week 5

  

Week 5:

Learn About creating good password security.

An IT Security consultant has made three primary recommendations regarding passwords:

1. Prohibit guessable passwords

o such as common names, real words, numbers only

o require special characters and a mix of caps, lower case and numbers in pws

2. Reauthenticate before changing passwords

user must enter old pw before creating new one

3. Make authenticators unforgeable 

do not allow email or user ID as password

Using WORD, write a brief paper of 200-300 words explaining each of these security recommendations. Add additional criteria as you see necesarry.

Note your Safe Assign score. Continue submitting until your Safe Assign score is less than 25. You have three attempts to complete your assignment.

Attach your WORD doc and then hit SUBMT.

How to Read Like a Writer Mike Bunn In 1997, I was a recent college graduate living in London for…Answers 0Bids 0Other questions 10

How to Read Like a Writer Mike Bunn In 1997, I was a recent college graduate living in London for six months and working at the Palace Theatre owned by Andrew Lloyd Webber.* The Palace was a beautiful red brick, four-story theatre in the heart of London’s famous West End, and eight times a week it housed a threehour performance of the musical Les Miserables. Because of antiquated fire-safety laws, every theatre in the city was required to have a certain number of staff members inside watching the performance in case of an emergency. My job (in addition to wearing a red tuxedo jacket) was to sit inside the dark theater with the patrons and make sure nothing went wrong. It didn’t seem to matter to my supervisor that I had no training in security and no idea where we kept the fire extinguishers. I was pretty sure that if there was any trouble I’d be running down the back stairs, leaving the patrons to fend for themselves. I had no intention of dying in a bright red tuxedo. There was a Red Coat stationed on each of the theater’s four floors, and we all passed the time by sitting quietly in the back, reading books with tiny flashlights. It’s not easy trying to read in the dim light of a theatre—flashlight or no flashlight—and it’s even tougher with shrieks and shouts and gunshots coming from the stage. I had to focus intently on each and every word, often rereading a single sentence several times. Sometimes I got distracted and had to re-read entire para- * This work is licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License and is subject to the Writing Spaces’ Terms of Use. To view a copy of this license, visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. To view the Writing Spaces’ Terms of Use, visit http://writingspaces. org/terms-of-use. 72 Mike Bunn graphs. As I struggled to read in this environment, I began to realize that the way I was reading—one word at a time—was exactly the same way that the author had written the text. I realized writing is a word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence process. The intense concentration required to read in the theater helped me recognize some of the interesting ways that authors string words into phrases into paragraphs into entire books. I came to realize that all writing consists of a series of choices. I was an English major in college, but I don’t think I ever thought much about reading. I read all the time. I read for my classes and on the computer and sometimes for fun, but I never really thought about the important connections between reading and writing, and how reading in a particular way could also make me a better writer. What Does It Mean to Read Like a Writer? When you Read Like a Writer (RLW) you work to identify some of the choices the author made so that you can better understand how such choices might arise in your own writing. The idea is to carefully examine the things you read, looking at the writerly techniques in the text in order to decide if you might want to adopt similar (or the same) techniques in your writing. You are reading to learn about writing. Instead of reading for content or to better understand the ideas in the writing (which you will automatically do to some degree anyway), you are trying to understand how the piece of writing was put together by the author and what you can learn about writing by reading a particular text. As you read in this way, you think about how the choices the author made and the techniques that he/she used are influencing your own responses as a reader. What is it about the way this text is written that makes you feel and respond the way you do? The goal as you read like a writer is to locate what you believe are the most important writerly choices represented in the text—choices as large as the overall structure or as small as a single word used only once—to consider the effect of those choices on potential readers (including yourself). Then you can go one step further and imagine what different choices the author might have made instead, and what effect those different choices would have on readers. How to Read Like a Writer 73 Say you’re reading an essay in class that begins with a short quote from President Barack Obama about the war in Iraq. As a writer, what do you think of this technique? Do you think it is effective to begin the essay with a quote? What if the essay began with a quote from someone else? What if it was a much longer quote from President Obama, or a quote from the President about something other than the war? And here is where we get to the most important part: Would you want to try this technique in your own writing? Would you want to start your own essay with a quote? Do you think it would be effective to begin your essay with a quote from President Obama? What about a quote from someone else? You could make yourself a list. What are the advantages and disadvantages of starting with a quote? What about the advantages and disadvantages of starting with a quote from the President? How would other readers respond to this technique? Would certain readers (say Democrats or liberals) appreciate an essay that started with a quote from President Obama better than other readers (say Republicans or conservatives)? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of starting with a quote from a less divisive person? What about starting with a quote from someone more divisive? The goal is to carefully consider the choices the author made and the techniques that he or she used, and then decide whether you want to make those same choices or use those same techniques in your own writing. Author and professor Wendy Bishop explains how her reading process changed when she began to read like a writer: It wasn’t until I claimed the sentence as my area of desire, interest, and expertise—until I wanted to be a writer writing better—that I had to look underneath my initial readings . . . I started asking, how—how did the writer get me to feel, how did the writer say something so that it remains in my memory when many other things too easily fall out, how did the writer communicate his/her intentions about genre, about irony? (119–20) Bishop moved from simply reporting her personal reactions to the things she read to attempting to uncover how the author led her (and other readers) to have those reactions. This effort to uncover how authors build texts is what makes Reading Like a Writer so useful for student writers. 74 Mike Bunn How Is RLW Different from “Normal” Reading? Most of the time we read for information. We read a recipe to learn how to bake lasagna. We read the sports page to see if our school won the game, Facebook to see who has commented on our status update, a history book to learn about the Vietnam War, and the syllabus to see when the next writing assignment is due. Reading Like a Writer asks for something very different. In 1940, a famous poet and critic named Allen Tate discussed two different ways of reading: There are many ways to read, but generally speaking there are two ways. They correspond to the two ways in which we may be interested in a piece of architecture. If the building has Corinthian columns, we can trace the origin and development of Corinthian columns; we are interested as historians. But if we are interested as architects, we may or may not know about the history of the Corinthian style; we must, however, know all about the construction of the building, down to the last nail or peg in the beams. We have got to know this if we are going to put up buildings ourselves. (506) While I don’t know anything about Corinthian columns (and doubt that I will ever want to know anything about Corinthian columns), Allen Tate’s metaphor of reading as if you were an architect is a great way to think about RLW. When you read like a writer, you are trying to figure out how the text you are reading was constructed so that you learn how to “build” one for yourself. Author David Jauss makes a similar comparison when he writes that “reading won’t help you much unless you learn to read like a writer. You must look at a book the way a carpenter looks at a house someone else built, examining the details in order to see how it was made” (64). Perhaps I should change the name and call this Reading Like an Architect, or Reading Like a Carpenter. In a way those names make perfect sense. You are reading to see how something was constructed so that you can construct something similar yourself. How to Read Like a Writer 75 Why Learn to Read Like a Writer? For most college students RLW is a new way to read, and it can be difficult to learn at first. Making things even more difficult is that your college writing instructor may expect you to read this way for class but never actually teach you how to do it. He or she may not even tell you that you’re supposed to read this way. This is because most writing instructors are so focused on teaching writing that they forget to show students how they want them to read. That’s what this essay is for. In addition to the fact that your college writing instructor may expect you to read like a writer, this kind of reading is also one of the very best ways to learn how to write well. Reading like a writer can help you understand how the process of writing is a series of making choices, and in doing so, can help you recognize important decisions you might face and techniques you might want to use when working on your own writing. Reading this way becomes an opportunity to think and learn about writing. Charles Moran, a professor of English at the University of Massachusetts, urges us to read like writers because: When we read like writers we understand and participate in the writing. We see the choices the writer has made, and we see how the writer has coped with the consequences of those choices . . . We “see” what the writer is doing because we read as writers; we see because we have written ourselves and know the territory, know the feel of it, know some of the moves ourselves. (61) You are already an author, and that means you have a built-in advantage when reading like a writer. All of your previous writing experiences—inside the classroom and out—can contribute to your success with RLW. Because you “have written” things yourself, just as Moran suggests, you are better able to “see” the choices that the author is making in the texts that you read. This in turn helps you to think about whether you want to make some of those same choices in your own writing, and what the consequences might be for your readers if you do. 76 Mike Bunn What Are Some Questions to Ask Before You Start Reading? As I sat down to work on this essay, I contacted a few of my former students to ask what advice they would give to college students regarding how to read effectively in the writing classroom and also to get their thoughts on RLW. Throughout the rest of the essay I’d like to share some of their insights and suggestions; after all, who is better qualified to help you learn what you need to know about reading in college writing courses than students who recently took those courses themselves? One of the things that several students mentioned to do first, before you even start reading, is to consider the context surrounding both the assignment and the text you’re reading. As one former student, Alison, states: “The reading I did in college asked me to go above and beyond, not only in breadth of subject matter, but in depth, with regards to informed analysis and background information on context.” Alison was asked to think about some of the factors that went into the creation of the text, as well as some of the factors influencing her own experience of reading—taken together these constitute the context of reading. Another former student, Jamie, suggests that students “learn about the historical context of the writings” they will read for class. Writing professor Richard Straub puts it this way: “You’re not going to just read a text. You’re going to read a text within a certain context, a set of circumstances . . . It’s one kind of writing or another, designed for one audience and purpose or another” (138). Among the contextual factors you’ll want to consider before you even start reading are: • Do you know the author’s purpose for this piece of writing? • Do you know who the intended audience is for this piece of writing? It may be that you need to start reading before you can answer these first two questions, but it’s worth trying to answer them before you start. For example, if you know at the outset that the author is trying to reach a very specific group of readers, then his or her writerly techniques may seem more or less effective than if he/she was trying to reach a more general audience. Similarly—returning to our earlier example of beginning an essay with a quote from President Obama How to Read Like a Writer 77 about the war in Iraq—if you know that the author’s purpose is to address some of the dangers and drawbacks of warfare, this may be a very effective opening. If the purpose is to encourage Americans to wear sunscreen while at the beach this opening makes no sense at all. One former student, Lola, explained that most of her reading assignments in college writing classes were designed “to provoke analysis and criticisms into the style, structure, and purpose of the writing itself.” In What Genre Is This Written? Another important thing to consider before reading is the genre of the text. Genre means a few different things in college English classes, but it’s most often used to indicate the type of writing: a poem, a newspaper article, an essay, a short story, a novel, a legal brief, an instruction manual, etc. Because the conventions for each genre can be very different (who ever heard of a 900-page newspaper article?), techniques that are effective for one genre may not work well in another. Many readers expect poems and pop songs to rhyme, for example, but might react negatively to a legal brief or instruction manual that did so. Another former student, Mike, comments on how important the genre of the text can be for reading: I think a lot of the way I read, of course, depends on the type of text I’m reading. If I’m reading philosophy, I always look for signaling words (however, therefore, furthermore, despite) indicating the direction of the argument . . . when I read fiction or creative nonfiction, I look for how the author inserts dialogue or character sketches within narration or environmental observation. After reading To the Lighthouse [sic] last semester, I have noticed how much more attentive I’ve become to the types of narration (omniscient, impersonal, psychological, realistic, etc.), and how these different approaches are utilized to achieve an author’s overall effect. Although Mike specifically mentions what he looked for while reading a published novel, one of the great things about RLW is that it can be used equally well with either published or student-produced writing. Is This a Published or a Student-Produced Piece of Writing? As you read both kinds of texts you can locate the choices the author made and imagine the different decisions that he/she might have made. 78 Mike Bunn While it might seem a little weird at first to imagine how published texts could be written differently—after all, they were good enough to be published—remember that all writing can be improved. Scholar Nancy Walker believes that it’s important for students to read published work using RLW because “the work ceases to be a mere artifact, a stone tablet, and becomes instead a living utterance with immediacy and texture. It could have been better or worse than it is had the author made different choices” (36). As Walker suggests, it’s worth thinking about how the published text would be different—maybe even better—if the author had made different choices in the writing because you may be faced with similar choices in your own work. Is This the Kind of Writing You Will Be Assigned to Write Yourself? Knowing ahead of time what kind of writing assignments you will be asked to complete can really help you to read like a writer. It’s probably impossible (and definitely too time consuming) to identify all of the choices the author made and all techniques an author used, so it’s important to prioritize while reading. Knowing what you’ll be writing yourself can help you prioritize. It may be the case that your instructor has assigned the text you’re reading to serve as model for the kind of writing you’ll be doing later. Jessie, a former student, writes, “In college writing classes, we knew we were reading for a purpose—to influence or inspire our own work. The reading that I have done in college writing courses has always been really specific to a certain type of writing, and it allows me to focus and experiment on that specific style in depth and without distraction.” If the text you’re reading is a model of a particular style of writing—for example, highly-emotional or humorous—RLW is particularly helpful because you can look at a piece you’re reading and think about whether you want to adopt a similar style in your own writing. You might realize that the author is trying to arouse sympathy in readers and examine what techniques he/she uses to do this; then you can decide whether these techniques might work well in your own writing. You might notice that the author keeps including jokes or funny stories and think about whether you want to include them in your writing—what would the impact be on your potential readers? How to Read Like a Writer 79 What Are Questions to Ask As You Are Reading? It is helpful to continue to ask yourself questions as you read like a writer. As you’re first learning to read in this new way, you may want to have a set of questions written or typed out in front of you that you can refer to while reading. Eventually—after plenty of practice—you will start to ask certain questions and locate certain things in the text almost automatically. Remember, for most students this is a new way of reading, and you’ll have to train yourself to do it well. Also keep in mind that you’re reading to understand how the text was written— how the house was built—more than you’re trying to determine the meaning of the things you read or assess whether the texts are good or bad. First, return to two of the same questions I suggested that you consider before reading: • What is the author’s purpose for this piece of writing? • Who is the intended audience? Think about these two questions again as you read. It may be that you couldn’t really answer them before, or that your ideas will change while reading. Knowing why the piece was written and who it’s for can help explain why the author might have made certain choices or used particular techniques in the writing, and you can assess those choices and techniques based in part on how effective they are in fulfilling that purpose and/or reaching the intended audience. Beyond these initial two questions, there is an almost endless list of questions you might ask regarding writing choices and techniques. Here are some of the questions that one former student, Clare, asks herself: When reading I tend to be asking myself a million questions. If I were writing this, where would I go with the story? If the author goes in a different direction (as they so often do) from what I am thinking, I will ask myself, why did they do this? What are they telling me? Clare tries to figure out why the author might have made a move in the writing that she hadn’t anticipated, but even more importantly, she asks herself what she would do if she were the author. Reading the 80 Mike Bunn text becomes an opportunity for Clare to think about her own role as an author. Here are some additional examples of the kinds of questions you might ask yourself as you read: • How effective is the language the author uses? Is it too formal? Too informal? Perfectly appropriate? Depending on the subject matter and the intended audience, it may make sense to be more or less formal in terms of language. As you begin reading, you can ask yourself whether the word choice and tone/ language of the writing seem appropriate. • What kinds of evidence does the author use to support his/her claims? Does he/she use statistics? Quotes from famous people? Personal anecdotes or personal stories? Does he/she cite books or articles? • How appropriate or effective is this evidence? Would a different type of evidence, or some combination of evidence, be more effective? To some extent the kinds of questions you ask should be determined by the genre of writing you are reading. For example, it’s probably worth examining the evidence that the author uses to support his/ her claims if you’re reading an opinion column, but less important if you’re reading a short story. An opinion column is often intended to convince readers of something, so the kinds of evidence used are often very important. A short story may be intended to convince readers of something, sometimes, but probably not in the same way. A short story rarely includes claims or evidence in the way that we usually think about them. • Are there places in the writing that you find confusing? What about the writing in those places makes it unclear or confusing? It’s pretty normal to get confused in places while reading, especially while reading for class, so it can be helpful to look closely at the writing to try and get a sense of exactly what tripped you up. This way you can learn to avoid those same problems in your own writing. How to Read Like a Writer 81 • How does the author move from one idea to another in the writing? Are the transitions between the ideas effective? How else might he/she have transitioned between ideas instead? Notice that in these questions I am encouraging you to question whether aspects of the writing are appropriate and effective in addition to deciding whether you liked or disliked them. You want to imagine how other readers might respond to the writing and the techniques you’ve identified. Deciding whether you liked or disliked something is only about you; considering whether a technique is appropriate or effective lets you contemplate what the author might have been trying to do and to decide whether a majority of readers would find the move successful. This is important because it’s the same thing you should be thinking about while you are writing: how will readers respond to this technique I am using, to this sentence, to this word? As you read, ask yourself what the author is doing at each step of the way, and then consider whether the same choice or technique might work in your own writing. What Should You Be Writing As You Are Reading? The most common suggestion made by former students—mentioned by every single one of them—was to mark up the text, make comments in the margins, and write yourself notes and summaries both during and after reading. Often the notes students took while reading became ideas or material for the students to use in their own papers. It’s important to read with a pen or highlighter in your hand so that you can mark—right on the text—all those spots where you identify an interesting choice the author has made or a writerly technique you might want to use. One thing that I like to do is to highlight and underline the passage in the text itself, and then try to answer the following three questions on my notepad: • What is the technique the author is using here? • Is this technique effective? • What would be the advantages and disadvantages if I tried this same technique in my writing? 82 Mike Bunn By utilizing this same process of highlighting and note taking, you’ll end up with a useful list of specific techniques to have at your disposal when it comes time to begin your own writing. What Does RLW Look Like in Action? Let’s go back to the opening paragraph of this essay and spend some time reading like writers as a way to get more comfortable with the process: In 1997, I was a recent college graduate living in London for six months and working at the Palace Theatre owned by Andrew Lloyd Webber. The Palace was a beautiful red brick, four-story theatre in the heart of London’s famous West End, and eight times a week it housed a three-hour performance of the musical Les Miserables. Because of antiquated fire-safety laws, every theatre in the city was required to have a certain number of staff members inside watching the performance in case of an emergency. Let’s begin with those questions I encouraged you to try to answer before you start reading. (I realize we’re cheating a little bit in this case since you’ve already read most of this essay, but this is just practice. When doing this on your own, you should attempt to answer these questions before reading, and then return to them as you read to further develop your answers.) • Do you know the author’s purpose for this piece of writing? I hope the purpose is clear by now; if it isn’t, I’m doing a pretty lousy job of explaining how and why you might read like a writer. • Do you know who the intended audience is? Again, I hope that you know this one by now. • What about the genre? Is this an essay? An article? What would you call it? • You know that it’s published and not student writing. How does this influence your expectations for what you will read? • Are you going to be asked to write something like this yourself? Probably not in your college writing class, but you can still use RLW to learn about writerly techniques that you might want to use in whatever you do end up writing. How to Read Like a Writer 83 Now ask yourself questions as you read. In 1997, I was a recent college graduate living in London for six months and working at the Palace Theatre owned by Andrew Lloyd Webber. The Palace was a beautiful red brick, four-story theatre in the heart of London’s famous West End, and eight times a week it housed a three-hour performance of the musical Les Miserables. Because of antiquated fire-safety laws, every theatre in the city was required to have a certain number of staff members inside watching the performance in case of an emergency. Since this paragraph is the very first one, it makes sense to think about how it introduces readers to the essay. What technique(s) does the author use to begin the text? This is a personal story about his time working in London. What else do you notice as you read over this passage? Is the passage vague or specific about where he worked? You know that the author worked in a famous part of London in a beautiful theater owned by a well-known composer. Are these details important? How different would this opening be if instead I had written: In 1997, I was living in London and working at a theatre that showed Les Miserables. This is certainly shorter, and some of you may prefer this version. It’s quick. To the point. But what (if anything) is lost by eliminating so much of the detail? I chose to include each of the details that the revised sentence omits, so it’s worth considering why. Why did I mention where the theater was located? Why did I explain that I was living in London right after finishing college? Does it matter that it was after college? What effect might I have hoped the inclusion of these details would have on readers? Is this reference to college an attempt to connect with my audience of college students? Am I trying to establish my credibility as an author by announcing that I went to college? Why might I want the readers to know that this was a theater owned by Andrew Lloyd Weber? Do you think I am just trying to mention a famous name that readers will recognize? Will Andrew Lloyd Weber figure prominently in the rest of the essay? These are all reasonable questions to ask. They are not necessarily the right questions to ask because there are no right questions. They 84 Mike Bunn certainly aren’t the only questions you could ask, either. The goal is to train yourself to formulate questions as you read based on whatever you notice in the text. Your own reactions to what you’re reading will help determine the kinds of questions to ask. Now take a broader perspective. I begin this essay—an essay about reading—by talking about my job in a theater in London. Why? Doesn’t this seem like an odd way to begin an essay about reading? If you read on a little further (feel free to scan back up at the top of this essay) you learn in the third full paragraph what the connection is between working in the theater and reading like a writer, but why include this information at all? What does this story add to the essay? Is it worth the space it takes up? Think about what effect presenting this personal information might have on readers. Does it make it feel like a real person, some “ordinary guy,” is talking to you? Does it draw you into the essay and make you want to keep reading? What about the language I use? Is it formal or more informal? This is a time when you can really narrow your focus and look at particular words: Because of antiquated fire-safety laws, every theatre in the city was required to have a certain number of staff members inside watching the performance in case of an emergency. What is the effect of using the word “antiquated” to describe the firesafety laws? It certainly projects a negative impression; if the laws are described as antiquated it means I view them as old-fashioned or obsolete. This is a fairly uncommon word, so it stands out, drawing attention to my choice in using it. The word also sounds quite formal. Am I formal in the rest of this sentence? I use the word “performance” when I just as easily could have written “show.” For that matter, I could have written “old” instead of “antiquated.” You can proceed like this throughout the sentence, thinking about alternative choices I could have made and what the effect would be. Instead of “staff members” I could have written “employees” or just “workers.” Notice the difference if the sentence had been written: Because of old fire-safety laws, every theatre in the city was required to have a certain number of workers inside watching the show in case of an emergency. How to Read Like a Writer 85 Which version is more likely to appeal to readers? You can try to answer this question by thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of using formal language. When would you want to use formal language in your writing and when would it make more sense to be more conversational? As you can see from discussing just this one paragraph, you could ask questions about the text forever. Luckily, you don’t have to. As you continue reading like a writer, you’ll learn to notice techniques that seem new and pay less attention to the ones you’ve thought about before. The more you practice the quicker the process becomes until you’re reading like a writer almost automatically. I want to end this essay by sharing one more set of comments by my former student, Lola, this time about what it means to her to read like a writer: Reading as a writer would compel me to question what might have brought the author to make these decisions, and then decide what worked and what didn’t. What could have made that chapter better or easier to understand? How can I make sure I include some of the good attributes of this writing style into my own? How can I take aspects that I feel the writer failed at and make sure not to make the same mistakes in my writing? Questioning why the author made certain decisions. Considering what techniques could have made the text better. Deciding how to include the best attributes of what you read in your own writing. This is what Reading Like a Writer is all about. Are you ready to start reading? Discussion 1. How is “Reading Like a Writer” similar to and/or different from the way(s) you read for other classes? 2. What kinds of choices do you make as a writer that readers might identify in your written work? 3. Is there anything you notice in this essay that you might like to try in your own writing? What is that technique or strategy? When do you plan to try using it? 4. What are some of the different ways that you can learn about the context of a text before you

The post How to Read Like a Writer Mike Bunn In 1997, I was a recent college graduate living in London for…Answers 0Bids 0Other questions 10 appeared first on homeworkhandlers.com.

Can you help with this? Answers 1Bids 1Other questions 10

I need a 1- 1 1/2 page comparison of these two writings MLA  The Necklace By Guy de Maupassant  She was one of those pretty and charming girls who are sometimes, as if by a mistake of destiny, born in a family of clerks. She had no dowry, no expectations, no means of being known, understood, loved, wedded, by any rich and distinguished man; and she let herself be married to a little clerk at the Ministry of Public Instruction.She dressed plainly because she could not dress well, but she was as unhappy as though she had really fallen from her proper station; since with women there is neither caste nor rank; and beauty, grace, and charm act instead of family and birth. Natural fineness, instinct for what is elegant, suppleness of wit, are the sole hierarchy, and make from women of the people the equals of the very greatest ladies.She suffered ceaselessly, feeling herself born for all the delicacies and all the luxuries. She suffered from the poverty of her dwelling, from the wretched look of the walls, from the worn-out chairs, from the ugliness of the curtains. All those things, of which another woman of her rank would never even have been conscious, tortured her and made her angry. The sight of the little Breton peasant who did her humble house-work aroused in her regrets which were despair-ing, and distracted dreams. She thought of the silent antechambers hung with Oriental tapestry, lit by tall bronze candelabra, land of the two great footmen in knee-breeches who sleep in the big arm-chairs, made drowsy by the heavy warmth of the hot-air stove. She thought of the long salons fitted up with ancient silk, of the delicate furniture carrying priceless curiosities, and of the coquettish perfumed boudoirs made for talks at five o’clock with intimate friends, with men -famous and sought after, whom all women envy and whose attention they all desire.When she sat down to dinner, before the round table covered with a table-cloth three days old, opposite her husband, who uncovered the soup-tureen and declared with an enchanted air, “Ah, the good pot-au-feu! I don’t know anything better than that,” she thought of dainty dinners, of shining silverware, of tapestry which peopled the walls with ancient personages and with strange birds flying in the midst of a fairy forest; and she thought of delicious dishes served on marvellous plates, and of the whispered gallantries which you listen to with a sphinx-like smile, while you are eating the pink flesh of a trout or the wings of a quail.She had no dresses, no jewels, nothing. And she loved nothing but that; she felt made for that. She would so have liked to please, to be envied, to be charming, to be sought after.She had a friend, a former school-mate at the convent, who was rich, and whom she did not like to go and see any more she suffered so much when she came back.But, one evening, her husband returned home with a triumphant air, and holding a largeenvelope in his hand. “There,” said he, “here is something for you.”She tore the paper sharply, and drew out a printed card which bore these words:“The Minister of Public Instruction and Mine. Georges Ramponneau request the honor of M. and Mine. Loisel’s company at the palace of the Ministry on Monday evening, January 18th.”Instead of being delighted, as her husband hoped, she threw the invitation on the table with disdain, murmuring:“What do you want me to do with that?”“But, my dear, I thought you would be glad. You never go out, and this is such a fineopportunity. I had awful trouble to get it. Every one wants to go; it is very select, and they are not giving many invitations to clerks. The whole official world will be there.”She looked at him with an irritated eye, and she said, impatiently:“And what do you want me to put on my back?”He had not thought of that; he stammered:“Why, the dress you go to the theatre in. It looks very well, to me.”He stopped, distracted, seeing that his wife was crying. Two great tears descended slowly from the corners of her eyes towards the corners of her mouth. He stuttered:“What’s the matter? What’s the matter?”But, by a violent effort, she had conquered her grief, and she replied, with a calm voice, while she wiped her wet cheeks:“Nothing. Only I have no dress, and therefore I can’t go to this ball. Give your card to some colleague whose wife is better equipped than I.”He was in despair. He resumed:“Come, let us see, Mathilde. How much would it cost, a suitable dress, which you could use on other occasions, something very simple?”She reflected several seconds, making her calculations and wondering also what sum she could ask without drawing on herself an immediate refusal and a frightened exclamation from the economical clerk.Finally, she replied, hesitatingly:“I don’t know exactly, but I think I could manage it with four hundred francs.”He had grown a little pale, because he was laying aside just that amount to buy a gun and treat himself to a little shooting next summer on the plain of Nanterre, with several friends who went to shoot larks down there, of a Sunday.But he said: “All right. I will give you four hundred francs. And try to have a pretty dress.” The day of the ball drew near, and Mine. Loisel seemed sad, uneasy, anxious. Her dress was ready, however. Her husband said to her one evening:“What is the matter? Come, you’ve been so queer these last three days.” And she answered: “It annoys me not to have a single jewel, not a single stone, nothing to put on. I shall look like distress. I should almost rather not go at all.”He resumed: “You might wear natural flowers. It’s very stylish at this time of the year. For ten francs you can get two or three magnificent roses.” She was not convinced.“No; there’s nothing more humiliating than to look poor among other women who are rich.” But her husband cried: “How stupid you are! Go look up your friend Mme. Forestier, and ask her to lend you some jewels. You’re quite thick enough with her to do that.” She uttered a cry of joy: “It’s true. I never thought of it.” The next day she went to her friend and told of her distress.Mine. Forestier went to a wardrobe with a glass door, took out a large jewel-box, brought it back, opened it, and said to Mine. Loisel: “Choose, my dear.” She saw first of all some bracelets, then a pearl necklace, then a Venetian cross, gold and precious stones of admirable workmanship. She tried on the ornaments before the glass, hesitated, could not make up her mind to part with them, to give them back. She kept asking: “Haven’t you any more?” “Why, yes. Look. I don’t know what you like.”All of a sudden she discovered, in a black satin box, a superb necklace of diamonds; and her heart began to beat with an immoderate desire. Her hands trembled as she took it. She fastened it around her throat, outside her high-necked dress, and remained lost in ecstasy at the sight of herself.Then she asked, hesitating, filled with anguish: “Can you lend me that, only that?”“Why, yes, certainly.”She sprang upon the neck of her friend, kissed her passionately, then fled with her treasure. The day of the ball arrived. Mine. Loisel made a great success. She was prettier than them all, elegant, gracious, smiling, and crazy with joy. All the men looked at her, asked her name, endeavored to be introduced. All the attaches of the Cabinet wanted to waltz with her. She was remarked by the minister himself.She danced with intoxication, with passion, made drunk by pleasure, forgetting all, in the triumph of her beauty in the glory of her success in a sort of cloud of happiness composed of all this homage, of all this admiration, of all these awakened desires, and of that sense of complete victory which is so sweet to woman’s heart.She went away about four o’clock in the morning. Her husband had been sleeping since midnight, in a little deserted anteroom, with three other gentlemen whose wives were having a very good time.He threw over her shoulders the wraps which he had brought, modest wraps of common life, whose poverty contrasted with the elegance of the ball dress. She felt this and wanted to escape so as not to be remarked by the other women, who were enveloping themselves in costly furs.Loisel held her back. “Wait a bit. You will catch cold outside. I will go and call a cab.” But she did not listen to him, and rapidly descended the stairs. When they were in the street they did not find a carriage; and they began to look for one, shouting after the cabmen whom they saw passing by at a distance.They went down towards the Seine, in despair, shivering with cold. At last they found on the quay one of those ancient noctambulant coupés which, exactly as if they were ashamed to show their misery during the day, are never seen round Paris until after nightfall. It took them to their door in the Rue des Martyrs and once more, sadly, they climbed up homeward. All was ended, for her. And as to him, he reflected that he must be at the Ministry at ten o’clock.She removed the wraps, which covered her shoulders, before the glass, so as once more to see herself in all her glory. But suddenly she uttered a cry. She had no longer the necklace around her neck! Her husband, already half-undressed, demanded:“What is the matter with you?” She turned madly towards him:“I have—I have—I’ve lost Mme. Forestier’s necklace.” He stood up, distracted.“What!—how?—Impossible!” And they looked in the folds of her dress, in the folds of her cloak, in her pockets, everywhere.They did not find it. He asked: “You’re sure you had it on when you left the ball?”“Yes, I felt it in the vestibule of the palace.”“But if you had lost it in the street we should have heard it fall. It must be in the cab.”“Yes. Probably. Did you take his number?”“No. And you, didn’t you notice it?”“No.”They looked, thunderstruck, at one another. At last Loisel put on his clothes.“I shall go back on foot,” said he, “over the whole route which we have taken, to see if I can’t find it.”And he went out. She sat waiting on a chair in her ball dress, without strength to go to bed, overwhelmed, without fire, without a thought.Her husband came back about seven o’clock. He had found nothing.He went to Police Headquarters, to the newspaper offices, to offer a reward; he went to the cab companies—everywhere, in fact, whither he was urged by the least suspicion of hope. She waited all day, in the same condition of mad fear before this terrible calamity.Loisel returned at night with a hollow, pale face; he had discovered nothing.“You must write to your friend,” said he, “that you have broken the clasp of her necklace and that you are having it mended. That will give us time to turn round.”She wrote at his dictation. At the end of a week they had lost all hope.And Loisel, who had aged five years, declared: “We must consider how to replace that ornament.”The next day they took the box which had contained it, and they went to the jeweller whose name was found within. He consulted his books. “It was not I, madame, who sold that necklace; I must simply have furnished the case.”Then they went from jeweller to jeweller, searching for a necklace like the other, consulting their memories, sick both of them with chagrin and with anguish.They found in a shop at the Palais Royal, a string of diamonds which seemed to them exactly like the one they looked for. It was worth forty thousand francs. They could have it for thirty-six.So they begged the jeweller not to sell it for three days yet. And they made a bargain that he should buy it back for thirty-four thousand francs, in case they found the other one before the end of February.Loisel possessed eighteen thousand francs which his father had left him. He would borrow the rest.He did borrow, asking a thousand francs of one, five hundred of another, five louis here, three louis there. He gave notes, took up ruinous obligations, dealt with usurers, and all the race of lenders. He compromised all the rest of his life, risked his signature without even knowing if he could meet it; and, frightened by the pains yet to come, by the black misery which was about to    The Lottery–Shirley Jackson’The Lottery’ (1948)by Shirley Jackson The morning of June 27th was clear and sunny, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day; the flowers were blossoming profusely and the grass was richly green. The people of the village began to gather in the square, between the post office and the bank, around ten o’clock; in some towns there were so many people that the lottery took two days and had to be started on June 2th. but in this village, where there were only about three hundred people, the whole lottery took less than two hours, so it could begin at ten o’clock in the morning and still be through in time to allow the villagers to get home for noon dinner.The children assembled first, of course. School was recently over for the summer, and the feeling of liberty sat uneasily on most of them; they tended to gather together quietly for a while before they broke into boisterous play. and their talk was still of the classroom and the teacher, of books and reprimands. Bobby Martin had already stuffed his pockets full of stones, and the other boys soon followed his example, selecting the smoothest and roundest stones; Bobby and Harry Jones and Dickie Delacroix– the villagers pronounced this name ‘Dellacroy’–eventually made a great pile of stones in one corner of the square and guarded it against the raids of the other boys. The girls stood aside, talking among themselves, looking over their shoulders at rolled in the dust or clung to the hands of their older brothers or sisters.Soon the men began to gather. surveying their own children, speaking of planting and rain, tractors and taxes. They stood together, away from the pile of stones in the corner, and their jokes were quiet and they smiled rather than laughed. The women, wearing faded house dresses and sweaters, came shortly after their menfolk. They greeted one another and exchanged bits of gossip as they went to join their husbands. Soon the women, standing by their husbands, began to call to their children, and the children came reluctantly, having to be called four or five times. Bobby Martin ducked under his mother’s grasping hand and ran, laughing, back to the pile of stones. His father spoke up sharply, and Bobby came quickly and took his place between his father and his oldest brother.The lottery was conducted–as were  the square dances, the teen club, the Halloween program–by Mr. Summers. who had time and energy to devote to civic activities. He was a round-faced, jovial man and he ran the coal business, and people were sorry for him. because he had no children and his wife was a scold. When he arrived in the square, carrying the black wooden box, there was a murmur of conversation among the villagers, and he waved and called. ‘Little late today, folks.’ The postmaster, Mr. Graves, followed him, carrying a three- legged stool, and the stool was put in the center of the square and Mr. Summers set the black box down on it. The villagers kept their distance, leaving a space between themselves and the stool. and when Mr. Summers said, ‘Some of you fellows want to give me a hand?’ there was a hesitation before two men. Mr. Martin and his oldest son, Baxter. came forward to hold the box steady on the stool while Mr. Summers stirred up the papers inside it.The original paraphernalia for the lottery had been lost long ago, and the black box now resting on the stool had been put into use even before Old Man Warner, the oldest man in town, was born. Mr. Summers spoke frequently to the villagers about making a new box, but no one liked to upset even as much tradition as was represented by the black box. There was a story that the present box had been made with some pieces of the box that had preceded it, the one that had been constructed when the first people settled down to make a village here. Every year, after the lottery, Mr. Summers began talking again about a new box, but every year the subject was allowed to fade off without anything’s being done. The black box grew shabbier each year: by now it was no longer completely black but splintered badly along one side to show the original wood color, and in some places faded or stained.Mr. Martin and his oldest son, Baxter, held the black box securely on the stool until Mr. Summers had stirred the papers thoroughly with his hand. Because so much of the ritual had been forgotten or discarded, Mr. Summers had been successful in having slips of paper substituted for the chips of wood that had been used for generations. Chips of wood, Mr. Summers had argued. had been all very well when the village was tiny, but now that the population was more than three hundred and likely to keep on growing, it was necessary to use something that would fit more easily into he black box. The night before the lottery, Mr. Summers and Mr. Graves made up the slips of paper and put them in the box, and it was then taken to the safe of Mr. Summers’ coal company and locked up until Mr. Summers was ready to take it to the square next morning. The rest of the year, the box was put way, sometimes one place, sometimes another; it had spent one year in Mr. Graves’s barn and another year underfoot in the post office. and sometimes it was set on a shelf in the Martin grocery and left there.There was a great deal of fussing to be done before Mr. Summers declared the lottery open. There were the lists to make up–of heads of families. heads of households in each family. members of each household in each family. There was the proper swearing-in of Mr. Summers by the postmaster, as the official of the  lottery; at one time, some people remembered, there had been a recital of some sort, performed by the official of the lottery, a perfunctory. tuneless chant that had been rattled off duly each year; some people believed that the official of the lottery used to stand just so when he said or sang it, others believed that he was supposed to walk among the people, but years and years ago this p3rt of the ritual had been allowed to lapse. There had been, also, a ritual salute, which the official of the lottery had had to use in addressing each person who came up to draw from the box, but this also had changed with time, until now it was felt necessary only for the official to speak to each person approaching. Mr. Summers was very good at all this; in his clean white shirt and blue jeans. with one hand resting carelessly on the black box. he seemed very proper and important as he talked interminably to Mr. Graves and the Martins.Just as Mr. Summers finally left off talking and turned to the assembled villagers, Mrs. Hutchinson came hurriedly along the path to the square, her sweater thrown over her shoulders, and slid into place in the back of the crowd. ‘Clean forgot what day it was,’ she said to Mrs. Delacroix, who stood next to her, and they both laughed softly. ‘Thought my old man was out back stacking wood,’ Mrs. Hutchinson went on. ‘and then I looked out the window and the kids was gone, and then I remembered it was the twenty- seventh and came a-running.’ She dried her hands on her apron, and Mrs. Delacroix said, ‘You’re in time, though. They’re still talking away up there.’Mrs. Hutchinson craned her neck to see through the crowd and found her husband and children standing near the front. She tapped Mrs. Delacroix on the arm as a farewell and began to make her way through the crowd. The people separated good-humoredly to let her through: two or three people said. in voices just loud enough to be heard across the crowd, ‘Here comes your, Missus, Hutchinson,’ and ‘Bill, she made it after all.’ Mrs. Hutchinson reached her husband, and Mr. Summers, who had been waiting, said cheerfully. ‘Thought we were going to have to get on without you, Tessie.’ Mrs. Hutchinson said. grinning, ‘Wouldn’t have me leave m’dishes in the sink, now, would you. Joe?,’ and soft laughter ran through the crowd as the people stirred back into position after Mrs. Hutchinson’s arrival.’Well, now.’ Mr. Summers said soberly, ‘guess we better get started, get this over with, so’s we can go back to work. Anybody ain’t here?”Dunbar.’ several people said. ‘Dunbar. Dunbar.’Mr. Summers consulted his list. ‘Clyde Dunbar.’ he said. ‘That’s right. He’s broke his leg, hasn’t he? Who’s drawing for him?”Me. I guess,’ a woman said. and Mr. Summers turned to look at her. ‘Wife draws for her husband.’ Mr. Summers said. ‘Don’t you have a grown boy to do it for you, Janey?’ Although Mr. Summers and everyone else in the village knew the answer perfectly well, it was the business of the official of the lottery to ask such questions formally. Mr. Summers waited with an expression of polite interest while Mrs. Dunbar answered.’Horace’s not but sixteen vet.’ Mrs. Dunbar said regretfully. ‘Guess I gotta fill in for the old man this year.”Right.’ Sr. Summers said. He made a note on the list he was holding. Then he asked, ‘Watson boy drawing this year?’A tall boy in the crowd raised his hand. ‘Here,’ he said. ‘I’m drawing for my mother and me.’ He blinked his eyes nervously and ducked his head as several voices in the crowd said thin#s like ‘Good fellow, lack.’ and ‘Glad to see your mother’s got a man to do it.”Well,’ Mr. Summers said, ‘guess that’s everyone. Old Man Warner make it?”Here,’ a voice said. and Mr. Summers nodded.A sudden hush fell on the crowd as Mr. Summers cleared his throat and looked at the list. ‘All ready?’ he called. ‘Now, I’ll read the names–heads of families first–and the men come up and take a paper out of the box. Keep the paper folded in your hand without looking at it until everyone has had a turn. Everything clear?’The people had done it so many times that they only half listened to the directions: most of them were quiet. wetting their lips. not looking around. Then Mr. Summers raised one hand high and said, ‘Adams.’ A man disengaged himself from the crowd and came forward. ‘Hi. Steve.’ Mr. Summers said. and Mr. Adams said. ‘Hi. Joe.’ They grinned at one another humorlessly and nervously. Then Mr. Adams reached into the black box and took out a folded paper. He held it firmly by one corner as he turned and went hastily back to his place in the crowd. where he stood a little apart from his family. not looking down at his hand.’Allen.’ Mr. Summers said. ‘Anderson…. Bentham.”Seems like there’s no time at all between lotteries any more.’ Mrs. Delacroix said to Mrs. Graves in the back row.’Seems like we got through with the last one only last week.”Time sure goes fast.– Mrs. Graves said.’Clark…. Delacroix”There goes my old man.’ Mrs. Delacroix said. She held her breath while her husband went forward.’Dunbar,’ Mr. Summers said, and Mrs. Dunbar went steadily to the box while one of the women said. ‘Go on. Janey,’ and another said, ‘There she goes.”We’re next.’ Mrs. Graves said. She watched while Mr. Graves came around from the side of the box, greeted Mr. Summers gravely and selected a slip of paper from the box. By now, all through the crowd there were men holding the small folded papers in their large hand. turning them over and over nervously Mrs. Dunbar and her two sons stood together, Mrs. Dunbar holding the slip of paper.’Harburt…. Hutchinson.”Get up there, Bill,’ Mrs. Hutchinson said. and the people near her laughed.’Jones.”They do say,’ Mr. Adams said to Old Man Warner, who stood next to him, ‘that over in the north village they’re talking of giving up the lottery.’Old Man Warner snorted. ‘Pack of crazy fools,’ he said. ‘Listening to the young folks, nothing’s good enough for them. Next thing you know, they’ll be wanting to go back to living in caves, nobody work any more, live hat way for a while. Used to be a saying about ‘Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.’ First thing you know, we’d all be eating stewed chickweed and acorns. There’s always been a lottery,’ he added petulantly. ‘Bad enough to see young Joe Summers up there joking with everybody.”Some places have already quit lotteries.’ Mrs. Adams said.’Nothing but trouble in that,’ Old Man Warner said stoutly. ‘Pack of young fools.”Martin.’ And Bobby Martin watched his father go forward. ‘Overdyke…. Percy.”I wish they’d hurry,’ Mrs. Dunbar said to her older son. ‘I wish they’d hurry.”They’re almost through,’ her son said.’You get ready to run tell Dad,’ Mrs. Dunbar said.Mr. Summers called his own name and then stepped forward precisely and selected a slip from the box. Then he called, ‘Warner.”Seventy-seventh year I been in the lottery,’ Old Man Warner said as he went through the crowd. ‘Seventy-seventh time.  ‘Watson’ The tall boy came awkwardly through the crowd. Someone said, ‘Don’t be nervous, Jack,’ and Mr. Summers said, ‘Take your time, son.”Zanini.’After that, there was a long pause, a breathless pause, until Mr. Summers. holding his slip of paper in the air, said, ‘All right, fellows.’ For a minute, no one moved, and then all the slips of paper were opened. Suddenly, all the women began to speak at once, saving. ‘Who is it?,’ ‘Who’s got it?,’ ‘Is it the Dunbars?,’ ‘Is it the Watsons?’ Then the voices began to say, ‘It’s Hutchinson. It’s Bill,’ ‘Bill Hutchinson’s got it.”Go tell your father,’ Mrs. Dunbar said to her older son.People began to look around to see the Hutchinsons. Bill Hutchinson was standing quiet, staring down at the paper in his hand. Suddenly. Tessie Hutchinson shouted to Mr. Summers. ‘You didn’t give him time enough to take any paper he wanted. I saw you. It wasn’t fair!”Be a good sport, Tessie.’ Mrs. Delacroix called, and Mrs. Graves said, ‘All of us took the same chance.”Shut up, Tessie,’ Bill Hutchinson said.’Well, everyone,’ Mr. Summers said, ‘that was done pretty fast, and now we’ve got to be hurrying a little more to get done in time.’ He consulted his next list. ‘Bill,’ he said, ‘you draw for the Hutchinson family. You got any other households in the Hutchinsons?”There’s Don and Eva,’ Mrs. Hutchinson yelled. ‘Make them take their chance!”Daughters draw with their husbands’ families, Tessie,’ Mr. Summers said gently. ‘You know that as well as anyone else.”It wasn’t fair,’ Tessie said.’I guess not, Joe.’ Bill Hutchinson said regretfully. ‘My daughter draws with her husband’s family; that’s only fair. And I’ve got no other family except the kids.”Then, as far as drawing for families is concerned, it’s you,’ Mr. Summers said in explanation, ‘and as far as drawing for households is concerned, that’s you, too. Right?”Right,’ Bill Hutchinson said.’How many kids, Bill?’ Mr. Summers asked formally.’Three,’ Bill Hutchinson said.’There’s Bill, Jr., and Nancy, and little Dave. And Tessie and me.’ ‘All right, then,’ Mr. Summers said. ‘Harry, you got their tickets back?’Mr. Graves nodded and held up the slips of paper. ‘Put them in the box, then,’ Mr. Summers directed. ‘Take Bill’s and put it in.”I think we ought to start over,’ Mrs. Hutchinson said, as quietly as she could. ‘I tell you it wasn’t fair. You didn’t give him time enough to choose. Everybody saw that.’Mr. Graves had selected the five slips and put them in the box. and he dropped all the papers but those onto the ground. where the breeze caught them and lifted them off.’Listen, everybody,’ Mrs. Hutchinson was saying to the people around her.’Ready, Bill?’ Mr. Summers asked. and Bill Hutchinson, with one quick glance around at his wife and children. nodded.’Remember,’ Mr. Summers said. ‘take the slips and keep them folded until each person has taken one. Harry, you help little Dave.’ Mr. Graves took the hand of the little boy, who came willingly with him up to the box. ‘Take a paper out of the box, Davy.’ Mr. Summers said. Davy put his hand into the box and laughed. ‘Take just one paper.’ Mr. Summers said. ‘Harry, you hold it for him.’ Mr. Graves took the child’s hand and removed the folded paper from the tight fist and held it while little Dave stood next to him and looked up at him wonderingly.’Nancy next,’ Mr. Summers said. Nancy was twelve, and her school friends breathed heavily as she went forward switching her skirt, and took a slip daintily from the box ‘Bill, Jr.,’ Mr. Summers said, and Billy, his face red and his feet overlarge, near knocked the box over as he got a paper out. ‘Tessie,’ Mr. Summers said. She hesitated for a minute, looking around defiantly. and then set her lips and went up to the box. She snatched a paper out and held it behind her.’Bill,’ Mr. Summers said, and Bill Hutchinson reached into the box and felt around, bringing his hand out at last with the slip of paper in it.The crowd was quiet. A girl whispered ‘I hope it’s not Nancy,’ and the sound of the whisper reached the edges of the crowd.’It’s not the way it used to be.’ Old Man Warner said clearly. ‘People ain’t the way they used to be.”All right,’ Mr. Summers said. ‘Open the papers. Harry, you open little Dave’s.’Mr. Graves opened the slip of paper and there was a general sigh through the crowd as he held it up and everyone could see that it was blank. Nancy and Bill. Jr.. opened theirs at the same time. and both beamed and laughed. turning around to the crowd and holding their slips of paper above their heads.’Tessie,’ Mr. Summers said. There was a pause, and then Mr. Summers looked at Bill Hutchinson, and Bill unfolded his paper and showed it. It was blank. ‘It’s Tessie,’ Mr. Summers said, and his voice was hushed. ‘Show us her paper. Bill.’Bill Hutchinson went over to his wife and forced the slip of paper out of her hand. It had a black spot on it, the black spot Mr. Summers had made the night before with the heavy pencil in the coal company office. Bill Hutchinson held it up, and there was a stir in the crowd.’All right, folks.’ Mr. Summers said. ‘Let’s finish quickly.’Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones. The pile of stones the boys had made earlier was ready; there were stones on the ground with the blowing scraps of paper that had come out of the box Delacroix selected a stone so large she had to pick it up with both hands and turned to Mrs. Dunbar. ‘Come on,’ she said. ‘Hurry up.’Mr. Dunbar had small stones in both hands, and she said. gasping for breath. ‘I can’t run at all. You’ll have to go ahead and I’ll catch up with you.’The children had stones already. And someone gave little Davy Hutchinson few pebbles.Tessie Hutchinson was in the center of a cleared space by now, and she held her hands out desperately as the villagers moved in on her. ‘It isn’t fair,’ she said. A stone hit her on the side of the head. Old Man Warner was saying, ‘Come on, come on, everyone.’ Steve Adams was in the front of the crowd of villagers, with Mrs. Graves beside him.’It isn’t fair, it isn’t right,’ Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her.

The post Can you help with this? Answers 1Bids 1Other questions 10 appeared first on homeworkhandlers.com.

Hello,I have a total of 11 Discussion Boards I need completed by Thursday, February 25 (48 hours). Each Discussion Board…Answers 1Bids 1Other questions 10

Hello,I have a total of 11 Discussion Boards I need completed by Thursday, February 25 (48 hours). Each Discussion Board should be between 2 or 2.5 paragraphs! I’m willing to pay up to $5 USD per paragraph for a total of $90- $110 total for all Discussion Boards! The assignments are really opinionated versus that of a research paper.  Here are the assignments:  Discussion Board #1: Topic: Introduction, the Trinity, One God and Divine Revelation, World Religions What is the Holy Trinity? Christian churchgoers hear the words of Christ proclaimed: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.’ (Matthew 28:29-20) Scripture refers regularly to God as Father (Mt. 5:58)., as Son (Heb. 1:1-3), and Spirit (Rom. 5:50). Yet Scripture also tells us that God is One: (Deut. 6:4). In these passages, God is telling us about Who He is. We will learn over the semester what Catholic tradition, and other Christians, have believed about the mystery of the Trinity–and its implications for our life of faith and life in society. One thing that tells us about the difference of the Christian God, is that He upholds a world that has a history. Time moves forward in a line, headed for a final consummation where He comes again, raises the dead, and ushers in an eternal kingdom. We’ll look into key Christian themes such as original sin and our redemption in Christ, and the Biblical evidence for the Trinity, over the next few weeks. Here, I want to distinguish the Christian One God clearly from other religious portraits. This will help us in studying what it means for One God to also be Three. Assignment: What particularly interested you, or maybe seems in need of further explanation or clarification, in this week’s material? Discussion Board #2: Topic: Monotheism; the Jewish Bible; Divine Fatherhood, Word, Wisdom, and Spirit What strikes me most about Judaism is that it claims to be God acting in history. This religion is specifically not local, and it is very particular. The Lord God chooses a man, to leave his home and beget a nation, which will be the witness of the Lord’s ways to the rest of humanity. The Lord God reveals Himself to humanity, and calls out a chosen people as His bride and witness. The idea is that all of humanity can know who He is. He is His Word that He reveals to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is a religion of Divine self-disclosure. Also, the Scriptures show that the One God acts and is manifest in ways that seem like distinct persons. God watches Israel like a Father and is husband to Israel as a bride (but He does NOT have a ‘consort goddess,’ He is the One God). He makes Israel a family through a series of covenants by which the two bind themselves to each other irrevocably. In the words of my colleague Scott Hahn, the Lord gives Israel kinship by covenant. The Book of Hosea indicates that the Lord loves his bride Israel with surpassing intimacy.  God is also Wisdom, an understanding more profound than we can fully grasp, yet we are invited to dine at her table (Proverbs 9). Wisdom is a gift, something we receive, something that brings life and happiness. God’s Wisdom is herself the food that sustains. God is also a Spirit, a creative, sustaining, and redemptive power. Wisdom is a gift to which all of humanity is invited; His special work with the Jews is an invitation to all (Sir. 24). All of these realities point to God’s intimate closeness to Israel, and His desire for all of humanity to know His ways.  Assignment: What stands out to you about the Jews’ ideas of God’s oneness, and their ideas of God’s personified Word, Wisdom, and Spirit?  Discussion Board #3 Topic: New Testament, Early Church, First Councils This week’s lecture covers a wide range of material. We introduced Christianity, in the coming of Jesus Christ and the beginning of the Church. Then we looked at how early Christians grappled a mystery that the Jewish Messiah and revealed to them: God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God, the I AM of Moses, but yet three clearly distinct realities at the same time. Several things stand out to me. First, Jesus Christ reveals not only who God is, but a radically changed way of looking at life in this world. God is now Immanuel, God with us in an intimate new way. Because the Divine Christ atones for our sins in His priestly self-sacrifice on the Cross, we are forgiven our sins and made righteous. We can be dwelling places of God. And our life together in this world is transformed. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves, as the Jews had taught. But now God is with us in an intimate new way to make that possible. The Church is His Body, His Bride, and Christians are member of this living Body. Second, Jesus Christ opens up hope of eternal Heaven. The Jews had taught of a Resurrection of the Dead at the end of history, and some sort of glorious new life. Now, Jesus Christ’s Resurrection from the dead in glory, having atoned for our sins, is the sign of our own Resurrection at the end of time. We will be resurrected in glory and dwell in eternal union with God and each other in the eternal Wedding Feast (Rev. 21). Christ’s Resurrection is the shape of things to come for us.  Third, as we have seen, Christ reveals that God is also Three while He is One. What our lecture today shows is the difficulty early Christians had to achieving some understanding of this mystery. They confessed faith in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in worship (liturgy), and proclaimed Him such in Scripture. But they had to work through a number of problems in coming to some understanding of what they believed. Early thought drew from analogies from nature–source and river, root and branch. But these analogies suggested ‘subordination’–that Son and Spirit might be less than the Father in some way.  Others looked at how Father, Son and Spirit act in God’s work of creation–‘economic’ Trinitarianism. Some emphasized the ‘monarchy’ of the Father, to make sure they didn’t lose God’s oneness. But this suggested ‘subordination,’ too. In time, as Christians thought longer, some lost sight of the intimately near God in their pursuit of understanding. Arians suggested that Christ was the first creation, a lesser God-like being. Some suggested that ‘monarchy’ meant that Father, Son and Spirit were just ‘modes’ of One God. Others thought that Threeness meant that there were really three Gods. But other Christians responded by turning to philosophy to help tell some truth about what exceeded their understanding. The Son and the Spirit are One in being, of the same nature as the Father. But they are also like to the Father, really distinct. They are three hypostases–modes of being that subsist distinctly, as persons. So Scripture’s teaching that there is really one God, and there are really Three in the one God, could be preserved. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 issues this teaching, and the ‘Trinitarian Controversy’ was ended. And the stage was set for further developments. Assignment:  What interests you, or is tough to understand, or what questions do you have about the New Testament portrait, or early Church developments regarding the Trinity? Discussion Board #4 Topic: Saint Augustine: The Trinitarian Image of God in the Human Mind Saint Augustine marks a turning point in Christian reflection on the Triune God. Augustine is the first major Christian thinker to sit down with the Scriptures, and ponder in a very systematic way through the central mystery of the Faith. Augustine was a diocesan bishop. Sure, he would have had scribes to help him write his books. But he also had the responsibilities that come with being a shepherd of souls. Augustine wasn’t a university professor. He didn’t have a chair at a think tank. He pondered the mystery of the Trinity right in the middle of a very full life of pastoral ministry.  I didn’t assign you to read On The Trinity because it’s way too long for our course. But the book reads something like a journal or diary. Augustine is a pilgrim, pursuing the Divine Beloved. His work is full of the Christian sense that God is present, even though He’s transcendent. As a priest, Augustine celebrated Mass. He regularly consecrated the Eucharist. One section that stands out a lot to me is his discussion of happiness in Book XIII. All human beings want to be happy. We can only be happy if we are alive. Christian faith, Augustine says, promises us the hope in faith that we can live forever. That’s the only way we can be truly happy. We must be alive, and have the hope of living forever. God revealed to us in love that He created us, that He redeems us in Christ, and promises us an eternal share in His Triune Life.  And, in a happy and fateful decision, Augustine says that God painted portraits of His Triune Being in the world around us. Most prominently, in our minds. The human being’s highest quality, says Augustine, is our reason. By it we love and will, and we have relationships. Our minds are, in his view, most fully what reflects the Image of God in us. And the fact that we can know, remember, and will–while our mind remains the one same substance it is–gives us an analogy to help us understand something of the Triune God revealed in Scripture.  The Father is God as unbegotten. Our mind remembering is at rest on what it knows. God as Son is God as begotten, God as Wisdom and Word. When we understand, we exercise wisdom, and have a word formed in our mind. God as willing His existence, and as gift, is God as Holy Spirit. When we will, we act, as God eternally is willing His existence and is the gift of Father and Son.  Western Christianity would pursue the path of analogy, and even more carefully systematic reflection upon the mysteries of the Trinity. The Eastern part of Christianity–that centered on Byzantium and the eastern half of the Roman Empire that would become the Byzantine Empire–had a different temperament. They, too, would reflect on Scriptures. But they were less confident than the West, that the created order could tell us much about the Divine Mysteries. We’ll see in an upcoming period how this difference would help lead to the first major split in Christendom. Assignment:What makes sense, or stands out to you, about Augustine’s approach? Discussion Board #5 Topic: The Early Middle Ages: St. Anselm and Richard of St. Victor  This week we start considering thought in Christianity’s second Millennium. Between 1000-1200 AD, Christianity had been the official religion of Western Europe for centuries. First of the later Roman Empire, then after Rome’s fall in 476 AD, the looser Holy Roman Empire that arose over the next several centuries in its place. The Church was what offered a great deal of social stability, especially in the first few centuries after Rome’s fall. Great monasteries such as Canterbury arose, and great monastery-cities like Cluny had not only monks but large lay populations working the land around the monastery.  At this time, Christian thinkers began to ponder the mysteries of their Triune God in an even more systematic way. This new way of thinking was called scholasticism. They carefully applied the rules of logic, the same rules you all learned in MID 100 Logic and Critical Thinking. They reasoned through Biblical text, consulted the tradition, and prayed earnestly. They reasoned their way through the mysteries, as spouses contemplating their beloved, as friends considering a friend, as children considering their Divine parent.  Saint Anselm of Canterbury and Richard of Saint Victor are two such thinkers. Saint Anselm ponders the Trinity as it arises from considering the Father and the Son. There’s lots of material, but as you read through it, you’ll see that it is simply many small steps that produce a reasoned portrait. Saint Anselm saw theology as faith seeking understanding. How can one God exist as three Persons? Doesn’t that cause plurality of being? Like Augustine, Anselm uses analogies from the created order. But you’ll notice that he brings in the idea of relation. Maybe the fact that their names signify relations might be helpful.  Richard of St. Victor produced one of the most influential portraits of Western History. The notion of Person, a Scriptural idea given that word by Church Councils, suggests that oneness would not be enough for a God who has revealed to us that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The love of persons is fruitful in new life. The love of Divine Persons is a Person, and two is not enough. Richard argues that perfection of personal love in Divinity requires three Persons in the one Being. Assignment: What makes sense or doesn’t make sense, in their discussions? What stands out to you? Discussion Board #6 Topic: The Filioque Controversy and the Early Middle Ages  The Filioque controversy–whether we can know the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son–can seem abstract and irrelevant to us today. What difference does it make? Yet this controversy was at a major cause of the split of Christendom into two halves. I think the sensibilities of East and West have a big role. The result of this difference is seen in part, in how each proceeded in history.  If something about the Holy Spirit’s procession has to do with the Father-Son relation, that suggests something like what we would call generativity or procreation in the natural order. If we can learn something about God’s revealed inner life by observing different kinds of fruitfulness in the created order–our thought being expressed in memory, understanding, and willing, or lover, beloved, and love, that suggests that *our* thinking and making participates in something about God. It also tells us that we can develop deeper doctrinal understanding from Scripture. And the idea that the Pope can add new language, and say that we simply unpacked something that was implicitly there, suggests the head of the Church is more than honorary. He has a real power to teach that is universal, by the authority of Christ. But if we can only know that the Father’s monarchy is the source of the Spirit’s existence, there isn’t the idea of what I would call ‘shared productivity.’ There isn’t the idea that the generation or making in the natural order can tell us something about God’s inner life. We also shouldn’t expect to get too many clues from Scripture beyond what it explicitly says. There is a greater sense that we should be content with mystery, perhaps less of a sensibility that we are to pursue a strong unity in the Church and go out and build in this world. Remember that the Eastern Platonic worldview sees the physical order as literally less real than the world of forms–and therefore, too much pursuit of clarity and understanding could perhaps be pride. Regarding the early Middle Ages, thinkers at that time in the West are beginning to apply logic more rigorously to Scripture. This makes it difficult for some of them to preserve God’s genuine threeness along with His oneness. We will see next week how St. Thomas Aquinas reconciles and shows the harmony of God’s oneness and threeness. Assignment:What makes sense to your, or doesn’t, in this week’s lecture? What stands out? Discussion Board #7 Topic: Thomas Aquinas: Procession, Relations, and Characteristics in God What stands out to me about this week’s letter is how Thomas Aquinas shows that God is one and Three in a way that genuinely accounts for both. God is one. God is three. And there is no conflict. In addition, Aquinas shows how we could not know that God is a Trinity without Divine revelation. There are not ‘necessary reasons’ for the Trinity. We would not know that God is both one and three unless He had revealed Himself to us. Greek philosophy could tell us that God is an eternal Logos, an eternal word of reason. But it could not tell us that God eternally begets a Word that is a Person. Philosophy could also tell us that God acts in the world–Aristotle speaks of God as Umoved Mover. Others talked of a Demiurge, a God-made lesser power that acted to cause. But Christianity tells us that God’s Spirit, His active, creating and renewing power, is a Person as well.  Taking the revealed truth that God is Father, Son, and Spirit, Aquinas tells us that there are two processions in God–generation, the coming-forth of the Divine Word. Love is the coming-forth of love. There are four real relations we can determine from Scripture: Fatherhood, the source of the Word’s generation; Sonship, the relation of that which is eternally generated or begotten; Spiration, the relation of being the source of proceeding of Love; and Procession, the relation of what proceeds, Love.  From these four relations, we can see that there are three Persons–Father, Son, and Spirit. Thomas kind of derives their reality and their Personhood by contrast. They are very much real as Three persons, yet they are utterly one in Being. There are not Three Gods. There is one God, one in being, in Three Persons. And like Augustine before him, Aquinas offers some insight into God’s processions and why the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, while utterly preserving the eternal monarchy of the Father (without monarchianism in the ancient sense). Aquinas’s thought suggests that part of our being children of God, is to achieve some little understanding of His inner life, and our world, by contemplation of God’s Word and the creation in light of God’s Word. Assignment:  What about Aquinas’s thought makes sense, or does not, to you? What stands out to you? Discussion Board #8 Topic: Bonaventure: Divine Fecundity and Emanation  For the Week 11 Lecture, we consider the final great thinker of the Middle Ages: St. Thomas Aquinas’ss Franciscan contemporary St. Bonaventure. A first thing that’s important to note about this week’s reading is that Bonaventure, like Aquinas, has read the Scriptures and the tradition extensively. Although I did not include lots of Scriptural citations, Bonaventure has in mind the texts we considered in the first few weeks of the course. What he is doing is reasoning carefully through the texts of Scripture, and considering the arguments of other Christians, as well as drawing from philosophy. Bonaventure takes a different approach from Aquinas. Aquinas was very concerned not to consider God’s Fatherhood in ‘positive’ terms, because he was afraid that approach would involve a weaker view of Divine unity. Aquinas framed the existence and mystery of the Trinity in strictly relational terms. By doing so, Aquinas preserves a strong view of God’s unity as well as Trinity. God’s Fatherhood is simply God as unbegotten. But Bonaventure saw God’s Fatherhood as fecund or fertile, by analogy from human fertility.  Bonaventure also is bringing a different general view of the world beyond the physical, of metaphysics. For Bonaventure, all things in the world emanate from God, and return to him. This view is derived, as I explain in the lecture introduction, from the early-AD era Greek philosopher Plotinus and his successor Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite). Aquinas, too drew upon emanation to help talk about God. But Bonaventure does in a much stronger way that represents a different sensibility. For Bonaventure, a strong view of emanation and return does not mean that God doesn’t create freely. It simply says that God’s goodness is so great, that not only is he necessarily eternally fecund in the generation of the Word and the spiration of the Spirit, that nothing else would happen. He sees this view as perfectly in keeping with God’s freedom. Aquinas, who also discusses the creation as something that emanates from God and returns to Him, only uses that notion in a limited way. Aquinas worried that describing God’s Fatherhood in terms of fertility, and such a strong idea of his overflowing goodness in creation, would compromise God’s freedom and unity. By describing God’s Fatherhood only relationally, Aquinas believes that he preserves the Bible and tradition’s strong view of God’s Oneness better. Bonaventure sees God’s fertility as a kind of ‘necessary reason’ that God is Triune, whereas Aquinas would say that this view might suggest that the Trinity is not something we know only by revelation.  These distinctions may seem abstract to us. But for these great Christians, holy people who loved God and lived a life of love and community in God’s service, how we understand God’s revelation affects how we look at the world. Aquinas’s view leads to a stronger view of human freedom, and of the dignity of the natural order as informed by the Logos, than does Bonaventure. Bonaventure’s view seems to suggest that things happen more necessarily or not freely, and suggests that human freedom is more compromised by original sin, and that the line between revelation and reason is less distinct than it is for Aquinas. Finally, the last part of the lecture looks ahead to the following centuries. Not a lot happens in the theology of the Trinity for many centuries, because the Trinity is not an object of controversy during the Reformation. We’ll discuss the transition to modernity and postmodernity, and look at its effects on the theology of the Trinity, in the subsequent lecture. Assignment:What interests you, or makes sense or doesn’t make sense, in this week’s lecture? Discussion Board #9  Topic: Reformation, Theology of Salvation, and the Trinity This week’s lecture discusses a period when the theology of the Trinity was largely not controversial, and did not undergo major developments. Most of the West accepted the Augustinian tradition as it had been developed by Anselm and Richard of St. Vicgtor, and then either Aquinas or Bonaventure. Western, Northern, and Central Europe–Catholic Christianity–had pondered the mystery, and had Biblical-theological syntheses from varying approaches. Each saw itself, and was largely accepted by the others, as developments from Scripture and Tradition, So when Europe lost confidence in the cosmological vision of the world in the late Middle Ages, and the Church-state relationship became closer and more corrupt, other parts of the Christian faith would bear the immediate brunt of the loss of confidence. King Henry VIII in 1530’s England, Martin Luther in 1520’s Germany, and John Calvin in 1530’s in the Low Countries, all had other issues in mind when they led splits from the Catholic Church. The relationship of the Bible to the Church; the role of Sacraments in our redemption, deification, and salvation; the relationship of the Church to the state, and very importantly, how Jesus Christ’s merits are applied to the sinner, were the main theological issues. The very important issue of corruption and apparent misuse of sacraments (sale of indulgences) also helped reduce the confidence of many Europeans in the Catholic vision that dated to Christ’s time and had been profoundly deepened and developed in understanding since then. But none of these questions are actually about the Trinity. So why are we discussing them? I would submit that Protestant theology has an important and very unintended implication for theology of the Trinity. Simply put, Protestant thinkers say that our salvation consists not of being renewed in our being (‘infused righteousness’) but rather God looking at us differently because of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross (‘imputed righteousness). Man is, as Martin Luther said, simultaneously just and sinner. Man is what Lutheran thought called a snow-covered dung heap–still ‘totally depraved’ in sin, but redeemed because God looks at us differently. If God looks at us differently, by implication that mean that God changes. Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) say that Baptism into Christ, and faith, change us in our being. The change is in us, not in God. The idea that God looks at us differently seems to violate a Biblical truth taught by Abraham and Moses: God is one and thus immutable (does not change). If God changes, does that not suggest that he remains the One God while being Three? How can we say that God’s one eternal ousia is in three unchanging, eternal persons, when God actually changes?  The tension this view introduces will play out later. In week 13, we’ll look at some subsequent developments in the 18th to 20th Centuries with further implications for Christian theology of the One God and the Trinity. Assignment:  What in this week’s lecture interests you, or does or does not make sense? Discussion Board #10 Topic: Reformation and Enlightenment  This week covers a period of history that saw lots of change at all levels of society. Europe was changing from a largely agrarian and craft society to a mercantile and trade society that still had lots of agriculture. Unfortunately, as parts of Europe split off, there were terrible wars that in part had to do with different views of what Christianity is. By the late 1600’s, both elites and the ordinary people of Europe wanted religious tolerance and an end to conflict. The developments of the period after the Reformation, called the Enlightenment, helped make the Trinity seem more abstract. European elites began to decide that Divine revelation was something private, that people’s claims that God revealed Himself were subjective. Religion thus becomes seen as a private matter. Most people still think that religion is vital for one’s personal life, and for a healthy society. Specifically, elites began to believe that while reason could know objective truth about things in this world, it could not arrive at objective truth about God. If reason couldn’t arrive at truth about God, how could we believe that God’s revelation is objective? How could we believe that we really were fallen in sin, and really needed redemption? How do we talk about the Trinity in this new historical context? After the Enlightenment, Europe began transitioning from the rule of monarchies and nobilities to democracy, and in some cases violent socialist  / communist revolutions. After the Enlightenment ended, the elites doubted whether God existed, and whether there could be knowable doctrine. Maybe ‘Divine revelation’ was our vague sense of needing God and being dependent upon him. Maybe God developed and grew through our history and actions. Or worse, maybe God is a fiction made up by the wealthy to convince the middle class and working poor to accept their conditions–an ‘opiate of the people.’  In the 20th Century, World War I helped destroy people’s sense that reason could know all things. So Some conservative Protestants said, we just believe God’s Word because He said it. Or, worse, God’s Word is simply his instructions on how to live, and any supernatural elements had been made up by the apostles, and had to be ‘demythologized.’ Fortunately, God was still at work in the new, increasingly subjectivistic world. He would call thinkers and churches, to combine new and old. Maybe we could still look at the world as a cosmos, where God the Logos disclosed Himself. But the hunger for personal self-transcendence, the need for God, was still there in a new age of science and technology. Maybe we could bring these strands of thought together to talk about Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. Assignment:What stood out to you in this week’s lecture? What did or did not make sense? Discussion Board #11 Topic: Ressourcement Human Self-Transcendence, and the Trinity in the Postmodern World  This week’s lecture brings us through the last 60 years or so, to the end of our course. Here we see some ways that early postmodern theology–from the 1940’s on–articulated the mystery of the Trinity for the new postmodern world. God seemed distant after the carnage of World War II and the Holocaust. New hopes were dawning worldwide as nations that had been colonies asserted their desire to govern themselves, and the European colonial powers let them go. Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner raised some questions about how to believe in the Trinity in a world that was beginning to believe that not only faith was subjective, but reason as well. By the mid-twentieth century, the suspicion of truth as a tool of the powerful, first spoken by Marx and Engels in Communism in the 19th Century, had joined with the new existentialist belief that there was no God, the world was meaningless, and our passions and are pain, and hopefully some sort of human connection, are all we have.  The Second Vatican Council brought together the new and old. In the Constitutions Dei Verbum and Gaudium et spes, the Council agreed that human beings hunger for self-transcendence, and for communion with other human beings. These subjective wants are good. We are right to hunger for justice in the world, and thirst for friendship with God. The Council tells us that God is still with us to fill our ‘God-shaped hole.’  He has reached out to us in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ gives us access to the Father by the Holy Spirit. By His Cross, death, and resurrection, He redeems us from original and personal sin, and makes us partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4). That is, He gives us the Divine indwelling, and communion in God’s Triune perichoretic life. God is communion in His Triune Being. To be made in God’s image, and to be redeemed, is to be in communion with God, in His Church. We are made too, for Triune-informed communion with other human beings. Pope Benedict XVI makes a profound application of of this Trinitarian theology of communion. Christians are supposed to live in society with the idea that communion with others, including how we treat them in our moral life in our dealings in society, is God’s good will for humanity. So we are to put others and their needs above ourselves, both in our personal lives, and in how we structure our economy. Benedict says that societies should aim for what he calls an ‘economy of communion.’ What form that will take will differ from place to place. He is not endorsing any particular economic system. He is offering a principle, reflective of the inner Trinitarian life of God, that is to inform our life here on earth–and offer a sign of our hope of Heaven. Assignment:What stands out in this week’s lecture? What does or does not make sense to you?

The post Hello,I have a total of 11 Discussion Boards I need completed by Thursday, February 25 (48 hours). Each Discussion Board…Answers 1Bids 1Other questions 10 appeared first on homeworkhandlers.com.