in the passage of Mark the Last Supper (Mark 14 22  26). If a simple Jew knows how to pray, Jesus does it rigidly and more intensely His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground (Luke 2244), this simply illustrates that Jesus as a human suffers from pain and agony because of the coming torment that He will be facing. During their time, the person who commits crime and an enemy of the government is put into prison and the worst thing that could happen is to crucify him. The human aspect of Jesus is fully shown when He accepts the punishments and all the throbbing done by the soldiers while preparing for His crucifixion. The flowing of His blood, the nails in His hands, and all the physical injuries that He undergoes are indication of being a human. His death on the cross reveals Him as a human but for the deeper meaning of this action signifies His divinity because He even offers His own life just to show His love to all the sinners.

The Ahl al-Bayt (literally People of The House or family) is one of the most important pillars of Islamic history and an integral part of its leadership. The Prophet Muhammad had a family, and his family is venerated by all Muslims, be it Sunni or Shia. The Prophet Muhammads family and household compose the Ahl al-Bayt. However, the number of the family members and the interpretations in the Ahl al-Bayt changes according to the sect of Islam. In Sunni Islamic circles, the Ahl al-Bayt includes his eleven wives (the Mothers of the Believers or Ummu l-Muminn), his daughter Fatimah and her three children, and his cousin and son-in-law Ali. In other sects, the Ahl al-Bayt includes Muhammad s blood relatives, most mention the Banu Muttalib and the Banu Hashim. In Sunni Islam, all Muslims have an obligation to love and venerate the Ahl al-Bayt, while in Twelver and Ismaili Shia Islam, the Ahl al-Bayt are considered in the center of Islam and are believed as the true successors of the Prophet Muhammad. The Shia define the members of the household as Muhammad, Fatimah, Ali, Hasan, and Husayn (collectively known as the Ahl al-Kisa), the descendants of Fatimah, collectively known as the Imams.

Veneration of the Ahl al-Bayt, agreed upon by all Muslims, came from a parallel (Mutawatir) tradition. The Messenger of Allah came upon them and informed them that Allah would leave behind two precious and weighty things, and if Muslims adhere to them, they will never stray from Allahs path. Those were the Book of Allah, or the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammads family or the Ahl al-Bayt. There is no contestation in the origins of the veneration of the Ahl al-Bayt, as those are the words of Allah.

The message of Allah to the people has been narrated many times and quoted by many different Islamic authors. Here is Sahih Muslims narration

Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (PBUHHF) stood to give us a speech beside a pond which is known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is located between Mecca and Medina. Then he praised Allah and reminded Him, and then said O people Behold It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance... The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times). (Sahih Muslim 1980, 1873)

The message in fact was repeated three times by the Messenger of Allah, and there has been no change nor different interpretation by both Sunni and Shia leaders and scholars. This was the word of Allah, and it is absolute. However, Shia scholars claim that this passage and that directive mentioned by the Messenger of Allah is disregarded or worse, denied by majority of Sunni believers, who believe the passage by al-Hakim in his book al-Mustadrak, saying I leave amongst you two things that if you follow or act upon, you will not go astray after me The Book of God and my Sunnah (traditions).

In the Quran however, the mention of the Ahl al-Bayt was mentioned with the following passage
O wives of the Prophet you are not like any other of the women If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in (your) speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn and speak a good word. (Quran 3332) And stay in your houses, and do not display your finery, with the display of the former days of ignorance. Maintain the Prayer, and pay regular Charity and obey Allah and His Messenger. Indeed Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O People of the Household, and purify you with a thorough purification. (Quran 3333) And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the communications of Allah and the wisdom surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware. (Quran 3334)

This passage though has some interesting interpretations from both Sunni and Shia scholars alike, especially the phrase from you, O People of the Household, which directly points out to the Ahl al-Bayt. In Sunni tradition, the wives and dependents of the Prophet Muhammad are included. There are several instances that the Prophet Muhammad addresses his wives as his Ahl al-Bayt. In addition, Ali, Fatimah, Husayn and Hasan are included because of their presence in the Ahl al-Kisa. Some also include and recognize another wife of Muhammad, Umm Salamah as another member of the Ahl al-Bayt. Alis immediate family and Muhammads relatives Aqeel, Jafar and al-Abbas are also regarded as a member of the Ahl al-Bayt, and other early jurists like Abu Hanifa and Malik bin Anas included Banu Hashims clan, while al-Shafii included Banu Muttalibs family in Sunni traditions.

In Shia traditions, the Ahl al-Bayt is limited to just the Ahl al-Kisa. The Shia has interpreted a pronoun change in the Quran that made the Ahl al-Kisa the only members of the Ahl al-Bayt. This change in the gender has inevitably contributed to the birth of various accounts of a legendary character, attaching the latter part of the verse to the Five People of the Mantle. The Shia believe that Ahl al-Kisa are Imams who are sinless and infallible and are chosen through divine providence. They are considered a major part of worship in the Shia sect.

Both sects, as mentioned earlier venerate the Ahl al-Bayt and bestow the highest respect upon them. However, the Islamic practices of sadaqa or charity, and zakat or taxes, are not allowed to the Ahl al-Bayt, as the Prophet Muhammad forbade his family to get income from them. Islamic jurists explain that these alms are considered the defilements of the people, who offer them to be free from sin. It would be unbecoming for the family to use sadaqa and zakat as they were considered pure. Instead, they would be given a portion of the spoils of war, according to Madelung. Also, a family who has blood relations with the household of Muhammad are called sayyids or sharifs, and they are given high social status.

Both sects consider the Ahl al-Kisa as part of the Ahl al-Bayt. Looking at them from both Sunni and Shia points of view can clearly tell what came from the Islamic schism that happened that split the Islamic faith in two major divisions. The split came from the debate to who shall be the rightful successor to the will of the Prophet Muhammad. The Sunnis believe that the first four Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi Talib), are the most rightful. They say that Allah had not chosen anyone to become Muhammads successor and therefore should be elected. Shias believe that only the lineage of Ali ibn Abi Talib are the ones who received the Prophet Muhammads will and his chosen successor. Alis progeny according to the Shia, are all in a state of Ismah, or infallibility. Ali is a cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, and is the rightful successor. Shias call him the first Imam, or leader, and the legitimacy other caliphs were disregarded and rejected. An Imam holds authority by divine right, and holds absolute spiritual authority among Muslims in the Shia faith. The split of the Sunni and Shia, though in part because of Ali, a member of the Ahl al-Kisa and the Ahl al-Bayt, is seen in the minor changes. In the case of the Ahl al-Kisa, both sects have different interpretations. In the Sunni side, the Quranic verse 3333, also talks about Muhammads wives and his servants as members of the household, and they have a spiritual importance and legacy. However, the legacy that is implied in the verse does not mean a physical legacy nor a legitimate succession of the Prophet. In the case of the Shia, the verse only confirms their belief that Muhammad, Fatimah, Ali, Hasan and Husayn are the only members of the Ahl al-Bayt, and it was divine providence that Allah had chosen them to be pure and sinless. This act of divine providence written in the Quran was impetus for the Shia to regard the Ahl al-Kisa as the true members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the protectors and true successors of Muhammad.

Sunnis include more people in the Ahl al-Bayt, like the Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib. Both are blood relatives of the Prophet Muhammad, and the Banu Hashim is the clan where Muhammad was born to. When Muhammad made it his mission to call the people to worship the One God, Allah, it put him at odds with the pilgrims of Mecca, which was a melting pot of idolatry of various peoples and tribes. Membership in the Banu Hashim made him safe from assassinations and grave threats, yet there was continuing persecution of Muslims in Mecca from the pagans, who in turn fled and to Yathrib, which later became the city of Medina. But in the end, it was the Muhammad that would get the last laugh, as Mecca fell to Muslim hands on 630. Also, the whole of the Arabian Peninsula had pledged allegiance to Islam. His grandsons Al-Husayn and Al-Hasan are part of the Banu Hashim, as they are born to his daughter Fatimah and his cousin Ali. The later descendants of the grandsons of Muhammad are later called Sayed, or sometimes SharifSherif. These people are held with high esteem in Islamic society, even exempt from sadaqa and zakat, as mentioned earlier.

Since the Shia only believe in the Ahl al-Kisa being part of the Ahl al-Bayt, any other person or any other group of people that have interacted with the Prophet Muhammad are disregarded. Their interpretation of the verse has it claiming that there is a word only to the verse 3333, meaning that only one group is clean and pure and need no such instructions on how to live from Allah, while Muhammads wives are not part of the said purification and still need the six stern commandments found in the Hadiths. Those commandments are meant for the Mothers of the Believers and everybody else. Shia writers and scholars say that the verse, though written and delivered in a feminine tone initially, changes to a masculine tone as part of the rhetoric in the verse.

The veneration of the Ahl al-Bayt is an important part of Islamic worship, and commemoration of their contributions to the faith is also a big event that is practiced by all Muslims. One of the most striking activities is the commemoration of the death of Muhammads grandson Husayn ibn Ali, a member of the Ahl al-Bayt and the Ahl al-Kisa, who died in battle in Karbala in modern day Iraq. Called the Mourning of Muharram, it is an important period of mourning and commemoration, especially among the Shia Muslims, who consider Husayn as an Imam, the third Imam to be exact. He was also a willing sacrifice for Islam and the Ummah from the threat of annihilation by Yazid I and the Umayyad Caliphate. To the Shia and the Sunni though, Husayn is a great example of courage and resistance against tyranny. In the Mourning of Muharram, the tenth day known as Ashura, is a time of fasting (for some Shia sects), mourning and self-reflection, as it is held to remember Husayns death and suffering.

In the Mourning of Muharram, Shia Muslims congregate in halls called Hussainia and there will be arranged majalis, or greetings, made to review Islamic teachings and works, as well as to remember Husayns death and sacrifice for the sake of Islam. The congregations continue until the tenth day, or Ashura, where Husayn ibn Ali and 72 of his followers were massacred by Yazid I and the Umayyad Caliphate, and the women and children rounded up as prisoners and sent to Damascus.

During the mourning, there are different activities done by devotees and participants. Sunnis however regard this as a time of remembrance, Shiites regard this as a time of mourning. Shiites come together in special places called Hussainia, and there they recite songs of mourning and recite sorrowful poems to mourn the death of Husayn to the accompaniment of drum beats and cries of  Ya Husayn. Passion plays reenacting the Battle of Karbala and Husayns death are also performed. The people offer condolences to the Imam-e-Zamana, also known as the Imam-al-Mahdi. The Mahdi is believed by Muslims to be the redeemer and avenger of Husayns death and bring justice to the world, akin to Jesus Christ coming back to the end of days by the Christian faith.

Mosques provide free meals to the people on certain nights, during the duration  of the Mourning of Muharram, known as nazar. The meals are consecrated in the name of Imam Husayn, and people are going to the mosques to partake these holy meals. It is customary for both the people and the mosques as it symbolizes communion between Allah, Imam Husayn, and the people. Another activity is the pilgrimage by Shia Muslims to the shrine of Imam Husayn in Karbala. For Shiites, it is a major holy place alongside Mecca and Medina. In another activity  during the mourning, Shiites come together in public places and prepare for the ceremonial chest beating known as matam. Matam is done to express sorrow and devotion to the martyred Imam Husayn. People beat their chests and cry out Ya Husayn Ya Hassan. In Shia societies like in Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, or Iran, men would sometimes use metal chains for self flagellation during their matam, other people use knives or razors to cut themselves as a sign of grief for the death of Imam Husayn. These practices are called Zanjir-matam if they use chains, an older term for the cutting of oneself during Matam is Qama-zani or Tage-zani. Another activity is the Taziya, which is a theatrical reenactment of the Battle of Karbala, it is something like a Passion Play of Jesus Christ in the Christian faith. Here, special theater groups do the Taziya for the people who in turn, reflect the pious life that Husayn lived as a devotee of Islam. It should be noted that this practice is rarely used now, but smaller scale Taziyas are still being done in rural Iran, and in Muslim India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Taziya is known as miniature mausoleums created and paraded during the entire Mourning of Muharram.

For Sunnis, the reason why Husayns death does not require mourning even if he has a member of the Ahl al-Bayt is that the quarrels of the family of the Prophet Muhammad and the Umayyad Caliphate are mainly politically motivated. There was no reason, according to Sunnis, to venerate Husayns death as a form of martyrdom as he was a participant in a war, bit not a holy war (The Umayyads are a Caliphate, hence they are Muslim). For the Shia however, killing a member of the Ahl al-Bayt, and an Ismah (infallible) at that, is unforgivable. For Shiites, the mourning of the death of Husayn ibn Ali is not just a simple mourning, it is also a protest. Also, the rationale to why Husayn and his 72 followers went to Karbala to face Yazid and a force of 4,000 men differs among the views of both Sunni and Shia.

According to Sunnis, since Husayn was involved in a political struggle, he did not know that he was going to get killed or get involved in a major military engagement with the Umayyads in Karbala. He was just going there to receive his Imamat (religious, or spiritual leadership) because he got an invitation by the people of Kufa to get it there. The Shia view it differently, seeing that Husayn knew and was fully aware it was a suicide mission to face the Umayyads, yet he did so, and he died in Karbala a willing martyr to Islam. Though both sects saw Husayn as a reformer of the perceived corruption of the Umayyad Caliphate, they viewed him differently. The Sunni saw him as a pious member of the Ahl al-Bayt who is primarily a political leader, as he led an uprising of Muslims against the leadership of the Umayyad Caliphate, while the Shia saw him as a pious, spiritual force who faced the Umayyad in something much more akin to holy war, or jihad.

Critique
Osburns (1989) article, Those who have never heard Have they no hope is a discussion on whether or not people need to believe in the Gospel of the Christ in order to be saved from eternal damnation that God has prepared for sinners.  The author contends that people can be saved even if they have not heard the Gospel.  Even so, it is most essential to believe in the right God before attaining eternal salvation (Osburn, 372).  The author explains that knowledge about the Creator of the universe may reach people through Scriptures if not the Gospel of the Christ (Osburn, 369).  But, even those who have had contact with believers must have learned about the one true God (Osburn, 371).  What is more, as the God of mercy works in the hearts of mankind by way of His Spirit, knowledge about Him may reach people through visions as well (Osburn, 368).
   
Thus, the author makes a strong argument in favor of God.  All the same, Osburns biased approach to her subject is bound to make her non-Christian readers uncomfortable about the idea that only the Christian faith may lead mankind to salvation.  The author states, The ultimate basis for salvation for OT saints was faith in God (Gen 156 Rom 43, 22 Gal 36), who knew what he was going to do through the cross (Osburn, 368).  But, there is no evidence that the OT saints were aware of Jesus Christ on the cross.  If Osburn or another theologian were to show evidence from the OT that the OT saints did, indeed, possess this knowledge, it would most likely be through symbolic interpretation.  In fact, this is the only weakness of Osburns article  the fact that the author can create an argument corresponding with her faith, without evidence supporting the same.      

Personal Conclusion
Osburn should have taken an objective, academic approach to her subject.  The author surmises that it may be possible for the Yoruba people to be saved through their worship of God (Osburn, 367).  At the same time, however, the article Those who have never heard reads that Jews and Muslims may or may not be saved, even though they believe in the same God who revealed the Gospel of the Christ.  Hence, I opine that the author is somewhat confused about her subject.  As Christ is the Spirit of God, and God is merciful enough to reveal His knowledge through Scriptures, dreams or visions, allowing the heart of man to believe through His Spirit, which all human beings essentially contain  Osburn could have explained belief in God by referring to Jesus Christ as the Spirit of God (Osburn, 369).
 
In other words, when the New Testament refers to the Christ as the sole means of attaining salvation, the writers are mainly referring to the Christ as the Spirit of God.  So, while it is true that belief comes through the Christ, it does not necessarily mean that all people who have been saved from eternal damnation must have heard about Jesus Christ of Nazareth.  Moreover, I believe that it is blasphemous to try to judge the intentions of God from the time He created mankind until now.  As God is merciful and desires to save people through correct knowledge and beliefs, it is not for a religious author to claim that certain groups of people are more likely to be saved than others.  After all, God is too immense to be judged.  It is lack of understanding alone that confuses human beings about the meanings of the Scriptures, including the Gospel.      

The 20th century was an era of spectacular change.  Within this time period occurred one of the great shifts in the way Man perceived his world.  From the late 1800s to the present, Man became Modern.

In ages past, people were more inclined to believe that people had a certain fixed place in the world.  In the West, there was a strict hierarchy that began with the Almighty God and descended through religious leaders to kings and princes and so on down to the fathers of individual families.  There was security in this hierarchy.  As long as a man fulfilled his role then he was doing the right thing, and ultimately his actions would result in the betterment of society and the world in general.  Such a state of affairs was more or less the standard since the days when man first became aware of himself as a historical being.

In time, progress resulted in the Industrial Age, which spurred everything forward all the more quickly.  Machines meant masses of workers engaged in soulless, repetitive tasks, unprecedented amounts of goods and income generated, and in the hearts of men, a renewed spirit of aggression.  Powerful men wanted to conquer more territory, to find new resources to feed the hungry machines.  Other men, worn down by the harshness of the machine age which treated them like machines themselves, began to question the existing order of things.

In the early 20th century kings fell.  Many ancient traditions, practices and creeds were questioned, and questioned to the point of breaking.  In the span of thirty years two great wars ravaged the world, the second including two terrible holocausts of which both sides were guilty.  while Hitlers ovens, gas chambers and camps consumed millions of Jews over the span of years, the Allies atomic bomb incinerated millions of Japanese in minutes and days.  When such horror was possible, Man had to question the old ways of doing and believing.  This questioning creature is Modern Man.

In his desire to destroy the old ways which had failed him, man began to put emphasis on the material world where results could be seen the more quickly.  A reward on earth was surer, if less spectacular, than a reward in Heaven.  Utopia became not a realm in the clouds where angels played harps and the righteous sang praises before the throne of the Almighty, but a society where all were equal and had enough food, clothing and shelter.  While there was nothing wrong with this version of Paradise, it meant that man was also slowly losing touch with the spiritual world.  In his writing, Abraham Heschel sought to bring modern man into an encounter with God.  One way to do this would be to bring him close to the Sublime, a concept that is found in Art as well as in Philosophy.

In the realm of Art, the modern obsession with material things and physical reality was questioned by the group of intellectuals called the Surrealists.  For the Surrealists, beauty was not something that was gotten by tailoring something to what was calculated to be pleasing in terms of mathematically calculated proportions.  Beauty for them was an experience.  It was something felt, something alive.  The Surrealists even thought that madness was relative.  Madmen were simply the people who refused to accept what the majority agree to be the limits of what is real  and usually this meant the limits of the physical world.

When Abraham Heschel writes about the Hebrew prophets and their moral madness, he is taking a similar approach.  While artists spoke of Beauty, prophets speak of the Divine.  In either case, the experience can be both visceral and spiritual.  The Surrealist artists painted pictures of melting clocks and flying horses drawing ships behind them.  The prophets donned sackcloth even as others rejoiced and flew in the face of kings.   Both kinds of men, indeed, seem to be mad.

The definition of madness as the unwillingness to accept the boundaries agreed upon by the greater body answers for the artist as well as for the prophet.

Heschel invokes the Greeks concept of the poet as a madman.  Poetry (which is also Art) was divinely inspired.  There was something different about the poet or the rhapsode at the moment he performed.  At such times he was supposed to have been indwelt or possessed by the gods.  Similarly, the prophet was one whose actions often appeared to go against all reason, but like the poet or the artist, he was also capable of achieving insights and inspiration beyond the reach of ordinary men.

Heschel says that the prophet is a person who suffers from a profound maladjustment to the spirit of society with its conventional lies, with its concession to weakness.  It must be hard to have been the parent, child or spouse of a prophet, indeed, hard to have been a prophets friend.  The essence of living in large groups would lie in compromise.   Indeed, in common speech one who does not know how to compromise is called immature or childish.  The worldly-wise know when to tell white lies, when to stretch the truth, when to close their eyes to transgressions in order to maintain a state of equilibrium.
The prophet, however, like his fellow visionary, the Artist, would have all or nothing.  Nathan, for instance, might have done well to shut his mouth over David and Bathsheba.  Such a seduction was hardly out of the ordinary.  An ordinary man would have been practical about it.  Why thwart a mighty king over a matter as insignificant  that is, when set against the backdrop of politics and war  as a woman  But sometimes, what is most essential is that which is not immediately apprehended by the worldly mind or the physical eye.  Similarly, what use would there be in being a voice crying out in the wilderness  It would be easy to forsake the discomforts of the desert, to return to ones home, ones village, there to be esteemed by friends and family, to eat well and live well.  An ordinary man would say, What does the rest of mankind matter  I have only one life to live.  But a prophet would not be content with letting mankind take care of itself, not when he is burning with a truth or a vision.  At any moment one can put down the torch that one carries, but that is what the weak would do, that is what anyone would do.   It is only a select few who would honestly, truly keep the flame burning to lead their fellowmen out of the imperfect grey light of mediocrity.  Heschel says that the prophet found compromise a kind of corruption of the human spirit.  Indeed, if compromise leads to stagnation, a state where everyone is satisfied enough so that no one strives for perfection or for the heights of the Sublime, then it is indeed harmful to the human spirit.

If the boundary of madness is the reality that everyone else agrees upon, then it cannot be denied that the prophet crosses the boundary of sanity and ventures into the territory beyond.  When everyone else is rejoicing, most men would rather eat, drink and be merry than look beyond the smiles and sensual pleasures, the prosperity and the cheerfulness, to see impending doom.  Yet the prophet can, and does.  The action might be attributed to wisdom and judgment, reading the times as a doctor might be discerning enough to detect a cancer in what appears to be a normal, healthy man.  It might also be that he has a mind brilliant enough to make deductive leaps, or an imagination and intuition that detects truths that most men cannot see.  While man has been trained to trust logic and reason, there is also something to be said for intuition and imagination.  A prophet, it seems, can let go of the supports of logic and reason by which we govern our lives (and which indeed are the justifications for compromise and concessions), in order to go straight to the heart of the matter by abandon to the imagination or to inspiration.  According to Heschel, what makes him different from the psychotic is his ability to pass into this realm of the imagination and then return safely with his treasure of insight which he then shares with the world.  A psychotic would not be able to do so, would be unable to weave the vision with a keen perception of what must be done to better the lot of mankind.  The prophet is morally mad because he cannot reconcile himself to the compromised morality of society.  He insists on preserving the purity of his vision, and thus leads Man to the light.

This paper is an exegesis on Confucianism, Daoism, and Hinduism with reference to relevant excerpts.
Discussed in all these passages is the concept of human beings as constituents of the larger universal power, which primarily rules the actions, the reasons, and the results of all that men do or desire.
The excerpts on Confucianism and Daoism state the origin of Dao and its deeper meaning. Dao or the supreme power is born when a man seeks the path of love, dismisses all thoughts of winning over others and considers the whole of the universe as his home. The heaven and the hell then merely are two states of his mind and there is neither pain nor pleasure.

The excerpts from the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, and the hymn sung by Mirabai describe the glory of Krishna or Lord Mahavishnu who rules the universe. The first verse speaks of the greatness of a Brahmin and affirms that it is he, the Lord, who guides the Brahmin. The second verse has Krishna preaching Arjuna during epic war Mahabharata. Here, Arjuna is encouraged to pursue his duty of fighting the war without hesitation and without any pain of killing elders and brothers in his family. The third verse is a sonnet sung by poetess Mirabai who sees the Lord as her ultimate friend, husband, and lover. She loses her husband to death but refuses to pursue her life as a widow and moves on towards salvation by becoming a begging mendicant roaming from one home to another.

All three principles more or less speak that the universe is lead by a larger force, which is present in multitudes within every living thing.

Discussion
Nandini A.

Short exegesis about Confucianism, Daoism, and Hinduism
2nd April 2010

Verses mentioned in The Analects of Confucius, Confucianism, pg. 143, describe the correlation between the fundamental root, which is love and respect for humanity and the basic moral law, known as the Dao. Yu-Tzu describes how Confucius ascertains the disposure of a man as being superior as this is the man who respects his elders and treats everybody else equally, as his own brothers. This man, says Confucius, does not know discrimination, sorrow, or anger towards anybody.

The idea of a superior man arises from the fact that this man is constantly engaged in learning from his mistakes and through lifes experiences and loves making friends everywhere through everybody he meets. This man does not judge others, does not expect anything in return but true love and affection derived from the root of humanity attained through love for elders and respect for the equals. This man knows no sorrow or grief as every endeavor of his is a result of a responsibility driven by supreme morality. This state is the result of understanding that everything he does is only to attain the Dao.

Verses mentioned in The Book of Mercius, Confucianism, pg. 146, reaffirms the goodness that exists in the world and within human beings, as expressed by Mencius, one of the neo-Confucius leaders. Mencius uses Gaozi as his mouthpiece to express his thoughts. Gaozi states that all of Human Nature is good. To explain, there is a sort of defending of the human world, which the neo-Confucian does through using the example of flowing water. All the thoughts, actions, events, or results driving a man and his life, driving all human beings and their lives is primarily as good as the pure, crystalline water flowing downwards. This water exists throughout existence and is nonetheless the pulse of all human life. This water is ever flowing and no amount of sedimentation of any filth or dirt can prove that it is bad. Thus, like the flowing water, the human life keeps renewing itself in thought and action.

Verses in The Western Inscription, Confucianism, pg. 156 are by Zhang Zai, a neo-Confucius thought leader who considers heaven and earth to be his mother and father respectively. Zhang zai here is equating himself as an extension of both his parents who co-exist for him in all elders he knows. He considers all human beings as his brothers, as everybody constitute the same heaven and the earth.
There is a kind of elevation of the self in the lines, Therefore that which fills the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the universe I consider my nature (The Western Inscription, Confucianism, pg. 156). The physical body of the self here is in the sublime, is ascertained to be the universe, and the nature of the self to be the reason and cause of all action and thought. To elaborate, Zhang zai is obliquely pointing at the oneness or the similarity that all beings live by. In this state of oneness, there are no unique identities.  Everything on this universe is the same and will finally lead to sameness. This sameness is what we call the Heaven and the Earth.

Next, consider the verses by Laozi in The Dao, The Dao Di Jing, pg. 166. Laozi equates all beings as actually being non-existent. There is an exploration of what we could call the momentary-ness of things, people, and all happenings. As he says, the dao is not the Dao forever (The Dao Di Jing, Laozi, pg. 166). There are many ideas discussed here. One is the existence of the highest self, known as the mother. It is from this mother that all ideas, beings and things take birth. The Dao therefore is an aggregation of several multitude daos that keep dying and keep taking re-birth.

Following the above, the verses by Laozi in Anti-Contifucianism, The Dao Di Jing, pg. 167 describe that the doctrines of ren and yi, i.e., knowledge and wisdom appeared when the Dao disappeared. The two examples of filial brotherhood and royal ministries highlight the birth of knowledge and wisdom and therefore speculation supported by these two forces. Both the ren and yi are devoid of the Dao or the morality. The ren and yi are born out of mans propensity to speculate and see everything through his own eyes that are blind to the higher power guiding him. This ignorance of seeing through the higher power is what Anti-Confucius is.

Verses on Daoism (pg. 193) further reaffirm the momentary nature of all life. These lines clearly state that no man on this earth can possess anything forever. The heaven and the earth supplicate every man, such that no thought, action, or deed, or possessions such as body, mind, or the heart are his own. Man is nothing but a sublime speck, a minute replica of the realm that fills the space between the heaven and the earth.

The verses on Hinduism nevertheless express the same ideas as that expressed by Confucianism and Daoism. The verse from the Upanishads, (Realize the Brahmin, Hinduism, pg. 65) recalls what a Brahmin is all about. The Brahmin is a pure god-like man propelled by two divine forces, the Om and the Atman. The two respectively are equal with the bow and the arrow. The om is the Lord and the atman is the Soul. Thus, any man driven by these two is bound to succeed in everything he does. The Brahmin is patient, tolerant, and yet a winner is all that does because he acts as a tool of the Lord who has created the heaven and the earth. Reciprocally, a true Brahmin is someone who uses these two instruments to lead his life. These two forces, the om and the atman hold similarities to the root and the moral law or the Dao as stated in Confucianism and Daoism. However, the context is different.
The verses from the Bhagvad Gita, (I am the Beginning and the End, Hinduism, pg.66) has Lord Krishna, or Mahavishnu known as the protector, creator, and destroyer of the universe in Hinduism addresses the sorrowful warrior Arjuna, who is hesitating to make war. The idea is not to propagate war but to enlighten man that he is born to perform his duties on this earth as is expected of him. In other words, man cannot achieve anything through inaction of his responsibilities. The Lord here encourages Arjuna by reinstating that the entire universe is he alone. It is he who created it, he who carries out everything done by everybody, and it is he that destroys when there is a need. There is nothing that is not the Lord himself, neither the sacred scriptures and nor the five elements that make up the whole of this universe. Om is a symbol of purity and the Vedas are the book of rules through which life is to be lived.

The final verses in context here is by Hindu poetess and saint Mirabai (Without Krishna, I cannot sleep, Hinduism, pg. 79). In these verses, the saint surrenders herself completely to the Lord and expresses the desire to be one with the Lord. The great Lord Krishna is her only love and only Light that can bring her out of Darkness. The poetess refuses to be bound by any rules the society set for her after her husbands death, to live the life of a widow. Instead, she chooses to live in the longing for the love of her life, Lord Krishna, for the rest of her life. She spends her life as a begging mendicant or a woman Brahmin who roams from one home to another. Nonetheless, a human being is just a sub-presence of the supreme power called Nature. Mirabai reaffirms this through this sonnet.

Conclusion
It would be appropriate to conclude by saying that all of them, Confucianism, Daoism, and Hinduism propagate the idea of the One supreme force that drives the earth and the heaven, alike. Men, mere mortals are a subset of this supreme power.

Therefore, all actions and deeds guided by the supreme are the best. Any act of knowledge or wisdom carried out by man without the supreme guidance is prideful and may lead a man towards failure.

Evidentialism  in  the  modern  age  has  taken  a  forward  step  in  dominating  the  classical  apologetic  approach,  but  the  need  for  apologists  is  increasing  with  age.  Refusal  to  believe  in  anything  without  proper  proof  is  a  lasting  trend.  Evidentialism  focuses  on  providing  evidences  that  support  the  universal  facts  about  the  existence  of  God,  the  willing  sacrifice  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of  human  and  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  in  many  ways  providing  the  path  in  guiding  non-believers  towards  the  truth.

Methods of Evidentialism
It keeps simple with a common ground to everyone.  Considering  the  fact  that  the  people  looking  into  evidentialism  wouldnt  be  a  kind  that  can  go easy with the religious elements which tend to appear threatening to the non Christians, it rather binds to the logic, science and histological facts, creating a friendly atmosphere for those seeking in for the truth. This does not mean that it puts aside the Word, Evidentialism is Biblical, its main aim is to reveal the word of God, the truth, in the best way possible.

It also provides enlightenment to the ones who call themselves as Christians because they had been raised from early childhood in a church, read lessons about the 6 day creation and were reading the Bible because they had been asked to. It is like a notion created in them, but when they come to their understanding age of 12 and are being given books of school to read about evolution, it then raises a confusion in their innocent minds. Only would they know that there are several opinions and several speculations and interpretations regarding the evolution, all of which refuse to believe in the involvement of a higher brain, a thought laid on, an intelligent work that our human minds cannot comprehend. Minds set on worldview fallacies have always been the hard nuts to crack, especially with science believing in its own concept of big bang. Then is the need to prepare on aiming at the one indwelling faith that can make understand the true nature of everything which seems a mystery but is not.

To summarize an evidentialist is the one who looks out in obtaining affective results, irrespective of the methods used.

The method has found advocates in J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.,Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Gary Habermas, John Warwick Montgomery, and Wolfhart Pannenberg.

A Critique
Evidentialism with its advantages has a balanced approach that is well supported by the Bible. Evidences are used to convince the non Christians without asking them to believe in blind faith, without evading from its concentration from basic elements of Christianity i.e.. claims of God, Christ and the Word.

In the influential book Primitive Culture, Edward Tylor defined religion as belief in Supernatural Beings. This minimalist definition of religion is a reference to traditionalist emphasis on religion as a private and intellectual activity. This is in contrast with Durkheim behavioral approach. In his work Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Emile Durkheim defined religion as a system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things   things which are set apart and forbidden. Those who belong to this moral community constitute a Church. For Durkheim, religion is inseparable from the idea of a Church.

In the search for an essentialist definition of religion, according to  McCutcheon, there is a need to differentiate the spiritual from the religious. For Tylor, the spiritual is synonymous with the religious. The religious realm is a manifestation of the spiritual realm   in short, the religious is the outward expression of spiritual belief. Spiritual belief is nothing more than a deep, solitary, and intellectual activity. As McCutcheon argues

In Tylors onetime popular definition we find the remnants of a philosophically idealist era in European history, when ones membership within certain groups was thought to be primarily dependent upon whether one believed in something   rather than membership being the result of collective behaviors   (1)

Evidently, McCutcheons concern is the determinacy of religious essence (whether religion has an essence). In order to address this issue, he presented a number of contending theories on religion. Tylors pragmatic definition of religion is an example of a classic definitional strategy (essentialism). Intellectual tradition treats religion as an inner process   a process of believing in something, expressed in the form of an essence. Scholars who valued this tradition thought it unwise to define religion based on what they took to be its secondary, external aspects (McCutcheon  2). These scholars argued that it is motive rather membership which defines the determinacy of religious experience. Tylors essentialist definition of religion is a naturalist account of a monothetic framework.

Other philosophers offered essentialist definition of religion. The German theologian Rudolf Otto argued that what defines religion was the participants feeling of great respect, admiration, and fascination. For Friedrich Schleiermacher, the essence was generally the feeling of total dependence. For Paul Tillich, the essence was power. For the historian of religion, Mircea Eliade, the experience of the Sacred defined the essence of religion.

These essentialist definitions of religion are not without value. The essence defines identity, expression, form, and substance. As Bertrand Russell observes

Uniformity is an expression of empiricism. It is the essence of an essence, apparently because it is directed to a single reference point. Variety, when viewed from a broader perspective, is actually a function of uniformity, for uniformity is the formal substance of order. Now, the duty of the scholar is to determine the ultimate form of uniformity, and in narrow perspective, appreciate the complexity of creation (92).

However, according to McCutcheon, the search for a universal definition of religion is problematic because of the inherent contradictions in concept-construction and the complexity of religious experience. As McCutcheon notes

Much as with a a light switch that can either be on or off   theres no such thing as a light being only partially on   essentialist definitions lead one to name something as religion if, and only if, it possesses a certain quality. That just what characterizes this essential quality differs   from one essentialist to another ought not to be overlooked (3).

Concept-construction has inherent contradictions. To define a concept is to narrow the application of an idea. Most of the time, ideas have multiple and sometimes contradictory meanings (even those situated in similar conditions). To different scholars, a concept may have different definitions. This complicates the process, as different scholars subscribe to different schools of thought.

However, not all ideas have contradictory or overlapping meanings. In economics, the term GDP has an empirical definition. The same case can be said about enertia, acceleration, and demand. This is not the case with the concept of religion. Marxian tradition defines religion as an outward expression of the substructure. Classical tradition defines religion as universal belief in supernatural beings. Behavioral tradition limit the application of religion to behavioral conducts. Freudian tradition defines religion as an expression of libidinal energy. The implication religion is a complicated concept because it has a broad subjective application (it is subjective in the sense that religious experience differs from individual to individual, from culture to culture, from period t period). McCutcheon is fully aware of this issue since one of his objectives in writing this article is to expose the difficulty in extracting a substantive (essential) element of religion (the other purpose is to show the intricate nature of the religious experience).

The Greeks divided religion into three spheres piety (eusebia), mystery (myo or fear for danger), and gnosis (esoteric knowledge). Piety is the quality of doing the right thing -an element of conscience. Mystery refers to cults in which members were initiated into the mysterious workings of the cosmic order (McCutcheon 3). Gnosis, on the other hand refers to a tradition in which ones personal salvation was thought to depend upon gaining special, spiritual knowledge (McCutcheon 3). What is the relevance of this issue to religion Simply put, it is often easy to categorize and provide examples of religious experience but difficult to set a universal, nomothetic definition of religion. This is the general purpose of McCutcheons article.

For McCutcheon, the study of religion is always problematic because of the complexity of religious experience and the ambiguous nature of religion. For Mircea Eliade, religion is an outward irrational experience concerned with the sacred in its whole form. Eliade offers an indirect definition of religion. According to him, the sacred is the opposite of the profane. Now, the opposite of the profane is explained by the concept of hierophany. Hierophany is simply the manifestation of the sacred. In his work The Sacred and the Profane, (Sacred Space and Making the World Sacred   Chapter), he defines the character of hierophany as

For it is the break effected in space that allows the world to be constituted, because it reveals the fixed point, the central axis for all future orientation. When the sacred manifests itself in hierophany, there is only a break in the homogeneity of space there is also revelation of of an absolute reality, opposed to the nonreality of the vast surrounding expanse. The manifestation of the sacred founds ontologically founds the world. In the homogenous and infinite expanse, in which no point of reference is possible and hence no orientation can be established, the hierophany reveals an absolute fixed point, a center.

What is profanity Profanity is the indifference to the sacred. A profane individual does not necessarily rejects the sacred. Profanity is simply the opposite (but not a rejection) of the sacred. Rejection implies choice. Hence, it implies that individuals determine which actions are mutually exclusive. As Eliade correctly observes

It must be added at once that such a profane experience is never found in the pure scale. To whatever he may have desacralized the world, the man who has made his choice in favor of a profane life never succeeds in completely doing away with religious behavior  I will appear that even the most desacralized existence still preserves traces of a religious revaluation of the world (23, italics mine).

Religious experience has a fixed point in space. Indeed, the purpose of religious experience is to find uniformity in the chaos of homogeneity. It is living in the real sense. The profane life, on the other hand, maintains the homogeneity and the relativity of space. The profane life is simply a general reference to indifference, amalgamation, and lucidity. As Eliade argues

No true orientation is possible is now possible, for the fixed point no longer enjoy a unique ontological status it appears and disappears in accordance with the needs of the day. Properly speaking, there is no longer any world, there are only fragments of a shattered quagmire   the obligation of an existence incorporated into an industrial society (24).

Central to Eliades theory is the idea of a religious man. The religious man is the representative of pre-modern societies. He is the object of religious experience. He treats nature as the subject of religion   religion in the traditionalist sense. The religious man strives to live with the sacred because he wanted access to the ultimate form of reality and to the power associated with the sacred. The religious man is, in a sense, an expression of self-efficacy. He imitates the gods in order to attain perfection (at least in some cultures). If perfection is absent, imitation serves as a conduit of obedience. Obedience is a behavior associated with command. This implies that the power of the sacred is in itself self-manifest. The religious man follows out of the religious experience itself. As Eliade argues

In such cases, the sign fraught with religious meaning, introduces an absolute element and puts an end to relativity and confusion. Something that does not belong to this world has manifested itself sporadically and in so doing has indicated an orientation or determined a course of conduct (27).

The religious experience is also manifested through signs. Signs are expressions of religiosity. But they are also mediums for extracting meaning. For example, when no sign manifests itself, it is usually provoked. For example, a sort of vocation is performed with the help of animals because it is them who know what place is fit to receive the sanctuary of the village. A sign may also be asked. This is to put an end to the tension and anxiety caused by relativity and disorientation.

There is another concept related to the religious experience   the chaos and the cosmos. At face, two concepts are visible, but clearly these concepts are twin concepts. Hence, they are treated as a single reference point. The cosmos is the known world   the place of materiality and certainty. Beyond the cosmos is the uninhabited, unknown, and indiscriminate space. It is the territory that extends beyond itself. Now, the world is a universe within which the sacred has already manifested itself in which time and reality is possible. The religious man fixes the limits of his sense experience and finds meanings from the world. In sum, this behavioral tendency is a reference to the sacred.

Conclusion
The essential difference between McCutcheon and Eliade is their treatment of religion. For McCutcheon, the study of religion is a problematic endeavor. For Eliade, religion is a manifestation of the sacred (as opposed to the profane). McCutcheon offers a pragmatic approach to the study of religion (identify appropriate analytical frameworks). Eliade, on the other hand, offers an epistemological approach to the study of religion.