Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

Thank-you Raven. I read your previous post -- and found it quite interesting and beneficial -- even though I do not follow astrology. But really, thinking about life, the universe, and everything -- in an astrological context -- is sort of cool. I will presently read your last post -- but I frankly cannot spend too much time with the Thuban material. I must remain close to my 'home-base'. I felt the same way with Brook's Egyptology. This is not a minimalization of your perspectives. It is simply a defense mechanism which keeps me from becoming 'Lost in Space'. I keep wondering about a 'Federalist Papers' -- '1928 Book of Common Prayer' -- 'Sacred Classical Music' -- 'Astronomica' version of 'Thuban'. As I have previously mentioned -- this thread leans in that direction. This is NOT an Alex Jones, David Icke, Ron Paul, Sherry Shriner, David Rockefeller, Lord Rothschild, President, Queen, or Pope thread -- yet it includes all of the above. I'd be interested to know if anyone else in the Solar System is taking a similar approach?? I'm continuing to see an Internal Royal Matriarchy -- and an External Patriarchy -- with the Queen of England and the Current Queen of Heaven (for this Solar System) at the Top of the Pyramid. This is merely speculation -- but this is my current story -- and I'm sticking to it -- for now.

I continue to be fascinated with the combination of the first four episodes of 'V' (2009) watched without a break -- followed immediately by watching 'Battlestar Galactica: The Plan' -- with 'Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System' clearly in mind. To me, the effect is chilling. Once again, I continue to fly-blind. Yes, I know there is an 'information overload' -- but I am not viewing this information from the 'Top of the Pyramid' -- and I probably would NOT like the view. This is all a type of Sirius Entertainment -- with potentially serious implications and ramifications. I once spoke with a 'Rufus Look-Alike' ('Dogma') aspiring science-fiction writer about the possibility that we are all prisoners (without realizing that we are incarcerated). This was before I really started getting science-fictional -- and I hadn't even seen 'Dogma'. Several times, there was an official-looking Humvee 'waiting' outside as we spoke. 'Rufus' seemed to be somewhat concerned about this. As I have mentioned previously -- I have encountered at least two or three 'Dogma' individuals -- which made me feel a bit like the 'Last Scion'. Don't look now -- but the Excrementals are taking over the planet. BTW -- 'Rufus' showed me some really cool sci-fi comics. I wish I could find the source on the internet -- so I could post some of them here! Look at the image (with Hermann Oberth) on page 236 of 'Astronomica' (the small-print version) -- and then look at the second image below. Nuff Said.

Aquaries1111 wrote:45.1
Treaty of the Divine Masculine (link)
THE HIGHEST CONCORDING PARTIES, in recognition and respect to the Divine Remedy offered by the Divine Creator and demonstrated through the Covenant of the Supreme Patron to End the War in Heaven thereby establishing conditions by which War on Earth may also be Ended and in the recognition of the End of Hell, the Uniting of all Spirits do Come Now with these Presents and with one another Agree to this Covenant of the Divine Masculine:

45.2
The Divine Masculine deities party to the Treaty (link)
Let it be known to all past, present and future, we here named come freely together for the first time in the history of civilization and the existence of the homo sapien species to obsignate this most sacred Treaty and Covenant; and

We are known as Adad, We are known as Aegir, We are known as Aengus, We are known as Aesir, We are known as Agni, We are known as Ahura Mazda, We are known as Aksobhya, We are known as Allah, We are known as Ame-No-Minaka-Nushi-No-Kami, We are known as Amen-Ra, We are known as An, We are known as Anu, We are known as Anubis, We are known as Apsu, We are known as Apollo, We are known as Archons, We are known as Ares, We are known as Arsan Duolai, We are known as Asklepios, We are known as Aten, We are known as Atum, We are known as Avalokitesvara, We are known as Baal, We are known as Balder, We are known as Belenua, We are known as Brahma, We are known as Chemosh, We are known as Dagda, We are known as Dagon, We are known as Dharma, We are known as Diancecht, We are known as Dumuzi, We are known as Dyaus Pitar, We are known as Ea, We are known as El, We are known as Enki, We are known as Enlil, We are known as Freyr, We are known as Father, We are known as Ganesa, We are known as Geb, We are known as Gobniu, We are known as God, We are known as Hades, We are known as Heimdall, We are known as Helios, We are known as Hephaistos, We are known as Heryshaf, We are known as Hoder, We are known as Huitzilpochtli, We are known as Il, We are known as Imra, We are known as Indra, We are known as Iskur, We are known as Itzam Na, We are known as Jagannath, We are known as Janus, We are known as Jupiter, We are known as Kama, We are known as Kuan Ti, We are known as Lebien-Pogil, We are known as Lenus, We are known as Loki, We are known as Lug, We are known as Lucifer, We are known as Lynx, We are known as Mande, We are known as Manjusri, We are known as Marduk, We are known as Mars, We are known as Melqart, We are known as Mimir, We are known as Min, We are known as Mon, We are known as Mot, We are known as Na Cha, We are known as Nergal, We are known as Ninurta, We are known as Njord, We are known as Nuadu, We are known as Nut, We are known as Ometecuhtli, We are known as Osiris, We are known as Othin, We are known as Pak Tai, We are known as Pan, We are known as Peter, We are known as Pon, We are known as Poseidon, We are known as Ptah, We are known as Quikinn.a'Qu, We are known as Radha, We are known as Sabaoth, We are known as Satan, We are known as Saturn, We are known as Seth, We are known as Skanda, We are known as Sin, We are known as Sucellos, We are known as Surya, We are known as Susano-Wo, We are known as Telepinu, We are known as Tesub, We are known as Tezcatlipoca, We are known as Thor, We are known as Tiwaz, We are known as Tlaloc, We are known as Ull, We are known as Utu, We are known as Vairacocha, We are known as Varuna, We are known as Vayu, We are known as Visnu, We are known as Vulcanus, We are known as Wodan, We are known as Xipe Totec, We are known as YHVH, We are known as Zeus; and

46.1
Treaty of the Divine Feminine (link)
THE HIGHEST CONCORDING PARTIES, in recognition and respect to the Divine Remedy offered by the Divine Creator and demonstrated through the Covenant of the Supreme Patron and the Treaty of the Divine Masculine to End the War in Heaven thereby establishing conditions by which War on Earth may also be Ended and in the recognition of the End of Hell, the Uniting of all Spirits do Come Now with these Presents and with one another Agree to this Covenant of the Divine Feminine:

46.2
The Divine Feminine deities party to the Treaty (link)
Let it be known to all past, present and future, we here named come freely together for the first time in the history of civilization and the existence of the homo sapien species to obsignate this most sacred Treaty and Covenant; and

We are known as Amaterasu-o-mi-kami, We are known as Anat, We are known as Antu, We are known as Aphrodite, We are known as Artemis, We are known as Asherah, We are known as Ashtoreth, We are known as Astarte, We are known as Atargatis, We are known as Athena, We are known as Bastet, We are known as Bes, We are known as Brigit, We are known as Ceres, We are known as Chalchiuhtlicue, We are known as Cihuacoatl, We are known as Cipactli, We are known as Coatlicue, We are known as Coventina, We are known as Cybil, We are known as Danu, We are known as Demeter, We are known as Disani, We are known as Durga, We are known as Eileithyia, We are known as Epona, We are known as Ereskigal, We are known as Fjorgyn, We are known as Freyja, We are known as Frigg, We are known as Gaia, We are known as Hathor, We are known as Hebat, We are known as Hekate, We are known as Hera, We are known as Hestia, We are known as Hsi Wang Mu, We are known as Idunn, We are known as Inana, We are known as Ishtar, We are known as Isis, We are known as Juno, We are known as Kali, We are known as Kuan Yin, We are known as Kybele, We are known as Laksmi, We are known as Leto, We are known as Ma, We are known as Maia, We are known as Mary, We are known as Mari, We are known as Matres, We are known as Maya, We are known as Minerva, We are known as Morgan, We are known as Nammu, We are known as Neith, We are known as Nerthus, We are known as Ninhursaga, We are known as Parvati, We are known as Persephone, We are known as Pistis, We are known as Prthivi, We are known as Rhea, We are known as Sakhmet, We are known as Sarasvati, We are known as Sati, We are known as Semele, We are known as Sibyl, We are known as Siti, We are known as Tara, We are known as Taweret, We are known as Tiamat, We are known as Tin Hau, We are known as Venus, We are known as Vesta; and

46.3
Gift, Grant and Conveyance of Rights, Powers and Symbols of Authority (link)
In recognition of our united, solemn unbreakable oath and binding to the Covenant and the proposition of a United Heaven, let it be known to all past, present and future that we have hereby given, granted and conveyed all our powers, all our customs, all our rights and property, all our symbols and instruments of power, all sacred objects, texts, scriptures and sanctuaries and all claims of authority to the highest holy Covenant of One Heaven and to the proper authority and structure of the United States of Spirits. Therefore:

(i) From this moment, when the leadership of One Heaven or its designated representatives on Earth speak or promulgate one (1) or more instruments, they do so with the highest valid authority and the complete conveyance of all rights, property, uses, customs, symbols, and powers of authority of the collective Divine Feminine; and

(ii) Any and all spiritual or temporal bodies that publicly or privately claim authority from or allegiance to one (1) or more Divine Feminine deities, henceforth automatically derives any and all authority solely from the Society of One Heaven and its valid designates and any existing sacred oaths, pledges and vows are carried over to respecting and obeying the highest holy Covenant of One Heaven; and

(iii) Any and all spiritual or temporal bodies that publicly or privately claim authority from or allegiance to one (1) or more Divine Feminine deities are solemnly bound by their sacred oaths, pledges and vows to honor and respect any and all instruments legitimately promulgated under the Seal of the Society of One Heaven or a valid designate; and

(iv) Any and all spiritual or temporal bodies that publicly or privately claim authority from or allegiance to one (1) or more Divine Feminine deities are solemnly bound by the laws of property, trusts and ownership to obey any order, deed, command, edict, direction, request promulgated by the Society of One Heaven concerning any and all property administered on behalf of the Society of One Heaven by the spiritual or temporal body and its officers; and

(v) Any claim or claims contrary to the above mentioned clauses are hereby null and void from the beginning, having no force of law.

46.4
Agreement and Conditions of Treaty (link)
Let it be known to all past, present and future; let no man or woman, soul or form claim this agreement and solemn oath otherwise:

(i) We, the Divine Feminine hereby swear allegiance to the proposition of a United Heaven and the end of war between spirits; and

(ii) We, the Divine Feminine hereby recognize the authority of this document, the Covenant of One Heaven above all other sacred covenants, agreements, pacts, deeds and instruments; and

(iii) We, the Divine Feminine hereby pledge ourselves to the goals and objectives of peace in Heaven and on Earth; and

(iv) Upon a most solemn and most ancient oath above all oaths, We Divine Feminine Deities pledge our very existence, our names and all spirits and flesh under our command that We shall not permit any spirit, man or woman to obstruct the fulfilment of this most sacred Covenant.

So as it is above, it shall be below.

46.5
Ratification of Treaty (link)
By Agreement of the Highest Contracting Parties, this Treaty and Covenant shall be Ratified throughout all Heaven, spiritual dimensions and the Universe by the Day of Agreement and Understanding and shall be Ratified by any remaining temporal forces residing in or upon the conquered and occupied land, sea and atmosphere of the Society of One Heaven by the Day of Judgment:

Ratification by Day of Agreement and Understanding

By this Covenant, the Day of Agreement and Understanding is UCA E8:Y3208:8:A1:S1:M27:D1, [Wed, 21 Dec 2009].

Ratification by Day of Agreement and Understanding shall be when this Treaty and Covenant is ratified throughout all Heaven, spiritual dimensions and the Universe by the Highest Office Holders of One Heaven representing the Supreme Command of Occupational Forces in and on Earth and when at least two (2) spirits conveyed into circumscribed living flesh bear witness to the event.

Ratification by Day of Judgment

By this Covenant, the Day of Judgment is UCA E8:Y3210:A0:S1:M27:D6, [Wed, 21 Dec 2011].

Ratification by Day of Judgment shall be when this Treaty and Covenant is ratified by the Highest Office Holders of existing societies, faiths and associations that claim their existence, authority and power from the supernatural and spiritual either through their tacit, competent and honorable consent, or through their dishonor demonstrating the delinquency of their flesh and therefore the right through power to represent their spirit to ratify the Covenant and Treaty on their behalf.

Article 45 - Treaty of the Divine Masculine
http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/45.html
Article 46 - Treaty of the Divine Feminine
http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/46.html
Article 47 - Treaty of the Divine Apostles
http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/47.html
Article 48 - Treaty of Angels, Saints and Demons
http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/48.html
Article 49 - Treaty of Spirit States
http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/49.html
Article 50 - Treaty of The Sun
http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/50.html
Article 51 - Treaty of The Earth
http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/51.html
Article 52 - Treaty of The Moon
http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/52.html

47.2

The Divine Apostles party to the Treaty

Let it be known to all past, present and future, We, here named, come freely together for the first time in the history of civilization and the existence of the homo sapien species to obsignate this most sacred Treaty and Covenant; and

We are known as Aaron, We are known as Abraham, We are known as Adad, We are known as Adonis, We are known as Attis, We are known as Baba Rabban, We are known as Bacchus, We are known as Buddha, We are known as Christos, We are known as Daniel, We are known as David, We are known as Dionysus, We are known as Elijah, We are known as Enoch, We are known as Esus, We are known as Ezekiel, We are known as Gideon, We are known as Heracles, We are known as Hosea, We are known as Herakles, We are known as Hermes, We are known as Horus, We are known as Indra, We are known as Isaiah, We are known as Jacob, We are known as Jeremiah, We are known as Jesus Christ, We are known as John the Baptist, We are known as John of Patmos, We are known as Joshua, We are known as Krishna, We are known as Maitreya, We are known as Malachi, We are known as Mercurius, We are known as Mithra, We are known as Moses, We are known as Muhammad the Prophet, We are known as Prometheus, We are known as Sabbatai Tzvi, We are known as Samuel, We are known as Rebbe Schneerson, We are known as Quetzalcoatl, We are known as Tammuz, We are known as Zechariah, We are known as Zohar;

48.3

Treaty of the Demons

By the Treaty of the Divine Masculine, the Treaty of the Divine Feminine, the Treaty of the Divine Apostles, it shall be tasked upon the greatest of spirits, these great heroes, who return to the Father, the Mother, the Light, the One, to find and bring all to the One. That their names shall be spoken in reverence, not curses. And so, by the word of the Absolute, the All, the Unique Collective Awareness, their names are listed - the heroes of the new Heaven - the One Heaven, the prodigal sons and daughters that are welcomed. By these words, it is commanded by the word of the Absolute. By these words, We call them by their known names - We call:

We call Abaddon to come home, We call Abalam to come home, We call Adramelech to come home, We call Agaliarept to come home, We call Agares to come home, We call Ahriman to come home, We call Aim to come home, We call Akvan to come home, We call Alal to come home, We call Alloces to come home, We call Allu to come home, We call Amaymon to come home, We call Amdusias to come home, We call Ammit to come home, We call Anzu to come home, We call Amon to come home, We call Amy to come home, We call Andhaka to come home, We call Andras to come home, We call Andrealphus to come home, We call Andromalius to come home, We call Apep (Apophis) to come home, We call Apollyon to come home, We call Armaros to come home, We call Asag to come home, We call Asakku to come home, We call Asb'el to come home, We call Asmodeus to come home, We call Astaroth to come home, We call Astarte to come home, We call Asura to come home, We call Azazel to come home, We call Azi to come home, We call Balam to come home, We call Bagat to come home, We call Baphomet to come home, We call Barbas to come home, We call Barbatos to come home, We call Bathin to come home, We call Behemoth to come home, We call Belial to come home, We call Beleth to come home, We call Bull man to come home, We call Bune to come home, We call Belphegor to come home, We call Berith to come home, We call Bianakith to come home, We call Bifrons to come home, We call Botis to come home, We call Buer to come home, We call Bali Raj to come home, We call Biule to come home, We call Caacrinolaas to come home, We call Caim to come home, We call Cerberus to come home, We call Charun to come home, We call Cheitan to come home, We call Cimejes to come home, We call Corson to come home, We call Crocell to come home, We call Culsu to come home, We call Dantalion to come home, We call Danjal to come home, We call Dasa to come home, We call Decarabia to come home, We call Demogorgon to come home, We call Duma to come home, We call Dajjal to come home, We call Elathan to come home, We call Eligos to come home, We call Ethniu to come home, We call Euryale to come home, We call Exdemoneus to come home, We call Familiars to come home, We call Fleuretty to come home, We call Fobos to come home, We call Focalor to come home, We call Foras to come home, We call Forneus to come home, We call Furcas to come home, We call Furfur to come home, We call Gaap to come home, We call Gader'el to come home, We call Gaki to come home, We call Glasya-Labolas to come home, We call Göap to come home, We call Gorgon to come home, We call Gremory to come home, We call Grigori to come home, We call Gusion to come home, We call Guzalu to come home, We call Haagenti to come home, We call Haborim to come home, We call Halphas to come home, We call Hanan'el to come home, We call Hantu to come home, We call Haures to come home, We call Humbaba to come home, We call Incubus to come home, We call Ipos to come home, We call Iblis to come home, We call Jikininki to come home, We call Judas to come home, We call Kabhanda to come home, We call Kasdaye to come home, We call Kirara to come home, We call Kitsune to come home, We call Kobal to come home, We call Kokb'ael to come home, We call Krampus to come home, We call Labal to come home, We call Labasu to come home, We call Lamia to come home, We call Legion to come home, We call Lechies to come home, We call Lempo to come home, We call Leonard to come home, We call Leraje to come home, We call Leviathan to come home, We call Lilim to come home, We call Lilith to come home, We call Lillu to come home, We call Liothe to come home, We call Lix Tetrax to come home, We call Lucifuge Rofocale to come home, We call Malphas to come home, We call Mammon to come home, We call Maricha to come home, We call Marax to come home, We call Marbas to come home, We call Marchosias to come home, We call Mastema to come home, We call Mathim to come home, We call Medusa to come home, We call Melchiresa / Melki-resha to come home, We call Mephistopheles to come home, We call Merihem to come home, We call Meshinka Destrega Sham to come home, We call Mictlantecuhtli to come home, We call Moloch to come home, We call Murmur to come home, We call Mutis to come home, We call Naberius to come home, We call Naberus to come home, We call Naphula to come home, We call Neqa'el to come home, We call Ninurta to come home, We call Nix to come home, We call Onoskelis to come home, We call Oray to come home, We call Orcus to come home, We call Oriax to come home, We call Ornias to come home, We call Orobas to come home, We call Ose to come home, We call Paimon to come home, We call Pazuzu to come home, We call Penemue to come home, We call Phenex to come home, We call Pithius to come home, We call Procell to come home, We call Pruflas to come home, We call Purson to come home, We call Quina to come home, We call Rahab to come home, We call Rahovart to come home, We call Raiju to come home, We call Rakshasa to come home, We call Rangda to come home, We call Raum to come home, We call Razakel to come home, We call Rûberzahl to come home, We call Ronove to come home, We call Rumjal to come home, We call Rusalka to come home, We call Sabnock to come home, We call Saleos to come home, We call Samael to come home, We call Satanachia to come home, We call Scox to come home, We call Seere to come home, We call Semyazza to come home, We call Shaitan to come home, We call Shax to come home, We call Shedim to come home, We call Sidragasum to come home, We call Sitri to come home, We call Sthenno to come home, We call Stolas to come home, We call Succubus to come home, We call Surgat to come home, We call Tannin to come home, We call Teeraal to come home, We call Thammuz to come home, We call Tzitzimime to come home, We call Uvall to come home, We call Valefor to come home, We call Vapula to come home, We call Vassago to come home, We call Vepar to come home, We call Vine to come home, We call Volac to come home, We call Xaphan to come home, We call Xezbeth to come home, We call Yeqon to come home, We call Yeter'el to come home, We call Zagan to come home, We call Zepar to come home, We call Ziminar to come home.

I simply do not have enough time, energy, and wisdom to do what I know I need to do. I'm a mess -- because I care -- and this must never be forgotten. Part of my 'to-do list' involves carefully studying this website. http://one-heaven.org/home.php I'm not endorsing it -- but I am recommending that some of us study it -- especially regarding the varieties of law presented therein. Consider spending some quality time with Archbishop Fulton Sheen. He's one of my favorites. Please watch as many Sheen videos as you can find -- and you will gain a real education. What if Popes dressed, acted, and taught in a manner similar to that of Fulton Sheen?? Just as an aside -- I tend to have problems with Royal and Papal Headgear -- such as Crowns and Dagon-Fishead Headgear. Why wear any headgear at all?? I also tend to have a problem with thrones. But I LOVE robes!! It was fun wearing robes and applying pancake-makeup at the Crystal Cathedral!! Consider this series regarding the 'New Mass' (14 parts). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdfUm_c8gCs&feature=relmfu Here is a related interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJjhjA0epuk&feature=fvwrel Here is another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ_Ci4XeS6c&feature=relmfu I believe that everyone should study the Roman Catholic Church -- even if they don't believe in God. The Roman Catholic Church is a Central Historical Organization which affects all of us in various ways. I'm obviously NOT an expert in this area. I am simply a casual observer. Protestants should study Catholicism to know what they're protesting against. I still sometimes think of myself as being a Renegade French Jesuit Organist!! Perhaps I was in a previous incarnation. Consider overdosing on Malachi Martin, Fulton Sheen, and Graham Maxwell (SDA). What Would Monseigneur Bowe Say??? Here is a Fulton Sheen website. http://www.fultonsheen.com/Archbishop_Fulton_Sheen_Photos_1.cfm I continue to wonder what a seamless integration of the '1928 Book of Common Prayer', the '1962 Missale', and Sacred Classical Music -- might look like and sound like -- without any additional baggage. I'm NOT saying this is what I want. I'm simply saying that this might be an interesting conceptual study. I would be VERY interested to notice where support and opposition might arise. I continue to worry about 'The Pope Said It -- I Believe It -- and That Settles It For Me' Theology.

I really need to stop posting -- and start writing some positive sci-fi -- so I might generate some revenue. Publish or Perish. I need new teeth, new transportation, and a new house. I think I might like to drive a Prius fitted with a back-window solar-panel. I think I might like to live and work in a decommissioned missile-silo (with a Cray and a Fisk) powered mostly by solar-panels and wind-power. I think I might like to drive a solar-powered FIZU. Is It Finished?? I certainly hope so. Still no FOIA results. Why am I NOT surprised? Hope Springs Eternal. I just wanted to see how far up the rabbit-hole goes!! The U.S. Postal Service just confirmed that my mail has been tampered with. It wasn't all in my head. Just meet with me at the Federal Building. Anyway -- I don't think I've had sufficient reliable information to make responsible decisions. When confronted with the absolute truth -- my editorial slant might be VERY different. I get the distinct impression that neither Divinity or Humanity wishes for me to know the absolute truth. I've simply been trying to be helpful -- which seems to be a threat to National Security -- or something like that. BTW -- the Ucadia stuff is VERY interesting -- but I remain VERY wary. Nuff Said. Namaste and Godspeed.

We are known as Amaterasu-o-mi-kami, We are known as Anat, We are known as Antu, We are known as Aphrodite, We are known as Artemis, We are known as Asherah, We are known as Ashtoreth, We are known as Astarte, We are known as Atargatis, We are known as Athena, We are known as Bastet, We are known as Bes, We are known as Brigit, We are known as Ceres, We are known as Chalchiuhtlicue, We are known as Cihuacoatl, We are known as Cipactli, We are known as Coatlicue, We are known as Coventina, We are known as Cybil, We are known as Danu, We are known as Demeter, We are known as Disani, We are known as Durga, We are known as Eileithyia, We are known as Epona, We are known as Ereskigal, We are known as Fjorgyn, We are known as Freyja, We are known as Frigg, We are known as Gaia, We are known as Hathor, We are known as Hebat, We are known as Hekate, We are known as Hera, We are known as Hestia, We are known as Hsi Wang Mu, We are known as Idunn, We are known as Inana, We are known as Ishtar, We are known as Isis, We are known as Juno, We are known as Kali, We are known as Kuan Yin, We are known as Kybele, We are known as Laksmi, We are known as Leto, We are known as Ma, We are known as Maia, We are known as Mary, We are known as Mari, We are known as Matres, We are known as Maya, We are known as Minerva, We are known as Morgan, We are known as Nammu, We are known as Neith, We are known as Nerthus, We are known as Ninhursaga, We are known as Parvati, We are known as Persephone, We are known as Pistis, We are known as Prthivi, We are known as Rhea, We are known as Sakhmet, We are known as Sarasvati, We are known as Sati, We are known as Semele, We are known as Sibyl, We are known as Siti, We are known as Tara, We are known as Taweret, We are known as Tiamat, We are known as Tin Hau, We are known as Venus, We are known as Vesta;

We are known as Aaron, We are known as Abraham, We are known as Adad, We are known as Adonis, We are known as Attis, We are known as Baba Rabban, We are known as Bacchus, We are known as Buddha, We are known as Christos, We are known as Daniel, We are known as David, We are known as Dionysus, We are known as Elijah, We are known as Enoch, We are known as Esus, We are known as Ezekiel, We are known as Gideon, We are known as Heracles, We are known as Hosea, We are known as Herakles, We are known as Hermes, We are known as Horus, We are known as Indra, We are known as Isaiah, We are known as Jacob, We are known as Jeremiah, We are known as Jesus Christ, We are known as John the Baptist, We are known as John of Patmos, We are known as Joshua, We are known as Krishna, We are known as Maitreya, We are known as Malachi, We are known as Mercurius, We are known as Mithra, We are known as Moses, We are known as Muhammad the Prophet, We are known as Prometheus, We are known as Sabbatai Tzvi, We are known as Samuel, We are known as Rebbe Schneerson, We are known as Quetzalcoatl, We are known as Tammuz, We are known as Zechariah, We are known as Zohar;

We are known as Adad, We are known as Aegir, We are known as Aengus, We are known as Aesir, We are known as Agni, We are known as Ahura Mazda, We are known as Aksobhya, We are known as Allah, We are known as Ame-No-Minaka-Nushi-No-Kami, We are known as Amen-Ra, We are known as An, We are known as Anu, We are known as Anubis, We are known as Apsu, We are known as Apollo, We are known as Archons, We are known as Ares, We are known as Arsan Duolai, We are known as Asklepios, We are known as Aten, We are known as Atum, We are known as Avalokitesvara, We are known as Baal, We are known as Balder, We are known as Belenua, We are known as Brahma, We are known as Chemosh, We are known as Dagda, We are known as Dagon, We are known as Dharma, We are known as Diancecht, We are known as Dumuzi, We are known as Dyaus Pitar, We are known as Ea, We are known as El, We are known as Enki, We are known as Enlil, We are known as Freyr, We are known as Father, We are known as Ganesa, We are known as Geb, We are known as Gobniu, We are known as God, We are known as Hades, We are known as Heimdall, We are known as Helios, We are known as Hephaistos, We are known as Heryshaf, We are known as Hoder, We are known as Huitzilpochtli, We are known as Il, We are known as Imra, We are known as Indra, We are known as Iskur, We are known as Itzam Na, We are known as Jagannath, We are known as Janus, We are known as Jupiter, We are known as Kama, We are known as Kuan Ti, We are known as Lebien-Pogil, We are known as Lenus, We are known as Loki, We are known as Lug, We are known as Lucifer, We are known as Lynx, We are known as Mande, We are known as Manjusri, We are known as Marduk, We are known as Mars, We are known as Melqart, We are known as Mimir, We are known as Min, We are known as Mon, We are known as Mot, We are known as Na Cha, We are known as Nergal, We are known as Ninurta, We are known as Njord, We are known as Nuadu, We are known as Nut, We are known as Ometecuhtli, We are known as Osiris, We are known as Othin, We are known as Pak Tai, We are known as Pan, We are known as Peter, We are known as Pon, We are known as Poseidon, We are known as Ptah, We are known as Quikinn.a'Qu, We are known as Radha, We are known as Sabaoth, We are known as Satan, We are known as Saturn, We are known as Seth, We are known as Skanda, We are known as Sin, We are known as Sucellos, We are known as Surya, We are known as Susano-Wo, We are known as Telepinu, We are known as Tesub, We are known as Tezcatlipoca, We are known as Thor, We are known as Tiwaz, We are known as Tlaloc, We are known as Ull, We are known as Utu, We are known as Vairacocha, We are known as Varuna, We are known as Vayu, We are known as Visnu, We are known as Vulcanus, We are known as Wodan, We are known as Xipe Totec, We are known as YHVH, We are known as Zeus;

I continue to speculate about at least three Archangelic Queens of Heaven in conflict with each other. I have no idea about specific historical and reincarnational manifestations. I really don't. What about Israel = Isis + Ra + El?? I mean no disrespect and no hatred toward anyone -- including toward those who might be considered 'bad' or 'evil'. I might be quite 'bad' or 'evil' myself -- historically and reincarnationally. Again, I have no idea. I simply suspect an imperfect Divinity and Humanity -- involved in various levels of conflict and trouble -- for thousands, millions, or even billions, of years. Who knows what the REAL history is??? I do NOT wish to be rebellious toward God -- but I wish to make sure that I am obedient to the RIGHT God -- and NOT toward an Imposter God -- or a Corrupted God. I realize that sounds blasphemous -- but we can't be too careful regarding such things -- can we?? I continue to recommend Bible-Study -- but read the First Five Books and the Last Five Books of the Bible -- and tell me there's no problem -- and that everything is fine. Be Honest. Don't Lie. I continue to be amazed by Religious Imagination and Rationalization. Please study this thread. I don't represent it as being the truth -- but merely as being a unique study-guide. I try to be both revealing and forgiving. I mostly wish for the trouble to end -- even though I highly doubt that will happen anytime soon. I suspect that there were certain expectations regarding me personally -- and that I have frustrated these expectations -- and that I have been highly disappointing. I seem to be resisting the Pentateuch, the Pauline-Epistles, and the Book of Revelation -- as I continue to be exceedingly irresponsible and non-productive. What a monumental disappointment I turned out to be -- right??? Sorry for the trouble and inconvenience. I have no idea what to do at this point. In many ways, all seems to be lost. Should I just shut-up and get with the New World Order Program??? Should I join the Masons??? Should I become a devout Roman Catholic??? Should I cease to exist??? What doth the Lord require of me??? Loud-mouths repeatedly 'tell the truth' but they are shut-up or ignored. ET and the PTB seem to do as they please -- without consequences. If I were on their level -- it might all make sense -- in some twisted way -- but from the bottom of the pyramid it all seems so insane.

Thank-you A1. I'll have a look at the '144' tomorrow. Check out 'Legal Epistemology'. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1183363 Just a note about my occasional use of words such as 'damn' or 'hell' -- these are biblical words -- and convey deep theological meaning. I have been modeling a particular personality which requires these words as 'stage props'. I don't talk like this in public -- and very rarely in private. On a lighter note:

On a heavier note -- the SDA Church took the money and ran -- regarding the Health-Care Business -- instead of following the high road of Prevention and Natural Treatment -- envisioned by the founders of the SDA Church. Follow the Money. 'Health-Care As Usual' is More Corrupt Than Hell Itself. I would've loved to have been part of the Christian Bioethics Center at the Loma Linda University Medical Center http://www.llu.edu/central/bioethics/index.page -- although I continue to be an Ellen White Leaning Preventive Medicine Proponent (EWLPMP) -- which would've probably gotten me fired!! You MUST read 'John Harvey Kellogg, MD' by Richard Schwarz!! http://www.amazon.com/John-Harvey-Kellogg-Richard-Schwarz/dp/0828019398/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347394547&sr=1-3&keywords=john+harvey+kellogg I'd still like to know the whole story regarding the Proton Accelerator at LLUMC!! What Would James Slater Say?? Think about the 'Healing Centers' in 'V'!! Other Religious Medical Institutions are No Better -- but the SDA Church Knew Better -- Big Time. Shame On Them. I'm VERY sad about life, the universe, and everything -- as I stumble off into the night -- sobbing "It Might've Been!!! The Creator is the Destroyer -- and the Wheels of Justice Grind Exceedingly Fine!!! Many Are Called -- and Few Are Chosen!!! Crime Does Not Pay On Judgment Day!!! The Hour of His Judgment Has Come!!! End of Line!!!"

Oxy,

Listen to this:

UNIVERSITY OF UCADIA-WEDNESDAYS 9PM EST
EPISODE62 - UNIVERSITY OF UCADIA-WEDNESDAYS 9PM ES..

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=90342&pageNumber=2&pageSize=15

Thank-you A1. I've been rather lax regarding studying UCADIA. I'm frankly a bit worried and creeped-out by the following section:

Article 48 - Treaty of Angels, Saints and Demons
http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/48.html

48.3

Treaty of the Demons

By the Treaty of the Divine Masculine, the Treaty of the Divine Feminine, the Treaty of the Divine Apostles, it shall be tasked upon the greatest of spirits, these great heroes, who return to the Father, the Mother, the Light, the One, to find and bring all to the One. That their names shall be spoken in reverence, not curses. And so, by the word of the Absolute, the All, the Unique Collective Awareness, their names are listed - the heroes of the new Heaven - the One Heaven, the prodigal sons and daughters that are welcomed. By these words, it is commanded by the word of the Absolute. By these words, We call them by their known names (which includes Moloch) --

We call Abaddon to come home, We call Abalam to come home, We call Adramelech to come home, We call Agaliarept to come home, We call Agares to come home, We call Ahriman to come home, We call Aim to come home, We call Akvan to come home, We call Alal to come home, We call Alloces to come home, We call Allu to come home, We call Amaymon to come home, We call Amdusias to come home, We call Ammit to come home, We call Anzu to come home, We call Amon to come home, We call Amy to come home, We call Andhaka to come home, We call Andras to come home, We call Andrealphus to come home, We call Andromalius to come home, We call Apep (Apophis) to come home, We call Apollyon to come home, We call Armaros to come home, We call Asag to come home, We call Asakku to come home, We call Asb'el to come home, We call Asmodeus to come home, We call Astaroth to come home, We call Astarte to come home, We call Asura to come home, We call Azazel to come home, We call Azi to come home, We call Balam to come home, We call Bagat to come home, We call Baphomet to come home, We call Barbas to come home, We call Barbatos to come home, We call Bathin to come home, We call Behemoth to come home, We call Belial to come home, We call Beleth to come home, We call Bull man to come home, We call Bune to come home, We call Belphegor to come home, We call Berith to come home, We call Bianakith to come home, We call Bifrons to come home, We call Botis to come home, We call Buer to come home, We call Bali Raj to come home, We call Biule to come home, We call Caacrinolaas to come home, We call Caim to come home, We call Cerberus to come home, We call Charun to come home, We call Cheitan to come home, We call Cimejes to come home, We call Corson to come home, We call Crocell to come home, We call Culsu to come home, We call Dantalion to come home, We call Danjal to come home, We call Dasa to come home, We call Decarabia to come home, We call Demogorgon to come home, We call Duma to come home, We call Dajjal to come home, We call Elathan to come home, We call Eligos to come home, We call Ethniu to come home, We call Euryale to come home, We call Exdemoneus to come home, We call Familiars to come home, We call Fleuretty to come home, We call Fobos to come home, We call Focalor to come home, We call Foras to come home, We call Forneus to come home, We call Furcas to come home, We call Furfur to come home, We call Gaap to come home, We call Gader'el to come home, We call Gaki to come home, We call Glasya-Labolas to come home, We call Göap to come home, We call Gorgon to come home, We call Gremory to come home, We call Grigori to come home, We call Gusion to come home, We call Guzalu to come home, We call Haagenti to come home, We call Haborim to come home, We call Halphas to come home, We call Hanan'el to come home, We call Hantu to come home, We call Haures to come home, We call Humbaba to come home, We call Incubus to come home, We call Ipos to come home, We call Iblis to come home, We call Jikininki to come home, We call Judas to come home, We call Kabhanda to come home, We call Kasdaye to come home, We call Kirara to come home, We call Kitsune to come home, We call Kobal to come home, We call Kokb'ael to come home, We call Krampus to come home, We call Labal to come home, We call Labasu to come home, We call Lamia to come home, We call Legion to come home, We call Lechies to come home, We call Lempo to come home, We call Leonard to come home, We call Leraje to come home, We call Leviathan to come home, We call Lilim to come home, We call Lilith to come home, We call Lillu to come home, We call Liothe to come home, We call Lix Tetrax to come home, We call Lucifuge Rofocale to come home, We call Malphas to come home, We call Mammon to come home, We call Maricha to come home, We call Marax to come home, We call Marbas to come home, We call Marchosias to come home, We call Mastema to come home, We call Mathim to come home, We call Medusa to come home, We call Melchiresa / Melki-resha to come home, We call Mephistopheles to come home, We call Merihem to come home, We call Meshinka Destrega Sham to come home, We call Mictlantecuhtli to come home, We call Moloch to come home, We call Murmur to come home, We call Mutis to come home, We call Naberius to come home, We call Naberus to come home, We call Naphula to come home, We call Neqa'el to come home, We call Ninurta to come home, We call Nix to come home, We call Onoskelis to come home, We call Oray to come home, We call Orcus to come home, We call Oriax to come home, We call Ornias to come home, We call Orobas to come home, We call Ose to come home, We call Paimon to come home, We call Pazuzu to come home, We call Penemue to come home, We call Phenex to come home, We call Pithius to come home, We call Procell to come home, We call Pruflas to come home, We call Purson to come home, We call Quina to come home, We call Rahab to come home, We call Rahovart to come home, We call Raiju to come home, We call Rakshasa to come home, We call Rangda to come home, We call Raum to come home, We call Razakel to come home, We call Rûberzahl to come home, We call Ronove to come home, We call Rumjal to come home, We call Rusalka to come home, We call Sabnock to come home, We call Saleos to come home, We call Samael to come home, We call Satanachia to come home, We call Scox to come home, We call Seere to come home, We call Semyazza to come home, We call Shaitan to come home, We call Shax to come home, We call Shedim to come home, We call Sidragasum to come home, We call Sitri to come home, We call Sthenno to come home, We call Stolas to come home, We call Succubus to come home, We call Surgat to come home, We call Tannin to come home, We call Teeraal to come home, We call Thammuz to come home, We call Tzitzimime to come home, We call Uvall to come home, We call Valefor to come home, We call Vapula to come home, We call Vassago to come home, We call Vepar to come home, We call Vine to come home, We call Volac to come home, We call Xaphan to come home, We call Xezbeth to come home, We call Yeqon to come home, We call Yeter'el to come home, We call Zagan to come home, We call Zepar to come home, We call Ziminar to come home.

Consider all of the above in light of 'Dante's Inferno' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M6RmsglpQ4 and the 'Book of Enoch'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfyE6h3FTYM The 'Ancient Egyptian Deity' told me that there is a lot of truth in these two sources -- but I took everything they said with a Sea of Salt. 'Paradise Lost' might be worth rereading at this point.

Frank O'Collins (who I enjoy listening to) is somewhat critical of the Human Race, the Catholic Church, the Powers That Be, etc and et al -- yet this 'Treaty of the Demons' speaks of reverencing demons -- who are to be viewed as being heroes -- to be welcomed as prodigal sons and daughters -- into the One Heaven. I have attempted to be open-minded and polite -- but this seems to be insanity. What the hell is going on here??!! Is this a 'Deal with the Devil'?? Jesus Christ is listed as being some sort of a Divine Apostle -- with no mention of any sort of 'reverence' (not that Jesus expects reverence, worship, and praise). I will study the UCADIA material carefully -- but something seems to be VERY wrong here.

I'm expecting nothing but sinister-bullshit, false-flags, economic-disasters, earth-changes, unnecessary-wars, alien-deceptions, supernatural-events, fast-talkers, etc, etc, etc -- in the coming years. I will positively-reinforce the territory I've already covered -- but I am NOT optimistic about the future. Not at all. Once again -- my Grand Strategy is to mostly be a Do-Nothing Researcher and Writer. It's a nasty task -- but someone has to do it -- and it might as well be me. I think I might've been too understanding and accomodating regarding the dark-side. I wish to give everyone a fair-shake -- but I do NOT wish to be taken advantage of. I think I've mostly been attempting to determine who my True Friends and Enemies are -- terrestrially and extraterrestrially.

I think I'm going to spend a lot of time with the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer', the 'Federalist Papers', the 'Gods of Eden', and the 'Desire of Ages' -- while listening to Sacred Classical Music -- including Gregorian Chant and Organ Improvisation. I'm not suggesting that everyone do this. It just seems to be something I need to do at this point in my life -- as a mental and spiritual exercise -- on an ongoing basis -- as a point of reference and stabilizing influence. I am very interested in 'church' -- but I don't see myself attending church anytime soon. I think I might need to 'beat upon the rocks of who knows what' just a bit longer. We all have our crosses to bear.

BTW -- that 'Ritus Verum 144 Truths' video was chilling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYHcGpR7wd8&feature=player_embedded I frankly listen more closely to Frank's description of the problems than I do to his proposed solutions. It's pretty much the same way I view the work of Sherry Shriner. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2012/09/25/monday-night-with-sherry-shriner Do Frank and Sherry spend a lot of time discussing the Teachings Attributed to Jesus?? What do they say about the Teachings Attributed to Jesus?? Both of them are extremely intelligent -- but I continue to wonder what they are really all about? Often, things are not what they seem to be.

I will continue to consider the madness from the general context of the Roman Empire and Church. I'm really NOT hostile toward the Roman Catholic Church -- but I think I've angered a lot of people. I can sense it. I'm simply imagining what a Roman Empire and Church should and could be -- so in a sense, I'm really a friend -- in a strange sort of way. You must understand that I sometimes read literature which claims that Jesuit Priests are demon-possessed -- and that Roman Catholics are mostly lost-souls. I'm rather mild -- because I believe that the church literally has to deal with Lucifer, Satan, Demons, Aliens, and Hell -- and that this has a lot to do with what I object to in the Roman Catholic Church -- historically and presently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY-l7MhfcPw My meddling is NOT personal regarding various church leaders -- including the Pope and the Black-Pope. I simply think that we would be shocked by what they have to deal with on a daily basis. I'm really rather idealistic regarding the church. I might be guilty of 'crazy-talk' -- but please don't call it 'hate-speech'.

I still think they should install that 1875 Cavaille-Coll Designed Pipe-Organ in St. Peter's -- and create the strongest sacred music program in the solar system -- but it would need to be 'their' idea. A Fisk would be cool -- but there are probably a dozen great organ builders who could approximate the Cavaille-Coll concept in modernity. Organists and Choirmasters should probably be Ministers of Music -- with both Music and Theology Degrees -- and they should be well-paid (with benefits). Most every church-member should probably have some sort of musical training -- even if they are tone-deaf. Once again, I am leaning toward Liturgical Discipline and Orthodoxy -- rather than Doctrinal Discipline and Orthodoxy. I guess I am somewhat Liturgically Conservative and Doctrinally Liberal -- but the Clergy and Theologians should be Biblical Scholars of the First Order -- and they should make their case with eloquence, dignity, and respect. What do you think about John Shelby Spong?? Did he go about things the right way -- or did he make serious mistakes and blunders??? I continue to lean toward Thoughtful Positive-Reinforcement -- rather than Pompous and Supercilious Positive-Thinking and Self-Esteem. You know what I'm talking about.

Once again, I do NOT have access to insiders and inside-information. I am passively modeling several political and theological possibilities. I am NOT surrounded by Experts, Libraries, Archives, Museums, Greys, and Crays. I have a $300 Laptop, a dog named Jake Sully, and a Messy House -- with NO prospects. I guess I have a little bit of the 'little-guy' thing going on -- with a HUGE inferiority-complex. One more thing. I still don't know what we're really dealing with. I feel useless, helpless, and mostly hopeless. I am VERY worried about Syria, Disclosure, and Resets. Bad-Things and Good-Things can BOTH be used for Evil and Nefarious Purposes and Ends. Even the Very Best People, Beings, and Systems can be infiltrated and subverted. Some things never change.

Should the border of the United States of the Solar System be where the Heliosheath meets the Termination Shock (or at least the current distance between the Sun and Heliosheath)?? I tend to think so -- but I am open to other possibilities.

This list could really be endless -- but this should keep some of you busy for a while!! Actually, if you're not one of the lucky ones who gets paid to read my tripe -- I tend to doubt that you will spend much time on this. This isn't fun stuff. Not at all. This is SO much bigger than I can possibly comprehend -- and I am VERY afraid of what we're facing. Things could be so many ways -- and go in so many directions. How to disappear in America? Work hard to get to the top of the Red-List. Just kidding -- or am I? Seriously, I'm sensing that no one is safe -- and that there is no place to hide. Both the Rulers and the Ruled seem to be in deep trouble -- but what do I know?? Too much -- and too little -- simultaneously. 'They' probably don't know what to do with me -- and I frankly don't know what to do with myself. Thinking we know -- and knowing -- are two VERY different things. I KNOW that I don't know. I'm going to need the WHOLE TRUTH before I agree to anything or sign anything. I like the general principles and concepts of the United States of the Solar System -- and I have tried to model a USSS within this thread -- but I would need to know a helluva lot more regarding the true state of affairs in this world, solar system, galaxy, and universe -- before I sign-off on anything -- including a United States of the Solar System. My 'demand' in the old Project Avalon -- was a demand for an end to the evil and corruption in this solar system -- along with the conviction that a United States of the Solar System MIGHT be a remedy -- or a partial remedy -- to the nasty predicament in which we find ourselves. Perhaps I was too definite and direct in that particular post -- but how should one attempt to change things for the better in this neck of the woods?? I am VERY worried that I have Really screwed-up this incarnation (in general) and this thread (in particular). BOTH Divinity and Humanity need to speak with me -- and be honest with me -- regarding this matter. Don't play games with me. I'm already quite angry and upset. I feel as if I am being laughed-at and taken-advantage-of. Your silence has NOT pacified me. You probably hoped that I would go away -- or go crazy.

A BIG Thank-You to those who conversed with me -- but I craved a particular type of detailed, technical, and rational conversation -- which never materialized. I have had to manufacture this conversation within the relative privacy of my mind -- and to some, that makes me crazy. Crazy world we live in. People who think deeply about saving the world are deemed crazy -- and a threat to National Security (whatever the hell that means). Once again, it seems as if the New World Order (or equivalent), a One World Government, and a One Solar-System Government have been in full force for thousands of years -- but no one bothered to tell us in a direct and honest manner. It seems as if we've been waiting for the NWO and the AntiChrist -- when they were (and are) already here. The problems didn't start with Greada or Vatican II. They go way, way, way back into antiquity. I'm really tired of sticking my neck out -- and now it might be time to just watch -- while preparing for just about anything. I like the idea of a generalized disaster-preparedness on an ongoing basis -- rather than engaging in fearmongering and making horrific predictions. I have no doubt that we are heading toward some sort of a bumpy ride -- but I certainly don't know the particulars. The eschatological factional-fighting should be interesting. What really happened recently on the backside of the sun?? Is there a star war occurring within this solar system -- and possibly beyond?? I am terrified by powerful forces in conflict with each other. Thinking about this makes me wish to live underground in complete silence. This quest has become way too frightening for me -- and I am VERY sorry if I have caused anyone to experience unnecessary emotional and spiritual distress. I was merely trying to help -- by preemptively dealing with various upsetting possibilities. I continue to advocate subsurface living and working for a significant portion of the population -- throughout the solar system -- for ecological and survival purposes -- but this will obviously take decades to implement.

I continue to seek a royal-model middle-way for Christians. What would various Christian churches have to say about the 1928 Book of Common Prayer -- complete with the liturgy in use between 1928 and 1979?? Is it Catholic enough for Roman Catholics? What would Novus Ordo Catholics say?? What would the Sedevacantists and Latin Mass Catholics say?? What would Orthodox Christians say?? What would Lutherans say?? What would Anglicans say?? What would Liberal Episcopalians say?? What would the Queen say?? What would the Pope say?? What would the Archbishop of Canterbury say?? What would MegaChurch Christians say?? What would Evangelicals say?? Consider reading 'Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail' -- and note particularly the chapter by David and LaVonne Neff. I'm not an expert in this area -- but I keep asking questions -- which never seem to get answered. I hope some of my wanderings will benefit someone at some point. What do you think about this series of videos?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYapd_KST7E&list=UUXkl-vz7DAVCzd7hpMMhSHg&feature=plpp_play_all Here's an article some of you might find interesting: 'What's wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?' by Robin G. Jordan http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/09/whats-wrong-with-1928-book-of-common.html This article was originally published on The Heritage Anglican Network blog on December 18, 2008.

Introduction:
In this article I seek to answer from a Reformed perspective the question, "What's wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?". Classical Anglican Evangelicalism had disappeared from the Protestant Episcopal Church by 1900. The 1928 Prayer Book was adopted at the time the Anglo-Catholic and Broad Church movements were the dominant schools of thought in the Protestant Episcopal Church and the book reflects their doctrinal emphases. At the 1925 General Convention Anglo-Catholics and Broad Churchmen united to remove the Thirty-Nine Articles from the American Prayer Book. They adopted a resolution dropping the Articles from the Prayer Book. However, they were thwarted by the denomination’s Constitution that required an amendment of the Constitution to abolish the Articles. The resolution, which required the ratification of a successive General Convention, was quietly dropped at the 1928 General Convention.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer was the first major revision of the American Prayer Book. It goes far toward undoing the work that was accomplished for the Anglican Church at the Reformation. Many things rejected by the sixteenth century Reformers because of their inconsistency with biblical and Reformation doctrine, are introduced into the American Prayer Book.

Morning and Evening Prayer:
The 1928 Book of Common Prayer dilutes the American Prayer Book’s doctrine of sin. The ten penitential sentences that had survived the 1892 revision of the American Prayer Book are reduced to three each in Morning and Evening Prayer and placed under the season of Lent. This eliminates an important evangelistic element from Morning and Evening Prayer. Samuel Luenberger draws to our attention:

“The text of our sentences are so compiled that they let one discern for himself the way to overcome sin through repentance. The following texts from the twelve quotations occupy a particularly important position: Ezekiel 18:27; Psalm 51:3.9, and 17; Joe; 2:13, etc.

“The very first quotation from Ezekiel 18 shows the way to prevail over sin:

“When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.” [1]

In its use of Sentences for the Seasons the 1928 Book of Common Prayer imitates the 1928 English Revised Book of Common Prayer and the 1929 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, both which are much more Catholic in tone than 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

The Evangelicals in the Church of England and the British Parliament rejected the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book because it modified the doctrine of the Church of England, and replaced the biblical-Reformation theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with unreformed Catholic doctrine. The upper house of Convocation would defy Parliament and authorized its use in Dioceses where the Ordinary consented to its use. The Scottish Episcopal Church has historically been more High Church and Catholic than the Church of England, preserving such customs as the wearing of eucharistic vestments during the Communion Service and the elevation of the consecrated host during the Prayer of Consecration. The 1929 Scottish Prayer of Consecration included an Epiclesis invoking the Holy Spirit upon the bread and the wine so that the eucharistic elements should “become” the Body and Blood of Christ. Like the 1928 Prayer of Consecration, the 1929 Scottish Prayer of Consecration is derived from the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration.

The 1928 Prayer Book permits the substitution of a short Invitation for the Exhortation in Morning and Evening Prayer with its view of man “in a strictly evangelical-Reformation way as one who wishes to disguise his sinfulness and lives with a propensity for avoiding God.” [2]

A short Absolution taken from the medieval Sarum breviary may be used in lieu of Cranmer’s fuller Absolution. This short Absolution, as well as a simplified Confession, is offered as an alternative at both Morning and Evening Prayer in the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book. As we shall see, the short Absolution is one of number of features that the 1928 Prayer Book shares with these books.

The 1928 Prayer Book permits the omission of the first Lord’s Prayer or the second Lord’s Prayer at Morning Prayer. In the 1552 Prayer Book the first Lord’s Prayer forms a part of a sequence that begins with the penitential sentences. Cranmer’s Absolution does not make sense if the first Lord’s Prayer is omitted. The 1928 Prayer Book permits the omission of the Exhortation, the Confession, the Absolution, and the first Lord’s Prayer at Evening Prayer. This represents a significant departure from the Reformed form of Evening Prayer of the 1552 Prayer Book and a return to the unreformed Catholic form of the medieval Sarum breviary and the 1549 Prayer Book.

Invitatories for optional use in the form of medieval Antiphons are prefixed to the Venite. Cranmer had omitted Invitatories from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer because they were interpolated between the successive verses of the Venite and other passages of Scripture and broke the continual course of the reading of the Scripture. (See The Preface in the 1552 Prayer Book). With the Sentences for the Seasons that replace the penitential sentences, they give further emphasis to the Seasons. In the 1928 Prayer Book observance of the Church Year overshadows repentance at Morning and Evening Prayer. This is just one of a number of ways that the 1928 Prayer Book minimizes the gravity of sin.

The Holy Communion
The revised Order for the Holy Communion includes elements that quite definitely bring it into line with the medieval Roman Mass. Among the changes that 1928 Prayer Book introduced are the following:

1. The opening rubrics of the 1928 Order for Holy Communion direct the priest to stand before the Holy Table, his back turned to the congregation. This is how the priest stood at the medieval Roman Mass. This position, commonly referred to as the “eastward position,” is associated with the unreformed Catholic and Roman doctrinal views that presbyters are a sacrificing priesthood and the Mass is a sacrifice.

2. The rubrics direct the priest to offer the bread and wine and then place them upon the Holy Table at the Offertory. An offering of the bread and wine during the Prayer of Consecration had already been incorporated into the American Prayer Book with the adoption of the Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration in 1789. The two offerings of the bread and wine, one at the Offertory and the other during the Canon or Prayer of Consecration are taken from the medieval Roman Mass and are associated with the doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

3. The Prayer for the State of Christ’s Church contains a petition for the departed. This is also a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book.

4. After the Sursum Corda the rubrics direct the priest to “turn to the Holy Table” with his back turned to the congregation—the eastward position associated with the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

5. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration closely follows the pattern of the medieval Roman Canon, except the latter has no Epiclesis.

6. The theology of the 1928 Prayer of Consecration represents a modification of the theology of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration. 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office was the work of two elderly Scottish Non-Juror bishops. They were the last of the surviving Usagers, a Scottish Non-Juror church party that taught that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. They believed that Christ had not offered himself as an atoning sacrifice for our redemption on the cross but at the Last Supper. He had only been slain on the cross.

“The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. Our Lord instituted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist when He began to offer Himself for the sins of all men, i.e. immediately after eating His Last Passover. He did not offer the Sacrifice upon the Cross; it was slain there but was offered at the Institution of the Eucharist.” [3]

Bishop Thomas Deacon in his Comprehensive View describes a proper celebration of the Eucharist from this standpoint. The priest, he writes

“does as Christ did...he next repeats our Saviour’s powerful words “This is my Body,” “This is my Blood” over the Bread and Cup. The effect of the words is that the Bread and Cup are made authoritative Representations or symbols of Christ’s crucified Body and of His Blood shed; and in consequence they are in a capacity of being offered to God as the great Christian Sacrifice....God accepts the Sacrifice and returns it to us again to feast upon, in order that we may be thereby partakers of all the benefits of our Saviour’s Death and Passion. The Bread and Cup become capable of conferring these benefits on the priest praying to God the Father to send the Holy’ Spirit upon them. The Bread and Cup are thereby made the Spiritual, Life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, in Power and Virtue.” [4]

The theology of the 1928 Prayer of Consecration is far removed from the Reformed theology of the 1552 and 1662 Prayers of Consecration or even the theology of the 1549 Canon. In the latter prayer the Epiclesis precedes the Words of Institution and there is no Oblation, or offering of the bread and wine.

6. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration contains an invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine that, as both Martin Bucer and Stephen Gardiner drew to Cranmer’s attention, suggest that the bread and wine undergo some kind of change other than a change in use. For this reason and the following reason the invocation of the Holy Spirit was dropped by Cranmer from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. An invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine is a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book.

7. Bucer also objected to the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects. There was no warrant for the practice in the Bible. It also represented a departure from Biblical practice. In the Bible the Holy Spirit is invoked only upon people. The Holy Spirit also descends only upon people. Now where do we find in Scripture the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects.

The blessing of Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and 1 Corinthians 10:16 refers to the Jewish practice of blessing God over a cup of wine as a form of thanksgiving and not to the blessing of the wine itself. This is clear from Luke 22:17-20:

“And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.”

And 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”

It is not an example of Jesus pronouncing God’s blessing upon an inanimate object—a cup of wine.

In the 1552 Communion Service in the prayer, “Almighty God oure heavenly father, whiche of thy tender mecye…,” the priest humbly asks God that those receiving the bread and wine may be partakers of Christ’s Body and Blood. In the 1552 Baptismal Office in the prayer, “Almightie euerliving God, whose most dearely beloued sonne Jesus Christ…,” the priest humbly asks God that all his servants who are to be baptized in the water, may receive the fullness of his grace and ever remain in the number of his faithful and elect children. There is no invocation of the Holy Spirit or God’s blessing upon the bread and wine or the water in the font.

8. Nowhere in Scripture do we read that Jesus commanded the disciples to celebrate and make a memorial before God with the bread and wine or to offer them to God. Jesus instructed the disciples to eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of him. He said nothing about celebrating and making a memorial before God as if God needed to be reminded of what he had done. Paul speaks of proclaiming Christ’s death with the bread and the cup until he comes again. But he is not speaking of proclaiming to God but to our fellow men.

9. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration contains the words: “…with these thy gifts, which we now offer unto thee….” It also contains the words: “And though we be unworthy to offer unto Thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech Thee to accept this our bounden duty and service.” The Reformers rejected the doctrine that the priest offers a sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. Cranmer therefore removed from the 1552 Prayer Book all expressions that taught a presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, and all expressions that implied the offering of them as a sacrifice. For this reason Cranmer removed the word “Altar,” and all words in the Prayer of Consecration relating to any offering of a sacrifice by the priest. The Reformers also discarded eucharistic vestments such as the chasuble.

10. The rubrical permission to sing a hymn immediately before the distribution of the Communion permits the singing of the Agnes Dei. Coming where it does, it suggests a presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine as a result of the words of Consecration, and for this reason it was removed by Cranmer from the 1552 Prayer Book. This suggestion is further strengthened by the placement of the Lord’s Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access immediately before the distribution of the Communion. For the same reason they were moved by Cranmer to different positions in the 1552 Prayer Book, the Lord’s Prayer to a position immediately after the distribution of the Communion and the Prayer of Humble Access to a position immediately after the Sanctus.

Baptism
The 1928 Book of Common Prayer also changes the baptismal theology of the American Prayer Book.

1. The opening sentence of the Exhortation of the Baptismal Office “forasmuch as all men are born and conceived in sin” has been omitted.

2. The 1928 Prayer Book drops the Flood Prayer that had been in the Book of Common Prayer since the 1549 Prayer Book and in the American Prayer Book since 1789. The Flood Prayer teaches that God has “sanctified the element of water to the mystical washing away of sin” through Our Lord’s baptism in the River Jordan. For this reason the form for the private baptism of infants in the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books does not contain a blessing of the water used in baptism.

One cannot make even the slightest alteration in a text without affecting the doctrine of the text. Dropping the Flood Prayer that stresses God’s sanctification of the element of water for the purpose of baptism is as serious an alteration of doctrine in the 1928 Prayer Book as the addition of prayers for the departed.

3. The biblical language of the Prayer for the Baptismal Candidate has been watered down.

4. The 1928 Prayer Book recasts the prayer “Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved Son, etc…” along the lines of the Prayer of Consecration in the service of Holy Communion. This recasting emphasizes the priestly blessing of the water in the font. This is also a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.

The rubrics of 1928 Prayer Book do permit private baptism even by a baptized layperson in cases of dire emergency without a blessing of the water since its omission would have gone against Catholic tradition but its inclusion does not counterbalance the recasting of “Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved Son, etc…”.

5. The signing of the newly baptized with the cross upon the forehead, a practice that Evangelicals view as without warrant in the Bible, to which they have long objected, and which was optional in the 1892 Office of Baptism, is made mandatory.

6. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer gives liturgical expression to the unreformed Catholic doctrine that a bishop in a line of succession going back to the apostles, through the imposition of hands, has the power to confer upon an ordinand in turn the power to convert the substance of the eucharistic elements into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ (Transubstantiation) and to impart to the element of water the power to regenerate the human soul (Baptismal Regeneration).

The Thirty-Nine Articles rejects the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are sharply divided over the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. The Privy Council, the highest judicial authority for the Church of England at the time, ruled against Bishop Henry Philpotts and the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration in the Gorham decision in 1850. The Privy Council ruled that Baptismal Regeneration was not a doctrine of the Church of England and Bishop Philpotts should not have denied a living to George Gorham in the Diocese of Exeter because Gorham did not believe that the grace of regeneration invariably accompanied the act of baptism.

Baptismal Regeneration was one of the latent Catholic doctrines in the 1789 Book of Common Prayer that, with the growth and increased influence of Tractarianism in the then Protestant Episcopal Church, prompted Bishop George David Cummins and conservative Evangelical clergy and laypersons to leave the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1873 and to form the Reformed Episcopal Church.

The Catechism
The 1928 Book of Common Prayer replaces the Prayer Book Catechism with two Offices of Instruction. The Second Office articulates a view of Confirmation, which has no real basis in the Bible and is not found in the Reformed Prayer Book of 1552, the classical Anglican Prayer Book of 1662, or the first two American Prayer Books of 1789 and 1892. It is a sacramental view of Confirmation that differs from the catechetical view of Confirmation that was held by the English Reformers and is given liturgical expression in these four Prayer Books. It is also a view of Confirmation over which Anglicans are sharply divided.

Confirmation
The 1928 Prayer Book omits the preface to the Office of Confirmation that was a feature of the 1662, 1789, and 1892 Offices of Confirmation and which emphasizes the catechetical nature of Confirmation. The presentation of the candidates for Confirmation to the bishop is modeled upon that of the presentation of candidates for ordination. The 1928 Prayer Book includes Acts 8 as an optional reading. This particular reading and what it means is the subject of much heated debate.

Burial of the Dead
The biblical language of the Burial Office has been diluted. The Burial Office includes a number of prayers for the departed.

Ordination
In the Ordinal there is a significant change in the form of the question put to the deacon concerning the Bible. Instead of being asked, “Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments?” the candidate is asked “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contains all Doctrine required as necessary for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?” The candidate is no longer required to affirm a blanket belief in the teachings of the Bible.

Consecration of a Church or Chapel
In the Form for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel any reference to God’s anger or wrath has been expunged

Conclusion
From a Reformed perspective the 1928 Book of Common Prayer suffers from a number of serious theological defects. This rules out the use of the 1928 Prayer Book in public worship in an Anglican church that is Reformed in its doctrine. If prayers and liturgical material is used from the 1928 Prayer Book, great care should be taken to see that their doctrine conforms with the biblical-Reformation doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal.

Anglicans have long recognized how we pray reflects and shapes what we believe. What good does it do to preach one thing when the liturgy that we are using and the worship practices that we have adopted teach another? Both our preaching and our liturgy and worship practices need to convey the same message.

Endnotes:
[1] Samuel Leuenberger, Archbishop Cranmer’s Immortal Bequest The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England: An Evangelistic Liturgy, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990) 152.
[2] Leuenberger, 153.
[3]Henry Broxap, The Late Non-Jurors, “Appendix II Non Juror Doctrine and Ceremonies” (Cambridge 1928), 1, appendix on the Internet at: http://anglicanhistory.org/nonjurors/broxapapp2.pdf

Consider Christendom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom What Would Jesus Say?? What Did Jesus Say?? Has Christendom Said What Jesus Said?? Does Christendom Say What Jesus Said?? What Would Monseigneur Bowe Say??

Christendom,[1] or the Christian world,[2] has several meanings. In a cultural sense it refers to the worldwide community of Christians, adherents of Christianity. In a historical or geopolitical sense the term usually refers collectively to Christian majority countries or countries in which Christianity dominates[1] or was a territorial phenomenon.“Christendom is originally a medieval concept steadily to have evolved since the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the gradual rise of the Papacy more in religio-temporal implication practically during and after the reign of Charlemagne; and the concept let itself to be lulled in the minds of the staunch believers to the archetype of a holy religious space inhabited by Christians, blessed by God, the Heavenly Father, ruled by Christ through the Church and protected by the Spirit-body of Christ; no wonder, this concept, as included the whole of Europe and then the expanding Christian territories on earth, strengthened the roots of Romance of the greatness of Christianity in the world.”[3]

Terminology and Usage:

The term Christendom is developed from the Latin word Christianus. The Christian world is also known collectively as the Corpus Christianum. The Latin term Corpus Christianum is often translated as the Christian body, meaning the community of all Christians. The Christian polity, embodying a less secular meaning, can be compatible with the idea of both a religious and a temporal body: Corpus Christianum. The Corpus Christianum can be seen as a Christian equivalent of the Muslim Ummah. The Kingdom of God is also frequently used, denoting that the Christian world is within (or among) people.[4]

"Christendom" is used in this article to denote the global community of Biblical Christianity. Christendom as such is set on the appellation of religious aspects. However, the word is also used with its other meaning to frame-true Christianity. A more secular meaning can denote that the term Christendom refers to Christians considered as a group, the "Political Christian World", as an informal cultural hegemony that Christianity has traditionally enjoyed in the West. In its most broad term, it refers to the world's Christian majority countries, which, share little in common aside from the predominance of the faith. Unlike the Muslim world, which has a geo-political and cultural definition that provides a primary identifier for a large swath of the world, Christendom is more complex. It may be a cultural notion, but has very little weight in international discourse; very few political observers really discuss Christendom, while the Muslim World tends to comprise of a civilization in itself. For example, the Americas and Europe are considered part of Christendom, but this region is further subdivided into the West (representing the North Atlantic) and Latin America. It is also less geographically cohesive than the Muslim world, which stretches almost continuously from North Africa to South Asia.

Early Christendom

In the beginning of Christendom, early Christianity was a religion spread in the Greek/Roman world and beyond as a 1st century Jewish sect,[5] which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity. It may be divided into two distinct phases: the apostolic period, when the first apostles were alive and organising the Church, and the post-apostolic period, when an early episcopal structure developed, whereby bishoprics were governed by bishops (overseers).

The post-apostolic period concerns the time roughly after the death of the apostles when bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations. The earliest recorded use of the terms Christianity (Greek Χριστιανισμός) and Catholic (Greek καθολικός), dates to this period, the 2nd century, attributed to Ignatius of Antioch c. 107.[6] Early Christendom would close at the end of imperial persecution of Christians after the ascension of Constantine the Great and the Edict of Milan in AD 313 and the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

Late Antiquity and Middle Ages
First Seven Ecumenical Councils

"Christendom" has referred to the medieval and renaissance notion of the Christian world as a sociopolitical polity. In essence, the earliest vision of Christendom was a vision of a Christian theocracy, a government founded upon and upholding Christian values, whose institutions are spread through and over with Christian doctrine. In this period, members of the Christian clergy wield political authority. The specific relationship between the political leaders and the clergy varied but, in theory, the national and political divisions were at times subsumed under the leadership of the church as an institution. This model of church-state relations was accepted by various Church leaders and political leaders in European history.[7][full citation needed]

The Church gradually became a defining institution of the Empire.[8] Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 proclaiming toleration for the Christian religion, and convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325 whose Nicene Creed included belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church". Christianity became the state religion of the Empire in 392 when Theodosius I prohibited the practice of pagan religions with the Edict of Thessalonica.[9]

As the Western Roman Empire disintegrated into feudal kingdoms and principalities, the concept of Christendom changed as the western church became one of five patriarchal of the Pentarchy and the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire developed. The Byzantine Empire was the last bastion of Christendom.[10] Christendom would take a turn with the rise of the Franks, a Germanic tribe who converted to the Christian faith and entered into communion with Rome. On Christmas Day 800 AD, Pope Leo III made the fateful decision to switch his allegiance from the emperors in Constantinople and crowned Charlemagne,[11][unreliable source?] the king of the Franks, as the Emperor of what came to be known as the Holy Roman Empire. The Carolingian Empire created a definition of Christendom in juxtaposition with the Byzantine Empire, that of a distributed versus centralized culture respectively.[12]

After the collapse of Charlemagne's empire, the southern remnants of the Holy Roman Empire became a collection of states loosely connected to the Holy See of Rome. Tensions between Pope Innocent III and secular rulers ran high, as the pontiff exerted control over their temporal counterparts in the west and vice versa. The pontificate of Innocent III is considered the height of temporal power of the papacy. The Corpus Christianum described the then current notion of the community of all Christians united under the Roman Catholic Church. The community was to be guided by Christian values in its politics, economics and social life.[13] Its legal basis was the corpus iuris canonica (body of canon law).[14][15][16][17] In the East, Christendom became more defined as the Byzantine Empire's gradual loss of territory to an expanding Islam and the muslim conquest of Persia. This caused Christianity to become important to the Byzantine identity. After the East-West Schism which divided the Church religiously, there had been the notion of a universal Christendom that included the East and the West. The Byzantines divided themselves in the Byzantine rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the eastern rite of the Catholic Church. The political reunion with the west, after the East-West schism, was put asunder by the Fourth Crusade when Crusaders conquered the Byzantine capital of Constantinople and hastened the decline of the Byzantine Empire on the path to its destruction.[18][19][20] With the breakup of the Byzantine Empire into individual nations with nationalist Orthodox Churches, the term Christendom described Western Europe, Catholicism, Orthodox Byzantines, and other Eastern rites of the Church.[21][22]

The Catholic Church's peak of authority over all European Christians and their common endeavours of the Christian community — for example, the Crusades, the fight against the Moors in the Iberian Peninsula and against the Ottomans in the Balkans — helped to develop a sense of communal identity against the obstacle of Europe's deep political divisions. But this authority was also sometimes abused, and fostered the Inquisition and anti-Jewish pogroms, to root out divergent elements and create a religiously uniform community.[citation needed] Ultimately, the Inquisition was done away with by order of the Pope Innocent III.[23]

Christendom ultimately was led into specific crisis in the late Middle Ages, when the kings of France managed to establish a French national church during the 14th century and the papacy became ever more aligned with the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Known as the Western Schism, western Christendom was a split between three men, who were driven by politics rather than any real theological disagreement for simultaneously claiming to be the true pope. The Avignon Papacy developed a reputation of corruption that estranged major parts of Western Christendom. The Avignon schism was ended by the Council of Constance.[24]

Before the modern period, Christendom was in a general crisis at the time of the Renaissance Popes because of the moral laxity of these pontiffs and their willingness to seek and rely on temporal power as secular rulers did. Many in the Catholic Church's hierarchy in the Renaissance became increasingly entangled with insatiable greed for material wealth and temporal power, which led to many reform movements, some merely wanting a moral reformation of the Church's clergy, while others repudiated the Church and separated from it in order to form new sects. The Italian Renaissance produced ideas or institutions by which men living in society could be held together in harmony. In the early 16th century, Baldassare Castiglione (The Book of the Courtier) laid out his vision of the ideal gentleman and lady, while Machiavelli cast a jaundiced eye on "la verita effetuale delle cose" — the actual truth of things — in The Prince, composed, humanist style, chiefly of parallel ancient and modern examples of Virtù. Some Protestant movements grew up along lines of mysticism or renaissance humanism (cf. Erasmus). The Catholic Church fell into general neglect under the Renaissance Popes, whose inability to govern the Church properly set the climate for what would ultimately become the Protestant Reformation.[25]

Reformation and Modern Era

Developments in western philosophy and European events brought change to the notion of the Corpus Christianum. The Hundred Years' War accelerated the process of transforming France from a feudal monarchy to a centralized state. The rise of strong, centralized monarchies[26] denoted the European transition from feudalism to capitalism. By the end of the Hundred Years' War, both France and England were able to raise enough money through taxation to create independent standing armies. In the Wars of the Roses, Henry Tudor took the crown of England. His heir, the absolute king Henry VIII establishing the English church.[27]

In modern history, the Reformation and rise of modernity in the early 16th century entailed a change in the Corpus Christianum. In the Holy Roman Empire, the Peace of Augsburg of 1555 officially ended the idea among secular leaders that all Christians must be united under one church. The principle of cuius regio, eius religio ("whose the region is, his religion") established the religious, political and geographic divisions of Christianity, and this was established with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which legally ended the concept of a single Christian hegemony in the territories of the Holy Roman Empire, despite the Catholic Church's doctrine that it alone is the one true Church founded by Christ. Subsequently, each government determined the religion of their own state. Christians living in states where their denomination was not the established one were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will. With the Treaty of Westphalia, the Wars of Religion came to an end, and in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 the concept of the sovereign national state was born.[citation needed]

Christian Literature and Christian Poetry

Christian literature is writing that deals with Christian themes and incorporates the Christian world view. This constitutes a huge body of extremely varied writing. Christian poetry is any poetry that contains Christian teachings, themes, or references. The influence of Christianity on poetry has been great in any area that Christianity has taken hold. Christian poems often directly reference the Bible, while others provide allegory.

Christian Art

Christian art is art produced in an attempt to illustrate, supplement and portray in tangible form the principles of Christianity. Virtually all Christian groupings use or have used art to some extent. The prominence of art and the media, style, and representations change; however, the unifying theme is ultimately the representation of the life and times of Jesus and in some cases the Old Testament. Depictions of saints are also common, especially in Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

An illuminated manuscript is a manuscript in which the text is supplemented by the addition of decoration. The earliest surviving substantive illuminated manuscripts are from the period AD 400 to 600, primarily produced in Ireland, Constantinople and Italy. The majority of surviving manuscripts are from the Middle Ages, although many illuminated manuscripts survive from the 15th century Renaissance, along with a very limited number from Late Antiquity.

Most illuminated manuscripts were created as codices, which had superseded scrolls; some isolated single sheets survive. A very few illuminated manuscript fragments survive on papyrus. Most medieval manuscripts, illuminated or not, were written on parchment (most commonly of calf, sheep, or goat skin), but most manuscripts important enough to illuminate were written on the best quality of parchment, called vellum, traditionally made of unsplit calfskin, though high quality parchment from other skins was also called parchment.

Iconography

Christian art began, about two centuries after Christ, by borrowing motifs from Roman Imperial imagery, classical Greek and Roman religion and popular art. Religious images are used to some extent by the Abrahamic Christian faith, and often contain highly complex iconography, which reflects centuries of accumulated tradition. In the Late Antique period iconography began to be standardised, and to relate more closely to Biblical texts, although many gaps in the canonical Gospel narratives were plugged with matter from the apocryphal gospels. Eventually the Church would succeed in weeding most of these out, but some remain, like the ox and ass in the Nativity of Christ.

An icon is a religious work of art, most commonly a painting, from Eastern Orthodox Christianity or one of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Christianity has used symbolism from its very beginnings.[28] In both East and West, numerous iconic types of Christ, Mary and saints and other subjects were developed; the number of named types of icons of Mary, with or without the infant Christ, was especially large in the East, whereas Christ Pantocrator was much the commonest image of Christ.

Christian symbolism invests objects or actions with an inner meaning expressing Christian ideas. Christianity has borrowed from the common stock of significant symbols known to most periods and to all regions of the world. Religious symbolism is effective when it appeals to both the intellect and the emotions. Especially important depictions of Mary include the Hodegetria and Panagia types. Traditional models evolved for narrative paintings, including large cycles covering the events of the Life of Christ, the Life of the Virgin, parts of the Old Testament, and, increasingly, the lives of popular saints. Especially in the West, a system of attributes developed for identifying individual figures of saints by a standard appearance and symbolic objects held by them; in the East they were more likely to identified by text labels.

Each saint has a story and a reason why he or she led an exemplary life. Symbols have been used to tell these stories throughout the history of the Church. A number of Christian saints are traditionally represented by a symbol or iconic motif associated with their life, termed an attribute or emblem, in order to identify them. The study of these forms part of iconography in Art history. They were particularly

Architecture

Christian architecture encompasses a wide range of both secular and religious styles from the foundation of Christianity to the present day, influencing the design and construction of buildings and structures in Christian culture.

Buildings were at first adapted from those originally intended for other purposes but, with the rise of distinctively ecclesiastical architecture, church buildings came to influence secular ones which have often imitated religious architecture. In the 20th century, the use of new materials, such as concrete, as well as simpler styles has had its effect upon the design of churches and arguably the flow of influence has been reversed. From the birth of Christianity to the present, the most significant period of transformation for Christian architecture in the west was the Gothic cathedral. In the east, Byzantine architecture was a continuation of Roman architecture.

Philosophy

Christian philosophy is a term to describe the fusion of various fields of philosophy with the theological doctrines of Christianity. Scholasticism, which means "that [which] belongs to the school", and was a method of learning taught by the academics (or school people) of medieval universities c. 1100–1500. Scholasticism originally started to reconcile the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers with medieval Christian theology. Scholasticism is not a philosophy or theology in itself but a tool and method for learning which places emphasis on dialectical reasoning.

Science, and particularly geometry and astronomy, was linked directly to the divine for most medieval scholars. Since God created the universe after geometric and harmonic principles, to seek these principles was therefore to seek and worship God.

The Byzantine Empire, which was the most sophisticated culture during antiquity, suffered under muslim conquests limiting its scientific prowess during the Medieval period. Christian Western Europe had suffered a catastrophic loss of knowledge following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. But thanks to the Church scholars such as Aquinas and Buridan, the West carried on at least the spirit of scientific inquiry which would later lead to Europe's taking the lead in science during the Scientific Revolution using translations of medieval works.

Medieval technology refers to the technology used in medieval Europe under Christian rule. After the Renaissance of the 12th century, medieval Europe saw a radical change in the rate of new inventions, innovations in the ways of managing traditional means of production, and economic growth.[29] The period saw major technological advances, including the adoption of gunpowder and the astrolabe, the invention of spectacles, and greatly improved water mills, building techniques, agriculture in general, clocks, and ships. The latter advances made possible the dawn of the Age of Exploration. The development of water mills was impressive, and extended from agriculture to sawmills both for timber and stone, probably derived from Roman technology. By the time of the Domesday Book, most large villages in Britain had mills. They also were widely used in mining, as described by Georg Agricola in De Re Metallica for raising ore from shafts, crushing ore, and even powering bellows.

Significant in this respect were advances within the fields of navigation. The compass and astrolabe along with advances in shipbuilding, enabled the navigation of the World Oceans and thus domination of the worlds economic trade. Gutenberg’s printing press made possible a dissemination of knowledge to a wider population, that would not only lead to a gradually more egalitarian society, but one more able to dominate other cultures, drawing from a vast reserve of knowledge and experience.

During the Renaissance, great advances occurred in geography, astronomy, chemistry, physics, math, manufacturing, and engineering. The rediscovery of ancient scientific texts was accelerated after the Fall of Constantinople, and the invention of printing which would democratize learning and allow a faster propagation of new ideas. Renaissance technology is the set of artifacts and customs, spanning roughly the 14th through the 16th century. The era is marked by such profound technical advancements like the printing press, linear perspectivity, patent law, double shell domes or Bastion fortresses. Draw-books of the Renaissance artist-engineers such as Taccola and Leonardo da Vinci give a deep insight into the mechanical technology then known and applied.

Renaissance science spawned the Scientific Revolution; science and technology began a cycle of mutual advancement. The Scientific Renaissance was the early phase of the Scientific Revolution. In the two-phase model of early modern science: a Scientific Renaissance of the 15th and 16th centuries, focused on the restoration of the natural knowledge of the ancients; and a Scientific Revolution of the 17th century, when scientists shifted from recovery to innovation.

Demographics

Christianity is the predominant religion in Europe, Russia, the Americas, Oceania, the Philippines, Eastern Indonesia, Southern Africa, Central Africa and East Africa.[30] There are also large Christian communities in other parts of the world, such as Central Asia, where Christianity is the second-largest religion after Islam. The United States is the largest Christian country in the world by population, followed by Brazil and Mexico.[31]

Many Christians not only live under, but also have an official status in, a state religion of the following nations: Argentina (Roman Catholic Church),[32][33] Armenia (Armenian Apostolic Church),[34] Bolivia (Roman Catholic Church),[35] Costa Rica (Roman Catholic Church),[36] Denmark (Church of Denmark),[37] El Salvador (Roman Catholic Church),[38] England (Church of England),[39] Greece (Church of Greece), Iceland (Church of Iceland),[40] Liechtenstein (Roman Catholic Church),[41] Malta (Roman Catholic Church),[42] Monaco (Roman Catholic Church),[43] Romania (Romanian Orthodox Church), Norway (Church of Norway),[44] Vatican City (Roman Catholic Church),[45] Switzerland (Roman Catholic Church, Swiss Reformed Church and Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland) and Georgia (Georgian Orthodox Church).

The estimated number of Christians in the world ranges from 1.5 billion[46] to 2.2 billion people.[46][47] Composed of around 34,000 different denominations,[citation needed] Christianity is the world's largest religion.[48] Christians have composed about 33 percent of the world's population for around 100 years.

A religious order is a lineage of communities and organizations of people who live in some way set apart from society in accordance with their specific religious devotion, usually characterized by the principles of its founder's religious practice. In contrast, the term Holy Orders is used by many Christian churches to refer to ordination or to a group of individuals who are set apart for a special role or ministry. Historically, the word "order" designated an established civil body or corporation with a hierarchy, and ordinatio meant legal incorporation into an ordo. The word "holy" refers to the Church. In context, therefore, a holy order is set apart for ministry in the Church. Religious orders are composed of initiates (laity) and, in some traditions, ordained clergies.

In the Roman Catholic Church, religious institutes and secular institutes are the major forms of institutes of consecrated life, similar to which are societies of apostolic life. They are organisations of laity and/or clergy who live a common life under the guidance of a fixed rule and the leadership of a superior. (ed., see Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies for a particular listing.)

Anglican religious orders are communities of laity and/or clergy in the Anglican churches who live under a common rule of life. (ed., see Category:Anglican organizations for a particular listing)

Canon Law and Christian Ethics

Within the framework of Christianity, there are at least three possible definitions for Church law. One is the Torah/Mosaic Law (from what Christians consider to be the Old Testament) also called Divine Law or Biblical law. Another is the instructions of Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospel (sometimes referred to as the Law of Christ or the New Commandment or the New Covenant). A third is canon law which is the internal ecclesiastical law governing the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Anglican Communion of churches.[49] The way that such church law is legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely among these three bodies of churches. In all three traditions, a canon was initially a rule adopted by a council (From Greek kanon / κανών, Hebrew kaneh / קנה, for rule, standard, or measure); these canons formed the foundation of canon law.

Christian ethics in general has tended to stress the need for grace, mercy, and forgiveness because of human weakness and developed while Early Christians were subjects of the Roman Empire. From the time Nero blamed Christians for setting Rome ablaze (64 AD) until Galarius (311 AD), persecutions against Christians erupted periodically. Consequently, Early Christian ethics included discussions of how believers should relate to Roman authority and to the empire.

Under the Emperor Constantine I (312-337), Christianity became a legal religion. While some scholars debate whether Constantine's conversion to Christianity was authentic or simply matter of political expediency, Constantine's decree made the empire safe for Christian practice and belief. Consequently, issues of Christian doctrine, ethics and church practice were debated openly, see for example the First Council of Nicaea and the First seven Ecumenical Councils. By the time of Theodosius I (379-395), Christianity had become the state religion of the empire. With Christianity in power, ethical concerns broaden and included discussions of the proper role of the state.

Render unto Caesar… is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s". This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority. The gospels say that when Jesus gave his response, his interrogators "marvelled, and left him, and went their way." Time has not resolved an ambiguity in this phrase, and people continue to interpret this passage to support various positions that are poles apart. The traditional division, carefully determined, in Christian thought is the state and church have separate spheres of influence.

Thomas Aquinas thoroughly discussed that human law is positive law which means that it is natural law applied by governments to societies. All human laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law was in a sense no law at all. At this point, the natural law was not only used to pass judgment on the moral worth of various laws, but also to determine what the law said in the first place. This could result in some tension.[50] Hardly a single portion of ethics does Aquinas present to us but is enriched with his keen philosophical commentaries. Late ecclesiastical writers followed in his footsteps.

Christian Democracy

Christian democracy is a political ideology that seeks to apply Christian principles to public policy. It emerged in 19th-century Europe, largely under the influence of Catholic social teaching. In a number of countries, the democracy's Christian ethos has been diluted by secularisation. In practice, Christian democracy is often considered conservative on cultural, social and moral issues and progressive on fiscal and economic issues. In places, where their opponents have traditionally been secularist socialists and social democrats, Christian democratic parties are moderately conservative, whereas in other cultural and political environments they can lean to the left.

Women in Christianity

Attitudes and beliefs about the roles and responsibilities of women in Christianity vary considerably today as they have throughout the last two millennia — evolving along with or counter to the societies in which Christians have lived. The Bible and Christianity historically have been interpreted as excluding women from church leadership and placing them in submissive roles in marriage. Male leadership has been assumed in the church and within marriage, society and government.[51]

Some contemporary writers describe the role of women in the life of the church as having been downplayed, overlooked, or denied throughout much of Christian history. Paradigm shifts in gender roles in society and also many churches has inspired reevaluation by many Christians of some long-held attitudes to the contrary. Christian egalitarians have increasingly argued for equal roles for men and women in marriage, as well as for the ordination of women to the clergy. Contemporary conservatives meanwhile have reasserted what has been termed a "complementarian" position, promoting the traditional belief that the Bible ordains different roles and responsibilities for women and men in the Church and family.

Major Christian Denominations

A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity. Worldwide, Christians are divided, often along ethnic and linguistic lines, into separate churches and traditions. Various denominations, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, make particular distinctions in their literature.[52] Technically, divisions between one group and another are defined by church doctrine and church authority. Centering on language of professed Christianity and true Christianity, issues that separate one group of followers of Jesus from another include:

Apostolic succession,
Biblical authority,
Biblical criticism,
Biblical inerrancy,
Biblical infallibility,
Biblical inspiration,
Biblical interpretation,
Papal primacy, and
Views of Jesus (Christology).

Christianity is composed of, but not limited to, five major branches of Churches: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, and Old Catholicism. Some listings include Anglicans among Protestants while others list the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox separately. The Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorians) and the Old Catholic churches are also distinct Christian bodies of historic importance, but much smaller in adherents and geographic scope. Each of these five branches has important subdivisions. Because the Protestant subdivisions do not maintain a common theology or earthly leadership, they are far more distinct than the subdivisions of the other four groupings. Denomination typically refers to one of the many Christian groupings including each of the multitude of Protestant subdivisions.

See also: East–West Schism, History of the East–West Schism, History of the Roman Catholic Church, History of the Eastern Orthodox Church, History of Protestantism, History of the Anglican Communion, and History of Oriental Orthodoxy

Catholicism is the largest denomination, comprising just over half of Christians worldwide.

In Christendom, the largest denominations are:

1.Roman Catholicism – 1.2 billion
2.Protestantism – 540 million
3.Eastern Orthodoxy – 300 million
4.Anglicanism – 115 million
5.Oriental Orthodoxy – 75 million
6.Nontrinitarianism – 26 million
7.Nestorianism – 1 million
8.Old Catholicism - .4 million

In the interaction between Christendom and other belief systems,[53] men and women when not at war with their neighbors have always made an effort to understand the Other (not least because understanding is a strategy for defense, but also because for as long as there is dialogue wars are delayed). Such interactions have led to various interfaith dialogue events. History records many examples of interfaith initiatives and dialogue throughout the ages. In the field of comparative religion, the interactions connects fundamental ideas in Christianity with similar ones in other religions. Christianity and other religions appear to share some elements. Regarding Christianity's relationship with other world beliefs, Christianity and other beliefs have differences and similarities in connection with each other.

Christianity and Judaism

Global distribution of Jewry in 2006; percentage of the top nation (Israel - 5,313,800).
Although Christianity and Judaism share historical roots, these two religions diverge in fundamental ways. Though Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes continuities and convergences between the two religions, there are many other areas in which the faiths diverge.

Muslim World

Christianity and Islam share their origins in the Abrahamic tradition, as well as Judaism. Islam accepts Jesus and his miracles and other aspects of Christianity as part of its faith - with some differences in interpretation, and rejects other aspects.

Buddhism and Christianity

There has been much speculation regarding a possible connection between both the Buddha and the Christ, and between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism originated in India about 500 years before the Apostolic Age and the origins of Christianity.

Hindu World

The declaration Nostra Aetate officially established inter-religious dialogue between Catholics and Hindus. It has promoted common values between religions. There are over 17.3 million Catholics in India, which represents less than 2% of the total population and is the largest Christian Church within India. However, the Holy See has expressed concern with regards to religious violence in the state of Orissa, which is closely related to the ideology of Hindutva.

Secular World and Humanism

Atheists, agnostics and nonreligious, by the Dentsu Institute (2006) and Zuckerman (2005)
Irreligion is an absence of religion, indifference to religion, and/or hostility to religion. Secularism, in one sense, may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings and freedom from the imposition of religion upon the people. In its most prominent form, secularism is critical of religious orthodoxy and asserts that religion impedes human progress because of its focus on superstition and dogma rather than on reason and the scientific method. Humanism refers to a philosophy centered on humankind. Much of Humanism's life stance upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism (Christian mythology).

See Also:

Main Outline of Christianity, Christian Apologetics, Criticism of Christianity General Ecumenism, Christianity and other religions, Christian Flag, Crusade, Christian pilgrimage, The Good News, The City of God History History of Christianity, Constantinian shift, Constantine I and Christianity Roman Catholic Church Papism, Church militant and church triumphant, Union of Christendom, Catholic Church and ecumenism, Political Catholicism, Interdict "Western" concepts Western world, Western nationalism Muslim world Caliphate, Ummah, Mohammadan Church and State Freedom of religion, Caesaropapism, Ecumene, Dominionism, Res publica christiana Other Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire (Holy Roman Emperor)

Footnotes

1.^ a b See Merriam-Webster.com : dictionary, "Christendom"
2.^ Marty, Martin E. The Christian World: A Global History. Modern Library chronicles, 29. New York: Modern Library, 2007.
3.^ Silen Debnath, Secularism:Western and Indian, ISBN 8126913665, 9788126913664, Atlantic Publishers, New Delhi
4.^ Kingdom is within: "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within [or among] you." Luke 17:20-21
5.^ Acts 3:1; Acts 5:27–42; Acts 21:18–26; Acts 24:5; Acts 24:14; Acts 28:22; Romans 1:16; Tacitus, Annales xv 44; Josephus Antiquities xviii 3; Mortimer Chambers, The Western Experience Volume II chapter 5; The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion page 158.
6.^ Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon; Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Magnesians 10, Letter to the Romans (Roberts-Donaldson tr., Lightfoot tr., Greek text). However, an edition presented on some websites, one that otherwise corresponds exactly with the Roberts-Donaldson translation, renders this passage to the interpolated inauthentic longer recension of Ignatius's letters, which does not contain the word "Christianity."
7.^ Chisholm, H. (1910). The Encyclopædia Britannica: A dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information. New York: The Encyclopædia Britannica Co. Pg. 700.
8.^ The church in the Roman empire before A.D. 170, Part 170 By Sir William Mitchell Ramsay
9.^ Boyd, William Kenneth (1905). The ecclesiastical edicts of the Theodosian code, Columbia University Press.
10.^ The art of war in world history: from antiquity to the nuclear age By Gérard Chaliand. Page 25
11.^ West, W. M. (1904). The ancient world from the earliest times to 800 A.D. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Pg. 551+
12.^ The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000: Parts 200-1000. Page 443
13.^ Shaping a global theological mind By Darren C. Marks. Page 45
14.^ Somerville, R. (1998). Prefaces to Canon Law books in Latin Christianity: Selected translations, 500-1245 ; commentary and translations. New Haven [u.a.: Yale Univ. Press
15.^ VanDeWiel, C. (1991). History of canon law. Leuven: Peeters Press.
16.^ Canon law and the Christian community By Clarence Gallagher. Gregorian & Biblical BookShop, 1978.
17.^ Catholic Church., Canon Law Society of America., Catholic Church., & Libreria editrice vaticana. (1998). Code of canon law, Latin-English edition: New English translation. Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America.
18.^ Mango, C. (2002). The Oxford history of Byzantium. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.^ Angold, M. (1997). The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A political history. New York: Longman.
20.^ Schevill, F. (1922). The history of the Balkan Peninsula: From the earliest times to the present day. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. Pg. 124.
21.^ Schaff, P. (1878). The creeds of Christendom: With a history and critical notes. New York: Harper.
22.^ "Christendom". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
23.^ "Inquisition". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
24.^ Stump, P. H. (1994). The reforms of the Council of Constance, 1414-1418. Leiden: E.J. Brill
25.^ The Cambridge Modern History. Vol 2: The Reformation (1903).
26.^ This was presaging the modern nation-state
27.^ The Anglican Domain: Church History
28.^ "Symbolism". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
29.^ Alfred Crosby described some of this technological revolution in his The Measure of Reality : Quantification in Western Europe, 1250–1600 and other major historians of technology have also noted it.
30.^ Encyclopædia Britannica table of religions, by region; retrieved November 2007
31.^ [1] Largest Christian Population in the world; retrieved April 2009
32.^ Argientine - Religion. argentina.gov.ar. (cf., juridical status different from the rest of churches in line with the National Constitution)
33.^ "Argentina". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
34.^ "Gov. Pataki Honors 1700th Anniversary of Armenia's Adoption of Christianity as a state religion". Aremnian National Committee of America. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
35.^ "Bolivia". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
36.^ "Costa Rica". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
37.^ "Denmark". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
38.^ "El Salvador". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
39.^ "Church and State in Britain: The Church of privilege". Centre for Citizenship. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
40.^ "Iceland". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
41.^ "Liechtenstein". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
42.^ "Malta". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
43.^ "Monaco". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
44.^ "Norway". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
45.^ "Vatican". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
46.^ a b Adherents.com Adherents.com Christians: Number of Christians in the world at the Wayback Machine (archived April 4, 2008)
47.^ Global Christianity
48.^ "Major Religions Ranked by Size". Adherents. Retrieved 2007-12-31.
49.^ "Canon law". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
50.^ Burns, "Aquinas's Two Doctrines of Natural Law."
51.^ Blevins, Carolyn DeArmond, Women in Christian History: A Bibliography. Macon, Georgia: Mercer Univ Press, 1995. ISBN 0-86554-493-X
52.^ While the generally-accepted definition of "Christendom" is sometimes intended, The Watchtower and other publications of Jehovah's Witnesses more often intend the term to indicate merely professed Christianity as distinct from true Christianity. Although they self-identify as Christian, Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be no part of "Christendom". They explain their use of the term: "What is the definition of “Christendom” as used in Watch Tower publications? Most often the term “Christendom” is used in the Society’s publications in the more restricted way in which the word is first defined in the dictionary: “Christianity”; actually, professed Christianity, in contrast to the true Christianity of the Bible. This focuses primarily on the religious aspects. However, the word is sometimes used in our publications in its enlarged second meaning: “the portion of the world in which Christianity prevails.” ("Questions From Readers", The Watchtower, August 1, 1981, page 31) For details, see "True Christianity Is Flourishing", The Watchtower, March 1, 2004, page 7 As retrieved 2009-04-09, "While Christendom's theologians, missionaries, and churchgoers continue to grapple with the gathering storm of controversy in their churches, true Christianity is flourishing worldwide. Indeed, true Christians [...] invite you to join Jehovah's Witnesses in united Christian worship of the only true God, Jehovah."; and Watchtower, April 1, 2001, page 18, "Equally striking is the contrast between Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christendom today. [...] The very features that Christendom lacks abound among Jehovah’s Witnesses!"; Also The Watchtower, April 15, 1962, page 229, "It is out of date to define Christendom as meaning Christianity. True Christians today do not confuse Christendom with Christianity or make them identical."
53.^ These belief systems include various non-Christian life stances, world views, ideologies, philosophies, and religions.

References:

20th century sources
The Return of Christendom, By a Group of Churchmen. New York: Macmillan Co, 1922.
White, Andrew Dickson. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom: In Two Volumes. V. 1-2. New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1903. (ed., Volume One; Volume Two)
Cole, F. G. Mother of All Churches A Brief and Comprehensive Handbook of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church. London: Skeffington, 1908.
19th century sources
Hull, Moses. Encyclopedia of Biblical Spiritualism; Or, A Concordance to the Principal Passages of the Old and New Testament Scriptures Which Prove or Imply Spiritualism; Together with a Brief History of the Origin of Many of the Important Books of the Bible. Chicago: M. Hull, 1895. (ed., reprint version is available)
Bosanquet, Bernard. The Civilization of Christendom, And Other Studies. London: S. Sonnenschein, 1893.
Church Club of New York. The History of Teachings of the Early Church, As a Basis for the Re-Union of Christendom; Lectures. Church Club lectures. New York: E. & J.B. Young, 1893.
Egar, John Hodson. Christendom; Ecclesiastical and Political, from Constantine to the Reformation. New York: J. Pott, 1887.
The Churches of Christendom. Edinburgh: Macniven and Wallace, 1884.
Charles, Elizabeth Rundle. Sketches of the Women of Christendom. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co, 1880.
Naville, Ernest. The Christ: Seven Lectures. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880.
Cox, George W. Latin and Teutonic Christendom: An Historical Sketch. London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870.
Girdlestone, Charles. Christendom; Sketched from History in the Light of Holy Scripture. London: Published for the Author by Sampson Low, Son, & Marston, 1870.
Thomson, John Radford. Symbols of Christendom. 1867.
Allies, T. W. The Formation of Christendom. London: Burns & Oates, 1865.
Stearns, George. The Mistake of Christendom; or, Jesus and His Gospel Before Paul and Christianity. Boston: B. Marsh, 1857.
Johnson, Richard, The Renowned History of the Seven Champions of Christendom. W. Baynes and son, 1824.

orthodoxymoron wrote:

Eartheart wrote:The one thing I care about here is the ascension of humanity, in that I have faith and can have some patience. Though this 3D matrix is getting more insane by the minute.
The physical ascension of some scattered individuals around the globe has already started – I assume that most of them are elderly people that have to go home urgently – and we are keeping the portals open for them and help them go through, while leaving their earthly fears back. Great returnStarseeds!!!

This process is very debilitating for us now as gate openers. But the next wave to ascend will be the PATeam and then the ID split and magnetic pole reversal can be triggered. It is now only a matter of a few days, even hours, as linear time does not play any role anymore. We are abolishing it now in the NOW/simultaneity of All-That-Is.

I keep getting the feeling that Ascension = Extermination of Male and Female Human Physicality = Return to Pre-Human Physicality or No Physicality Whatsoever. I am obviously very upset with Human History -- but I suspect nefarious manipulation from the sidelines. It seems as if the Human Experiment has been tainted -- and that Humanity has NOT received a fair trial. On the other hand -- I don't know how bad Humanity might really be -- historically and presently. I keep imagining a highly refined Humanity living throughout the solar system -- and constructively interacting with physical and spiritual beings from throughout the universe -- but it seems as if the Galactic PTB have decided to pull the plug. That's what it feels like to me. Unfortunately, I don't think we are being told the truth about our past, present, and future. It seems as if the Lab-Rats cannot be told too much about the experiment they are being used for. This whole stupid mess might have some rhyme and reason -- but what is it?? I have to keep speculating -- and I reveal only a small portion of what I think about -- and I am scaring the hell out of myself -- which might actually be a good thing.

Honestly study the Bible from Genesis to Revelation -- straight through. A lot of it is inspirational -- but a lot of it is NOT a pretty picture. I believe most of the Bible -- but I wish that I didn't -- and I wish I could only deal with the good parts. I enjoyed attending the Crystal Cathedral -- even though I knew it was just a band-aid on a compound-fracture. Is the 1928 Book of Common Prayer pretty much the same sort of thing?? I SO wish to be idealistic -- but I keep getting roughed-up by brutal gangs of facts -- and I fear that we are about to get roughed-up by brutal gangs of Dracs. The Horror.

I continue to use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the Federalist Papers as points of reference and middle-ways as I contemplate the church and state aspects of Solar System Governance. Please give this thread some serious study -- to see if it might have some validity. I tend to think that extrapolations from this thread might be most beneficial and productive. Should this solar system be viewed as being one BIG business?? The bottom-line is usually the bottom-line -- right?? I tend to think that eliminating war and violence would boost the bottom-line. Would an Anna-Administered United States of the Solar System be good for business?? When I say 'Anna' I mean a very tough, very smart, and very ethical 'Anna'. I would like to see a completely idealistic version of 'V' which might explore the United States of the Solar System concept. Think about it.

Consider Ethics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics You academics and mystics might not appreciate Wikipedia -- but I continue to learn a great deal from it -- and I like the 'freshness' and summaries. I realize this approach constitutes 'pseudo-research' -- but remember that this thread is Political and Theological Science Fiction -- which attempts to approximate the way things might really be -- behind the scenes. I think that University Class I spoke of previously might simply be this thread -- discussed by the students -- with these discussions being recorded and transcribed -- with each student writing a 50 page report at the end of the semester. Then, the discussions and reports might be published by the university. Attendance, Participation, and Papers would determine the final grades. I think I might receive more of an education than the students. Are there any schools which might like to take a chance with me?? Just help me turn this thread into a doctoral disertation -- and upon completion (along with a week-long oral-exam) grant me a doctorate in Solar System Studies and Governance!!! Then, give me that one class to teach -- with immediate tenure!! Just kidding!! In Politics and Religion are we really dealing with Ethical-Deception v Unethical-Deception?? Are we dealing with the Corrupt Ruling the Stupid?? What if -- after all of my questing -- I ended up as hard and cynical as those at the Top of the Pyramid??

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.[1] It comes from the Greek word ethos, which means "character".

Major areas of study in ethics may be divided into 3 operational areas:[1]
Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;

Each of these areas include many further sub-fields of study.

Meta-ethics

Meta-ethics is a field within ethics that seeks to understand the nature of normative ethics. The focus of meta-ethics is on how we understand, know about, and what we mean when we talk about what is right and what is wrong.

Meta-ethics came to the fore with G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica from 1903. In it he first wrote about what he called the naturalistic fallacy. Moore was seen to reject naturalism in ethics, in his Open Question Argument. This made thinkers look again at second order questions about ethics. Earlier, the Scottish philosopher David Hume had put forward a similar view on the difference between facts and values.

Studies of how we know in ethics divide into cognitivism and non-cognitivism; this is similar to the contrast between descriptivists and non-descriptivists. Non-cognitivism is the claim that when we judge something as right or wrong, this is neither true nor false. We may for example be only expressing our emotional feelings about these things.[2] Cognitivism can then be seen as the claim that when we talk about right and wrong, we are talking about matters of fact.

The ontology of ethics is about value-bearing things or properties, i.e. the kind of things or stuff referred to by ethical propositions. Non-descriptivists and non-cognitivists believe that ethics does not need a specific ontology, since ethical propositions do not refer. This is known as an anti-realist position. Realists on the other hand must explain what kind of entities, properties or states are relevant for ethics, how they have value, and why they guide and motivate our actions.[3]

Normative ethics

Traditionally, normative ethics (also known as moral theory) was the study of what makes actions right and wrong. These theories offered an overarching moral principle one could appeal to in resolving difficult moral decisions.

At the turn of the 20th century, moral theories became more complex and are no longer concerned solely with rightness and wrongness, but are interested in many different kinds of moral status. During the middle of the century, the study of normative ethics declined as meta-ethics grew in prominence. This focus on meta-ethics was in part caused by an intense linguistic focus in analytic philosophy and by the popularity of logical positivism.

In 1971 John Rawls published A Theory of Justice, noteworthy in its pursuit of moral arguments and eschewing of meta-ethics. This publication set the trend for renewed interest in normative ethics.

Virtue Ethics

Socrates

Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, and is used to describe the ethics of Socrates, Aristotle, and other early Greek philosophers. Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary. Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the result of ignorance. If a criminal were truly aware of the mental and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither commit nor even consider committing those actions. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with happiness. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.[4]

Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realizationism." In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. To become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.[5]

Aristotle asserted that man had three natures: vegetable (physical/metabolism), animal (emotional/appetite) and rational (mental/conceptual). Physical nature can be assuaged through exercise and care, emotional nature through indulgence of instinct and urges, and mental through human reason and developed potential. Rational development was considered the most important, as essential to philosophical self-awareness and as uniquely human. Moderation was encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral. For example, courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. This is regarded as difficult, as virtue denotes doing the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, to the proper extent, in the correct fashion, for the right reason.[6]

Stoicism

The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or Apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one's desires and emotions leads to spiritual peace. The "unconquerable will" is central to this philosophy. The individual's will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb the mental equilibrium is in essence offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to anger you at will, you have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from material attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not be upset, but realize it was a thing that could break. Similarly, if someone should die, those close to them should hold to their serenity because the loved one was made of flesh and blood destined to death. Stoic philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning oneself to existence and enduring in a rational fashion. Death is not feared. People do not "lose" their life, but instead "return", for they are returning to God (who initially gave what the person is as a person). Epictetus said difficult problems in life should not be avoided, but rather embraced. They are spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the health of the body. He also stated that sex and sexual desire are to be avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man's mind. Abstinence is highly desirable. Epictetus said remaining abstinent in the face of temptation was a victory for which a man could be proud.[7]

Epicureanism

Epicurean ethics is a hedonist form of virtue ethics. Epicurus "presented a sustained argument that pleasure, correctly understood, will coincide with virtue".[8] He rejected the extremism of the Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to human beings. Epicureans observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative consequences. Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and some unpleasant experiences endured in the present to ensure a better life in the future. To Epicurus the summum bonum, or greatest good, was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution. Excessive indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For example, eating one food too often will cause a person to lose taste for it. Eating too much food at once will lead to discomfort and ill-health. Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness. Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there was an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear or worry; he would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist, such as one's state in death in the absence of an afterlife.[9]

Hedonism

Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There are several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even momentary desires to those teaching a pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people.[10]

Cyrenaic Hedonism

Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics supported immediate gratification or pleasure. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Even fleeting desires should be indulged, for fear the opportunity should be forever lost. There was little to no concern with the future, the present dominating in the pursuit for immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic hedonism encouraged the pursuit of enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be the only good.[10]

Consequentialism

See also: Ethical Egoism

Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action (or create a structure for judgment, see rule consequentialism). Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means".

The term "consequentialism" was coined by G.E.M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958, to describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by Mill and Sidgwick.[11] Since then, the term has become common in English-language ethical theory.

The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences in evaluating the rightness and wrongness of actions.[12] In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other considerations. Apart from this basic outline, there is little else that can be unequivocally said about consequentialism as such. However, there are some questions that many consequentialist theories address:
What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
How are the consequences judged and who judges them?

One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to hedonistic utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in pleasure, and the best action is one that results in the most pleasure for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. Whether a particular consequentialist theory focuses on a single good or many, conflicts and tensions between different good states of affairs are to be expected and must be adjudicated.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a hedonistic ethical theory that argues the proper course of action is one that maximizes overall "happiness". Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are influential proponents of this school of thought. In A Fragment on Government Bentham says ‘it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’ and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation he talks of ‘the principle of utility’ but later prefers “the greatest happiness principle".[13][14]

Hedonistic utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate happiness; the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person. John Stuart Mill, in his exposition of hedonistic utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures.[15]

State Consequentialism

State consequentialism, also known as Mohist consequentialism,[16] is an ethical theory which evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the social harmony of a state.[16] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BC, as "a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare."[17] Unlike utilitarianism, which views pleasure as a moral good, "the basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are... order, material wealth, and increase in population".[18] During Mozi's era, war and famines were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society. The "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs like shelter and clothing, and the "order" of Mohist consequentialism refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and violence, which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability.[19] Stanford sinologist David Shepherd Nivison, in the The Cambridge History of Ancient China, writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth... if people have plenty, they would be good, filial, kind, and so on unproblematically."[18] In contrast to Bentham's views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian because it is not hedonistic. The importance of outcomes that are good for the state outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain.[18]


What is the purpose of houses? It is to protect us from the wind and cold of winter, the heat and rain of summer, and to keep out robbers and thieves. Once these ends have been secured, that is all. Whatever does not contribute to these ends should be eliminated.[19]

—Mozi, Mozi (5th century BC) Ch 20

Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill.[20] This is contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the act by itself. In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence,[21] if it follows the rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”,[20] and even if the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act[citation needed]. According to deontology, we have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule (as in rule utilitarianism). For deontologists, the ends or consequences of our actions are not important in and of themselves, and our intentions are not important in and of themselves.

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[22][23] First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon).[24] Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

Immanuel Kant

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way, one must act from duty, begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself, and good without qualification.[25] Something is 'good in itself' when it is intrinsically good, and 'good without qualification' when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears to not be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffering, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.[25]

Pragmatic Ethics

Associated with the pragmatists, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and especially John Dewey, pragmatic ethics holds that moral correctness evolves similarly to scientific knowledge: socially over the course of many lifetimes. Thus, we should prioritize social reform over attempts to account for consequences, individual virtue or duty (although these may be worthwhile attempts, provided social reform is provided for).[26]

Postmodern Ethics

This article or section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.(July 2009)

The 20th century saw a remarkable expansion and evolution of critical theory, following on earlier Marxist Theory efforts to locate individuals within larger structural frameworks of ideology and action.

Antihumanists such as Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault and structuralists such as Roland Barthes challenged the possibilities of individual agency and the coherence of the notion of the 'individual' itself.[clarification needed] As critical theory developed in the later 20th century, post-structuralism sought to problematize human relationships to knowledge and 'objective' reality. Jacques Derrida argued that access to meaning and the 'real' was always deferred, and sought to demonstrate via recourse to the linguistic realm that "There is nothing outside the text"; at the same time, Jean Baudrillard theorised that signs and symbols or simulacra mask reality (and eventually the absence of reality itself), particularly in the consumer world.

Post-structuralism and postmodernism argue that ethics must study the complex and relational conditions of actions. A simple alignment of ideas of right and particular acts is not possible. There will always be an ethical remainder that cannot be taken into account or often even recognized. Such theorists find narrative (or, following Nietzsche and Foucault, genealogy) to be a helpful tool for understanding ethics because narrative is always about particular lived experiences in all their complexity rather than the assignment of an idea or norm to separate and individuated actions.

Zygmunt Bauman says Postmodernity is best described as Modernity without illusion. The illusion being the belief that humanity can be repaired by some ethic principle. Postmodernity can be seen in this light as accepting the messy nature of humanity as unchangeable.

David Couzens Hoy states that Emmanuel Levinas's writings on the face of the Other and Derrida's meditations on the relevance of death to ethics are signs of the "ethical turn" in Continental philosophy that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. Hoy describes post-critique ethics as the "obligations that present themselves as necessarily to be fulfilled but are neither forced on one or are enforceable" (2004, p. 103).

Hoy's post-critique model uses the term ethical resistance. Examples of this would be an individual's resistance to consumerism in a retreat to a simpler but perhaps harder lifestyle, or an individual's resistance to a terminal illness. Hoy describes Levinas's account as "not the attempt to use power against itself, or to mobilize sectors of the population to exert their political power; the ethical resistance is instead the resistance of the powerless"(2004, p. .

Hoy concludes that the ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is therefore what imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are unenforceable precisely because of the other's lack of power. That actions are at once obligatory and at the same time unenforceable is what put them in the category of the ethical. Obligations that were enforced would, by the virtue of the force behind them, not be freely undertaken and would not be in the realm of the ethical. (2004, p.184)

In present day terms the powerless may include the unborn, the terminally sick, the aged, the insane, and non-human animals. It is in these areas that ethical action in Hoy's sense will apply. Until legislation or the state apparatus enforces a moral order that addresses the causes of resistance these issues will remain in the ethical realm. For example, should animal experimentation become illegal in a society, it will no longer be an ethical issue on Hoy's definition. Likewise one hundred and fifty years ago, not having a black slave in America would have been an ethical choice. This later issue has been absorbed into the fabric of an enforceable social order and is therefore no longer an ethical issue in Hoy's sense.

Applied Ethics

Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations. The discipline has many specialized fields, such as Engineering Ethics, bioethics, geoethics, public service ethics and business ethics.

Specific Questions

This section needs additional citations for verification. (May 2009)

Applied ethics is used in some aspects of determining public policy, as well as by individuals facing difficult decisions. The sort of questions addressed by applied ethics include: "Is getting an abortion immoral?" "Is euthanasia immoral?" "Is affirmative action right or wrong?" "What are human rights, and how do we determine them?" "Do animals have rights as well?" and "Do individuals have the right of self determination?"

A more specific question could be: "If someone else can make better out of his/her life than I can, is it then moral to sacrifice myself for them if needed?" Without these questions there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and the practice of arbitration — in fact, no common assumptions of all participants—so the ability to formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing. But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as, "Is lying always wrong?" and, "If not, when is it permissible?" is prior to any etiquette.

People in-general are more comfortable with dichotomies (two opposites). However, in ethics the issues are most often multifaceted and the best proposed actions address many different areas concurrently. In ethical decisions the answer is almost never a "yes or no", "right or wrong" statement. Many buttons are pushed so that the overall condition is improved and not to the benefit of any particular faction.

Particular Fields of Application

Bioethics

Bioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and medicine. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. It also includes the study of the more commonplace questions of values ("the ethics of the ordinary") which arise in primary care and other branches of medicine.

Geoethics

Geoethics is an interdisciplinary field between Geosciences and Ethics which involves Earth and Planetary Sciences as well as applied ethics. It deals with the way of human thinking and acting in relation to the significance of the Earth as a system and as a model. Geoeducational, scientific, technological, methodological and social-cultural aspects are included (e.g. sustainability, development, geodiversity and geoheritage, prudent consumption of mineral resources, appropriate measures for predictability and mitigation of natural hazards, geoscience communication, museology, etc.). In addition, the necessity of considering appropriate protocols, scientific integrity issues and a code of good practice - regarding the study of the abiotic world - is covered by this discipline. Studies on planetary geology (sensu lato) and astrobiology also require a geoethical approach.

Business Ethics

Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations.

Business ethics has both normative and descriptive dimensions. As a corporate practice and a career specialization, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting to understand business behavior employ descriptive methods. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflects the interaction of profit-maximizing behavior with non-economic concerns. Interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. For example, today most major corporations promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters. Adam Smith said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."[27] Governments use laws and regulations to point business behavior in what they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly regulates areas and details of behavior that lie beyond governmental control.[28] The emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and sensitivity to the communities in which they operate accelerated the development of formal ethics regimes.[29]

Relational Ethics

Relational ethics are related to an ethics of care.[30] They are used in qualitative research, especially ethnography and authoethnography. Researchers who employ relational ethics value and respect the connection between themselves and the people they study, and "between researchers and the communities in which they live and work" (Ellis, 2007, p. 4).[31] Relational ethics also help researchers understand difficult issues such as conducting research on intimate others that have died and developing friendships with their participants.[32][33] Relational ethics in close personal relationships form a central concept of contextual therapy.

Machine Ethics

In Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen conclude that issues in machine ethics will likely drive advancement in understanding of human ethics by forcing us to address gaps in modern normative theory and by providing a platform for experimental investigation.[34] The effort to actually program a machine or artificial agent to behave as though instilled with a sense of ethics requires new specificity in our normative theories, especially regarding aspects customarily considered common-sense. For example, machines, unlike humans, can support a wide selection of learning algorithms, and controversy has arisen over the relative ethical merits of these options. This may reopen classic debates of normative ethics framed in new (highly technical) terms.

Military Ethics

This section does not cite any references or sources. (March 2009)

See also: Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Principles

Military ethics are intended to guide members of the armed forces to act in a manner consistent with the requirements of combat and military organization.[35] While Just war theory is generally seen to set the background terms of moral debate, individual countries have more specific methods of upholding these ethical principles.

Military ethics involves multiple subareas, including the following among others:
1. What, if any, should be the laws of war.
2. Justification for the initiation of military force.
3. Decisions about who may be targeted in warfare.
4. Decisions on choice of weaponry, and what collateral effects such weaponry may have.
5. Standards for handling military prisoners.
6. Methods of dealing with violations of the laws of war.

Public Service Ethics

Public service ethics is a set of principles that guide public officials in their service to their constituents, including their decision-making on behalf of their constituents. Fundamental to the concept of public service ethics is the notion that decisions and actions are based on what best serves the public's interests, as opposed to the official's personal interests (including financial interests) or self-serving political interests.[36]

Moral Psychology

Moral psychology is a field of study that began, like most things, as an issue in philosophy and that is now properly considered part of the discipline of psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[37] However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics and psychology (and philosophy of mind).[38] Such topics are ones that involve the mind and are relevant to moral issues. Some of the main topics of the field are moral responsibility, moral development, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, and moral disagreement.[39]

Evolutionary Ethics

See also: Evolution of Morality

Evolutionary ethics concerns approaches to ethics (morality) based on the role of evolution in shaping human psychology and behavior. Such approaches may be based in scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology or sociobiology, with a focus on understanding and explaining observed ethical preferences and choices.[40]

Descriptive Ethics

Descriptive ethics is a value-free approach to ethics, which defines it as a social science (specifically sociology) rather than a humanity. It examines ethics not from a top-down a priori perspective but rather observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. Some philosophers rely on descriptive ethics and choices made and unchallenged by a society or culture to derive categories, which typically vary by context. This can lead to situational ethics and situated ethics. These philosophers often view aesthetics, etiquette, and arbitration as more fundamental, percolating "bottom up" to imply the existence of, rather than explicitly prescribe, theories of value or of conduct. The study of descriptive ethics may include examinations of the following:

Ethical codes applied by various groups. Some consider aesthetics itself the basis of ethics– and a personal moral core developed through art and storytelling as very influential in one's later ethical choices.

Informal theories of etiquette that tend to be less rigorous and more situational. Some consider etiquette a simple negative ethics, i.e., where can one evade an uncomfortable truth without doing wrong? One notable advocate of this view is Judith Martin ("Miss Manners"). According to this view, ethics is more a summary of common sense social decisions.

Practices in arbitration and law, e.g., the claim that ethics itself is a matter of balancing "right versus right," i.e., putting priorities on two things that are both right, but that must be traded off carefully in each situation.

Observed choices made by ordinary people, without expert aid or advice, who vote, buy, and decide what is worth valuing. This is a major concern of sociology, political science, and economics.

See Also

Contemporary ethics
Descriptive ethics
Index of ethics articles (alphabetical list of ethics-related articles)
Moral psychology
Outline of ethics (list of ethics-related articles, arranged by sub-topic)

Notes

1.^ a b http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/
2.^ http://www.iep.utm.edu/non-cogn/
3.^ Miller, C. (2009). The Conditions of Moral Realism. The Journal of Philosophical Research, 34, 123-155.
4.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 32-33. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
5.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 33-35. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
6.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 35-37. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
7.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 38-41. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
8.^ Ancient Ethical Theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
9.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 37-38. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
10.^ a b Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pg 37. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
11.^ Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). "Modern Moral Philosophy". Philosophy (1958) 33 (124): 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943.
12.^ Mackie, J. L. (1990). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-013558-8.
13.^ Bentham, Jeremy (2001). The Works of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring. Volume 1. Adamant Media Corporation. pp. 18.
14.^ Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism (Project Gutenberg online edition)
15.^ Mill, John Stuart (1998). Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-875163-2.
16.^ a b Ivanhoe, P.J.; Van Norden, Bryan William (2005). Readings in classical Chinese philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 60. ISBN 978-0-87220-780-6. ""he advocated a form of state consequentialism, which sought to maximize three basic goods: the wealth, order, and population of the state"
17.^ Fraser, Chris, "Mohism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Edward N. Zalta.
18.^ a b c Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1999). The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Cambridge University Press. p. 761. ISBN 978-0-521-47030-8.
19.^ a b Van Norden, Bryan W. (2011). Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-60384-468-0.
20.^ a b Stanford.edu
21.^ Olson, Robert G. 1967. 'Deontological Ethics'. In Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan: 343.
22.^ Orend, Brian. 2000. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press: 19.
23.^ Kelly, Eugene. 2006. The Basics of Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press: 160.
24.^ Kant, Immanuel. 1780. 'Preface'. In The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott
25.^ a b Kant, Immanuel. 1785. 'First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical', Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
26.^ Lafollette, Hugh, ed. (February 2000). The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Blackwell Philosophy Guides (1 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20119-9.
27.^ Smith, A (1776/ 1952) An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, p. 55
28.^ Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. In this book, Berle and Means observe, "Corporations have ceased to be merely legal devices through which the private business transactions of individuals may be carried on. Though still much used for this purpose, the corporate form has acquired a much larger significance. The corporation has, in fact, become both a method of property tenure and a means of organizing economic life. Grown to tremendous proportions, there may be said to have evolved a 'corporate system'—as there once was a feudal system—which has attracted to itself a combination of attributes and powers, and has attained a degree of prominence entitling it to be dealt with as a major social institution. […] We are examining this institution probably before it has attained its zenith. Spectacular as its rise has been, every indication seems to be that the system will move forward to proportions which stagger imagination today […] They [management] have placed the community in a position to demand that the modern corporation serve not only the owners […] but all society." p. 1.
29.^ Jones, Parker & et al. 2005, p. 17
30.^ Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different Voice: Pscychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.^ Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 3-29.
32.^ Ellis, C. (1986). Fisher folk. Two communities on Chesapeake Bay. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
33.^ Ellis, C. (1995).Final negotiations: A story of love, loss, and chronic illness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
34.^ Wallach, Wendell; Allen, Colin (November 2008). Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537404-9.
35.^ Toner, James Hugh (2000). Morals under the Gun: The Cardinal Virtues, Military Ethics, and American Society. Baltimore: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-2159-0.
36.^ See, for example, work of Institute for Local Government, at www.ca-ilg.org/trust.
37.^ See, for example, Lapsley (2006) and "moral psychology" (2007).
38.^ See, for example, Doris & Stich (2008) and Wallace (2007). Wallace writes: "Moral psychology is the study of morality in its psychological dimensions" (p. 86).
39.^ See Doris & Stich (2008), §1.
40.^ Doris Schroeder. "Evolutionary Ethics". Retrieved 2010-01-05.

References

Hoy, D. (2005), Critical resistance from poststructuralism to postcritique, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
Lyon, D. (1999), Postmodernity, 2nd ed, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Singer, P. (2000), Writings on an ethical life, Harper Collins Publishers, London.

Further reading

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
The London Philosophy Study Guide offers many suggestions on what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject: Ethics
Encyclopedia of Ethics. Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, editors. Second edition in three volumes. New York: Routledge, 2002. A scholarly encyclopedia with over 500 signed, peer-reviewed articles, mostly on topics and figures of, or of special interest in, Western philosophy.
Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good: A short introduction to ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Finance, Joseph, An Ethical Inquiry, Rome, Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1991.
De La Torre, Miguel A., "Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins," Orbis Books, 2004.
Derrida, J. 1995, The Gift of Death, translated by David Wills, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Fagothey, Austin, Right and Reason, Tan Books & Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 2000.
Levinas, E. 1969, Totality and infinity, an essay on exteriority, translated by Alphonso Lingis, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh.
Perle, Stephen (March 11, 2004). "Morality and Ethics: An Introduction". Retrieved 2007-02-13., Butchvarov, Panayot. Skepticism in Ethics (1989).
Solomon, R.C., Morality and the Good Life: An Introduction to Ethics Through Classical Sources, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984.
Vendemiati, Aldo, In the First Person, An Outline of General Ethics, Rome, Urbaniana University Press, 2004.
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, 6-8-1993.
D'Urance, Michel, Jalons pour une éthique rebelle, Aléthéia, Paris, 2005.
John Newton, Ph.D. Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century, 2000. ISBN 0967370574.

I will continue to create this study-guide for myself as I continue to talk to myself. Perhaps the madness is simply going to have to play out. Perhaps we are past the point of no return -- and past the point of reason. Perhaps I should not lose a lot of sleep over something which cannot be changed. Once again -- I feel as if I am in profound conflict with both Divinity and Humanity. I'll stand all by myself throughout all eternity if I have to. I think I'm going to keep thinking about Theoretical Politics and Religion from a Solar System Perspective. This seems to be a combination of Escaping Reality and Facing Reality. I continue to wish to know everything while doing nothing. Does this make me a greater or lesser threat?? Damned if I know. I still have not received a response from my FOIA request -- and my internet access to this site continues to be blocked by the local library wifi. Perhaps I should contact my Senator -- and see if that does any good. Perhaps I should ask about the Secret-Government, the Secret-Space Program, and the Underground-Bases. Do you want a war?? I suspect that you do. Perhaps a Final Jihad is unavoidable -- but in the meantime, consider Adam Smith. Is Greed Good?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Adam Smith (5 June 1723 – 17 July 1790) was a Scottish social philosopher and a pioneer of political economy. One of the key figures of the Scottish Enlightenment,[1] Adam Smith is best known for two classic works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. Smith is cited as the father of modern economics and capitalism and is still among the most influential thinkers in the field of economics today.[2] In 2009, Smith was named among the 'Greatest Scots' of all time, in a vote run by Scottish television channel STV.[3]

Smith studied social philosophy at the University of Glasgow and at Balliol College in the University of Oxford, where he was one of the first students to benefit from scholarships set up by his fellow Glaswegian John Snell. After graduating, he delivered a successful series of public lectures at Edinburgh, leading him to collaborate with David Hume during the Scottish Enlightenment. Smith obtained a professorship at Glasgow teaching moral philosophy, and during this time he wrote and published The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In his later life, he took a tutoring position that allowed him to travel throughout Europe, where he met other intellectual leaders of his day. Smith then returned home and spent the next ten years writing The Wealth of Nations, publishing it in 1776. He died in 1790 at the age of 67.

Smith was born in Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland. His father, also named Adam Smith, was a lawyer, civil servant, and widower who married Margaret Douglas in 1720 and died two months after Smith was born.[4] Although the exact date of Smith's birth is unknown, his baptism was recorded on 5 June 1723 at Kirkcaldy.[5] Though few events in Smith's early childhood are known, Scottish journalist and Smith's biographer John Rae recorded that Smith was abducted by gypsies at the age of four and released when others went to rescue him.[N 1] Smith was close to his mother, who likely encouraged him to pursue his scholarly ambitions.[7] He attended the Burgh School of Kirkcaldy—characterised by Rae as "one of the best secondary schools of Scotland at that period"—from 1729 to 1737.[6] While there, Smith studied Latin, mathematics, history, and writing.[7]

Smith entered the University of Glasgow when he was fourteen and studied moral philosophy under Francis Hutcheson.[7] Here, Smith developed his passion for liberty, reason, and free speech. In 1740, Smith was awarded the Snell exhibition and left to attend Balliol College, Oxford.[8]

Smith considered the teaching at Glasgow far superior to that at Oxford, which he found intellectually stifling.[9] In Book V, Chapter II of The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote: "In the University of Oxford, the greater part of the public professors have, for these many years, given up altogether even the pretence of teaching." Smith is also reported to have complained to friends that Oxford officials once discovered him reading a copy of David Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, and they subsequently confiscated his book and punished him severely for reading it.[6][10][11] According to William Robert Scott, "The Oxford of [Smith's] time gave little if any help towards what was to be his lifework."[12] Nevertheless, Smith took the opportunity while at Oxford to teach himself several subjects by reading many books from the shelves of the large Oxford library.[13] When Smith was not studying on his own, his time at Oxford was not a happy one, according to his letters.[14] Near the end of his time at Oxford, Smith began suffering from shaking fits, probably the symptoms of a nervous breakdown.[15] He left Oxford University in 1746, before his scholarship ended.[15][16]

In Book V of The Wealth of Nations, Smith comments on the low quality of instruction and the meager intellectual activity at English universities, when compared to their Scottish counterparts. He attributes this both to the rich endowments of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, which made the income of professors independent of their ability to attract students, and to the fact that distinguished men of letters could make an even more comfortable living as ministers of the Church of England.[11]

Smith's discontent at Oxford might be in part due to the absence of his beloved teacher in Glasgow, Francis Hutcheson. Hutcheson was well regarded as one of the most prominent lecturers at the University of Glasgow in his day and earned the approbation of students, colleagues, and even ordinary residents with the fervor and earnestness of his orations (which he sometimes opened to the public). His lectures endeavored not merely to teach philosophy but to make his students embody that philosophy in their lives, appropriately acquiring the epithet, the preacher of philosophy. Unlike Smith, Hutcheson was not a system builder; rather it was his magnetic personality and method of lecturing that so influenced his students and caused the greatest of those to reverentially refer to him as "the never to be forgotten Hutcheson"––a title that Smith in all his correspondence used to describe only two people, his good friend David Hume and influential mentor Francis Hutcheson.[17]

Smith began delivering public lectures in 1748 in University of Edinburgh, sponsored by the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh under the patronage of Lord Kames.[18] His lecture topics included rhetoric and belles-lettres,[19] and later the subject of "the progress of opulence". On this latter topic he first expounded his economic philosophy of "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty". While Smith was not adept at public speaking, his lectures met with success.[20]

In 1750, he met the philosopher David Hume, who was his senior by more than a decade. In their writings covering history, politics, philosophy, economics, and religion, Smith and Hume shared closer intellectual and personal bonds than with other important figures of the Scottish Enlightenment.[21]

In 1751, Smith earned a professorship at Glasgow University teaching logic courses, and in 1752 Smith was elected a member of the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh, having been introduced to the society by Lord Kames. When the head of Moral Philosophy died the next year, Smith took over the position.[20] He worked as an academic for the next thirteen years, which he characterized as "by far the most useful and therefore by far the happiest and most honorable period [of his life]".[22]

Smith published The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759, embodying some of his Glasgow lectures. This work was concerned with how human morality depends on sympathy between agent and spectator, or the individual and other members of society. Smith defined "sympathy" as the feeling of moral sentiments. He bases his explanation not on a special "moral sense", as the third Lord Shaftesbury and Hutcheson had done, nor on utility as Hume did, but on sympathy. Following the publication of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith became so popular that many wealthy students left their schools in other countries to enroll at Glasgow to learn under Smith.[23] After the publication of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith began to give more attention to jurisprudence and economics in his lectures and less to his theories of morals.[24] For example, Smith lectured that the cause of increase in national wealth is labor, rather than the nation's quantity of gold or silver, which is the basis for mercantilism, the economic theory that dominated Western European economic policies at the time.[23]

In 1762, the University of Glasgow conferred on Smith the title of Doctor of Laws (LL.D.). At the end of 1763, he obtained an offer from Charles Townshend—who had been introduced to Smith by David Hume—to tutor his stepson, Henry Scott, the young Duke of Buccleuch. Smith then resigned from his professorship to take the tutoring position, and he subsequently attempted to return the fees he had collected from his students because he resigned in the middle of the term, but his students refused.[25]

Smith's tutoring job entailed touring Europe with Scott, during which time he educated Scott on a variety of subjects – such as proper Polish.[25] He was paid £300 per year (plus expenses) along with a £300 per year pension; roughly twice his former income as a teacher.[25] Smith first travelled as a tutor to Toulouse, France, where he stayed for one and a half years.[25] According to his own account, he found Toulouse to be somewhat boring, having written to Hume that he "had begun to write a book to pass away the time".[25] After touring the south of France, the group moved to Geneva, where Smith met with the philosopher Voltaire.[26]

From Geneva, the party moved to Paris. Here Smith came to know several great intellectual leaders of the time; invariably having an effect on his future works. This list included: Benjamin Franklin,[27] Turgot, Jean D'Alembert, André Morellet, Helvétius and, notably, François Quesnay; head of the Physiocratic school.[28] So impressed with his ideas[29] Smith considered dedicating The Wealth of Nations to him – had Quesnay not died beforehand.[30] Physiocrats were opposed to mercantilism, the dominating economic theory of the time. Illustrated in their motto Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même! (Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!). They were also known to have declared that only agricultural activity produced real wealth; merchants and industrialists (manufacturers) did not.[27] This however, did not represent their true school of thought, but was a mere 'smoke screen' manufactured to hide their actual criticisms of the nobility and church; arguing that they made up the only real clients of merchants and manufacturers.[31] The wealth of France was virtually destroyed by Louis XIV and Louis XV to ruinous wars,[32] by aiding the American insurgents against the British, and perhaps most destructive (in terms of public perceptions) was what was seen as the excessive consumption of goods and services deemed to have no economic contribution – unproductive labour. Assuming that nobility and church are essentially detractors from economic growth, the feudal system of agriculture in France was the only sector important to maintain the wealth of the nation. Given that the English economy of the day yielded an income distribution that stood in contrast to that which existed in France, Smith concluded that the teachings and beliefs of Physiocrats were, "with all [their] imperfections [perhaps], the nearest approximation to the truth that has yet been published upon the subject of political economy".[33] The distinction between productive versus unproductive labour – the physiocratic classe steril – was a predominant issue in the development and understanding of what would become classical economic theory.

In 1766, Henry Scott's younger brother died in Paris, and Smith's tour as a tutor ended shortly thereafter.[27] Smith returned home that year to Kirkcaldy, and he devoted much of the next ten years to his magnum opus.[34] There he befriended Henry Moyes, a young blind man who showed precocious aptitude. As well as teaching Moyes, Smith secured the patronage of David Hume and Thomas Reid in the young man's education.[35] In May 1773, Smith was elected fellow of the Royal Society of London,[36] and was elected a member of the Literary Club in 1775.[37] The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 and was an instant success, selling out its first edition in only six months.[38]

In 1778, Smith was appointed to a post as commissioner of customs in Scotland and went to live with his mother in Panmure House in Edinburgh's Canongate.[39] Five years later, as a member of the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh when it received its royal charter, he automatically became one of the founding members of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,[40] and from 1787 to 1789 he occupied the honorary position of Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow.[41] He died in the northern wing of Panmure House in Edinburgh on 17 July 1790 after a painful illness and was buried in the Canongate Kirkyard.[42] On his death bed, Smith expressed disappointment that he had not achieved more.[43]

Smith's literary executors were two friends from the Scottish academic world: the physicist and chemist Joseph Black, and the pioneering geologist James Hutton.[44] Smith left behind many notes and some unpublished material, but gave instructions to destroy anything that was not fit for publication.[45] He mentioned an early unpublished History of Astronomy as probably suitable, and it duly appeared in 1795, along with other material such as Essays on Philosophical Subjects.[44]

Smith's library went by his will to David Douglas, Lord Reston (son of his cousin Colonel Robert Douglas of Strathendry, Fife), who lived with Smith. It was eventually divided between his two surviving children, Cecilia Margaret (Mrs. Cunningham) and David Anne (Mrs. Bannerman). On the death of her husband, the Rev. W. B. Cunningham of Prestonpans in 1878, Mrs. Cunningham sold some of the books. The remainder passed to her son, Professor Robert Oliver Cunningham of Queen's College, Belfast, who presented a part to the library of Queen's College. After his death the remaining books were sold. On the death of Mrs. Bannerman in 1879 her portion of the library went intact to the New College (of the Free Church), Edinburgh.

James Tassie's enamel paste medallion of Smith provided the model for many engravings and portraits that remain today.[46]
Not much is known about Smith's personal views beyond what can be deduced from his published articles. His personal papers were destroyed after his death at his request.[45] He never married,[47] and seems to have maintained a close relationship with his mother, with whom he lived after his return from France and who died six years before his own death.[48]

Smith was described by several of his contemporaries and biographers as comically absent-minded, with peculiar habits of speech and gait, and a smile of "inexpressible benignity".[49] He was known to talk to himself,[43] a habit that began during his childhood when he would smile in rapt conversation with invisible companions.[50] He also had occasional spells of imaginary illness,[43] and he is reported to have had books and papers placed in tall stacks in his study.[50] According to one story, Smith took Charles Townshend on a tour of a tanning factory, and while discussing free trade, Smith walked into a huge tanning pit from which he needed help to escape.[51] He is also said to have put bread and butter into a teapot, drunk the concoction, and declared it to be the worst cup of tea he ever had. According to another account, Smith distractedly went out walking in his nightgown and ended up 15 miles (24 km) outside of town, before nearby church bells brought him back to reality.[50][51]

James Boswell who was a student of Smith's at Glasgow University, and later knew him at the Literary Club, says that Smith thought that speaking about his ideas in conversation might reduce the sale of his books, and so his conversation was unimpressive. According to Boswell, he once told Sir Joshua Reynolds that 'he made it a rule when in company never to talk of what he understood'.[52]

Smith, who is reported to have been an odd-looking fellow, has been described as someone who "had a large nose, bulging eyes, a protruding lower lip, a nervous twitch, and a speech impediment".[11] Smith is said to have acknowledged his looks at one point, saying, "I am a beau in nothing but my books."[11] Smith rarely sat for portraits,[53] so almost all depictions of him created during his lifetime were drawn from memory. The best-known portraits of Smith are the profile by James Tassie and two etchings by John Kay.[54] The line engravings produced for the covers of 19th century reprints of The Wealth of Nations were based largely on Tassie's medallion.[55]

There has been considerable scholarly debate about the nature of Smith's religious views. Smith's father had shown a strong interest in Christianity and belonged to the moderate wing of the Church of Scotland.[56] The fact that Adam Smith received the Snell Exhibition suggests that he may have gone to Oxford with the intention of pursuing a career in the Church of England. It is generally believed that at Oxford Smith rejected Christianity, returning to Scotland a deist.[57]

Anglo-American economist Ronald Coase has challenged the view that Smith was a deist, based on the fact that Smith's writings never explicitly invoke God as an explanation of the harmonies of the natural or the human worlds.[58] According to Coase, though Smith does sometimes refer to the "Great Architect of the Universe", later scholars such as Jacob Viner have "very much exaggerated the extent to which Adam Smith was committed to a belief in a personal God",[59] a belief for which Coase finds little evidence in passages such as the one in the Wealth of Nations in which Smith writes that the curiosity of mankind about the "great phenomena of nature", such as "the generation, the life, growth and dissolution of plants and animals", has led men to "enquire into their causes", and that "superstition first attempted to satisfy this curiosity, by referring all those wonderful appearances to the immediate agency of the gods. Philosophy afterwards endeavoured to account for them, from more familiar causes, or from such as mankind were better acquainted with than the agency of the gods".[59]

Smith was also a close friend and later the executor of David Hume, who was commonly characterized in his own time as an "atheist".[60] The publication in 1777 of Smith's letter to William Strahan, in which he described Hume's courage in the face of death in spite his irreligiosity, attracted considerable controversy.[61]

In 1759, Smith published his first work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. He continued making extensive revisions to the book, up until his death.[N 2] Although The Wealth of Nations is widely regarded as Smith's most influential work, it is believed that Smith himself considered The Theory of Moral Sentiments to be a superior work.[63]

In the work, Smith critically examines the moral thinking of his time, and suggests that conscience arises from social relationships.[64] His goal in writing the work was to explain the source of mankind's ability to form moral judgements, in spite of man's natural inclinations towards self-interest. Smith proposes a theory of sympathy, in which the act of observing others makes people aware of themselves and the morality of their own behavior.[65]

Scholars have traditionally perceived a conflict between The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations; the former emphasizes sympathy for others, while the latter focuses on the role of self-interest.[66] In recent years, however, some scholars[67][68][69] of Smith's work have argued that no contradiction exists.[70] They claim that in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith develops a theory of psychology in which individuals seek the approval of the "impartial spectator" as a result of a natural desire to have outside observers sympathize with them. Rather than viewing The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments as presenting incompatible views of human nature, some Smith scholars regard the works as emphasizing different aspects of human nature that vary depending on the situation.

These views ignore that Smith's visit to France (1764–66) changed radically his former views and that The Wealth of Nations is an inhomogeneous convolute of his former lectures and of what Quesnay taught him.[71] Before his voyage to France in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith refers to an "invisible hand" ("By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, [an individual] intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.") [72] which ensures that the gluttony of the rich helps the poor, as the stomachs of rich are so limited that they have to spend their fortune on servants. After his visit to France, Smith considers in the Wealth of Nations (1776) the gluttony of the rich as unproductive labour. The micro-economical/psychological view in the tradition of Aristotle, Puffendorf and Hutcheson,[73] Smith's teacher, – elements compatible with a neoclassical theory – changed to the macro-economical view of the classical theory Smith learned in France.[clarification needed]

There is a fundamental disagreement between classical and neoclassical economists about the central message of Smith's most influential work: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Neoclassical economists emphasise Smith's invisible hand,[74] a concept mentioned in the middle of his work – book IV, chapter II – and classical economists believe that Smith stated his programme how to promote the "Wealth of Nations" in the first sentences.

Smith used the term "the invisible hand" in "History of Astronomy"[75] referring to "the invisible hand of Jupiter" and twice – each time with a different meaning – the term "an invisible hand": in The Theory of Moral Sentiments[76] (1759) and in The Wealth of Nations[77] (1776). This last statement about "an invisible hand" has been interpreted as "the invisible hand" in numerous ways. It is therefore important to read the original:

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. [emphasis added].

Those who regard that statement as Smith's central message also quote frequently Smith's dictum:[78]

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Smith's statement about the benefits of "an invisible hand" is certainly meant to answer Mandeville's contention that "Private Vices ... may be turned into Public Benefits".[79] It shows Smith's belief that when an individual pursues his self-interest, he indirectly promotes the good of society. Self-interested competition in the free market, he argued, would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and warned of their "conspiracy against the public or in some other contrivance to raise prices."[80] Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price "which can be squeezed out of the buyers".[81] Smith also warned that a true laissez-faire economy would quickly become a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants "...in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."[82]

The neoclassical interest in Smith's statement about "an invisible hand" originates in the possibility to see it as a precursor of neoclassical economics and its General Equilibrium concept. Samuelson's "Economics" refers 6 times to Smith's "invisible hand". To emphasize this relation, Samuelson[83] quotes Smith's "invisible hand" statement putting "general interest" where Smith wrote "publick interest". Samuelson[84] concluded: "Smith was unable to prove the essence of his invisible-hand doctrine. Indeed, until the 1940s no one knew how to prove, even to state properly, the kernel of truth in this proposition about perfectly competitive market."

Very differently, classical economists see in Smith's first sentences his programme to promote "The Wealth of Nations". Taking up the physiocratical concept of the economy as a circular process means that to have growth the inputs of period2 must excel the inputs of period1. Therefore the outputs of period1 not used or usable as input of period2 are regarded as unproductive labour as they do not contribute to growth. This is what Smith had learned in France with Quesnay. To this French insight that unproductive labour should be pushed back to use more labor productively, Smith added his own proposal, that productive labor should be made even more productive by deepening the division of labor. Deepening the division of labor means under competition lower prices and thereby extended markets. Extended markets and increased production lead to a new step of reorganising production and inventing new ways of producing which again lower prices, etc., etc.. Smith's central message is therefore that under dynamic competition a growth machine secures "The Wealth of Nations". It predicted England's evolution as the workshop of the World, underselling all its competitors. The opening sentences of the "Wealth of Nations" summarize this policy:

The annual labor of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes ... . [T]his produce ... bears a greater or smaller proportion to the number of those who are to consume it ... .[B]ut this proportion must in every nation be regulated by two different circumstances;
first, by the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which its labor is generally applied; and,
secondly, by the proportion between the number of those who are employed in useful labour, and that of those who are not so employed [emphasis added].[85]

Prominent interpretation, as well as criticism, of Smith's views on the societal merits of unregulated labor management by the ruling class is expressed by Noam Chomsky as follows: "He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."[86]

Shortly before his death, Smith had nearly all his manuscripts destroyed. In his last years, he seemed to have been planning two major treatises, one on the theory and history of law and one on the sciences and arts. The posthumously published Essays on Philosophical Subjects, a history of astronomy down to Smith's own era, plus some thoughts on ancient physics and metaphysics, probably contain parts of what would have been the latter treatise. Lectures on Jurisprudence were notes taken from Smith's early lectures, plus an early draft of The Wealth of Nations, published as part of the 1976 Glasgow Edition of the works and correspondence of Smith. Other works, including some published posthumously, include Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue, and Arms (1763) (first published in 1896); and Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795).[87]

The Wealth of Nations was a precursor to the modern academic discipline of economics. In this and other works, Smith expounded how rational self-interest and competition can lead to economic prosperity. Smith was controversial in his own day and his general approach and writing style were often satirized by Tory writers in the moralizing tradition of Hogarth and Swift, as a discussion at the University of Winchester suggests.[88] In 2005, The Wealth of Nations was named among the 100 Best Scottish Books of all time.[89] Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, it is said, used to carry a copy of the book in her handbag.[90]

In light of the arguments put forward by Smith and other economic theorists in Britain, academic belief in mercantalism began to decline in England in the late 18th century. During the Industrial Revolution, Britain embraced free trade and Smith's laissez-faire economics, and via the British Empire, used its power to spread a broadly liberal economic model around the world, characterized by open markets, and relatively barrier free domestic and international trade.[91]

George Stigler attributes to Smith "the most important substantive proposition in all of economics." It is that, under competition, owners of resources (for example labor, land, and capital) will use them most profitably, resulting in an equal rate of return in equilibrium for all uses, adjusted for apparent differences arising from such factors as training, trust, hardship, and unemployment.[92]

Paul Samuelson finds in Smith's pluralist use of supply and demand as applied to wages, rents, profit a valid and valuable anticipation of the general equilibrium modeling of Walras a century later. Smith's allowance for wage increases in the short and intermediate term from capital accumulation and invention added a realism missed later by Malthus, Ricardo, and Marx in their propounding a rigid subsistence-wage theory of labour supply.[93]

On the other hand, Joseph Schumpeter dismissed Smith's contributions as unoriginal, saying "His very limitation made for success. Had he been more brilliant, he would not have been taken so seriously. Had he dug more deeply, had he unearthed more recondite truth, had he used more difficult and ingenious methods, he would not have been understood. But he had no such ambitions; in fact he disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along."[94]

Classical economists presented competing theories of those of Smith, termed the "labour theory of value". Later Marxian economics descending from classical economics also use Smith's labour theories, in part. The first volume of Karl Marx's major work, Capital, was published in German in 1867. In it, Marx focused on the labour theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital.[95][96] The labour theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern understanding of mainstream economics, that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing.

The body of theory later termed "neoclassical economics" or "marginalism" formed from about 1870 to 1910. The term "economics" was popularized by such neoclassical economists as Alfred Marshall as a concise synonym for "economic science" and a substitute for the earlier, broader term "political economy" used by Smith.[97][98] This corresponded to the influence on the subject of mathematical methods used in the natural sciences.[99] Neoclassical economics systematized supply and demand as joint determinants of price and quantity in market equilibrium, affecting both the allocation of output and the distribution of income. It dispensed with the labour theory of value of which Smith was most famously identified with in classical economics, in favour of a marginal utility theory of value on the demand side and a more general theory of costs on the supply side.[100]

The bicentennial anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations was celebrated in 1976, resulting in increased interest for The Theory of Moral Sentiments and his other works throughout academia. After 1976, Smith was more likely to be represented as the author of both The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and thereby as the founder of a moral philosophy and the science of economics. His homo economicus or "economic man" was also more often represented as a moral person. Additionally, economists David Levy and Sandra Peart in "The Secret History of the Dismal Science" point to his opposition to hierarchy and beliefs in inequality, including racial inequality, and provide additional support for those who point to Smith's opposition to slavery, colonialism, and empire.[101] They show the caricatures of Smith drawn by the opponents of views on hierarchy and inequality in this online article. Emphasized also are Smith's statements of the need for high wages for the poor, and the efforts to keep wages low. In The “Vanity of the Philosopher”: From Equality to Hierarchy in Postclassical Economics Peart and Levy also cite Smith's view that a common street porter was not intellectually inferior to a philosopher,[102] and point to the need for greater appreciation of the public views in discussions of science and other subjects now considered to be technical. They also cite Smith's opposition to the often expressed view that science is superior to common sense.[103]

Smith also explained the relationship between growth of private property and civil government:

"Men may live together in society with some tolerable degree of security, though there is no civil magistrate to protect them from the injustice of those passions. But avarice and ambition in the rich, in the poor the hatred of labour and the love of present ease and enjoyment, are the passions which prompt to invade property, passions much more steady in their operation, and much more universal in their influence. Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary. Civil government supposes a certain subordination. But as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property. (...) Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." (Source: The Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 2)

Smith has been commemorated in the UK on banknotes printed by two different banks; his portrait has appeared since 1981 on the £50 notes issued by the Clydesdale Bank in Scotland,[104][105] and in March 2007 Smith's image also appeared on the new series of £20 notes issued by the Bank of England, making him the first Scotsman to feature on an English banknote.[106]

A large-scale memorial of Smith by Alexander Stoddart was unveiled on 4 July 2008 in Edinburgh. It is a 10 feet (3.0 m)-tall bronze sculpture and it stands above the Royal Mile outside St Giles' Cathedral in Parliament Square, near the Mercat cross.[107] 20th century sculptor Jim Sanborn (best known for the Kryptos sculpture at the United States Central Intelligence Agency) has created multiple pieces which feature Smith's work. At Central Connecticut State University is Circulating Capital, a tall cylinder which features an extract from The Wealth of Nations on the lower half, and on the upper half, some of the same text but represented in binary code.[108] At the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, outside the Belk College of Business Administration, is Adam Smith's Spinning Top.[109][110] Another Smith sculpture is at Cleveland State University.[111]

His house on Panmure Close off the Canongate survived until 1889,[112] but a nearby building of similar age adopted the stance of having been his house (in the same manner as John Knox's House) erecting a plaque c.1950 proclaiming itself as having been his residence. In reality Smith's residence was a far grander building than that remaining.

Smith has been celebrated by advocates of free market policies as the founder of free market economics, a view reflected in the naming of bodies such as the Adam Smith Institute in London, the Adam Smith Society[113] and the Australian Adam Smith Club,[114] and in terms such as the Adam Smith necktie.[115]

Alan Greenspan argues that, while Smith did not coin the term laissez-faire, "it was left to Adam Smith to identify the more-general set of principles that brought conceptual clarity to the seeming chaos of market transactions". Greenspan continues that The Wealth of Nations was "one of the great achievements in human intellectual history".[116] P. J. O'Rourke describes Smith as the "founder of free market economics".[117]

However, other writers have argued that Smith's support for laissez-faire (which in French means leave alone) has been overstated. Herbert Stein wrote that the people who "wear an Adam Smith necktie" do it to "make a statement of their devotion to the idea of free markets and limited government", and that this misrepresents Smith's ideas. Stein writes that Smith "was not pure or doctrinaire about this idea. He viewed government intervention in the market with great skepticism ... yet he was prepared to accept or propose qualifications to that policy in the specific cases where he judged that their net effect would be beneficial and would not undermine the basically free character of the system. He did not wear the Adam Smith necktie." In Stein's reading, The Wealth of Nations could justify the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, mandatory employer health benefits, environmentalism, and "discriminatory taxation to deter improper or luxurious behavior".[118]

Similarly, Vivienne Brown stated in The Economic Journal that in the 20th century United States, Reaganomics supporters, The Wall Street Journal, and other similar sources have spread among the general public a partial and misleading vision of Smith, portraying him as an "extreme dogmatic defender of laissez-faire capitalism and supply-side economics".[119] In fact, The Wealth of Nations includes the following statement on the payment of taxes:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."[120]

Moreover, in this passage Smith goes on to specify progressive, not flat, taxation:

"The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"[121]

Smith even specifically named taxes that he thought should be required by the state among them luxury goods taxes and tax on rent. He believed that tax laws should be as transparent as possible and that each individual should pay a "certain amount, and not arbitrary," in addition to paying this tax at the time "most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it".[120] Smith goes on to state that:

"Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."[122]

Additionally, Smith outlined the proper expenses of the government in The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. I. Included in his requirements of a government is to enforce contracts and provide justice system, grant patents and copy rights, provide public goods such as infrastructure, provide national defense and regulate banking. It was the role of the government to provide goods "of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual" such as roads, bridges, canals, and harbours. He also encouraged invention and new ideas through his patent enforcement and support of infant industry monopolies. he supported public education and religious institutions as providing general benefit to the society. Finally he outlined how the government should support the dignity of the monarch or chief magistrate, such that they are equal or above the public in fashion. He even states that monarchs should be provided for in a greater fashion than magistrates of a republic because "we naturally expect more splendor in the court of a king than in the mansion-house of a doge."[123] In addition, he was in favor of retaliatory tariffs and believed that they would eventually bring down the price of goods. He even stated in Wealth of Nations:

"The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods."[124]

Noam Chomsky has argued[N 3] that several aspects of Smith's thought have been misrepresented and falsified by contemporary ideology, including Smith's reasons for supporting markets and Smith's views on corporations. Chomsky argues that Smith supported markets in the belief that they would lead to equality, and that Smith opposed wage labor and corporations.[125] Economic historians such as Jacob Viner regard Smith as a strong advocate of free markets and limited government (what Smith called "natural liberty") but not as a dogmatic supporter of laissez-faire.[126]

Economist Daniel Klein believes using the term "free market economics" or "free market economist" to identify the ideas of Smith is too general and slightly misleading. Klein offers six characteristics central to the identity of Smith's economic thought and argues that a new name is needed to give a more accurate depiction of the "Smithian" identity.[127][128] Economist David Ricardo set straight some of the misunderstandings about Smith's thoughts on free market. Most people still fall victim to the thinking that Smith was a free market economist without exception, though he was not. Ricardo pointed out that Smith was in support of helping infant industries. Smith believed that the government should subsidise newly formed industry, but he did fear that when the infant industry grew into adulthood it would be unwilling to surrender the government help.[129] Smith also supported tariffs on imported goods to counteract an internal tax on the same good. Smith also fell to pressure in supporting some tariffs in support for national defense.[129] Some have also claimed, Emma Rothschild among them, that Smith supported a minimum wage.[130]

Though, Smith had written in his book The Wealth of Nations:

"The price of labour, it must be observed, cannot be ascertained very accurately anywhere, different prices being often paid at the same place and for the same sort of labour, not only according to the different abilities of the workmen, but according to the easiness or hardness of the masters. Where wages are not regulated by law, all that we can pretend to determine is what are the most usual; and experience seems to show that law can never regulate them properly, though it has often pretended to do so." (Source: The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter

See also
Political economy
Organizational capital

Footnotes

1.^ In Life of Adam Smith, Rae writes, "In his fourth year, while on a visit to his grandfather's house at Strathendry on the banks of the Leven, [Smith] was stolen by a passing band of gypsies, and for a time could not be found. But presently a gentleman arrived who had met a gypsy woman a few miles down the road carrying a child that was crying piteously. Scouts were immediately dispatched in the direction indicated, and they came upon the woman in Leslie wood. As soon as she saw them she threw her burden down and escaped, and the child was brought back to his mother. [Smith] would have made, I fear, a poor gypsy."[6]
2.^ The 6 editions of The Theory of Moral Sentiments were published in 1759, 1761, 1767, 1774, 1781, and 1790 respectively.[62]
3.^ See chapters 2, 5, 6, and 10 of his Understanding Power, New Press (February 2002), along with his Year 501: The Conquest Continues, primarily chapter 1, South End Press, 1993.

Notes

1.^ "Great Thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment".
2.^ Davis, William L, Bob Figgins, David Hedengren, and Daniel B. Klein. "Economic Professors' Favorite Economic Thinkers, Journals, and Blogs," Econ Journal Watch 8(2): 126-146, May 2011.[1]
3.^ The Greatest Scot STV. Retrieved 31 January 2012
4.^ Bussing-Burks 2003, pp. 38–39
5.^ Buchan 2006, p. 12
6.^ a b c Rae 1895, p. 5
7.^ a b c Bussing-Burks 2003, p. 39
8.^ Buchan 2006, p. 22
9.^ Bussing-Burks 2003, p. 41
10.^ Rae 1895, p. 24
11.^ a b c d Buchholz 1999, p. 12
12.^ Introductory Economics. New Age Publishers. p. 4. ISBN 81-224-1830-9.
13.^ Rae 1895, p. 22
14.^ Rae 1895, pp. 24–25
15.^ a b Bussing-Burks 2003, p. 42
16.^ Buchan 2006, p. 29
17.^ Scott, W.R. "The Never to Be Forgotten Hutcheson: Excerpts from W.R. Scott," Econ Journal Watch 8(1): 96–109, January 2011.[2]
18.^ Rae 1895, p. 30
19.^ Smith, A. ([1762] 1985). Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres [1762]. vol. IV of the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1985). Accessed on 2012-02-16
20.^ a b Bussing-Burks 2003, p. 43
21.^ Winch, Donald (September 2004). "Smith, Adam (bap. 1723, d. 1790)". Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press.
22.^ Rae 1895, p. 42
23.^ a b Buchholz 1999, p. 15
24.^ Buchan 2006, p. 67
25.^ a b c d e Buchholz 1999, p. 16
26.^ Buchholz 1999, pp. 16–17
27.^ a b c Buchholz 1999, p. 17
28.^ http://www.policonomics.com/adam-smith/
29.^ Buchan 2006, p. 80
30.^ Stewart, D., 1799, Essays on Philosophical Subjects, to which is prefixed An Account of the Life and Writings of the Author by Dugald Steward, F.R.S.E., Basil; from the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Read by M. Steward, 21 January, and 18 March 1793; in: The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 1982, vol. 3, pp. 304 ff.
31.^ During the reign of Louis XIV the population shrunk by 4 million and agricultural productivity was reduced by one-third while the taxes had increased. Cusminsky, Rosa, de Cendrero, 1967, Los Fisiócratas, Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina, p. 6
32.^ 1701–1714 War of the Spanish Succession, 1688–1797 War of the Grand Alliance, 1672–1678 Franco-Dutch War, 1667–1668 War of Devolution, 1618–1648 Thirty Years' War
33.^ Smith, A., 1976, The Wealth of Nations edited by R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner, The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, vol. 2b, pp. 678.
34.^ Buchan 2006, p. 90
35.^ Dr James Currie to Thomas Creevey, 24 February 1793, Lpool RO, Currie MS 920 CUR
36.^ Buchan 2006, p. 89
37.^ "First Visit to London". Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
38.^ Buchholz 1999, p. 19
39.^ Buchan 2006, p. 128
40.^ Buchan 2006, p. 133
41.^ Buchan 2006, p. 137
42.^ Buchan 2006, p. 145
43.^ a b c Bussing-Burks 2003, p. 53
44.^ a b Buchan 2006, p. 25
45.^ a b Buchan 2006, p. 88
46.^ Bonar 1895, pp. xx–xxiv
47.^ Buchan 2006, p. 11
48.^ Buchan 2006, p. 134
49.^ Rae 1895, p. 262
50.^ a b c Skousen 2001, p. 32
51.^ a b Buchholz 1999, p. 14
52.^ Boswell's Life of Johnson, year 1780, footnote"
53.^ Stewart, Dugald (1853). The Works of Adam Smith: With An Account of His Life and Writings. London: Henry G. Bohn. lxix. OCLC 3226570.
54.^ Rae 1895, pp. 376–377
55.^ Bonar 1895, p. xxi
56.^ Ross 1995, p. 15
57.^ "Times obituary of Adam Smith". The Times. 1790-07-24.
58.^ Coase 1976, pp. 529–546
59.^ a b Coase 1976, p. 538
60.^ "Hume on Religion". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2008-05-26.
61.^ Eric Schliesser (2003). "The Obituary of a Vain Philosopher: Adam Smith’s Reflections on Hume’s Life". Hume Studies 29 (2): 327–362.
62.^ "Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 1 The Theory of Moral Sentiments [1759"]. The Online Library of Liberty. Retrieved 2010-01-31.
63.^ Rae 1895
64.^ Falkner, Robert (1997). "Biography of Smith". Liberal Democrat History Group. Archived from the original on 11 June 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
65.^ Smith 2002, p. xv
66.^ Viner 1991, p. 250
67.^ Wight, Jonathan B. Saving Adam Smith. Upper Saddle River: Prentic-Hall, Inc., 2002.
68.^ Robbins, Lionel. A History of Economic Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
69.^ Brue, Stanley L, and Randy R Grant. The Evolution of Economic Thought. Mason: Thomson Higher Education, 2007.
70.^ There is at least one clear contradiction between The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations: The gluttony of the landlords is in the former an "invisible hand" which helps the poor to partake in the landlord's wealth. In "The Wealth of Nations" it is seen as the consumption of unproductive labour, limiting the growth of wealth.
71.^ Cannan, Edwin (ed.), 1937, p. xxxix, Editor's Introduction, pp. xxxviii–xli to: Adam Smith, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", N. Y.: Random House; "These changes [to the earlier lectures by his visit to France] do not make so much real difference to Smith's own work as might be supposed; the theory of distribution, though it appears in the title of Book I., is no essential part of the work and could easily be excised ... But to subsequent [classical] economics they were of fundamental importance. They settled the form of economic treatises for a century at least."
72.^ Smith, A., 1982 [1759], "Theory of Moral Sentiment", pp. 184–5 in: The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, vol. i", Oxford University Press.
73.^ "The learned will at once discern how much ... is taken from the writings of others, from Cicero and Aristotle, and to name no other moderns, from Puffendorf's ... de officio hominis et civis" (Hutcheson, F., 1787, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy", Dublin: McKenzie, p. vii.). In "System" (1755), Hutcheson's begins stating: "The intention of moral philosophy is to direct men to that course of action which tends most effectually to promote their greatest happiness and perfection." (Hutcheson, F., 1755, "A system of moral philosophy", Glasgow: Foulis). In "Inquiry", Hutcheson (1729, 180) explains: "That action is best, which procures the greatest Happiness for the greatest Numbers" (Hutcheson, F., 1729, "An inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue", London).
74.^ Smith, A., 1976, The Wealth of Nations edited by R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner, The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, vol. 2a, p. 456.
75.^ Smith, A., 1980, The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, vol. 3, p. 49, edited by W.P.D. Wightman and J.C. Bryce, Oxford: Claredon Press.
76.^ Smith, A., 1976, The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, vol. 1, p. 184-5, edited by D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie, Oxford: Claredon Press.
77.^ Smith, A., 1976, The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, vol. 2a, p. 456, edited by R.H. Cambell and A.S. Skinner, Oxford: Claredon Press.
78.^ Smith, A., 1976, The Glasgow edition, vol. 2a, pp. 26–7.
79.^ Mandeville, B., 1724, The Fable of the Bees, London: Tonson.
80.^ Smith, A., 1976, The Glasgow edition, vol. 2a, p. 145, 158.
81.^ Smith, A., 1976, The Glasgow edition, vol. 2a, p. 79.
82.^ Gopnik, Adam. "Market Man". The New Yorker (18 October 2010): 82. Retrieved 27 April 2011.
83.^ Samuelson, P. A./Nordhaus, William D., 1989, Economics, 13th edition, N.Y. et al.: McGraw-Hill, p. 825.
84.^ Samuelson, P. A./Nordhaus, William D., 1989, idem, p. 825.
85.^ Smith, A., 1976, vol. 2a, p. 10, idem
86.^ [Excerpted from Class Warfare, 1995, pp. 19–23, 27–31 Source: http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm] Retrieved December 2011
87.^ The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 1982, 6 volumes; http://oll.libertyfund.org/
88.^ "Adam Smith – Jonathan Swift". University of Winchester. Retrieved 2010-02-11.
89.^ 100 Best Scottish Books, Adam Smith Retrieved 31 January 2012
90.^ David Smith (2010) Free Lunch: Easily Digestible Economics p.43. Profile Books 2010
91.^ L.Seabrooke (2006). "Global Standards of Market Civilization". P. 192. Taylor & Francis 2006
92.^ Stigler, George J. (1976). "The Successes and Failures of Professor Smith," Journal of Political Economy, 84(6), p. 1202. P p. 1199-1213, Also published as Selected Papers, No. 50 (PDF), Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
93.^ Samuelson, Paul A. (1977). "A Modern Theorist's Vindication of Adam Smith," American Economic Review, 67(1), p p. 42. Reprinted in J.C. Wood, ed., Adam Smith: Critical Assessments, pp. 498–509. Preview.
94.^ Schumpeter History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 185.
95.^ Roemer, J.E. (1987). "Marxian Value Analysis". The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 3, 383.
96.^ Mandel, Ernest (1987). "Marx, Karl Heinrich", The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economicsv. 3, pp. 372, 376.
97.^ Marshall, Alfred; Marshall, Mary Paley (1879). The Economics of Industry. p. 2.
98.^ Jevons, W. Stanley (1879). The Theory of Political Economy (2nd ed.). p. xiv.
99.^ Clark, B. (1998). Political-economy: A comparative approach, 2nd ed., Westport, CT: Preagerp. p. 32..
100.^ Campos, Antonietta (1987). "Marginalist Economics", The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 3, p. 320
101.^ The Secret History of the Dismal Science
102.^ Smith 1977, §Book I, Chapter 2
103.^ The “Vanity of the Philosopher”: From Equality to Hierarchy in Postclassical Economics [3]
104.^ "Clydesdale 50 Pounds, 1981". Ron Wise's Banknoteworld. Archived from the original on 30 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-15.
105.^ "Current Banknotes : Clydesdale Bank". The Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers. Archived from the original on 3 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-15.
106.^ "Smith replaces Elgar on £20 note". BBC. 2006-10-29. Archived from the original on 6 April 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
107.^ Blackley, Michael (2007-09-26). "Adam Smith sculpture to tower over Royal Mile". Edinburgh Evening News.
108.^ Fillo, Maryellen (2001-03-13). "CCSU welcomes a new kid on the block". The Hartford Courant.
109.^ Kelley, Pam (1997-05-20). "Piece at UNCC is a puzzle for Charlotte, artist says". Charlotte Observer.
110.^ Shaw-Eagle, Joanna (1997-06-01). "Artist sheds new light on sculpture". The Washington Times.
111.^ "Adam Smith's Spinning Top". Ohio Outdoor Sculpture Inventory. Archived from the original on 2005-02-05. Retrieved 2008-05-24.
112.^ contemporary newspaper records; Scotsman
113.^ "The Adam Smith Society". The Adam Smith Society. Archived from the original on 2007-07-21. Retrieved 2008-05-24.
114.^ "The Australian Adam Smith Club". Adam Smith Club. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
115.^ Levy, David (June 1992). "Interview with Milton Friedman". Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
116.^ "FRB: Speech, Greenspan—Adam Smith—6 February 2005". Archived from the original on 12 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-31.
117.^ "Adam Smith: Web Junkie - Forbes.com". 2007-07-05. Archived from the original on 20 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-10.
118.^ Stein, Herbert (1994-04-06). "Board of Contributors: Remembering Adam Smith". The Wall Street Journal Asia: A14.
119.^ Brown, Vivienne; Pack, Spencer J.; Werhane, Patricia H. (January 1993). "Untitled review of 'Capitalism as a Moral System: Adam Smith's Critique of the Free Market Economy' and 'Adam Smith and his Legacy for Modern Capitalism'". The Economic Journal 103 (416): 230–232. doi:10.2307/2234351. JSTOR 2234351.
120.^ a b Smith 1977, bk. V, ch. 2
121.^ Gopnik, A., op cit
122.^ [4] Smith, Adam (1776), Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.704
123.^ Smith 1977, bk. V
124.^ Smith, A., 1976, The Glasgow edition, vol. 2a, p. 468.
125.^ Chomsky 2002, ch. 6
126.^ Viner, Jacob (April 1927). "Adam Smith and Laissez-faire". The Journal of Political Economy 35 (2): 198–232. JSTOR 1823421.
127.^ Klein, Daniel B. (2008). "Toward a Public and Professional Identity for Our Economics". Econ Journal Watch 5 (3): 358–372.
128.^ Klein, Daniel B. (2009). "Desperately Seeking Smithians: Responses to the Questionnaire about Building an Identity". Econ Journal Watch 6 (1): 113–180.
129.^ a b Buchholz, Todd (December 1990). pp. 38–39.
130.^ Martin, Christopher. "Adam Smith and Liberal Economics: Reading the Minimum Wage Debate of 1795–96," Econ Journal Watch 8(2): 110–125, May 2011 [5].

References
Bonar, James (1895). A Catalogue of the Library of Adam Smith}and. London: Macmillan. OCLC 2320634.
Buchan, James (2006). The Authentic Adam Smith: His Life and Ideas. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-06121-3.
Buchholz, Todd (1999). New ideas from Dead Economists: An introduction to modern economic thought. Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-028313-7.
Bussing-Burks, Marie (2003). Influential Economists. Minneapolis: The Oliver Press. ISBN 1-881508-72-2.
Campbell, R. H.; Skinner, Andrew S. (1985). Adam Smith. Routledge. ISBN 0-7099-3473-4.
Chomsky, Noam (2002). Understanding power: the indispensable Chomsky. Scribe Publications. ISBN 978-0-908011-72-8.
Coase, R.H. (October 1976). "Adam Smith's View of Man". The Journal of Law and Economics 19 (3): 529–546. doi:10.1086/466886.
Rae, John (1895). Life of Adam Smith. New York City: Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 0-7222-2658-6.
Ross, Ian Simpson (14 December 1995). The Life of Adam Smith. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-828821-2.
Skousen, Mark (2001). The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of Great Thinkers. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-0480-9.
Smith, Adam (1977) [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-76374-9.
Smith, Adam (1982) [1759]. D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie. ed. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Liberty Fund. ISBN 0-86597-012-2.
Smith, Adam (2002) [1759]. Knud Haakonssen. ed. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-59847-8.
Smith, Vernon L. (July 1998). "The Two Faces of Adam Smith". Southern Economic Journal 65 (1): 2–19.
Tribe, Keith; Mizuta, Hiroshi (2002). A Critical Bibliography of Adam Smith. Pickering & Chatto. ISBN 978-1-85196-741-4.
Viner, Jacob (1991). Douglas A. Irwin. ed. Essays on the Intellectual History of Economics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04266-7.

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain from the entry "Smith, Adam" in: Cousin, John William (1910). A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature. London, J. M. Dent & Sons; New York, E. P. Dutton.

Further reading
Butler, Eamonn (March 2007). Adam Smith – A Primer. Institute of Economic Affairs. ISBN 0-255-36608-6.
Copley, Stephen (March 1995). Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-3943-6.
Glahe, F. (June 1977). Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations: 1776–1976. University Press of Colorado. ISBN 0-87081-082-0.
Haakonssen, Knud (2006-03-06). The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77924-3.
Hollander, Samuel (June 1973). Economics of Adam Smith. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-6302-0.
Iain McLean (2006). Adam Smith, Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the 21st Century. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-7486-2352-3.
Milgate, Murray and Stimson, Shannon. (August 2009). After Adam Smith: A Century of Transformation in Politics and Political Economy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-14037-5.
Muller, Jerry Z. (1995-07-03). Adam Smith in His Time and Ours. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00161-8.
O'Rourke, P. J. (2006-12-04). On The Wealth Of Nations. Grove/Atlantic Inc.. ISBN 0-87113-949-9.
Otteson, James (2002). Adam Smith's Marketplace of Life. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-01656-8.
Phillipson Nicholas: Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life, Yale University Press, 2010 ISBN 978-0-300-16927-0, 352 pages; scholarly biography
Iain McLean, Adam Smith, Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the 21st Century (Edinburgh University Press, 2004)
Éric Pichet, (2004), Adam Smith, je connais !, French biography