Religion Chapter
QMRThe four main methods of food fortification (named as to indicate the procedure that is used in order to fortify the food):
Biofortification (i.e. breeding crops to increase their nutritional value, which can include both conventional selective breeding, and modern genetic modification)
Synthetic biology (i.e. addition of probiotic bacteria to foods)
Commercial and industrial fortification (i.e. flour, rice, oils (common cooking foods))
Home fortification (e.g. vitamin D drops)[3]
QMRCanada's Food Guide has four food groups. These include:
Vegetables and fruit
Grain products
Milk and alternatives
Meat and alternatives
QMRThe Torah permits only animal species which both chew the cud and have cloven hooves[1][2] Four animals are specifically identified as being forbidden for this reason; the hare, hyrax, camel, and pig — although the camel is a ruminant and has two toes, and the hare and hyrax are hind gut fermenters rather than ruminants.
Ryan Merkle The Torah forbids creeping things that crawl the earth (Hebrew: sheqets).[6] and "flying creeping things",[7][8] with four exceptions: two types of locust, the beetle/cricket, and the grasshopper.[9]
QMRThe most basic food plan is the Mormon Basic Four from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints'. You may want to use it as a starting point and build from there since it is the backbone of numerous other survival programs.
Wheat
Select hard red winter wheat packed in Nitrogen
200-365 pounds per person per year
Keeps indefinitely
Powdered Milk
60-100 pounds per person per year
keeps 1-5 years
Sugar or Honey
35-100 pounds per person per year
Keeps indefinitely
Keep dry in a tight container
Salt
1 - 12 pounds per person per year
Keeps indefinitely
more if food preservation is planned
These four will NOT make a good diet nor a very interesting one, but it will keep you alive. At a minimum, vitamins and mineral supplements as well as a source of fat and oil should be added.
The Mormon 4 was created to provide one year of food at low cost with a very long shelf life. Part of the Mormon faith stipulates that all families should have at least one year's food supply in storage.
QMRNational Romantic Period[edit]
By the late 19th century, in a flood of nationalistic romanticism, the great four emerged, Henrik Ibsen, Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, Alexander Kielland, and Jonas Lie. A unity of purpose pervades the whole period, creation of a national culture based on the almost forgotten and certainly neglected past, as well as celebration of the Bonde Kultur or Norwegian farm culture. The realism of Kielland (e.g., Skipper Worse) gave way to the romantic and nationalistic spirit which swept Europe rekindled and the Norwegian interest in their glorious Viking past (e.g., Ibsen's The Vikings at Helgeland), the struggles of the Middle Ages (e.g., Ibsen's Lady Inger of Østeraad), peasant stories (e.g., Bjørnson's A Happy Boy) and the wonders of myths and folks tales of the mountains (e.g., Ibsen's Peer Gynt) and the sea (e.g., Lie's The Visionary).
QMRCheyenne military societies are one of the two central institutions of traditional Cheyenne Indian tribal governance, the other being the Council of Forty-four. While council chiefs are responsible for overall governance of individual bands and the tribe as a whole, the headmen of military societies are in charge of maintaining discipline within the tribe, overseeing tribal hunts and ceremonies, and providing military leadership.[1] Historically, council chiefs selected which of the six military societies would assume these duties; after a period of time on-duty, the chiefs would select a different society to take up the duties.[2]
Four original societies[edit]
The prophet Sweet Medicine was said to designate the four original Cheyenne warrior societies (pl. Nótȧxévėstotȯtse, sing. Nótȧxévestȯtse), which had their own society songs (nótȧxénootȯtse) and were governed by a head man (nótȧxévėhoneve). Over the ages, some have developed branches or have transformed.
Fox[edit]
Fox Warriors Society (Vóhkêséhetaneo'o or Monêsóonetaneo'o),[3] also known as Swift Fox or Kitfox (sing. Mónėsóonetane, pl. Mótsėsóonetaneo'o; variant: sing. Vóhkėséhetane, pl. Vóhkėséhetaneo'o). This society is found among both the Northern and the Southern Cheyenne. The Coyote Warriors Society (O'ôhoménotâxeo'o) and Flintmen Society (sing. Mótsėsóonetane, pl. Motsêsóonetaneo'o) are branches of the Fox Warriors Society.[3] Among the Northern Cheyenne the Kit Fox Soldiers always claimed superiority over the others. Had strong ties through marriages with Kit Fox Society (in Lakota: Toka'la) affiliated families of Lakota Sioux.
Elk[edit]
Elk Warriors Society also known as Elk Horn Scrapers (Hémo'eoxeso),[4] Bone Scraper Society, Hoof Rattle, Crooked Lance, Headed Lance, Blue Soldiers or Medicine Lance.[5][6] This society is found among both the Northern and the Southern Cheyenne. This was the society of the famous warrior Roman Nose, and also of the mixed-race Cheyenne George Bent.
Shield[edit]
Shield Warriors Society (Ma'êhoohevaso),[3] also known as Red Shield (sing. Ma'ėhoohēvȧhtse, pl. Ma'ėhoohevase - ′Redshields, lazy group. Lit: red-nails(shields)′).[7] or Red Fox. This society was originally found in both the Northern and the Southern Cheyenne. Today it exists only among the Northern Cheyenne. Buffalo Warriors (Hotóanótâxeo'o),[3] also known as Buffalo Bull or Bull,[8] is a branch of the Shield Warriors Society.
Bowstring[edit]
Bowstring Men (Hema'tanónėheo'o, pl. Héma'tanóohese - ′Bowstrings, Lit: those who have bowstrings′),[3] also known as the Owl Man's Bowstring, because it was founded by the Cheyenne warrior named Owl Man. This society was originally found in both the Northern and the Southern Cheyenne. Today it is only among the Southern Cheyenne[8] under the alternate name Wolf Warriors Society (Ho'néhenótâxeo'o) [3] for the Bowstring Men, this society developed out of the Bowstring Men in the 19th century through a vision given to Owl Friend.[8]Among the Northern Cheyenne, the Wolf Warriors gradually adopted the name Crazy Dogs (Hotamémâsêhao'o). Both groups - the Wolf Warriors Society (Southern Cheyenne) and the Crazy Dogs (Northern Cheyenne) - considered themselves constituents of the same organization originally called Bowstring Men.
QMRMS Junius 11 (Cædmon, Junius manuscript or Junius manuscript of Oxford) is one of the four major codices of Old English literature. Although the poems are untitled in the manuscript, modern editors have provided the names Genesis A, Genesis B, Exodus, Daniel, and Christ and Satan.
It has four parts
Contents[edit]
The names of the poems themselves are modern inventions; they are not given titles in the manuscript. As with the majority of Anglo-Saxon writing, the poems are anonymous and their provenance and dating are uncertain.
Genesis[edit]
In this illustration from page 46 of the Cædmon manuscript, an angel is shown guarding the gates of paradise.
Genesis is a paraphrase of the first part of the biblical book of Genesis, from the Creation through to the test of Abraham's faith with the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22).
The work is now recognised as a composite work formed of two originally distinct parts, conventionally referred to as Genesis A and Genesis B; the latter, lines 235-851 of the poem as we have it, appears to have been interpolated into an older poem to produce the current text.
It is Genesis B which has attracted the most critical attention. Its origin is notable in that it appears to be a translation from a 9th-century Old Saxon original; this theory was originally made on metrical grounds, and then confirmed by the discovery of a fragment of Old Saxon verse that appears to correspond to part of the work. In 1875 the German scholar Sievers was first to show that these lines differ from the rest in meter. This view was confirmed later in 1894. The writer of the interpolated passage most probably the German may have lacked Cædmon's craftsmanship but his genius was great. Thematically and stylistically, too, it is distinctive: it tells the story of the falls of Satan and Man in an epic style, and has been suggested as an influence for Beowulf, and even perhaps for Paradise Lost.
Exodus[edit]
Main article: Exodus (poem)
Exodus is not a paraphrase of the biblical book, but rather a retelling of the story of the Israelites' Flight from Egypt and the Crossing of the Red Sea in the manner of a "heroic epic", much like Old English poems Andreas, Judith, or even the non-religious Beowulf. It is one of the densest, most allusive and complex poems in Old English, and is the focus of much critical debate.
Exodus brings a traditional "heroic style" to its biblical subject-matter. Moses is treated as a general, and military imagery pervades the battle scenes. The destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea is narrated in much the same way as a formulaic battle scene from other Old English poems, including a 'Beast of Battle' motif very common in the poetry.
The main story is suspended at one point to tell the stories of Noah and Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. Some scholars consider this change of subject a feature of the "epic style" comparable with the similar digressions in Beowulf, while others have proposed it is a later interpolation. Edward B. Irving edited the poem twice, 1955 and 1981: the first edition excerpted the Noah and Abraham portion as a separate poem; on later reflection, Irving recanted, admitting it was an integrated part of the Exodus poem. There appears to be justification in patristic sermons for connecting the crossing of the Red Sea with these topics.
In recent decades, attention has shifted away from the "heroic" aspects of Exodus to consider its densely allusive structure and possible typology. Peter J. Lucas, for instance, has argued that the poem is an allegorical treatment of the Christian's fight with the devil. The Crossing of the Red Sea has been seen as echoing the Baptismal liturgy and prefiguring the entrance into Heaven. The Pharaoh may be associated with Satan through some subtle verbal echoes. However, these readings are still controversial and much-debated. A more balanced view would accept that though certain intermittent parts of the narrative of Exodus merge into typological allusion, this is not sustained throughout the poem.
Daniel[edit]
Main article: Daniel (Old English poem)
A short paraphrase of the book of Daniel, dwelling particularly on the story of the Fiery Furnace, deals with the first five chapters of the Book of Daniel.
Christ and Satan[edit]
Main article: Christ and Satan
A three-part poem detailing the Fall of Satan, Christ's harrowing of Hell (from the Apocryphal New Testament Gospel of Nicodemus), and Christ's temptation in the desert.
Ryan Merkle The Four Spiritual Laws[edit]
In 1952, he wrote The Four Spiritual Laws, an evangelistic Christian tract. In the booklet he outlines his view of the essentials of the Christian faith concerning salvation. It is summarized as four spiritual laws or principles that govern what he sees as human beings' relationship with God. The tract is available from Campus Crusade for Christ, over one hundred million copies have been distributed in all of the major languages of the world.[4][5] The booklet ends with a prayer of repentance.
The booklet summarizes four spiritual laws or principles:[6]
1. God loves people and offers a divine plan for their lives.
John 3:16 King James Version (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[7]
John 10:10 (KJV) The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.[8]
2. Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life.
Romans 3:23 (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;[9]
Romans 6:23 (KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.[10]
3. Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life.
Romans 5:8 (KJV) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.[11]
I Corinthians 15:3-6 (KJV) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
John 14:6 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.[12]
4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives.
John 1:12 (KJV) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:[13]
Ephesians 2:8,9 (KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.[14]
John 3:1~8 (KJV) There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.[15]
Revelation 3:20 (KJV) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.[16]
Buddhism Chapter
Islam Chapter
QMRPrinciples of Islamic jurisprudence otherwise known as Uṣūl al-fiqh (Arabic: أصول الفقه) is the study and critical analysis of the origins, sources, and principles upon which Islamic jurisprudence is based.
Traditionally four main sources (Qur’an, Sunnah, consensus (Ijma), analogical reason (Qiyas)) are analysed along with a number of secondary sources and principles.
The main subject areas of discussion are these:
General evidences and principles (adillah ijmalliya wa al-qawaid)
Resolution of conflict and discrepancy (ta'adal wa tarjeeh)
Determination of rules and adoption/emulation of rules (ijtihad wa taqlid)
Islamic Law (hukm shari)
QMRPrinciples of Islamic jurisprudence otherwise known as Uṣūl al-fiqh (Arabic: أصول الفقه) is the study and critical analysis of the origins, sources, and principles upon which Islamic jurisprudence is based.
Traditionally four main sources (Qur’an, Sunnah, consensus (Ijma), analogical reason (Qiyas)) are analysed along with a number of secondary sources and principles.
The main subject areas of discussion are these:
General evidences and principles (adillah ijmalliya wa al-qawaid)
Resolution of conflict and discrepancy (ta'adal wa tarjeeh)
Determination of rules and adoption/emulation of rules (ijtihad wa taqlid)
Islamic Law (hukm shari)
Principles within Sunni Islam[edit]
Part of a series on
Islamic jurisprudence
(fiqh)
Economic[show]
Political[show]
Marital[show]
Sexual[show]
Criminal[show]
Etiquette[show]
Theological[show]
Hygiene[show]
Military[show]
Islamic studies
v t e
That which is necessary to achieve an obligation is obligatory
That which leads to haram is haram
Lesser of the two evils
The doubt does not remove the certainty
Islamic law within the Sunni understanding draws from numerous sources. The most basic two sources – indeed, the defining characteristics of Sunni Islam – are the Qur'an, believed by Muslims to be the literal word of God, and the prophetic tradition including the statements and actions of Muhammad passed down through historically verifiable reports. consensus is also accepted by Sunni Muslims, though there is much differing over its exact definition. Analogical reason is typically referred to as a fourth primary source by later and modern Muslim authors, though its exact definition and even validity are not unchallenged.
Beyond the four main sources, other methods such as juristic discretion, public welfare and local custom are often considered, though discussions regarding how these sources are to be applied is ongoing.
Indeed, even the division of the sources of Sunni law into four – Qur'an, prophetic tradition, consensus and analogical reason – was not present in Shafi'is books at all, despite Muslim scholarship generally attributing this division to him.[8] According to Qadi al-Nu'man, one of the earliest jurists to write about usul after Shafi'i did - perhaps during Shafi'is lifetime - was Abū 'Ubaid al-Qāsim b. Sallām, who actually considered the sources of law to consist of only three – the Qur'an, the prophetic tradition, and consensus consisting of either scholarly consensus or consensus of the early generations.[3] This division into four sources is most often attributed to later jurists upon whose work most Sunni jurisprudence has been modeled such as Baqillani and Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad,[9] of the Ash'arite and Mu'tazilite schools respectively. Thus, the four main sources often attributed to Shafi'i evolved into popular usage long after his death.
Additionally, the later scholars of the four mainstream Sunni schools of law all increased beyond four sources; while the four sources are the most widely accepted, other practices such as the Fatwas of the first generation of Muslims and the application of pure reason are not universally accepted.
QMRThe Wesleyan Quadrilateral,[1] or Methodist Quadrilateral,[2] is a methodology for theological reflection that is credited to John Wesley, leader of the Methodist movement in the late 18th Century. The term itself was coined by 20th century American Methodist scholar Albert C. Outler.[3][4]
This method based its teaching on four sources as the basis of theological and doctrinal development, scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.
Description[edit]
Upon examination of Wesley's work, Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions.[5] Wesley believed, first of all, that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in "scripture" as the sole foundational source. The centrality of scripture was so important for Wesley that he called himself "a man of one book".[6] However, doctrine had to be in keeping with Christian orthodox "tradition." So, tradition became in his view the second aspect of the so-called Quadrilateral. Furthermore, believing, as he did, that faith is more than merely an acknowledgment of ideas, Wesley as a practical theologian, contended that a part of the theological method would involve "experiential" faith. In other words, truth would be vivified in personal experience of Christians (overall, not individually), if it were really truth. And every doctrine must be able to be defended "rationally." He did not divorce faith from reason. Tradition, experience, and reason, however, are subject always to scripture, which is primary.
Each of the "legs" of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority.
Outline[edit]
See also: Sola scriptura, Prima scriptura, Hermeneutics and Christian tradition
Scripture
Wesley insisted that scripture is the first authority and contains the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. It was delivered by authors who were divinely inspired. It is a rule sufficient of itself. It neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition. The scripture references to justification by faith as the gateway to scriptural holiness are well known to true Wesleyans: Deut. 30:6; Ps. 130:8; Ezek. 36:25, 29; Matt. 5:48; 22:37; Luke 1:69; John 17:20-23; Rom. 8:3-4; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 3:14; 5:25-27; I Thess. 5:23; Titus 2:11-14; I John 3:8; 4:17.
Tradition
Wesley wrote that it is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. Although other evidence is perhaps stronger, he insisted: "Do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree".[7] Wesley states that those of strong and clear understanding should be aware of its full force. For him it supplies a link through 1,700 years of history with Jesus and the apostles. The witness to justification and sanctification is an unbroken chain drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God in his glory and might.
Reason
Although scripture is sufficient unto itself and is the foundation of true religion, Wesley wrote: "Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles".[8] He states quite clearly that without reason we cannot understand the essential truths of Scripture. Reason, however, is not a mere human invention. It must be assisted by the Holy Spirit if we are to understand the mysteries of God. With regard to justification by faith and sanctification Wesley said that although reason cannot produce faith, when impartial reason speaks we can understand the new birth, inward holiness, and outward holiness.
Experience
Apart from scripture, experience is the strongest proof of Christianity. "What the scriptures promise, I enjoy".[9] Again, Wesley insisted that we cannot have reasonable assurance of something unless we have experienced it personally. John Wesley was assured of both justification and sanctification because he had experienced them in his own life. What Christianity promised (considered as a doctrine) was accomplished in his soul. Furthermore, Christianity (considered as an inward principle) is the completion of all those promises. Although traditional proof is complex, experience is simple: "One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see." Although tradition establishes the evidence a long way off, experience makes it present to all persons. As for the proof of justification and sanctification Wesley states that Christianity is an experience of holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life.
Application[edit]
In practice, at least one Christian denomination based on the teaching of Wesley, the United Methodist Church, asserts that "Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation.'"[10]
Wesley saw his four sources of authority not merely as prescriptive of how one should form their theology, but also as descriptive of how almost anyone does form theology. As an astute observer of human behavior, and a pragmatist, Wesley's approach to the Quadrilateral was most certainly phenomenological, describing in a practical way how things actually work in actual human experience. Thus, when Wesley speaks of "Tradition," he does not merely refer to ancient Church Tradition and the writings of the great theologians and Church Fathers of days past, but also of the immediate and present theological influences which contribute to a person's understanding of God and of Christian theology. "Tradition" may include such influences as the beliefs, values, and instruction of one's family and upbringing. It may also include the various beliefs and values which one encounters and which have an effect on one's understanding of Scripture.
In United Methodist understanding, both laypeople and clergy alike share in “our theological task.” The theological task is the ongoing effort to live as Christians in the midst of the complexities of a secular world. Wesley's Quadrilateral is referred to in Methodism as "our theological guidelines” and is taught to its pastors in seminary as the primary approach to interpreting the scriptures and gaining guidance for moral questions and dilemmas faced in daily living.[11]
QMROverview[edit]
The Priestly work, one of the four sources of the pentateuch according to Bible scholars, is concerned with priestly matters – ritual law, the origins of shrines and rituals, and genealogies – all expressed in a formal, repetitive style.[12] It stresses the rules and rituals of worship, and the crucial role of priests,[13] expanding considerably on the role given to Aaron (all Levites are priests, but according to P only the descendants of Aaron were to be allowed to officiate in the inner sanctuary).[14]
P's God is majestic, and transcendent, and all things happen because of his power and will.[13] He reveals himself in stages, first as Elohim (a Hebrew word meaning simply "god", taken from the earlier Canaanite word meaning "the gods"), then to Abraham as El Shaddai (usually translated as "God Almighty"), and finally to Moses by his unique name, Yahweh.[15] P divides history into four epochs from Creation to Moses by means of covenants between God and Noah, Abraham and Moses.[
Ryan Merkle QMRCurling is a sport in which players slide stones on a sheet of ice towards a target area which is segmented into four concentric circles. It is related to bowls, boules and shuffleboard. Two teams, each with four players, take turns sliding heavy, polished granite stones, also called rocks, across the ice curling sheet towards the house, a circular target marked on the ice.[2] Each team has eight stones. The purpose is to accumulate the highest score for a game; points are scored for the stones resting closest to the centre of the house at the conclusion of each end, which is completed when both teams have thrown all of their stones. A game usually consists of eight or ten ends.
Hinduism Chapter
Ryan Merkle QMRThe four rivers that water the world in Hindu scripture (Ganges, Indus, Oxus, and Śita)
Ryan Merkle QMRP&L Transportation, Inc., formerly Four Rivers Transportation, Inc., based in Wilmington, Delaware, is a railroad holding company in the United States. It is jointly-owned by the management of the P&L Railway, as well as CSX Corporation, which the latter holds a majority.[1]
Ryan Merkle QMRFour Rivers Bay is an Arctic waterway in the Qikiqtaaluk Region, Nunavut, Canada. It is located in Peel Sound on the western side of Somerset Island. It is immediately west of the permanently frozen Stanwell-Fletcher Lake.[1]
Ryan Merkle QMR4 Rivers Smokehouse (4R) is a regional chain of Texas-style barbecue restaurants in Florida, started in 2009 by John Rivers,[1] the chain's owner and head chef. Specializing in brisket and multi-regional BBQ plates and styles, 4R has nine locations throughout Florida, with sister concepts The Sweet Shop and The COOP.[2] Rivers controls the parent company, 4R Restaurant Group LLC, which operates the restaurants and 4R Signature Products line of retail merchandise, and is the author of The Southern Cowboy Cookbook."[3]
Ryan Merkle QMRThe Four Major Rivers Restoration Project is the multi-purpose green growth project on the Han River, Nakdong River, Geum River and Yeongsan River in South Korea. The project was spearheaded by former South Korean president Lee Myung-bak and was declared complete on October 21, 2011. It was first announced as part of the “Green New Deal” policy launched in January 2009, and was later included in the government's five-year national plan in July 2009. The government estimated its full investment and funding totaled 22.2 trillion won (Approximately 17.3 billion USD).
QMRAccording to Sarira Traya, the Doctrine of the Three bodies in Hinduism, the human being is composed of three sariras or "bodies" emanating from Brahman by avidya, "ignorance" or "nescience". They are often equated with the five koshas (sheaths), which cover the atman. The Three Bodies Doctrine is an essential doctrine in Indian philosophy and religion, especially Yoga, Advaita Vedanta and Tantra.
Four bodies[edit]
Siddharameshwar Maharaj, the guru of Nisargadatta Maharaj, discerns four bodies, by including turiya or the "Great-Causal Body"[13] as a fourth body. Here resides the knowledge of "I am" that cannot be described,[14] the state before Ignorance and Knowledge, or Turiya state[13]
The fourth is always different
Judaism Chapter
QMR
The Four Parshiyot[edit]
These are four special Sabbaths that derive their name from the additional Torah portion that is read when they occur each year. Two are before Purim and two are before Passover.
Shabbat Shekalim[edit]
Shabbat Shekalim ("Sabbath [of] shekels" שבת שקלים) requests each adult male Jew contribute half of a Biblical shekel for the upkeep of the Tabernacle, or mishkan (משכן). The Torah portion Exodus 30:11-16 (the beginning of Parasha Ki Tisa) is read. This Shabbat takes place on the Shabbat before the 1st of the Hebrew calendar month of Adar, or on the 1st of Adar itself if it falls on Shabbat. In leap years on the Hebrew calendar, when there are two months of Adar, Shabbat Shekalim is on the Shabbat before the 1st of Adar II (or on the 1st of Adar II itself if it is Shabbat).
Shabbat Zachor[edit]
Shabbat Zachor ("Sabbath [of] remembrance שבת זכור) is the Shabbat immediately preceding Purim. Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (at the end of Parasha Ki Teizei), describing the attack by Amalek, is recounted. There is a tradition from the Talmud that Haman, the antagonist of the Purim story, was descended from Amalek. The portion that is read includes a commandment to remember the attack by Amalek, and therefore at this public reading both men and women make a special effort to hear the reading.
Shabbat Parah[edit]
Shabbat Parah ("Sabbath [of the] red heifer" שבת פרה) takes place on the Shabbat preceding Shabbat HaChodesh, in preparation for Passover. Numbers 19:1-22 (the beginning of Parasha Chukat) describes the parah adumah ("red heifer") in the Jewish temple as part of the manner in which the kohanim and the Jewish people purified themselves so that they would be ready ("pure") to sacrifice the korban Pesach.
Shabbat HaChodesh[edit]
Shabbat HaChodesh ("Sabbath [of the] month" שבת החודש) takes place on the Shabbat preceding the first of the Hebrew month of Nisan (or on the 1st of Nisan itself if it falls on Shabbat), during which Passover is celebrated. Exodus 12:1-20 (from Parasha Bo) and the laws of Passover. On the first day of Nisan, God presented the first commandment of how to "sanctify the new moon" (kiddush hachodesh) for the onset of Rosh Chodesh and thus Nisan becomes the first month of the Jewish year (counting by months).
QMRThe four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:[12]
Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine).
QMRBut there are exceptions. For example, according to United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir. 1999) a conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846 consists of four elements:
an agreement with another person to violate the law,
knowledge of the essential objectives of the conspiracy,
knowing and voluntary involvement, and
interdependence among the alleged conspirators.
Ryan Merkle QMR1483 – The Princes in the Tower, Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, first duke of York (9), sons of King Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville, were placed in the Tower of London (which at that time served as a fortress and a royal palace as well as a prison) by their uncle Richard III of England.[7] The remains of four children have been found which could be the princes, but neither has been subjected to DNA analysis to positively identify them.[8] Neither was ever seen in public again and their fate remains unknown.
Ryan Merkle QMRIn 1824 the Democratic-Republican Party failed to agree on a choice of candidate for president, with the result that the party effectively ceased to exist and split four ways behind four separate candidates. Later, the faction led by Andrew Jackson would evolve into the modern Democratic Party, while the factions led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay would become the National Republican Party (no relation to the current Republican Party) and then the Whig Party.
QMRThe rule of four is a Supreme Court of the United States practice that permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari. This is done specifically to prevent a majority of the Court from controlling the Court's docket.
The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court's own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988.[1]
The "Rule of Four" has been explained by various Justices in judicial opinions throughout the years.[2] For example, Justice Felix Frankfurter described the rule as follows: "The ‘rule of four’ is not a command of Congress. It is a working rule devised by the Court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review, the theory being that if four Justices find that a legal question of general importance is raised, that is ample proof that the question has such importance. This is a fair enough rule of thumb on the assumption that four Justices find such importance on an individualized screening of the cases sought to be reviewed."[3]
Although the Rule of Four in general has remained constant for some time -- i.e., that it takes four votes to grant a petition for certiorari -- the ancillary aspects of it have changed throughout the years and Justices have not always agreed about these aspects.[4]
A good example is found in dueling opinions (for themselves alone, i.e., not opinions of the Court), in Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., Justice Frankfurter and Justice John Marshall Harlan II discussed their understandings of the conventions surrounding the Rule of Four.[5] In particular, the Justices disagreed as to whether, once certiorari having been properly granted by the vote of four Justices, this then required all Justices to rule on the merits of the Petition (rather than vote to dismiss it). Justice Frankfurter did not agree that Justices were required to reach the merits of a petition, even if properly granted, but Justice Harlan disagreed. Justice Harlan felt that even if he disagreed with a grant of certiorari, the Rule of Four "requires that once certiorari has been granted a case should be disposed of on the premise that it is properly here, in the absence of considerations appearing which were not manifest or fully apprehended at the time certiorari was granted."[6]
Ryan Merkle QMRUSS Scorpion (SSN-589) was a Skipjack-class nuclear submarine of the United States Navy and the sixth vessel of the U.S. Navy to carry that name. Scorpion was lost on 22 May 1968, with 99 crewmen dying in the incident. USS Scorpion is one of two nuclear submarines the U.S. Navy has lost, the other being USS Thresher.[3] It was one of four mysterious submarine disappearances in 1968; the others being the Israeli submarine INS Dakar, the French submarine Minerve and the Soviet submarine K-129.
QMRThe Bible with Sources Revealed (2003) is a book by American biblical scholar Richard Elliott Friedman dealing with the process by which the five books of the Torah or Pentateuch (the "Five Books of Moses" (which as I pointed out reveal the quadrant pattern)) came to be written. Friedman follows the four-source Documentary Hypothesis model, but differs significantly from Julius Wellhausen's model in several respects.
Most notably, Friedman agrees with Wellhausen on the date of the Deuteronomist (the court of Josiah, c. 621 or 622 BC), but places the Priestly source at the court of Hezekiah; his sequence of sources therefore runs Jahwist–Elohist–Priestly–Deuteronomist [JEPD] (while Wellhausen order it as Jahwist–Elohist–Deuteronomist–Priestly [JEDP] in his Documentary Hypothesis model). Like Wellhausen, he sees a final redaction in the time of Ezra, c. 450 BC.
Summary[edit]
The core of the book, taking up almost 300 of its approximately 380 pages in the paperback edition, is Friedman's own translation of the five Pentateuchal books, in which the four sources plus the contributions of the two Redactors (of the combined JE source and the later redactor of the final document) are indicated typographically. The remaining sections include a short Introduction outlining Friedman's thesis, a "Collection of Evidence," and a bibliography.
Friedman's version of the documentary hypothesis can be summarised as follows: The first source to be written down was the Jahwist, or J. This occurred in Judah, the southern of the two Israelite kingdoms, in the period between 922-722 BC. (Friedman's arguments are dealt with below). The Elohist, or E, was composed in roughly the same period, but probably a little later than J, in the northern kingdom of Israel. In 722 BC the Assyrian conquest of Israel brought E to Judah with refugees from the northern kingdom.
Shortly after this a redactor combined the two into a standard text, JE, the redactor himself being known as RJE. Then in the reign of Hezekiah, c.715-687 BC, the Jerusalem priesthood produced a text which they saw as a replacement for JE, the theology of which was objectionable to their project of religious reform: this was the Priestly source, or P. Hezekiah's reform program failed, but was revived in the reign of his great-grandson Josiah, c. 640-609 BC, producing the last source, the Deuteronomist, or D. The three sources (JE now counting as a single source) existed independently until the return from the Babylonian exile, when a final redactor, R, combined them.
The "Collection of Evidence" section sets out Friedman's arguments for the documentary hypothesis in general and for his own version of it in particular. He notes seven arguments:
Linguistic: each source (treating JE as a single source) reflects the Hebrew of its period.
Terminology: Certain words and phrases appear disproportionately, or exclusively, in certain sources.
Consistent content: Certain concepts, objects, and practices are specific to certain sources.
Continuity of texts: When separated into sources following linguistic, terminological and contextual clues, each source constitutes a coherent, self-contained narrative.
Connections with other parts of the Bible: Each source has direct, non-indiscriminate affinities with other specific parts of the Bible.
Relationships of sources to each other and to history: The sources each have connections to specific circumstances in the history of Israel/Judah, and to each other.
Comparison with Wellhausen[edit]
As Friedman himself says in his Who Wrote the Bible?, when a scholar agrees with the documentary hypothesis, he agrees with Wellhausen; when he wishes to propose a new model of the hypothesis, he compares it with Wellhausen.[1] Friedman agrees with Wellhausen on the identity of the four sources, and on the identification of certain possible or probable authors: Jeremiah and/or his scribe, Baruch ben Neriah, as the author of D, Ezra as the Redactor. (These identifications in fact were made long before Wellhausen: the identification of the Redactor with Ezra can be traced to Spinoza in the 17th century or even Jerome in the 4th). Where he departs most radically from Wellhausen is in dating P to the time of Hezekiah, almost a century before Josiah and the D source. Wellhausen's placing of P after D, so that the sequence of sources was JEDP, was crucial to the view of the development of Israelite religion from original polytheism to Judaic monotheism; Friedman's reordering of the sources is thus his major challenge to Wellhausen's model, as it undermines Wellhausen's thesis that the Priestly Code represents the final development of a priest-centred religious practice. Friedman's dating of J to the time of the divided kingdom - Wellhausen put it in the 10th century BC rather than the 8th - is also novel, but less so than his ordering of the sources.
Critical assessment[edit]
The documentary hypothesis as defined by Wellhausen, having dominated critical thinking on the origin of the Pentateuch, came into increasing question from the late 1960s onwards as alternative models - supplementary and fragmentary rather than the discrete documents of the DH paradigm - were put forward. Friedman's book is thus in one sense an answer to these critics, and perhaps especially to R. N. Whybray, whose 1987 The Making of the Pentateuch had concluded that the tools by which the documentary model distinguished its supposed documents were fundamentally faulty: how could they suppose, he asked, that the authors of each of the four so-called source documents had not tolerated inconsistency, but that the two redactors had had no problems with it?
Scholars as eminent as Baruch Halpern and Michael D. Coogan (editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible) welcomed The Bible with Sources Revealed as an indispensable teaching tool; nevertheless, Friedman's departures from Wellhausen have been criticised by his professional colleagues on several grounds, not least for ignoring all other models and all advances in scholarship outside his preferred documentary model.
For example, the review in the Review of Biblical Literature noted:
"It is basic for the understanding of biblical literary history that the Supplementary Hypothesis is the 'normal hypothesis' (even within the Pentateuch) and that the Documentary Hypothesis (i.e., the fusion of two literary sources) is only a notable exception."
Also, some scholars advocated 'the Fragmentary hypothesis' for another major text-critical approach to the Pentateuch's authorship.
Moreover, Friedman was criticised for ignoring evidence that P did not precede Deuteronomy, for an arbitrary approach to his assignment of sources, and for failing to note or argue with scholarship that does not support his argument.
On the other hand, his close examination of R (and RJE) was welcomed as innovative and useful, as was his schematisation of the arguments in favour of the documentary model.[2]
QMREin Keloheinu (in Hebrew: אֱין כֱּאלֹהֱינוּ, "there is none like our God") is a well known Jewish hymn. Orthodox Jews pronounce it as Ein Kelokeinu [1] when referring to it outside of prayer, in order to avoid taking the name of God in vain or otherwise violating the sanctity of reverence to the Almighty.
Ein Keloheinu is sometimes chanted at the end of the morning service (shacharit). In the Ashkenazi tradition outside of Israel, it is only said at the end of Shabbat and festival services, towards the end of the Mussaf service, immediately before a Talmudic lesson on the making of the Temple incense. However, in the Land of Israel, as well as in all Sephardi weekday morning prayer services it is said daily.[2] In some other regional traditions it is used elsewhere in the liturgy, but it seems to be known worldwide.[3] In many synagogues it is sung; in some Orthodox synagogues it is only said quietly by every person for themselves and is not regarded as a critical part of the prayer service.
The background for the prayer is that its 20 sentences each count as a blessing. Jews are exhorted to make at least 100 blessings daily [Talmud, Menachot 43b]. On weekdays, the Shemoneh Esrei (or "Amidah") prayer contains 19 blessings and is said three times, totaling 57 blessings, and the remaining 43 are said during other parts of daily services as well as during other events throughout the day. On Shabbat and festivals, however, the Amidah consists of only seven blessings. Ein Keloheinu was designed to ensure that everybody would say at least 100 blessings a day, even on those days when the Amidah is shorter.[4]
Four different names are used to refer to God in this prayer:
Elohim (אלהים) - God
Adon (אדון) - Lord or Master
Melekh (מלך) - King
Moshia` (מושיע) - Savior.
These names of God are in the same sequence in which they appear in the Torah.[5] The kabbalists saw, in the use of four names for God, references to four different Divine qualities.[6]
In popular culture[edit]
Philadelphia based post-hardcore band mewithoutYou, incorporated words from the Ein Keloheinu hymn into the song "Four Fires," a B-side track from their fifth full-length studio album, Ten Stories.
Other Religions Chapter
No comments:
Post a Comment