Awesome, Perfect and a sure tear-jerker, these words sums up the movie. Speaking frankly, I liked the movie a lot and it was quite moving. I think Mandy Moore was perfect for the role of "Jamie". The chemistry between Mandy Moore and Shane West was very good. This is that kind of movie which any person can connect to in terms of the emotions, feeling and helplessness shown. The whole movie talks about the power of love, friendship, the various other relationships in life, the strength in having faith, believing in miracles, growing up to the real person, doing good, believing in the positive side of life, finding courage to fight, live life in the best possible way and enjoying the beauty of life. Moreover the movie has very delicately and properly captured a person's feeling and the trauma one undergoes when someone very close to one's heart leaves you behind. I very deeply feel that the director of this movie has done a great job in capturing the various emotions and sufferings Landon Carter (Shane West) undergoes. His conflicts with his own father and Reverend Sullivan, Jamie's father, all of this were captured very perfect.

Though I have come across comments on the net describing the movie as not up to the mark, I still have the opinion that those were from enemies of either the director, Mandy Moore or simply some sour grape. The movie was very inspiring, the pace was good, a good direction and impeccable, solid performance by everyone in the movie. I have fallen in love with Jamie and how I wished I had someone like her in my life but I will not be able to live without her. There are many good points about this movie which I can continue to talk about. But the fact is one just avoid it. It is a must-watch and definitely worth the money. If anyone is watching this movie, then observe how the director has captured beautifully the transformation of Landon Carter from a non-believer to someone with lots of faith and believing in miracles. Well the miracle in the story was the transformation of Landon Carter from a spoilt brat to a good guy and falling in love and having faith in the power of love. This is not another teen movie and it cannot be put into this category also as this movie surely appeals to all age groups. So go and watch this movie and show it to your near and dear one but don't forget to get lots of tissue papers also. Everyone will cry. This movie surely taught to be brave like Jamie and move on and believe in the power of faith.

After watching the movie, I searched the net and then found out about the book by Nicholas Sparks. This book was now not to be left alone and hence I got this book and started reading the book. I just ran through the whole book in less than 3 hours and while reading the book also, I was crying. I don't know why I feel greatly touched by this book and its inner idea but I just hate to deny the fact that I love this book. The plot in the book is slightly different from the movie. The movie is set in 90s whereas the book is set in the 50s. Even then the essence of the story - love, faith, redemption, courage, beauty of life, sadness in life and miracles in life, all are still the same. I researched more on this book and I found out that the inspiration of the book came from Nicholas Sparks' sister, Danielle Sparks Lewis. She died of cancer in 2000. The author has also mentioned about the inspiration of this book in a speech he gave in Berlin. Even though it is an inspiration from her sister's life, the book has got many values in it and manages to teach many more as you read on and think over it.

Surely love, faith, courage and suffering binds together all human beings and touch the universal cord. It is this unique beat which rhyme with all souls equally. Hence many find this movie as well as the book equally touching and greatly intense in emotions.

Flew is a philosopher, and has been for around fifty years. His father was a Methodist minister, but Flew lost his faith in his teens, and never returned to it. What he didn't lose was his sense of integrity, and his determination to follow an argument through to its logical conclusion - even if it meant giving up long-held beliefs. Flew has been debating with God-believers for two or three decades, but it's not his sole reason for existence. He's a philosopher in the best sense in that he thinks about big questions in all sorts of fields.

In the book he explains in some detail how he came to the conclusion that there is a God, and then sets out his arguments clearly. It's the clarity of this book (which could have been philosophically dense) that makes it so good. I'm no philosopher, but overall I found I could understand the arguments almost entirely. (A few points slipped past me, but that's fine - sometimes philosophers don't even understand each other.)

The book is written in conjunction with Roy Abraham Varghese, an Indian-born philosopher who has written a number of books on the interface between science and God. Varghese contributes a clear and substantial introduction to the book, as well as a critical appraisal of Dawkins and four other popular atheists in one of the appendices. The other appendix is by N T Wright, the English Anglican scholar and writer, who looks at the evidence for the Resurrection.

Apart from enjoying the sense of generosity Flew brings to the book, it was an eye-opener for me to see that philosophy doesn't just exist in two opposing camps, the way Dawkins and others might lead us to conclude. The philosophers mentioned in the book may vary hugely in their understandings, but for the most part they're men who are willing to put aside their own biases, and think through issues at the deepest levels.

I haven't been so excited by a book in a long time.

Theses troubles that inflict Solomon should be used as a learning point for those who read the book. It gives the reader a sure idea that our lives should be lived for and with God, not against Him. For those who do not live their life for and with God, struggle to enjoy life's pleasures. Solomon had amassed god, horses, and women during his lifetime which lead to his downfall. This is an important lesson to learn from because Solomon did not use his life to honor God. Instead, he placed things in front of God, and Solomon's walk sunk to a new low with Christ. However, due to Solomon's experiences and downfalls, he can tell us that the downfalls are vainer in this life because they are not spent with God. We can tell through the time line of his life that the gold, horses, and women amounted in his life allowed him to stray from the actual and major part of his life.

Learning from this book, I should not let my life stray to the means and ends that Solomon had. In all that I do, should be done as if Christ were with me. The beautiful thing about having God around is that it allows me to enjoy the gifts God has given more enjoyable to a point where I do not have to worry about vanity. Of course one of the reasons why life may seems miserable is because either the sin life has allowed to get in between God and me or that my works and deeds are not done for God. My work should be done with diligence because God worked hard and is still working till this day. His hard work should be reflected with the work ethic in my own life. May work and diligence be not far from me in this life because a sluggard will not be able to reap that he has sown.

Vanity can still be in the people's lives whether it is a high or low point of their life. A person can still be happy with their life and their vanities and still not be a Christian. It is when things get bad that it is realized that they will curse those things that humiliated their pleasures. Still, I can still enjoy life with the downtimes and the uptimes in my life. All is to be done for God even though the times will be difficult.

Now I know many devout Christians do not like Joel for the reason that it is a non-denominational service that implements the works of the bible and Jesus Christ with everyday life such as goal setting, achieving success and so on.

To me I think what Joel is trying to do is absolutely what a lot of people need in this world. I think gone are the days of the teachings of Jesus Christ through brimstone and fire.

I was born to a Catholic family, attended Catholic school from kindergarten to senior year in high school and through those thirteen years, when I say brimstone and fire, they would teach you the works of Jesus Christ through saying that if you don't believe you go to hell, things like that. We can save that conversation for another time though.

For now I want to tell you about what I thought of Joel's new best selling book. It was definitely an easy read. I finished the book in less than two weeks, which for me is quite an accomplishment because for whatever reason I have never been a fast reader. In any event the book is an easy read and well written.

Each chapter clearly outlines a path on how to become better at relationships, life, and work, family you name it. At the end of each section, which is comprised of many chapters each, Joel gives you an outline on what to do to improve your life in those areas he just wrote about. You are given a series of steps to take, and questions to ask others and yourself. It is a nice outline to follow.

The book is filled with a lot of real life examples, not only in Joel's own life but from others that attend his church in Texas and watch his TV program. My thought is using examples to get your point across about anything is always a good way to get your reader's attention.

All in all I would give this book an “A”. It was what I expected it to be, had a clear and defined outline on how to get where you want to go, and most importantly it related everything in the book with the teachings of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

Paradise Lost is divided into twelve books. Is number is rather important because according to the Bible twelve is the number of tribes of Israel and the number of disciples that Jesus Christ (the son of God who is equal to God and God at the same time) chose to become his main friends and to travel with him throughout his life. This is also important because Milton said he wrote this epic to “justify the ways of God to man (book1, 26).” Milton calls upon the same inspiration that helped Moses (the man who wrote book of the Bible which Milton is writing an epic on) to help him write. In order for Milton to get people's attention into the book as being something that God would agree with he had to use things that people about see throughout the Bible. Now we will dig deeper into the first book Milton writes.

Milton's fist book begins telling the story of the fall of man from Satan (the enemy of God who was once one of the highest angels) being bounded in hell, which is a place of no light and hope. Satan is there with all of his fallen angels and is permitted by God to live and “Heap on himself damnation (book1,215).” Satan, though he has been defeated, still wants to fight against God and he calls all of the fallen angels to Pandemonium, “the high capitol of Satan and his peers (book1, 756),” to talk of a way to still wage war against God. The Bible talks about Satan and his angles in hell. In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says that hell was created for the Devil and his demons (NLT). There are also all of Satan's demons which come from the name of foreign gods which were not to be served by God's people, Deuteronomy 5:7(NLT). Each of these demon's names are drawn from different parts of the Bible where they were to have swindled the people into believing in them instead of believing in God. Though all of these names and places are mentioned in the Bible nothing to with the summoning of the demons to Pandemonium is found within its pages.

Book two of Milton's Paradise Lost is about the terms upon which the demons which to get back at God. They question if they should get back at God in open war, of if they should do it secretly. They are all in did agreement over what to do until Satan puts the thought into Beelzebub's, Satan's second in command, mind to attack man instead of God. They all agree with this because is this way they are not fighting God and they get their revenge at the same time. Satan then takes up the cause of the fallen angles and he leaves hell on his journey to Earth. At the gates of hell Satan meets his children, Sin and Death. The Bible tells nothing of Satan leaving hell and meeting his children at the gates thereof. The Bible does talk of Death as another person in saying that he will be the last enemy to be defeated (1 Corinthians 15:26), but the fact that Sin and Death are at the gates of hell is not found in detail in the Bible. It is found in detail in one of the Lost Book of the Bible. It is called the Gospel of Nicodemus. This Gospel is not accepted by many and is thought to have been made up around the close of the third century, but there are also many ancient Christians how appeal to this Gospel. When Milton, was seventeen he went to Christ's College at Cambridge University. There he revolted against what he thought was the irrelevant medieval scholastic curriculum of Cambridge. In 1632, he graduated with a M.A. He could have very easily became a Anglican minister, but he felt as if the Anglican church under Charles I and Archbishop Laud had become too corrupt and too tied with politics (Parker). It wouldn't have been anything out of the ordinary for him to have studied these Lost Books of the Bible.

In the Gospel of Nicodemus chapter sixteen, Jesus Christ descends into hell. Satan and the prince of hell(Beelzebub) are arguing by the gates of hell, and they hear Christ say “Lift up your gates, O ye princes, and be ye lifted up, o everlasting gates, and the King of Glory shall come in”(Nicodemus 16:1/ Psalm 24:7). This caused the prince of hell to send Satan away and then he attempts to lock Christ out of hell, but in the end Christ comes and redeems all those who are locked in Abraham's bosom (which is talked about in Luke 16:22). This chapter, in the end, seems to be formed from both lost and book that are in the Bible.

The third book switched to heaven where God is. There the Son of God is at his right hand and all of the angels are before him. God knows that man will fall and he asks if someone will go and die for man so that they will not be separated from God forever, but once more live eternally. All of the angels and silent, but then Jesus finally say that he will do it and all rejoice and glorify the Son. This is the Bible where Jesus says that he was there before everyone else (). The Son of God becomes more glorious because he had decided to die for man, but to do it he must become lower than the angels for a time (Hebrews 2:7/ Psalm 8:5)

The fourth book is about Satan landing on Earth and spying on Adam and Eve (the first humans created by God according to the Bible). He over hears that they are forbidden to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Then Gabriel finds out that Satan is in the garden of Eden and he finds him and laughs at him because he cannot stand the punishment that he deserves.

Book five begins with Eve having a dream about her eating some food from the forbidden tree. Adam then prays to God and God sends Raphael to warn them of Satan and how he can choose between good and evil on his own free will. Raphael then tells him of the war in heaven. This story continues through chapter six and then in chapter seven he tell Adam of the creation of the universe in which we live. Milton seems to draw this exactly from Genesis chapter one. He even calls space the Chaos, which is one of the meanings for the Hebrew word that is used in Genesis to describe the Earth when it was first created and formless.

Book eight through book ten talks about the fall that is coming upon them and its actual happening. Milton goes as far as to say that Adam eats the fruit so that he will not be separated from Eve in her punishment. They moan after it has happened and they hide themselves from God. Adam says from the beginning that he does not want to separate, but Eve believes that she can stand on her own two feet. The jest of this is in the Bible, but not all of it. And none of this is in the Lost Books.

In the last two books of Paradise lost things start to get very interesting. Adam has sinned and he is kicked out of Eden, the great paradise that he had lost. There are told that they must force the ground to produce for them. Then God tells them of the things that will come in the future. He tells them of Noah and the flood; he tells them of Moses and the exodus; he lastly tells them of the sacrifice of the Son that will one day redeem the entire human race and bring salvation to all mankind (which is the meaning of Adam's name). This is by no means anywhere within the Bible and there is no way that Milton could have drawn this idea to parallel anything in the Bible. It does however fit in with the Lost Books. We travel once again to the Gospel of Nicodemus, but it doesn't stop there. This story of man knowing of the future and redemption of man through Jesus is also found in the Book of Mormon in a section called the Pearl of Great Price.

In the Gospel of Nicodemus, Adam is in the bosom of Abraham and he is speaking to all the saint of old and he tells his son, Seth, to speak to them and tell them of what Michael told him about Christ and that he will “come on earth to raise again the human body of Adam, and at the same time to raise the bodies of the dead” (Nicodemus 14:6). After Seth has finished speaking, all of the prophets and patriarchs of old rejoiced in these sayings.

The Book of Mormon is a book that was found by John smith, said to have been the last of the great prophets. He was supposed to have been the only man who could translate this book that God had lead him to. Upon his completion of the translation the book was taken away from man because it was made of solid gold, which would have just cause man to lust after it for treasure.

In the Pearl of Great Price, from the Book of Mormon, there are two books in which man is told about the future of mankind. One is called the Book of Moses. Moses is told of all the things of the future of man and even gives praises to the Son of the living God, which he does not do in the Bible. It even says that Satan was cast out of Heaven by the power of God's “Only Begotten” (Moses 4:3). The next book is called the Book of Abraham. Abraham (who is called the founder of the Jewish nation and the first man to be called a Hebrew in the Bible) is told of the Redeemer, and he praises God for him. This book also talks of God speaking directly to his Son when he creates the world in the beginning, which is not in the Bible, but the Bible hints at it in later books.

Milton writes this great epic about the fall of mankind and how mankind went from Paradise to Paradise Lost. Though many of his books and most of his words seem to go hand and hand with the Bible, there are still many parts that do not. If one is to read Milton's epic one needs to understand what is really going one within this epic. Though one can think about all of the things that Adam said and how the war in heaven was, the truth of the matter is than many of those details are not mentioned in the great book upon which his faith and the faith of all Christianity is founded upon. This is not to say that his book is not a great master piece, but it is to say that it is not the entire truth and does not seek to show the exact truth as it is in the Word of God. His reason for writing this epic then could not have been to show people what God did and what man did, but to get people to think about what went on. it could have possible to fulfill Joshua 1:8, which says to meditate on God's law day and night, only then will you succeed. Whatever the reason for his writing one must know that not all truth lies within this great epic.

While many biographers conclude that Poe's wife was the real Annabel Lee, it is also possible that she was a fictional character. Annabel Lee was the main figure being spoken of in the poem, but she could also be considered as a symbol of a rare, pure and tender love. There was something about her description that evokes innocence, purity and childlikeness (characteristics that Virginia Clemm possibly had). It is indeed strange that Poe, an orphan and drunkard who had experienced so much cruelty from life, should marry a thirteen year old sickly girl. Perhaps, in his mind, there was an undying ideal, a longing to find tenderness and innocence in a woman and become united with her. This ideal notion was symbolized by Annabel Lee, and if she was indeed Virginia Clemm, we can say that Clemm was the only true love that Poe ever had.

In the first line of the poem, we can read, “it was many and many a year ago, in a kingdom by the sea”. The sea here was used to represent the speaker's memory. The entire phrase suggests that Annabel Lee's death occurred a very long time ago, but the sea speaks of reminiscence and an undying memory of love. This particular pattern was repeated in the succeeding stanzas, where each time the “kingdom by the sea” was mentioned, there was also a mention of things which belonged to a distant past. Poe wrote in the second stanza, “I was a child and she was a child, in this kingdom by the sea”. At the time this poem was written, Poe cannot be considered a child, as he was way past his early twenties. Clearly, he was simply using the word "sea" as a vehicle to illustrate unfading memory of a loved one which cannot be erased by time. He seems to be implying that the memory of love he had for his woman cannot be erased even after the pain of loss and death. Thus at the end of the poem, we can find him staying beside the dead girl's sepulchre by the sea.

The poem suggests that the speaker's love for Annabel Lee was of such divine and everlasting nature that it disturbed divine creatures themselves. The jealousy of the “winged seraphs of heaven” speaks strongly about the magnitude of the couple's love for each other. Obviously, the love was too much (it was a love that was more than love) that the heavenly beings chose to inflict death on poor Annabel. It is possible that the “winged seraphs” personify ill fate, and the “highborn kinsman” represents God Himself. The reason for the jealousy was not explained in the poem. Either Poe merely used it as a plausible excuse to justify an untimely death, or he simply wanted to blame ill fate, or possibly God, for the loss of his love. Or perhaps, poet as he was, he was just trying to sound a little bit more poetic. We can only surmise, because only Poe, dead in his grave and his love long been buried, has all the answers to the questions that belie "Annabel Lee".

The novel begins with the child Jesus living with his family in Egypt. The first hint of his supernatural gifts comes when he curses a child named Eleazer, who immediately falls dead in the street. Eleazer is then brought back to life through the words of Jesus. After some discussion, the family soon decides to set out on a journey to Jerusalem. During the journey, Jesus exerts his powers again and again without entirely understanding why or how he is able to do it. His family attempts to explain to him the mystery of his abilities but seem to be a bit unsure of the answers themselves. The family eventually returns to their hometown of Nazareth, where they find a somewhat cold welcome. The community is unaware of the truth surrounding the birth of little Jesus, and instead see it as a scandal.

Readers will find themselves gaining a whole new perspective on Christ as a person. It is easy to think of Him as a deity rather than a real human being. By taking a look at the life of Jesus from a child's perspective, readers find themselves relating to Him as they would to any other human child. Although he possessed supernatural powers, he was still human in mind and body, and in some ways this caused him even more grief and confusion than the average human must endure.

Overall, Anne Rice has captured an image that is both human and god. She has made the life of Christ into more than just a bedtime story. She has enabled her readers to envision Christ as what he really was.

Yinger states that it is plain to see the universality of religion, though it has a wide variety in forms of expression. While societies were in relatively infrequent contact with each other the facts of universality and variety were insignificant, but when contact became extensive, with mobility and change creating situations of religious diversity within societies, these facts became more important. Though religions share many things in common, their values and effects can be differentiated, and informed value choices are still needed. The sociologist and the scientific study of religion makes certain assumptions that the methods of objective science can be applied to religious phenomenon and that religion, when it is being examined within the framework of science, is dealt with as a part of the natural world, subject to the laws of cause and effect and the rules of logic. Yinger believes his tentative efforts to state how religion and society interact under certain conditions are valuable not only to other sciences, but to the religious quest itself. The intricate ways in which religion is involved in the life of society are revealed by exploring religious movements in their social settings. Yinger's interpretive essays explore some of the religious consequences of the growth of cities, of minority status, of the decline of ethnic groups, of prosperity, and of rapid social change. He looks at religion from the perspectives of sociology, anthropology, and social psychology seeing it as one of the processes of social life while recognizing the limitations of these views.

The sociologist begins with the basic proposition that religion cannot be understood in isolation from the rest of society. Religion is part of a system, interacting with the economic and political aspects of society, the family patterns, the technology, and the nature of the communities. If one part of a system changes, the other parts are influenced in various ways. Yinger proposes that if literacy, mobility, and science develop in a community, its religions will undergo important changes, not just superficially, but fundamentally. If a new religion moves into a society, the whole social structure feels the impact, while at the same time modifying the religion it absorbs.

Every society has some pattern of belief and action by means of which it performs certain vital functions; in essence every society has a religion, even if it is an anti-religion. The ultimate question of many religions is how man spends eternal life, but Yinger claims that most people today are more likely to ask of their religion that it helps them to understand the suffering, loneliness, and meaninglessness of life. He says that religion can be defined as a group-supported road to salvation, but asks salvation from what?

Yinger claims the major religions of the world developed in rural settings, and says even today religion is tied to rural societies. The growth of cities with the development of urbanization has posed new problems for religious institutions as well as for political, economic, and familial institutions. Urban societies create a situation for the first time in human history where individuals interact daily with strangers whose values and goals are different from their own. Literacy and mobility expand horizons of contact, and with contact, disenchantment and secularization come into play. In the urban setting, kinship units lose some solidarity and functions, but despite this loss, the family remains a vital part of urban life. These urban societies are characterized by increased normlessness, witnessing a reduction in the value consensus of the majority of people who have been influenced by mass media and mass production. Although agreement on norms and values decrease, functional interdependence and tolerance tend to increase. The profound changes in the nature of life in urban societies, Yinger says, has enormous consequences for religion. Most of the religious movements in cities reflect the efforts of various groups to come to terms with urban life, while searching for some stability in this ever-changing setting. The revival of interest in religion is a manifestation of these conflicts and anxieties of contemporary life.

Religion is believed to be good for society in that it softens some of the harsher consequences of the pursuit of secular values and that it makes it easier for diverse groups to live with one another without sharp conflict, emphasizing a common humanity. In the search for some ultimate meaning to existence, some system of beliefs that lends dignity to life and makes suffering less severe, few are likely to be persuaded by a religion that disregards the conflicts and the institutions that make life harsh and meaningless to many. With the central areas of most of our metropolitan districts deteriorating, the consequences are well recognized. Physical decay is followed by disease, delinquency, crime, racial conflict, political corruption, and value confusion, while gangs, narcotics, or alcohol might be used in a desperate effort to find a sense of well-being in the midst of a society that crushes the sense of self-worth. These religious substitutes derive from the botched efforts of conquered individuals to find a road to salvation. If established churches pass them by, moving out to the suburbs and resisting those lower in status, and often different in race or ethnic group, then they will inevitably accept these substitutions. Just when the stabilizing efforts of the churches are needed, its members tend to look for more comfortable circumstances, turning their back on the harshness of the inner-city and its inhabitants. .

In functional analysis, emphasis is placed on both the possible contribution of religion to society and its contribution to individuals, in lending dignity and significance to their lives, even in the face of crushing difficulties. It is not enough today for religion to give vitality and support to a shared system of values, but it must also negotiate among groups who have different values in an effort to maintain in them a sense of common humanity. Modern societies are held together by political and functional interdependence despite the lack of kinship identity and in the face of cultural differences. Urban man has responded by inventing religious tolerance, though it is safe to say we are never tolerant about our basic values. Yinger believes that if there is a return to religion, it is to an organization that makes few creedal demands and rouses in us few fundamental values, but many people continue to use religion as the final judge of life's values, and are likely to be intolerant when basic issues arise. Some kind of religious conflict is likely in a complex society consisting of a variety of religious traditions. We tend to minimize these problems by counting them as the inevitable fruits of religious freedom. In a period of such repeated crises as we have known, renewed attention to man's capacity for evil comes into the Theologian's mind, while sociologists try to relate their work to the whole series of forces that influence man in modern society. Theological approaches are highly abstract, seeking to reduce religion to a few fundamental propositions, free from the distortions of particular times and places, but the people flock to popular interpreters, largely unaware of the work of intellectual leaders. If these religious leaders continue to insist that only their own tradition contains fundamental truths, Yinger says we will find folk religion and religious substitutes performing the integrating function of the churches. The universalism of world religions is ready to declare that all men are brothers; but man's salvation depends on his acceptance of the particular religions own temporally and culturally bound revelations and traditions.

Social change begins with technology, with a population increase or decrease, with economic improvement or decline, with an increase of interaction with other societies, with the pronouncements of a prophet, or in other ways. Institutional arrangements that are taken for granted or thought of as independent are brought forcibly to attention, by rapid change as parts of a system. Religion is part of this complex system, with its developments best understood as responses to fundamental changes in their social environment which feed back into the system from which it came. The influences set in motion become, in turn, conditioning and constraining forces that affect the religion that released them. The development of religious sects and cults have appeared among groups caught in severe disprivilege, frequently being racial or cultural minorities who have been overrun by a more advanced or more powerful society. With their traditional way of life destroyed, belief in the old ways declines, values and desires are taken over from the invading force, yet full acceptance of the new way and its religion is neither possible nor permissible. The resulting religions that arise out of this context are alien from the perspectives of both the invading and the invaded cultures and often involve a strong emphasis on group conflict. These religious cults and sects have the potential to carry their members over into a new life, drastically readapting their personalities. The likelihood of these functions are not certainties, depending on the responses of the surrounding society. The phenomenon found in these cults are the product of attitudes of a culture torn between hatred of the people who had destroyed the old way of life and now dominated them by force, and the desire to obtain for themselves the possessions of their conquerors. But such malice toward the dominant society is not limited to conquered peoples. If, within a society, a group lacks an independent and successful past which can serve as the focus for its future, they can affirm that they are the true defenders of a tradition shared with their oppressors who have fallen into sinful ways. They are scarcely less critical of the existing institutions than a conquered people, attacking that society by downgrading its institutions and refusing to give it final loyalty. Even in a society where freedom of religion is the rule, there is little tolerance for those efforts to win salvation that involve direct attack on the social order and its dominant religious organizations. Almost universally, the response of those in power is suppression and curtailment of activities, making the movements relatively short-lived. But if the movement is suppressed while the basic forces that produced it remain in operation, the group will reappear in new guises time after time. Two kinds of religious groups may evolve from a revolutionary movement. If hope for restoration and independence fades, a more accommodative group will form, but if there is growth in hope, along with status improvement, the group that forms will orient toward that of the dominant members of society, with the sect to church transition likely taking place. Depending on the variables of hope and discipline, groups will differentiate into several types of religious activity, from gang membership to strictly disciplined militant and religious groups, representing the range of endeavor among disprivileged persons to wrest some dignity and meaning from life.

On the other end of the spectrum, many people in modern societies find themselves in relative comfort, with the changes affecting them quite different. With the reduction of illness, lengthening of life, an increase in mobility, more leisure time, increased education, and the extension of contact across cultures many people in these societies are concerned with loneliness in a sea of acquaintances, meaninglessness amidst conflicting values, self-alienation in context of contradictory role requirements, and tense interpersonal and intergroup relations. Two trends among these privileged members are a renewed interest in religion along side of secularization, and religious separatism in the context of ecumenicity. The decline of authentic religious content along with the rise of humanistic and nationalistic themes is usually a hidden process carried on underneath symbols of non-change. The churches of those who are comfortable in a society are usually well accommodated to that society, which does not necessarily denote secularism. The church works within the structure of the established social order, adjusting to dramatic changes in the world within which it works. We are in fact witnessing religious change, the development of new religious forms, which can be a sign of strength. The catastrophic wars of the last few generations, the vast cruelties of totalitarian governments, and the incredible threats of future war make it apparent that man has won no salvation from death, injustice or hostility. These developments support revival among the religious professionals, but these theologians seem less accustomed to dealing with the new crises of affluence, mobility, and anomie. The other aspect of religious separatism and ecumenicity is strongly affected by the social forces which continue to operate to preserve religious differentiation despite the reduction of some of the separating influences. While a few religious leaders engage in discussions concerned with the reduction of religious separation, many economic, political, and educational associations cut across religious lines, with interfaith marriages being the best index of the extent of separation or integration. The consequences for religion may reinforce ecumenicalism in the context of extensive growth of interfaith marriage. Because it is the marginal member who is most likely to intermarry, the ranks of the unchurched may swell, or could lead to new religious identities or conversions. Opposition to intermarriage is one way family and societal influence is widely assumed to promote ethnic-religious group continuation. Different classes, races, ethnic groups, and regions develop different religious values and structures, according to the variation in needs and experiences in a heterogeneous society. Although the ethnic lines which reinforced religious divisions may be fading, the religious lines of distinction remain clear. Future developments of ethnic-religious groups depend on the external situation in which the members find themselves. Yinger states that only after we have developed pluralistic patterns appropriate to the needs of modern societies can we create a system for the world, in which similarities are not coerced and differences do not divide.

Yinger concludes by saying that first physics and astronomy, then biology, and now sociology and psychology have brought into question some of the assumptions of a stable religious world-view. He observes that after centuries of presumed conflict, both science and religion continue to prosper. The religious forms that are developing in the context of science may not be meaningful and creative to some, with too much richness being lost or too much that has lost its significance being retained. But this much we know, claims Yinger, by the growth of knowledge, religion may be changed, but it will not be destroyed. The social sciences will modify contemporary religious expressions, but it cannot satisfy the needs from which religion springs. Yinger speculates that in a society where science has become a vital part of the world view of most people, either religious expressions in harmony with that fact will develop, or religious substitutes will prevail which would only marginally help us deal with the human condition. In dealing with the individual and group powers of the world, religion is working in a constantly more complicated situation. He proposes that in a world in which brotherhood has become an absolute necessity rather than an exciting vision, accepting forms of religious expression that had meaning a century or decade ago could be an utter failure.

His essays were quite convincing in some aspects, but I disagree with his assumption that accepting religious forms of the past can be seen as a failure. The faith that has been handed down to us by our forefathers is just as significant today as it was when it was first formed. The ways we express that faith may be different somewhat, but its inherent meaning will ultimately never change.

Luckmann's assumption, that individual existence and its relation to the social order is historical, produces the problem that individual existence in society has reached a critical point in the contemporary world. He maintains that the relevance of sociology for contemporary man derives primarily from its search for an understanding of the fate of the person in the structure of modern society. He states that in order for the sociologist's theory to be relevant to his fellow man, he must not fail to formulate it objectively and in a manner, which permits the inspection of evidence, which should be his most important aim.

The problem of individuality within society, according to Luckmann, can be unified in the sociological theory of religion, which he says, can be attributed to Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. He states that both were interested in the fate of the individual in modern society and recognized that the character of society had serious consequences for the individual person. Their concern for the social conditions of the individual, he claims, clearly expresses the moral engagement of their sociological theorizing. Both Durkheim and Weber sought to understand the social position of the individual in the study of religion. For Durkheim, the symbolic reality of religion is the core of the collective conscience and its internalization by man makes him into a social and moral human being. For Weber, the social conditions of individualism is more specific in the historical context of particular religions and their relation to historical societies. Both Durkheim and Weber linked the problem of the individual in modern society directly to the secularization of the contemporary world. Both recognized this as a religious problem.

The sociology of religion consists of an increasing number of studies in the demography of churches, statistics of participation in church related activities, analyses of sectarian movements, monographs of ecclesiastic organizations, and various studies of religious beliefs. But according to Luckmann, finding theoretical significance amidst all these studies is disappointing. The new sociology of religion has neglected its most significant theoretical task, which is to analyze the changing social basis of religion in modern society. The answer to this problem may be found in the cumulative findings of investigations in areas such as industrial and occupational sociology, the family, mass communications, leisure, and those few studies in the sociology of religion which go beyond the scope of traditional church religion.

In the absence of an organized theory, Luckmann proposes that some assumptions have developed that perform the function of theory. The main assumption consists in the identification of religion with the church, which has the most important consequences for research and theory in the sociology of religion. Religion becomes a social fact either as institutionalized ritual or doctrinal ideas. The identification of religion with the church fits into sociology as the study of social institutions. The well known thesis, that religion is a primitive stage in the evolution of human reason and would eventually be replaced by science has contributed to the misunderstood assumption that secularization is measured by the decline of the churches. This view of secularization tends to be explained by transformations in other areas of the social system, such as urbanization and industrialization, which were believed to undermine traditional institutions such as the church. The assumption that church and religion are identical is accompanied by the idea that individual religiosity is based upon psychological needs which are both defined and met by the church.

Luckmann says, this is an inadequate system for understanding the relationship between the individual, religion, and society. He believes individual religiosity cannot be understood without reference to a given historical and institutional reality of ritual and belief. These assumptions are based upon an identification of religion with its institutionalized form; therefore, the discipline of sociology accepts the ideology of the churches as valid interpretations of the range of their subject matter. The new sociology of religion is exclusively concerned with church oriented religiosity, but has failed to continue the theoretical traditions of the classical sociology of religion. It fails to concern itself with the location of the individual in society, whose position is essentially religious.

Individual religiosity, Luckmann acknowledges, is shaped by a historical church, which forms a doctrine that is codified in sacred texts, which in turn are transmitted and interpreted by an official body of experts in a binding manner for the laymen. As an historical institution, the church also develops traditions rooted in the interests of these administrative elites. The individual is socialized into the official model of religion to the intent that it constitutes his system of ultimate significance, which is incorporated into a worldview. The internalized model retains its meaning in the life of the individual by integrating and legitimizing the norms of conduct that govern the routines and crises of his existence. This model is elaborated by the experts and its various dimensions become the subjects of specialized knowledge in the form of doctrine, liturgy, and social ethics which places an emphasis on faith, good works, or ritual correctness.

The internalization of the model formulates in the individual specific norms of conduct and belief, which in turn defines role requirements. Religion may be perceived by the individual as the fulfillment of the particular role requirements. The segregation of these norms from the world, Luckmann says, could weaken the integrating function of religious representations for everyday conduct if not countered by the pervasion of religion in society. The fulfillment of these requirements becomes highly routine, threatening the ultimate significance to the individual, although the sacred quality of the norms continues to be nominally recognized. The model may still be plausible enough to motivate the fulfillment of specific norms, but could decrease to the extent that the institutionalized requirements are no longer observed by the typical members of society, unless non-religious motives are substituted for them. Since the official model is interpreted by the experts, who may become oblivious to the typical routines and crises of the laymen, this poses a danger of separation in the views of the experts and the matters of ultimate significance for the laymen. This can be countered, though, by interpretive translations of the doctrines of the theologians into the language of the laymen by a body of pastoral specialists. Combined with distinct models of church oriented religiosity and the routinization of the fulfillment of specific religious norms, this separation of views can be an important factor in the genesis of secularization.

Institutional specialization of religion transforms the relation of the individual to the worldview and in turn to the social order in general. The church enters into relationships with other specialized institutions whose primary functions are secular. The relations of the church to political and economic institutions range from mutual support to accommodation to competition to open conflict. In contexts of these relationships, the church inevitably develops secular interests of its own in addition to its doctrinal and liturgical traditions. Economic, political, and administrative practices are designed, which compromise the original intents of the church in the understanding of those who take the specific religious claims of the church literally. If the official model is taken at face value, they may question the legitimacy of these operations. In transmitting the official model to the laity the religious experts must give sacred explanations for the secular activities of the church. This pluralistic situation threatens the stability of the model. Competing institutions vie for official status habitually claiming doctrinal superiority and a higher degree of purity from secular involvements. The history of sectarian movements in Christianity provides ample support for this observation, Luckmann states.

The doctrine of the visible and invisible church in Christian theology serves as an example of the divergence of the official model of religion with the socially predominant view of ultimate significance. Institutional specialization of religion which includes standardized transmission of the official model, a doctrinal cannon and controls against deviation, decisively reinforces its textual stability, which is one of the most important vested interests of the influential body of religious experts. Under conditions of rapid social change, perspectives of consecutive generations will inevitably differ causing a serious problem for the specialized religious models. Due to its textual and organizational limitations, the official model of religion predictably changes at a slower pace than the social conditions that modify the predominant individual view of ultimate significance.

Some individuals may continue to adhere to the claims of the official model, eliminating any secular inconsistencies, which can lead to an inability to perform nonreligious roles effectively, and to a form of martyrdom resulting in a partial withdrawal from the world, accompanied by tolerable compromises with the world. But the conflicting requirements of religion and the world stimulate the individual to reflect on possible solutions. In the leap of faith solution to the problems of life, individual religiosity is reconstituted after a phase of doubt. If a plausible solution is not found, the routine of the pre-reflective attitude will continue to be followed. Another possibility is the formation of a value system in which religious roles are performed for secular reasons or wholly abandoned. Luckmann claims that at various levels of reflection, the individual tends to restrict the relevance of religious norms to areas that are not anticipated by secular institutions, making religion in essence a private affair. The institutional specialization of religion increasingly transforms it into a private reality, in which the liberation of individual consciousness from the social structure and the freedom in the private sphere provide the basis for the sense of autonomy characterized by the typical person in modern society.

The consequences of specialization and the observations on the relation between the official model and individual religiosity prepare for the analysis of religion in modern society, which cannot honestly attribute the decline of Christianity's traditional forms to the advent of secularist ideologies. The decline of traditional Christianity, Luckmann believes may be symptoms of a more revolutionary change, which could implicate the replacement of institutionalized religion by a new social form of religion. Factors that cause a growing incongruence between the official model and individual religiosity, disrupting the identity of church and religion, are present in this social form of religion. With a sense of autonomy, the individual is more likely to confront the culture of religion as a consumer, choosing from the assortment of ultimate meanings as he sees fit. Through a certain level of subjective reflection and personal choice, he constructs both his personal identity and his individual system of ultimate significance. The autonomous consumer selects certain religious themes from the available assortment and builds them into a private system of ultimate significance, making individual religiosity no longer a replica of an official model. Church religiosity can be viewed as one manifestation of an emerging, institutionally non-specialized social form of religion, which continues to occupy a special place because of its historical connections to traditional Christianity. This social form of religion emerging in modern industrialized societies is characterized by the direct accessibility of an assortment of religious representations, which makes religion essentially a phenomenon of the private sphere. This implies that there is no obligatory model of religion, but that religious themes continue to be socially mediated in some form.

Luckmann speculates that religious themes originate in the private sphere, resting primarily on emotions and sentiments that are sufficiently unstable to make their articulation difficult. These highly subjective themes are not defined by primary public institutions, but can be taken up by secondary institutions such as advice columns, inspirational literature, and popular song lyrics, which expressly cater to the private needs of the autonomous consumer. The primary institutions regulate the legal and economic frame within which the competition of the ultimate significance market occurs. The selection is based on consumer preference, Luckmann states, which is determined by the social biography of the individual, while similar biographies will result in similar choices. The autonomous individual will not only select certain themes but will likely construct a well-articulated private system of ultimate significance. The prevalent individual systems will consist of an unstable hierarchy of opinions legitimizing the priorities determined in private life.

In the absence of external support by primary institutions, subjectively constructed religiosity with its diverse systems of ultimate significance will have an uncertain reality for the individual. While these systems are characterized by considerable variability in content, they are structurally similar and relatively flexible. These systems of individual religiosity are supported by other persons in the private sphere, partially sharing and jointly constructing their ultimate significance, with no apparent conflict with the norms of the primary institutions. Support for these subjective systems may come from family, friends, neighbors, and significant others who share in the construction and stabilization of private universes of ultimate significance, with family being the most important medium. If these private universes unite to some degree, the groups may assume sectarian qualities, developing the secondary institutions referred to earlier.

The character of religious institutions was radically transformed by their loss of monopoly in defining the sacred universe. They are forced to compete with many other sources of ultimate significance for the attention of autonomous individuals. Since they are recognized as religious and claim a connection to the Christian universe, they continue to enjoy a certain advantage in the open market. To the extent that traditional Christian conversation survives, Luckmann alleges that it provides a vocabulary that disguises some newly emerging themes. These themes are internalized in a significantly different manner in different social sections. The dominant themes in the modern sacred universe bestows an almost sacred status on the individual by articulating his autonomy, which is consistent with the finding that ultimate meaning is found by the typical individual in modern industrial societies primarily in the private sphere of his private biography. The traditional symbolic universes become increasingly irrelevant to the everyday experience of the typical individual and lose their character as a reality.

Luckmann states that man's individual autonomy represents the absence of external restraints and the traditional taboos in the private search for his identity. Since the inner man is an undefinable entity, its supposed discovery involves a lifelong quest. The individual embarks on a journey of self-realization and self-expression that is intermittent because it is immersed in the recurrent routines of everyday life. Since his conduct is controlled by the primary public institutions, he recognizes the limits of his autonomy and learns to confine his search to the private sphere. Luckmann concludes that the modern sacred universe symbolizes the social-historical phenomenon of individualism, which bestows ultimate significance on the structurally determined private sphere. The structure of the modern sacred universe and the theme of its content represent the emergence of a new social form of religion, which is determined by a radical transformation in the relationship of the individual to the social order.

The secularization of the church, therefore, is not simply a symptom of the modern industrialized society, but is in fact a metamorphosing of the church within the church. As the external church appears to be declining to the undisciplined eye, its members are in essence becoming a new creation within the cocoon of the traditional Christian Church. The autonomy of the individual is a necessary stage in the development of the true church, which will worship in spirit and in truth rather than in the ritualistic outward manifestations of the traditional church. The convictions by the Holy Spirit of the autonomic individual must take precedence over the traditional model of institutionalized practices and faith. As the metamorphosing completes its cycle, the true church will emerge in a social revolution that will change the world. The divisions between denominations will fall as Christians abandon the disguises that have so long kept us in the ritualistic garb of the cocoon, though it was necessary to protect us through the cold season of reformation. The invisible religion will emerge from its cocoon and feed on the sweet nectar of the Spirit, and rest safely in the hand of God until we fly to the heavens a new creature.