Podcasts about grotius

A guerra que ninguém ganhou e ninguém perdeu. Todo mundo ganhou e perdeu. Separe trinta minutos do seu dia e aprenda com o professor Vítor Soares (@profvitorsoares) sobre o que foi a Guerra dos Trinta Anos.-Se você quiser ter acesso a episódios exclusivos e quiser ajudar o História em Meia Hora a continuar de pé, clique no link: www.apoia.se/historiaemmeiahoraConheça o meu canal no YouTube, e assista o História em Dez Minutos!https://www.youtube.com/@profvitorsoaresOuça "Reinaldo Jaqueline", meu podcast de humor sobre cinema e TV:https://open.spotify.com/show/2MsTGRXkgN5k0gBBRDV4okCompre o livro "História em Meia Hora - Grandes Civilizações"!https://a.co/d/47ogz6QCompre meu primeiro livro-jogo de história do Brasil "O Porão":https://amzn.to/4a4HCO8Compre nossas camisas, moletons e muito mais coisas com temática História na Lolja!www.lolja.com.br/creators/historia-em-meia-hora/PIX e contato: historiaemmeiahora@gmail.comApresentação: Prof. Vítor Soares.Roteiro: Prof. Vítor Soares e Prof. Victor Alexandre (@profvictoralexandre)REFERÊNCIAS USADAS:- CROXTON, Derek. Westphalia: The Last Christian Peace. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.- GRIMMELSHAUSEN, Hans Jakob Christoffel von. Simplicius Simplicissimus. 1668.- GROTIUS, Hugo. De Jure Belli ac Pacis (Sobre o Direito da Guerra e da Paz). Paris, 1625.- HAUSER, Arnold. A História Social da Arte e da Literatura. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2003.- PARKER, Geoffrey. The Thirty Years' War. London: Routledge, 1984.- TESCHKE, Benno. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations. London: Verso, 2003.- WEDGWOOD, C. V. The Thirty Years War. New York: New York Review Books, 1938.- WILSON, Peter H. Europe's Tragedy: A History of the Thirty Years War. London: Penguin Books, 2009.

Les Rendez-vous de PHILOPOP, émission du 27-04-25"La paix n'est-elle qu'un doux rêve ?"Lecture du Projet de paix perpétuelle de Kant, publié en 1795, après la victoire des armées françaises sur les monarchies européennes coalisées contre la jeune République française.Comme le suggère ironiquement l'enseigne d'une auberge ("Vers la paix perpétuelle") sous laquelle figure l'image d'un cimetière, la véritable paix n'est-elle pas seulement la paix des cimetières ? Dès lors, à quoi bon en parler ? Une véritable paix, -qui ne serait pas une simple accalmie entre deux guerres-, une paix perpétuelle où les hommes seraient définitivement délivrés de la menace de la guerre, une telle paix est-elle condamnée à rester un "doux rêve" pour les vivants ?1- Le problème de la paix est surtout celui de la paix internationalea- Il est possible d'instaurer la paix civile par le droit au sein d'un EtatDe l'hypothèse de l'état de nature -état de non-droit- à l'institution de l'Etat qui soumet les hommes à une législation commune (Léviathan, chapitre 13, Hobbes, 1651, et premier supplément au Projet de paix perpétuelle, Kant)b- Il paraît impossible en revanche d'instaurer une paix internationaleL'inégalité de puissance entre les Etats n'a pas de limites et les rapports de puissance, en constante évolution, les contraignent à se préparer constamment à la guerre , l'effort de guerre risquant alors de les rendre tyranniques à l'encontre des citoyens (Que l'état de guerre naît de l'état social, Rousseau)2- La raison seule peut définir les conditions juridiques de la paix et orienter en ce sens l'action politiquea- Il ne s'agit pas pour Kant de réfléchir aux normes d'une "guerre juste" et d'encadrer sa pratique par des conventions chargées d'éviter qu'elle sombre dans la folie destructrice, comme on l'envisageait traditionnellement dans "le droit des gens" ("Le droit de la guerre et de la paix", Grotius, 1625); mais il s'agit d'exclure radicalement la guerre comme moyen de règlement des conflits. Aucune guerre n'est juste car elle est un retour à l'état de nature (état de non-droit)b- Réfléchir aux conditions juridiques de la paix, c'est envisager sa réalisation dans ce monde, contrairement au discours théologique pour lequel elle ne peut s'accomplir que dans l'au-delà (Cité de Dieu, Augustin, 426), et c'est définir un idéal vers lequel l'action politique doit s'orienter, sachant qu'on ne peut au mieux que s'en approcher.3- A quelles conditions la paix est-elle réalisable?a- Les 6 articles provisoires du Projet de paix perpétuelle énoncent ce qu'il faut éviter pour préserver les chances de la paixb- Les 3 articles définitifs énoncent les conditions qui permettent de garantir la paix et d'exclure définitivement la guerre : 1- Il faut une constitution républicaine dans chaque Etat; 2- il faut une fédération d 'Etats libres (le danger d'une "monarchie universelle" ; la nécessité d'une fédération des peuples à défaut d'une "république universelle") ; 3- il faut enfin un "droit cosmopolitique" qui garantisse à un étranger de ne pas être traité en ennemi par l'Etat dont il foule le sol.c- Conclusion : la paix est le résultat nécessaire de l'instauration du droit, à tous les niveaux : entre les individus à l'intérieur des Etats, entre les Etats, entre un Etat et les individus étrangers4- Si le droit est la condition nécessaire de la paix, qu'est-ce qui permettra sa réalisation?a- La paix ne serait qu'un "doux rêve" si elle dépendait seulement du bon vouloir des hommes et de la sagesse des nations. La réflexion sur l'histoire montre que sa logique de développement contraint les Etats à entrer de plus en plus dans des rapports de droitb- Cette réflexion n'est pas un savoir ; elle ne procure aucune certitude, elle fonde l'espérance d'un progrès du droit qui peut conduire à mettre la guerre hors la loi et elle renforce tous ceux qui travaillent à la paix dans la conviction qu'il faut tout mettre en oeuvre pour agir, dès maintenant, en ce sens.Bibliographie:"Vers la paix perpétuelle" ou "Projet de paix perpétuelle" selon les traductions, dans plusieurs collections de poche comme Hatier ou G/F

durée : 00:59:47 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Antoine Ravon - Encadrer la violence de la guerre est-il possible ? Parler de "droit de la guerre" peut sembler antinomique. Pourtant, des penseurs comme Augustin, Thomas d'Aquin ou Grotius ont cherché à définir les conditions d'une guerre "juste". - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Julie Saada Professeure de philosophie à Sciences Po; Jean-Vincent Holeindre Professeur de science politique à l'Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas, directeur du Centre Thucydide

durée : 00:58:34 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Antoine Ravon - Encadrer l'hostilité en temps de guerre est-il réellement possible, alors que le concept de "droit de la guerre" semble contradictoire ? Des penseurs tels qu'Augustin, saint Thomas d'Aquin et Grotius ont exploré cette question complexe en cherchant à définir les conditions d'une guerre "juste". - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Julie Saada Professeure de philosophie à Sciences Po; Jean-Vincent Holeindre Professeur de science politique à l'Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas, directeur du Centre Thucydide

In this continuing study I take a look at the Rapture Doctrine. Is this a Pre-Trib, as taught in most mainstream Churches are do Christians go through the Tribulation Period? I compare Thessalonians to Matthew 24 along with Revelation. I venture into Paul's writings to explore what he has to say, along with what Yahweh says in Ezekiel. I also ask the listeners to grab a pencil and paper as we create charts for comparison as we get deeper into this study. In this Part 50 I continue our study in this Matthew 24 verse 33. I begin with a recap of what we have discovered up to this point in our Rapture study. In our last study Yahshua Messiah was giving us a Parable of the fig Tree. In verse 33 He continues with this thought.33        So likewise ye = (outw kai umeiv , so also ye, emphatic). As surely as buds and leaves prove the coming of summer, so you, who have been taught, may gather from the fulfillment of the signs mentioned (verses 15-22, etc.) the approach of the end.Know that it is near = (oti egguv estin). The darkening of the sun,  moon, and falling of the stars, all those things that I have spoken to you.At the doors; = as James 5:9, on the very threshold, and therefore about to enter.James  5:9  Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. 34        This generation. = The generation of the Fig Tree!35        Heaven and earth. = The tone is that of One who speaks with supreme authority,but my words shall not pass away = plural “logos” be vain and empty, and unaccomplished;36        of = concerning. Greek. peri. ‘peri' governs two cases (Genitive and Accusative), and denotes  around, or  about , like a completed circle.  But of that day and hour = let's take a look at the Greek ‘ho-rah' which is the English word for hour, here, says Grotius, as denoting, not a part of a day, but a larger portion of time.knoweth = has any perceptive knowledge. Greek. oida.only = alone. Not the Lord as "the Son of man", though surely as "the Son of Yahweh". no, not the angels of heaven = who dwell there, always behold the face of Yahweh, stand in his presence ready to do his will,but my Father only = to the elimination of all creatures, angels and men; but not to the keeping out of the Messiah as Yahweh, who, as such, is omniscient; nor of the Holy Spirit, who is acquainted with the deep things of Yahweh, the secrets of his heart, and this among others, The unknown day and hour. This is one of the most striking words of our Lord. The record of it shows the genuineness of the Gospel writers. No early Christian would have invented such a sentence as this. The words themselves testify to the truthfulness and to the modesty of Yahshua Messiah. They are significant also in the light they throw on the limitations of knowledge. I               THE FACT. No one but our Father in heaven knows the whole future. Some parts of it are revealed to all of us, some are within the perception of prophets, more may be specially known to angels, very much must have lain open before the eye of Yahshua Messiah. But Yahweh only knows the whole. The final judgment is known only to him. Why is this?But, be like those in 2Timothy 2:15 ‘Study to shew thyself approved unto God (Yahweh), a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.'Have any questions? Feel free to email me at keitner@netzero.net

History of Modern International Law till the end of 18th century Authority of the Organized Church was beginning to be challenged as there were constant struggles between religious authorities and rulers known as Crusades (12th and 13th centuries). Introduction of Modern Printing in the 15th Century disseminated knowledge undermining feudalism. Renaissance – 15th Century Treaty of Tordesillas – 1493 – Between Isabella I of Castile, Ferdinand II of Aragon and John II, King of Portugal establishing a new boundary or demarcation line. Development of Concept of ‘Sovereignty' by scholars like Bodin, Machiavelli, Hobbes etc. (15th and 16th centuries).Increase in the number of independent states led to formation of customary rules of International Law involving diplomatic relations. Earlier, International Law was called ‘Law of Nations'. Treaty of Amasya establishing peace – 1555 – Between Ottomans and Safavids after their war. International Law was influenced by Natural Law (Inherent Law or Higher Law based on God, Nature and Reason) (15th and 16th centuries). Important scholars like Vittoria, Belli, Brunus, Suarez, Gentilis were present during this period. Formation of Dutch East India Company – 1602 – Colonial Expansion. Establishment of lex mercatoria by Britain as international trade was increasing at a frantic pace. The greatest of the early writers is Hugo Grotius and is often called the father of International Law (16th and 17th centuries). De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625) by Grotius dealt with actual customs that were followed by the states of the day. The concept of Freedom of Seas was also explained and put forth by Grotius through his work Mare Liberum (1609). Peace of Westphalia – 1648 – Two treaties signed in the Westphalian cities of Osnabruck and Munster ending the thirty years war that brought peace to the Holy Roman empire. Peace of Utrecht – 1715 – Series of treaties – Between Great Britian, France, Portugal and Spain for end of War of the Spanish Succession. 1758 – Scholar Emer De Vattel published the famous work of ‘The Law of Nations'. 4th July 1776 – US Declaration of Independence – Brought the concept of ‘self-determination' to the world stage. 

*This episode is releasing on April 9, 2023, at dawn, Berlin time. This is in commemoration of the execution of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a man who stood up to the lies and deception of Hitler, and who paid for it with his life. He died at dawn exactly 77 years ago from this moment. I dig into Hitler's "Mein Kampf" to explore the mind of an early master propagandist, and how we might avoid being bewitched by another iteration of him in the future. 0:00 - Bonhoeffer Introduction15:00 - Our aversion to reading Hitler21:45 - How this episode connects with the season23:30 - Hitler's/Germany's struggle: injustice and imperialism33:00 - Racial ideology38:00 - Hitler's moral lens42:45 - Hitler's grounding of authority49:00 - Hitler the progressive51:15 - Why focus on the masses?53:30 - How to propagandize the masses59:30 - The elite are disconnected from the masses1:06:00 - How the elite propagandize the masses like Hitler1:12:30 - Ellul and Hitler's overlap1:13:45 - Importance of truth at the core of propaganda1:16:00 - Importance of polarizing groups and issues1:20:10 - Mithridatism and saturation1:20:50 - Vary forms of propaganda1:21:25 - Propaganda aims at effectiveness1:22:00 - Concluding thoughts*Correction to Holmes's quote. It is "three generations of imbeciles is enough," not one generation.  A huge thanks to Seth White for the awesome music! Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTd3KlRte86eG9U40ncZ4XA?view_as=subscriber Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  Kingdom Outpost: https://kingdomoutpost.org/ My Reading List Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/21940220.J_G_Elliot Propaganda Season Outline: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa4MhYMAg2Ohc5Nvya4g9MHxXWlxo6haT2Nj8Hlws8M/edit?usp=sharing  Spotify Playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4VSvC0SJYwku2U0awRaNAu?si=3ad0b2fbed2e4864 Episode Outline/Transcript: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fu9uSiLBr_UZIu69_szJmJVN_TyMQBk0Lq-rtneqtBg/edit?usp=sharing  Mein Kampf: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54270.Mein_Kampf?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=ovwYMtecRX&rank=1 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61539.The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=e1URNvJNzt&rank=1  Amusing Ourselves to Death: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/74034.Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=QflaH4J2oW&rank=1 The Technological Society: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/274827.The_Technological_Society?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=rgzFLjmZo6&rank=2 Propaganda: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/274826.Propaganda?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=MJ0Jt4z7sR&rank=1 Taking the Risk out of Democracy: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1120159.Taking_the_Risk_Out_of_Democracy?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=ZxSDv6Pmbg&rank=1# Radio Free Dixie: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/448669.Radio_Free_Dixie?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=uGxfhd7aPn&rank=1 Negroes with Guns: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/591966.Negroes_with_Guns?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=wQCrsAZi9K&rank=1 War is a Racket: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/198259.War_is_a_Racket?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=RlES4OU70M&rank=1 Ordinary Men: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/647492.Ordinary_Men?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=25su7U5vdK&rank=1 They Thought They Were Free: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/978689.They_Thought_They_Were_Free?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=RWDbW6fePA&rank=1  The Art of War: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10534.The_Art_of_War?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=ROLaW6yH3C&rank=1 How Europe Underdeveloped Africa: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40630.How_Europe_Underdeveloped_Africa?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=AQAMpj0Euk&rank=1 The Internationalists: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30753784-the-internationalists?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=T6SzEBTOOH&rank=1 My episode on the Internationalists: https://thefourthway.transistor.fm/episodes/draft-117-independence-day-grotius-and-the-internationalists The Dawn of Everything: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56269264-the-dawn-of-everything?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=kyjUybYn98&rank=1 Sikes Picot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaPWlKv7n0Y Congolese father stares at child's severed limbs: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/father-hand-belgian-congo-1904/ Apotheosis of Washington: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington Marsh's Bonhoeffer: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18248389-strange-glory Bonhoeffer the Assassin: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17321394-bonhoeffer-the-assassin?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=azvmmkJ1uU&rank=1 Metaxas's Bonhoeffer: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7501962-bonhoeffer Metaxas: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/eric-metaxas-trump-bloodshed-american-apocalypse-live-not-by-lies/ Bonhoeffer: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/02/22/the-nazi-mind/  Hijacking Bonhoeffer: https://www.christiancentury.org/reviews/2010-09/hijacking-bonhoeffer  Moltke not wanting to assassinate Hitler: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2020-01-26/ty-article/.premium/the-evangelical-who-was-part-of-the-german-resistance-against-hitler/0000017f-e0d6-d75c-a7ff-fcdfd6010000 Bonhoeffer's "Behold the Man!": https://swordofthespirit.net/wp-content/bulwark/february2016p4.htm My Previous Bonhoeffer Episode Part 1: https://share.transistor.fm/s/a9fa9d76 My Previous Episode Part 2: https://dashboard.transistor.fm/shows/the-fourth-way/episodes/47-se5-bonhoeffer-pacifist-or-assassin/edit Thanks to our monthly supporters Michael de Nijs ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Dr Alex Green (University of York) joins us to talk about natural law and international law, and statehood. Publications mentioned in the episode: Grotius, Hugo. De Jure Belli ac Pacis, 1652. Dworkin, Ronald. ''Natural' Law Revisited'. Florida Law Review 34 (1982) 165-188. Lauterpacht, Hersch. 'The Grotian Tradition in International Law' BYIL 23 (I) (1946) 1-53. Green, Alex. 'The Precarious Rationality of International Law: Critiquing the International Rule of Recognition' German Law Journal 22(8) (2021) 1613-1634. Green, Alex. 'The Creation of States as a Cardinal Point: James Crawford's Contribution to International Legal Scholarship' AYBIL 40 (1) (2023) 67-88. Waldron, Jeremy. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Garnder, John. 'Legal Positivism: 5½ Myths' American Journal of Jurisprudence 46(1) (2001) 199-227. Waldron, Jeremy. 'The Concept and the Rule of Law' Georgia Law Review 43(1) (2008) 1-61. Green, Alex. Statehood as Political Community: International Law and the Emergence of New States, CUP (forthcoming). Stewart, Melissa. 'The Cascading Consequences of Sinking States' Stanford Journal of International Law (forthcoming).

Grotius was permitted to have books sent to him in prison, and these were transported in a large chest. Over time his guards became less vigilant regarding the chest's contents which led his wife and maid-servant to propose a plan to smuggle him out by hiding him inside ...

Democracies are facing a drawn-out contest with authoritarian states that is entangling much of public policy with global security issues. In Global Discord, Paul Tucker lays out principles for how democracies can approach relations with China and other illiberal states without sacrificing their deepest political values or recklessly risking their safety. Combining history, economics, and political and legal philosophy, Tucker offers a new account of international relations. Rejecting intellectual traditions going back to Hobbes, Kant and Grotius, and deploying instead ideas from David Hume, Bernard Williams and modern mechanism-design economists, Tucker describes a new kind of political realism that emphasizes power and interests without sidelining morality. Incentives must be aligned with values if institutions are to endure. The connecting tissue for a system of international cooperation, he argues, should be legitimacy, creating a world of concentric circles in which we cooperate more with those with whom we share the most and whom we fear the least. Avoiding wishful thinking about the security of our way of life, and drawing on three decades as a domestic and international policy maker, Tucker applies the book's principles to the international monetary order, including the role of the U.S. dollar, trade and investment regimes, and the global financial system. The event featured a discussion with the author, and a panel of three speakers: Richard Bellamy (Professor of Political Science at UCL), Jeff King (Professor of Law at UCL) and Juliet Samuel (Columnist at The Telegraph). 

FOREBORN - very sweet; he is totally desirable. This is my beloved! This is my companion, O maidens of Jerusalem! It is never worth a first-class man's time to express a majority opinion. By definition, there are plenty of others to do that. Snow, C. P. (1967). Foreword. A Mathematician's Apology. By Hardy, G. H. Cambridge University Press. Then Moses went up on the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain. The glory of the Lord dwelt on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud. Exodus 24:15-16 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” Matthew 17:5 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” Mark 9:7 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!” Luke 9:35 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 2Peter 1:17 1 Corinthians 15:8 ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. One born out of due time—Greek, “the one abortively born”: the abortion in the family of the apostles. As a child born before the due time is puny, and though born alive, yet not of the proper size, and scarcely worthy of the name of man, so “I am the least of the apostles,” scarcely “meet to be called an apostle”; a supernumerary (early 17th century: from late Latin supernumerarius ‘(soldier) added to a legion after it is complete', from Latin super numerum ‘beyond the number'. present in excess of the normal or requisite number. (of a person) not belonging to a regular staff but engaged for extra work. not wanted or needed; redundant. "books were obviously supernumerary, and he began jettisoning them" (of an actor) appearing on stage but not speaking. taken into the college of apostles out of regular course, not led to Christ by long instruction, like a natural birth, but by a sudden power, as those prematurely born [Grotius]. Compare the similar image from childbirth, and by the same spiritual power, the resurrection of Christ (1 Pe 1:3). “Begotten again by the resurrection of Jesus.” Jesus' appearance to Paul, on the way to Damascus, is the one here referred to. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 292. Pluripotent stem cells have unique potential in research and therapy because by definition they have a number of special properties: 1. They have no predetermined program, they are a blankslate 2. They can self-renew indefinitely 3. They can give rise to all the tissues of the body J Exp Clin Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 Mar 9. Published in final edited form as: J Exp Clin Med. 2010 Oct 22; 2(5): 202–217. doi: 10.1016/S1878-3317(10)60033-2 PMCID: PMC3298413 NIHMSID: NIHMS356426 PMID: 22408700 George T.-J. Huang* George T.-J. Huang, Department of Endodontics, Boston University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; * Corresponding author. Department of Endodontics, Boston University School of Dental Medicine, 100 E. Newton Street, Boston, MA 02118, USA. ude.ub@gnauhjtg Glorification | The Final Frontier To Boldly go where only one Man has Gone Before! Decrease time over target:  PayPal or Venmo @clastronaut Cash App $clastronaut

durée : 00:58:45 - Les Cours du Collège de France - par : Merryl Moneghetti - A quelles conditions l'entreprise pourrait-elle devenir un foyer de la démocratie? Demande Alain Supiot. Le juriste explique pourquoi il faut "saisir la notion de fait normatif". Il s'attache à la "généalogie institutionnelle de l'entreprise", à partir de Grotius, Leibnitz, Gierke et Proudhon. Ainsi, de quelle façon le juriste Grotius, au XVIIe siècle a-t-il été l'un des premiers à faire "un usage moderne de la notion de société" et comment a-t-il posé le fondement dogmatique de la globalisation marchande, fondement aujourd'hui repris par la science économique ? Quelles sont les préconisations d'avant-garde du philosophe Leibniz en matière de droit social et quelles sont les longues racines historiques de la divergence entre les manières anglaises et allemandes de concevoir l'entreprise?Enfin, de quelle façon le philosophe politique Proudhon peut-il considérer que le droit est indispensable pour fonder une démocratie économique qui puisse faire contrepoids à la démocratie politique?Fondateur de l'Institut d'Etudes Avancées de Nantes, professeur émérite au Collège de France, titulaire de la chaire État social et mondialisation : analyse juridique des solidarités de (2012-2019), Alain Supiot est membre correspondant de la British Academy.  Il nous entraîne dans une grande réflexion autour des "Figures juridiques de la démocratie économique".Pour la deuxième année de cours, il se penche sur la question de la démocratisation de l'entreprise. Il revient sur les théories juridiques de l'entreprise et sur la généalogie de ces théories. Il nous plonge à la fois dans un passionnant regard rétrospectif à la lumière des  questions d'aujourd'hui, mais aussi dans l'histoire des mots. Alain Supiot rappelle qu' "Aux origines institutionnelles de l'entreprise se trouve l'oikos grec ou la domus romaine, c'est-à-dire la maisonnée comme communauté économique et lignagière, soumise au pouvoir du pater familias. Le patronat est ainsi une notion héritée du droit romain, où le patronus désignait l'ancien maître d'un esclave affranchi, auquel ce dernier demeurait lié par une obligation de respect (obsequium) et de services (operæ), ainsi que par des liens d'obligation alimentaire et successoraux (bona). La sphère de l'oikos, dans son sens originel comme dans le sens moderne de l'oikos- nomos, de l'éco-nomie, constitue ce que Georges Gurvitch appelle un « fait normatif » : son existence est antérieure et à certains égards indépendante de la loi de la cité et de l'hétéronomie de l'état, car elle engendre ses propres normes, elle est auto-nome."Dès lors que nous apprennent Grotius, avocat protestant hollandais, l'un des pères du droit international et Leibniz, philosophe et humaniste allemand des notions de "faits normatifs" et "d'associations économiques capables de s'auto réglementer" et quel est l'apport, au XIXe siècle, de Proudhon à cette généalogie de l'entreprise et du droit social ? Nous gagnons le CDF  le 24 novembre 2017, pour le cours d'Alain Supiot, aujourd'hui, "Faits normatifs, associations économiques et droit social".

In deze aflevering praten we over een beroemde Nederlander: Hugo de Groot, Grotius. Een rechtsgeleerde uit de zeventiende eeuw. Je hoort het verhaal over zijn leven en werk: Mare Liberum. De iure belli ac pacem. Het mediafragment gaat over de kinetisch kunstenaar Willem Weeghel die een expositie heeft in Sint Petersburg. Veel plezier bij deze negenendertigste aflevering van Zeg het in het Nederlands.

In deze aflevering praten we over een beroemde Nederlander: Hugo de Groot, Grotius. Een rechtsgeleerde uit de zeventiende eeuw. Je hoort het verhaal over zijn leven en werk: Mare Liberum. De iure belli ac pacem. Het mediafragment gaat over de kinetisch kunstenaar Willem Weeghel die een expositie heeft in Sint Petersburg. Veel plezier bij deze negenendertigste aflevering van Zeg het in het Nederlands.

Bertolio and Banquist share a dance. Jacob and Eliza make a shocking discovery. Grotius finally gets his time in the limelight. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/104-wpr-metro/support

durée : 00:58:45 - Les Cours du Collège de France - par : Merryl Moneghetti - A quelles conditions l'entreprise pourrait-elle devenir un foyer de la démocratie? Demande Alain Supiot. Le juriste explique pourquoi il faut "saisir la notion de fait normatif". Il s'attache à la "généalogie institutionnelle de l'entreprise", à partir de Grotius, Leibnitz, Gierke et Proudhon. - invités : Alain Supiot Juriste, docteur honoris causae, professeur émérite au Collège de France

Fresh off their victory over Mura, Eliza and Jacob propose a new mission for the show. Later on, when alone, they reminisce about their youth together. Grotius finally makes his shot for the title. Cast: Nicole Lesley--Banquist John Katona--Bertolio Jaden Bianco--Boy Intern Maille-Rose Smith--Caroline Bill Knight--Kay Brock Vickers--Jacob DeGrim Emma Sherr-Ziarko--Eliza Astor Michael Malconian--Grotius the Great --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/104-wpr-metro/support

In a comic aside, Grotius the Great aspires to climb the ladder of 104 WPR Metro. Meanwhile, Jacob is confronted by a mysterious stranger. John Katona: Bertolio Nicole Lesley: Banquist Michael Malconian: Grotius the Great Maille-Rose Smith: Assistant Manager and Alex Vallence Jerry Schultz: Henry Challenger and Mr. M J.D Hock: British Messenger and Radio Announcer Brock Vickers: Jacob DeGrim Studio Audience: Rob Lyke, Alex Bazis, Brendan Nichols, and Jason Hardin Original Music composed and performed by Alex Bazis Special thanks to Dan Pelletier of Cue Zero Theatre Company --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/104-wpr-metro/support

Abraham Calov argued for a unified reading of the Bible and specifically attacked the historical and untheological reading by Grotius.

Tyler and Dorus start another multi-episode series on Theologian and Political Theorist John Milbank's controversial text "Theology and Social Theory". For the first episode, we discuss the construction of the secular through out the work of Hobbes, Grotius and Spinoza and its earlier theological justification in Nominalism and Voluntarism. Members only episodes:https://gumroad.com/l/theopolFollow us on Twitter:https://twitter.com/TylerThammyhttps://twitter.com/theopoliticSupport our work:Ko-fi.com/thamsterwitnatpaypal.me/isidoreroyerhttps://entropystream.live/thamsterwi... Follow us on Telegram:https://t.me/thamsterEBLLinktree:https://linktr.ee/thamster Original Music by:https://soundcloud.com/k-millermusic Intro Video by:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Q5... Thumbnail and graphics by:https://twitter.com/NRxNazBol

A huge thanks to Seth White for the awesome music! Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTd3KlRte86eG9U40ncZ4XA?view_as=subscriber Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ The Internationalists: https://www.amazon.com/Internationalists-Radical-Outlaw-Remade-World/dp/1501109871/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+internationalists&qid=1605837537&sr=8-1 Video Summary of "The Internationalists:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2tfebkUbPo ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Books ReferencedScience and the Good by Hunter and Nedeliskyhttps://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300196283/science-and-goodThe Story of Western Science by Susan Wise Baurer https://www.amazon.com/Story-Western-Science-Writings-Aristotle/dp/1511321091/Quotations and People ReferencedHugo Grotius (1583-1645)They hoped that by insisting on observable evidence to support moral claims, they would offer a way to temper some of the most violent conflagrations of human unsociability” Page 39So he was still a moral realist and thought we just we arrived at morality by studying “what is in accord with the kind of society of rational beings that we all want.” Page 40, Grotius introduced the concept of rights but did not ground them. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)“As he put it, ‘for these words of Good, Evil, and Contemptible, are ever used in relationship to the person that uses them: there being nothing simply an absolutely so; not any common rule of Good and Evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves.' Instead, the moral law is whatever human beings make it to be through consent and convention.” Page 42.Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794)“In the same manner, by analyzing the faculty of experiencing pain and pleasure, men arrived at the origin of their notions of morality, and the foundation of those general principles which form the necessary and immutable laws of justice; and consequently discovered the proper motives of conforming their conduct to those laws, which, being deduced from the nature of our feeling, may not improperly be called our moral constitution.” Page 45David Hume (1711-1776)Hume's empiricism, by contrast, led him to conclude that moral evaluation simply expressed a person‘s feelings and attitudes with respect to a person or situation. Such sentiments were the sum and substance of moral life, and they could never be connected to any objective, mind independent moral order.” Page 52John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)“The creed which accepts as the foundations of morals “utility“ or the “greatest happiness principle“ holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.” Page 61Nietzsche, The Madman, 1882Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov (1879,80)Ivan Karamazov claims that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want.

En este episodio Edgardo Sobenes conversa con el Dr. Fernando Bordin sobre el derecho consuetudinario internacional. Al iniciar el episodio el Dr. Bordin clarifica en términos generales el derecho consuetudinario internacional, sus elementos e importancia en el derecho internacional. Explica de una forma magistral la relación entre la práctica internacional de los Estados y el opinio juris sive necessitatis. Nos aclara el valor de las Resoluciones de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas como expresiones de normas consuetudinarias; nos conversa sobre la figura del ‘objetor persistente’ y la particularidad de la costumbre regional. En una segunda parte del episodio, el Dr. Bordin nos comenta sobre la metodología utilizada por la Corte Internacional de Justicia para determinar la existencia, el contenido y el alcance de las normas del derecho internacional consuetudinario, y sobre el papel de otros órganos judiciales internacionales en la determinación y clarificación de la costumbre internacional.Finaliza el episodio compartiendo sus reflexiones sobre el Borrador de Conclusiones para la Determinación del Derecho Consuetudinario Internacional de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional.Membresía del Podcast https://www.hablemosdi.com/contenido-premiumAcerca del Dr. Fernando L. BordinProfesor de derecho internacional en la Universidad de Cambridge, Thornely Fellow in Law en Sidney Sussex College, y Fellow del Lauterpacht Center for International Law. Su investigación se centra en temas de derecho internacional público, incluida la teoría jurídica internacional, el derecho de las organizaciones internacionales, y la solución de controversias internacionales. Antes de ocupar su puesto en Cambridge, Fernando recibió un LL.B. (con honores) de la Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil), un LL.M. de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Nueva York (donde fue becario Grotius), el Diploma de Derecho Internacional Público de la Academia de Derecho Internacional de La Haya, y un doctorado de la Universidad de Cambridge (por la que recibió el Premio Yorke). Se desempeñó como asistente del profesor Giorgio Gaja en la Comisión de Derecho Internacional en los veranos de 2009 y 2011, y como asistente legal del juez Cançado Trindade en la Corte Internacional de Justicia entre 2009 y 2010. También trabajó como investigador asociado al Prof. James Crawford en 2014, y se desempeñó como Abogado Junior de Mauricio en el Arbitraje del Área Marina Protegida de Chagos (Mauricio contra Reino Unido). Su monografía, The Analogy between States and International Organizations, fue publicada por Cambridge University Press y recibió el Certificado de Mérito 2020 en un Área Especializada de Derecho Internacional de la American Society of International Law.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/hablemosHI)

Grotius was a Dutch lawyer, philosopher, and theologian who made a significant impact on the study of the Old Testament in the 1600s especially with his use of the philosophical concept of moral/natural law.

The Public Schools are Marxist w/ Alex NewmanTim interviews Alex Newman of New American and Epoch Times about the 20th Century creation by the Marxists of “public education,” where American Marxists first pitched the perverse notions of government-run schooling and of curricular schemes to students as young as six years old. This was the re-introduction—now in America— of Marx’s nanny state, wherein mothers work and the state (rather than family) rears 6/7/8-year old kids. Newman shows how expressly anti-Christian the notion was at the time.Also, Tim and Alex discuss the right of rebellion, which came from Aquinas and Bellarmine, only to get transmitted to Protestant thinkers like Grotius, Pufendorf, Buchanan, Rutherford, Sidney, and Locke.Find Alex Newman here:Twitter: @ALEXNEWMAN_JOUhttps://thenewamerican.comhttps://m.theepochtimes.com/author-alex-newman________________________________________________

Lecture summary: Grotius is not generally considered a state theorist, but a theorist and jurist of natural law. But his accounts of natural right, sociability and sovereign power – all building blocks of his carapace of a natural legal order – generate also an exoskeleton of political order that leans upon but is not reducible to the legal order of natural law. As such, Grotius's juristic sensibility and his Roman legal methods, generate not so much a political theory of the state as a set of generative parameters for the conceptualization of the state in which the concrete constitution of state authority is historical and plural, even as it is integrated into a universal legal order. State authority is made possible and accountable under a system of natural legal right, even as its constitution is a historical achievement that should not readily be disturbed and in which a large range of freedom and unfreedom is lawful and should be accepted. Grotius theory of the state holds important lessons and implications for our contemporary world, where over the last 25 years we have grappled constantly with the problem of what a state is, the circumstances under which we might justifiably breach its sovereignty, and the profound difficulties of re-making state orders when they have failed, collapsed or been destroyed by foreign intervention. Professor Nehal Bhuta holds the Chair of Public International Law at University of Edinburgh and is Co-Director of the Edinburgh Centre for International and Global Law. He previously held the Chair of Public International Law at the European University Institute in Florence, where was also Co-Director of the Institute's Academy of European Law. He is a member of the editorial boards of the European Journal of International Law, the Journal of International Criminal Justice, Constellations and a founding editor of the interdisciplinary journal Humanity. He is also a series editor of the Oxford University Press (OUP) series in The History and Theory of International Law. Prior to the EUI he was on the faculty at the New School for Social Research, and at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Before entering academia, he worked with Human Rights Watch and the International Center for Transitional Justice. Nehal’s two most recent edited volumes are Freedom of Religion, Secularism and Human Rights (OUP) and Autonomous Weapons Systems - Law, Ethics, Policy (Cambridge University Press with Beck, Geiss, Liu and Kress). Nehal works on a wide range of doctrinal, historical and theoretical issues in international law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and human rights law. He is about to start work as a General Editor (with Anthony Pagden and Mira Siegelberg) of The Cambridge History of Rights (5 volumes).

Lecture summary: Grotius is not generally considered a state theorist, but a theorist and jurist of natural law. But his accounts of natural right, sociability and sovereign power – all building blocks of his carapace of a natural legal order – generate also an exoskeleton of political order that leans upon but is not reducible to the legal order of natural law. As such, Grotius's juristic sensibility and his Roman legal methods, generate not so much a political theory of the state as a set of generative parameters for the conceptualization of the state in which the concrete constitution of state authority is historical and plural, even as it is integrated into a universal legal order. State authority is made possible and accountable under a system of natural legal right, even as its constitution is a historical achievement that should not readily be disturbed and in which a large range of freedom and unfreedom is lawful and should be accepted. Grotius theory of the state holds important lessons and implications for our contemporary world, where over the last 25 years we have grappled constantly with the problem of what a state is, the circumstances under which we might justifiably breach its sovereignty, and the profound difficulties of re-making state orders when they have failed, collapsed or been destroyed by foreign intervention. Professor Nehal Bhuta holds the Chair of Public International Law at University of Edinburgh and is Co-Director of the Edinburgh Centre for International and Global Law. He previously held the Chair of Public International Law at the European University Institute in Florence, where was also Co-Director of the Institute's Academy of European Law. He is a member of the editorial boards of the European Journal of International Law, the Journal of International Criminal Justice, Constellations and a founding editor of the interdisciplinary journal Humanity. He is also a series editor of the Oxford University Press (OUP) series in The History and Theory of International Law. Prior to the EUI he was on the faculty at the New School for Social Research, and at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Before entering academia, he worked with Human Rights Watch and the International Center for Transitional Justice. Nehal’s two most recent edited volumes are Freedom of Religion, Secularism and Human Rights (OUP) and Autonomous Weapons Systems - Law, Ethics, Policy (Cambridge University Press with Beck, Geiss, Liu and Kress). Nehal works on a wide range of doctrinal, historical and theoretical issues in international law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and human rights law. He is about to start work as a General Editor (with Anthony Pagden and Mira Siegelberg) of The Cambridge History of Rights (5 volumes).

De afgelopen vier gesprekken over vrijheid bevielen ons eigenlijk zo goed, dat we een bonusgesprek wel zagen zitten. Onze vijfde, en nu echt laatste, gast is de Iranese Zohreh Salim Arooni (54). Zohreh vlucht in 1992 van Iran naar Nederland, en komt vrijwel meteen in Groningen terecht. Ze vertrekt niet meer uit Stad. Ze is tegenwoordig docent aan de Academie voor Verpleegkunde en Sociale studies. In 2017 studeert ze af als Master of Healthy Ageing met een scriptie over het bevorderen van health literacy bij vluchtelingen. Ze is moeder van drie kinderen.  Dit jaar vieren we 75 jaar vrijheid. HanzeMag maakt samen met hans, het cultuur- en debatcentrum van de Hanzehogeschool, een speciale serie van vier podcasts over vrijheid. Wat betekent vrijheid voor vluchtelingen? De podcasts zijn een initiatief van Grotius, een programma van de Hanzehogeschool voor statushouders met een vluchtelingenachtergrond die willen gaan studeren in het hoger onderwijs. De afleveringen zijn te beluisteren op 14, 21, 28 april en 5 mei (en een bonusaflevering op 12 mei) op YouTube, Spotify en Podbean.  Elke week interviewen we een andere gast. In de podcasts vertellen zij wat vrijheid voor hen betekent. Wat heeft hen doen besluiten hun vaderland te verlaten en hoe ervaren zij vrijheid in Nederland? Alle gasten zijn op een verschillende manier verbonden aan de Hanzehogeschool. Bijvoorbeeld als (voormalig) Grotiusstudent, als lid van de raad van toezicht, of een opleidingen volgen of lesgeven.  

Dit jaar vieren we 75 jaar vrijheid. HanzeMag maakt samen met hans, het cultuur- en debatcentrum van de Hanzehogeschool, een speciale serie van vier podcasts over vrijheid. Wat betekent vrijheid voor vluchtelingen? De podcasts zijn een initiatief van Grotius, een programma van de Hanzehogeschool voor statushouders met een vluchtelingenachtergrond die willen gaan studeren in het hoger onderwijs. De afleveringen zijn te beluisteren op 14, 21, 28 april en 5 mei op YouTube, Spotify en Podbean. Elke week interviewen we een andere gast. In de podcasts vertellen zij wat vrijheid voor hen betekent. Wat heeft hen doen besluiten hun vaderland te verlaten en hoe ervaren zij vrijheid in Nederland? Alle gasten zijn op een verschillende manier verbonden aan de Hanzehogeschool. Bijvoorbeeld als (voormalig) Grotiusstudent, als lid van de raad van toezicht, of een opleidingen volgen of lesgeven. Onze vierde gast is Yonas Tewelde uit Eritrea. In 1990 besluit hij het land te ontvluchten, een jaar later komt hij in Nederland terecht. Hier volgt hij een opleiding tot Psychiatrisch Verpleegkundige en GGZ Verpleegkundig Specialist. Daarna doet hij een post-hbo Bedrijfskunde bij HanzeConnect en rondt een Master of Science Bedrijfskunde af aan de Rijksuniversiteit van Groningen. Nu is hij de directeur Algemene Zaken en lid van de directieraad van Lentis, de organisatie voor geestelijke gezondheidszorg, forensische gezondheidszorg en ouderenzorg in de provincies Groningen, Drenthe en Friesland. Daarnaast is hij lid van de Raad van Toezicht van de Hanzehogeschool en van Stichting Vluchtelingenwerk Noord-Nederland.  

Dit jaar vieren we 75 jaar vrijheid. HanzeMag maakt samen met hans, het cultuur- en debatcentrum van de Hanzehogeschool, een speciale serie van vier podcasts over vrijheid. Wat betekent vrijheid voor vluchtelingen? De podcasts zijn een initiatief van Grotius, een programma van de Hanzehogeschool voor statushouders met een vluchtelingenachtergrond die willen gaan studeren in het hoger onderwijs. De afleveringen zijn te beluisteren op 14, 21, 28 april en 5 mei op YouTube, Spotify en Podbean. Elke week interviewen we een andere gast. In de podcasts vertellen zij wat vrijheid voor hen betekent. Wat heeft hen doen besluiten hun vaderland te verlaten en hoe ervaren zij vrijheid in Nederland? Alle gasten zijn op een verschillende manier verbonden aan de Hanzehogeschool. Bijvoorbeeld als (voormalig) Grotiusstudent, als lid van de raad van toezicht, of een opleidingen volgen of lesgeven. Onze derde gast is Aram Asatrian (38) uit Armenië, die in 2006 met zijn moeder naar Nederland vluchtte om politieke en gezondheidsredenen. In Nederland moet hij enkele jaren wachten op een niertransplantatie, die uiteindelijk plaatsvindt in 2010. Na zijn niertransplantatie zet Aram zich in als vrijwilliger bij Diacatra (regionale nierpatiëntenvereniging), daar is hij nu bestuurslid. Naast zijn vrijwilligerswerk begint Aram ook met studeren. Dankzij UAF (Stichting voor Vluchteling-Studenten) kan hij een voorbereidend jaar doen bij het Alfa-college. Daarna volgt hij het Grotius Programma. Dit opent voor hem de deuren om te studeren aan de Hanzehogeschool, hij stroomt door naar de opleiding Social Work, de opleiding die hij nu volgt. Naast zijn studie werkt hij nog altijd bij Diacatra.

Dit jaar vieren we 75 jaar vrijheid. HanzeMag maakt samen met hans, het cultuur en debatcentrum van de Hanzehogeschool, een speciale serie van vier podcasts over vrijheid. Wat betekent vrijheid voor vluchtelingen? De podcasts zijn een initiatief van Grotius, een programma van de Hanzehogeschool voor statushouders met een vluchtelingenachtergrond die willen gaan studeren in het hoger onderwijs. De afleveringen zijn te beluisteren op 14, 21, 28 april en 5 mei op YouTube, Spotify en Podbean. Elke week interviewen we een andere gast. In de podcasts vertellen zij wat vrijheid voor hen betekent. Wat heeft hen doen besluiten hun vaderland te verlaten en hoe ervaren zij vrijheid in Nederland? Alle gasten zijn op een verschillende manier verbonden aan de Hanzehogeschool. Bijvoorbeeld als (voormalig) Grotiusstudent, als lid van de raad van toezicht, of een opleidingen volgen of lesgeven. Onze tweede gast is Clarisse Mema Bunduki (36) uit de Democratische Republiek van Congo. Na een opleiding Business Administration werkt ze vijf jaar lang voor verschillende mensenrechtenorganisaties in Congo, maar ook daarbuiten in Burundi, Rwanda, Oeganda en Kenia. Ze zet zich daarbij vooral in om mensen te informeren over vrouwenrechten. In april 2016 komt ze naar Nederland met de hulp van Justice and Peace, een organisatie die mensenrechtenactivisten helpt die door hun werk worden bedreigd en niet langer in eigen land kunnen blijven. Inmiddels woont ze in Delfzijl bij familie. Ze wil verder studeren. Ze heeft het Grotiusprogramma gevolgd en is op dit moment bezig met Nederlandse les (NT2 II Examen). Uiteindelijk wil ze graag in de zorg werken.

Dit jaar vieren we 75 jaar vrijheid. HanzeMag maakt samen met hans, het cultuur en debatcentrum van de Hanzehogeschool, een speciale serie van vier podcasts over vrijheid. Wat betekent vrijheid voor vluchtelingen? De podcasts zijn een initiatief van Grotius, een programma van de Hanzehogeschool voor statushouders met een vluchtelingenachtergrond die willen gaan studeren in het hoger onderwijs. De afleveringen zijn te beluisteren op 14, 21, 28 april en 5 mei op YouTube, Spotify en Podbean. Elke week interviewen we een andere gast. In de podcasts vertellen zij wat vrijheid voor hen betekent. Wat heeft hen doen besluiten hun vaderland te verlaten en hoe ervaren zij vrijheid in Nederland? Alle gasten zijn op een verschillende manier verbonden aan de Hanzehogeschool. Bijvoorbeeld als (voormalig) Grotiusstudent, als lid van de raad van toezicht, als student, of als docent. Onze eerste gast is de Armeense Alla Galstyan (42). Eind jaren negentig wordt Armenië haar te onveilig. Van jongs af aan heeft ze een grote behoefte aan vrijheid en als dit door het gebrek aan veiligheid in haar thuisland in het gedrang komt, besluit ze een veilige plek ergens anders te zoeken, waar ze samen met haar dochter een toekomst op kan bouwen. Nederland is in eerste instantie geen doel op zich, maar in 1998 komt ze hier toch terecht. Ze volgt de bachelor Verpleegkunde en de Master of Social Work aan de Hanzehogeschool. Inmiddels werkt ze als docent aan de Hanzehogeschool en is ze als docent verbonden aan het Grotius Programma.  

Murad Idris, a political theorist in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, explores the concept of peace, the term itself and the way that it has been considered and analyzed in western and Islamic political thought. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2018) traces the concept of peace, and the way it is often insinuated with other words and concepts, over more than 2000 years of political thought. Idris begins with Plato’s Laws as one of the early sources to consider the tension that seems to be constant in terms of the pursuit of violence in order to attain peace. War for Peace provides some important framing in thinking about peace, in large measure because the research indicates how rare it is for peace itself to be solitary, it is almost always lassoed to other words and concepts, and functions either as a binary opposition (e.g.: war and peace) or as part of a dyad combination (e.g.: peace and justice). We are urged to think about peace and the valence that is given to the word and the ideal—since the moral and the political understandings of peace are often entangled and part of what Idris is doing in his careful and thoughtful research is to tease out the political concept, apart from the often religious and moral ideal. This rich and complex analysis integrates a broad group of theorists—Plato, al-Farabi, Aquinas, Erasmus, Gentili, Grotius, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, Kant, and Sayyid Qutb)—all of whom were examining the role of peace within politics and political thought. And Idris structures these thinkers into chronological and theoretical groupings, to explore the ways in which they were responding to each other, across time, but also to understand how different thinkers were connecting peace to other concepts. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought may leave the reader anxious but also enlightened in considering this idea and its perplexing place within the history of political thought. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Murad Idris, a political theorist in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, explores the concept of peace, the term itself and the way that it has been considered and analyzed in western and Islamic political thought. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2018) traces the concept of peace, and the way it is often insinuated with other words and concepts, over more than 2000 years of political thought. Idris begins with Plato’s Laws as one of the early sources to consider the tension that seems to be constant in terms of the pursuit of violence in order to attain peace. War for Peace provides some important framing in thinking about peace, in large measure because the research indicates how rare it is for peace itself to be solitary, it is almost always lassoed to other words and concepts, and functions either as a binary opposition (e.g.: war and peace) or as part of a dyad combination (e.g.: peace and justice). We are urged to think about peace and the valence that is given to the word and the ideal—since the moral and the political understandings of peace are often entangled and part of what Idris is doing in his careful and thoughtful research is to tease out the political concept, apart from the often religious and moral ideal. This rich and complex analysis integrates a broad group of theorists—Plato, al-Farabi, Aquinas, Erasmus, Gentili, Grotius, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, Kant, and Sayyid Qutb)—all of whom were examining the role of peace within politics and political thought. And Idris structures these thinkers into chronological and theoretical groupings, to explore the ways in which they were responding to each other, across time, but also to understand how different thinkers were connecting peace to other concepts. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought may leave the reader anxious but also enlightened in considering this idea and its perplexing place within the history of political thought. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Murad Idris, a political theorist in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, explores the concept of peace, the term itself and the way that it has been considered and analyzed in western and Islamic political thought. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2018) traces the concept of peace, and the way it is often insinuated with other words and concepts, over more than 2000 years of political thought. Idris begins with Plato’s Laws as one of the early sources to consider the tension that seems to be constant in terms of the pursuit of violence in order to attain peace. War for Peace provides some important framing in thinking about peace, in large measure because the research indicates how rare it is for peace itself to be solitary, it is almost always lassoed to other words and concepts, and functions either as a binary opposition (e.g.: war and peace) or as part of a dyad combination (e.g.: peace and justice). We are urged to think about peace and the valence that is given to the word and the ideal—since the moral and the political understandings of peace are often entangled and part of what Idris is doing in his careful and thoughtful research is to tease out the political concept, apart from the often religious and moral ideal. This rich and complex analysis integrates a broad group of theorists—Plato, al-Farabi, Aquinas, Erasmus, Gentili, Grotius, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, Kant, and Sayyid Qutb)—all of whom were examining the role of peace within politics and political thought. And Idris structures these thinkers into chronological and theoretical groupings, to explore the ways in which they were responding to each other, across time, but also to understand how different thinkers were connecting peace to other concepts. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought may leave the reader anxious but also enlightened in considering this idea and its perplexing place within the history of political thought. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Murad Idris, a political theorist in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, explores the concept of peace, the term itself and the way that it has been considered and analyzed in western and Islamic political thought. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2018) traces the concept of peace, and the way it is often insinuated with other words and concepts, over more than 2000 years of political thought. Idris begins with Plato’s Laws as one of the early sources to consider the tension that seems to be constant in terms of the pursuit of violence in order to attain peace. War for Peace provides some important framing in thinking about peace, in large measure because the research indicates how rare it is for peace itself to be solitary, it is almost always lassoed to other words and concepts, and functions either as a binary opposition (e.g.: war and peace) or as part of a dyad combination (e.g.: peace and justice). We are urged to think about peace and the valence that is given to the word and the ideal—since the moral and the political understandings of peace are often entangled and part of what Idris is doing in his careful and thoughtful research is to tease out the political concept, apart from the often religious and moral ideal. This rich and complex analysis integrates a broad group of theorists—Plato, al-Farabi, Aquinas, Erasmus, Gentili, Grotius, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, Kant, and Sayyid Qutb)—all of whom were examining the role of peace within politics and political thought. And Idris structures these thinkers into chronological and theoretical groupings, to explore the ways in which they were responding to each other, across time, but also to understand how different thinkers were connecting peace to other concepts. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought may leave the reader anxious but also enlightened in considering this idea and its perplexing place within the history of political thought. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Murad Idris, a political theorist in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, explores the concept of peace, the term itself and the way that it has been considered and analyzed in western and Islamic political thought. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2018) traces the concept of peace, and the way it is often insinuated with other words and concepts, over more than 2000 years of political thought. Idris begins with Plato's Laws as one of the early sources to consider the tension that seems to be constant in terms of the pursuit of violence in order to attain peace. War for Peace provides some important framing in thinking about peace, in large measure because the research indicates how rare it is for peace itself to be solitary, it is almost always lassoed to other words and concepts, and functions either as a binary opposition (e.g.: war and peace) or as part of a dyad combination (e.g.: peace and justice). We are urged to think about peace and the valence that is given to the word and the ideal—since the moral and the political understandings of peace are often entangled and part of what Idris is doing in his careful and thoughtful research is to tease out the political concept, apart from the often religious and moral ideal. This rich and complex analysis integrates a broad group of theorists—Plato, al-Farabi, Aquinas, Erasmus, Gentili, Grotius, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, Kant, and Sayyid Qutb)—all of whom were examining the role of peace within politics and political thought. And Idris structures these thinkers into chronological and theoretical groupings, to explore the ways in which they were responding to each other, across time, but also to understand how different thinkers were connecting peace to other concepts. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought may leave the reader anxious but also enlightened in considering this idea and its perplexing place within the history of political thought. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015).

Murad Idris, a political theorist in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, explores the concept of peace, the term itself and the way that it has been considered and analyzed in western and Islamic political thought. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2018) traces the concept of peace, and the way it is often insinuated with other words and concepts, over more than 2000 years of political thought. Idris begins with Plato’s Laws as one of the early sources to consider the tension that seems to be constant in terms of the pursuit of violence in order to attain peace. War for Peace provides some important framing in thinking about peace, in large measure because the research indicates how rare it is for peace itself to be solitary, it is almost always lassoed to other words and concepts, and functions either as a binary opposition (e.g.: war and peace) or as part of a dyad combination (e.g.: peace and justice). We are urged to think about peace and the valence that is given to the word and the ideal—since the moral and the political understandings of peace are often entangled and part of what Idris is doing in his careful and thoughtful research is to tease out the political concept, apart from the often religious and moral ideal. This rich and complex analysis integrates a broad group of theorists—Plato, al-Farabi, Aquinas, Erasmus, Gentili, Grotius, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, Kant, and Sayyid Qutb)—all of whom were examining the role of peace within politics and political thought. And Idris structures these thinkers into chronological and theoretical groupings, to explore the ways in which they were responding to each other, across time, but also to understand how different thinkers were connecting peace to other concepts. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought may leave the reader anxious but also enlightened in considering this idea and its perplexing place within the history of political thought. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Murad Idris, a political theorist in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, explores the concept of peace, the term itself and the way that it has been considered and analyzed in western and Islamic political thought. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2018) traces the concept of peace, and the way it is often insinuated with other words and concepts, over more than 2000 years of political thought. Idris begins with Plato’s Laws as one of the early sources to consider the tension that seems to be constant in terms of the pursuit of violence in order to attain peace. War for Peace provides some important framing in thinking about peace, in large measure because the research indicates how rare it is for peace itself to be solitary, it is almost always lassoed to other words and concepts, and functions either as a binary opposition (e.g.: war and peace) or as part of a dyad combination (e.g.: peace and justice). We are urged to think about peace and the valence that is given to the word and the ideal—since the moral and the political understandings of peace are often entangled and part of what Idris is doing in his careful and thoughtful research is to tease out the political concept, apart from the often religious and moral ideal. This rich and complex analysis integrates a broad group of theorists—Plato, al-Farabi, Aquinas, Erasmus, Gentili, Grotius, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, Kant, and Sayyid Qutb)—all of whom were examining the role of peace within politics and political thought. And Idris structures these thinkers into chronological and theoretical groupings, to explore the ways in which they were responding to each other, across time, but also to understand how different thinkers were connecting peace to other concepts. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought may leave the reader anxious but also enlightened in considering this idea and its perplexing place within the history of political thought. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Murad Idris, a political theorist in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, explores the concept of peace, the term itself and the way that it has been considered and analyzed in western and Islamic political thought. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2018) traces the concept of peace, and the way it is often insinuated with other words and concepts, over more than 2000 years of political thought. Idris begins with Plato’s Laws as one of the early sources to consider the tension that seems to be constant in terms of the pursuit of violence in order to attain peace. War for Peace provides some important framing in thinking about peace, in large measure because the research indicates how rare it is for peace itself to be solitary, it is almost always lassoed to other words and concepts, and functions either as a binary opposition (e.g.: war and peace) or as part of a dyad combination (e.g.: peace and justice). We are urged to think about peace and the valence that is given to the word and the ideal—since the moral and the political understandings of peace are often entangled and part of what Idris is doing in his careful and thoughtful research is to tease out the political concept, apart from the often religious and moral ideal. This rich and complex analysis integrates a broad group of theorists—Plato, al-Farabi, Aquinas, Erasmus, Gentili, Grotius, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, Kant, and Sayyid Qutb)—all of whom were examining the role of peace within politics and political thought. And Idris structures these thinkers into chronological and theoretical groupings, to explore the ways in which they were responding to each other, across time, but also to understand how different thinkers were connecting peace to other concepts. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought may leave the reader anxious but also enlightened in considering this idea and its perplexing place within the history of political thought. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Murad Idris, a political theorist in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, explores the concept of peace, the term itself and the way that it has been considered and analyzed in western and Islamic political thought. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2018) traces the concept of peace, and the way it is often insinuated with other words and concepts, over more than 2000 years of political thought. Idris begins with Plato’s Laws as one of the early sources to consider the tension that seems to be constant in terms of the pursuit of violence in order to attain peace. War for Peace provides some important framing in thinking about peace, in large measure because the research indicates how rare it is for peace itself to be solitary, it is almost always lassoed to other words and concepts, and functions either as a binary opposition (e.g.: war and peace) or as part of a dyad combination (e.g.: peace and justice). We are urged to think about peace and the valence that is given to the word and the ideal—since the moral and the political understandings of peace are often entangled and part of what Idris is doing in his careful and thoughtful research is to tease out the political concept, apart from the often religious and moral ideal. This rich and complex analysis integrates a broad group of theorists—Plato, al-Farabi, Aquinas, Erasmus, Gentili, Grotius, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, Kant, and Sayyid Qutb)—all of whom were examining the role of peace within politics and political thought. And Idris structures these thinkers into chronological and theoretical groupings, to explore the ways in which they were responding to each other, across time, but also to understand how different thinkers were connecting peace to other concepts. War for Peace: Genealogies of a Violent Ideal in Western and Islamic Thought may leave the reader anxious but also enlightened in considering this idea and its perplexing place within the history of political thought. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's reading is Genesis 6, Ezra 6, Matthew 6, and Acts 6. It may be that our focus reading for the day should continue in Matthew 6, because Jesus' teaching there is so majestic and beautiful that no passage should really overshadow it. If you will indulge me a bit, we will return to Matthew tomorrow for our focus, but today - we are going to discuss the Genesis passage. Genesis 6 has long been one of my favorite passages in the Bible. It is fascinating, scary, and very, very mysterious. I wrote a book last year called Angels, Ghosts and other Bible Mysteries (on Amazon) that is very focused on many of the mysteries that are brought up in this passage. If you like this discussion, you will probably enjoy that book. If not, then skip the book! Before we get to the question and answer section, however, let's mine some spiritual gold from this passage. Here is a powerful and encouraging word from our friend and mentor, Charles Spurgeon: My brethren, how displeased the great God has been with men. He said that it repented him that he had made men upon the earth. That was a striking expression which is used in Genesis 6:6: “It grieved him at his heart.” He seemed to grow so weary of man's wanton wickedness that he was sorry that he ever made beings capable of so much evil. Yet he is so well content with his beloved Son, who has assumed our nature, that we read of him, “The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake: he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.” (Is. 42:21). The Lord looks down upon those who are in Christ with an intense affection, and loves them even as he loves the Son, for that is the meaning of this word, “In whom I am well pleased.” All who are in Christ Jesus are pleasing to God; yea, God in Christ looks with divine satisfaction upon all those who trust his Son: he is not only pleased, but well pleased. If you are pleased with Jesus, God is pleased with you: if you are in the Son, then you are in the Father's good pleasure C. H. Spurgeon, “The Voice from the Cloud and the Voice of the Beloved,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 29 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1883), 355–356. I would say that Genesis 6 presents us with one of the top five mysteries in the Bible - especially if you read it in the King James Version! Check this out: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6;1-4, King James Version SO MANY QUESTIONS! What is going on here? Are angelic beings having relations with human women (apparently...) were the offspring of those unions giants (maybe...but that's not the best translation.) did God send the flood because heavenly beings and earthly beings were having relationships?! These are all tough questions and likely too big for our short little podcast to cover, but I'll try to at least give a short answer to some of them. (maybe we'll do a special episode on this chapter at some point) Question #1: Are heavenly beings in Genesis 6 actually having children with human females? The answer to this question depends on who, exactly, the "sons of God" are in Genesis 6. There are three main theories. The first is that they are powerful men and leaders that were human - maybe significantly above average humans. Think body-builders, great/tall athletes, charismatic politicians, etc. Theory #2 is that these 'sons of God' are descendants of Seth, thus making the 'daughters of men,' primarily descendants of Cain. This theory is the one I have heard most at seminary and in academic circles. Theory #3 is that 'sons of God' are some type of heavenly creature - an angel, or something like an angel. I personally see no grammatical or historical evidence of theory #1. All of the sudden these guys realized that human females were beautiful (vs. 2)? This theory doesn't seem to fit the context of the verse very well, and theory #2 even less so. There is literally NOWHERE in Scripture that suggests that the daughters of men were of the line of Cain and the sons of God were of the line of Seth. Seth is mentioned ten times in the Bible, and only twice after Genesis 5. (Once in a genealogy in Luke and in 1st Chronicles) Cain is mentioned only 3 times after Genesis 5, and all three times are in the New Testament, and do not discuss his descendants at all, but only his murder and his wrong-offering. Genesis six mentions neither Cain nor Abel, so this theory - and it is a popular one - simply has no biblical support whatsoever that I can find. Which brings us to theory #3 - the sons of God are some type of heavenly creature. Believe it or not, this theory has the most textual support by far. The phrase 'sons of God,' occurs three times outside of Genesis in the Old Testament. All three times are in the book of Job, and all three times are clearly speaking of heavenly creatures - angels, or something like angels. That is a strong bit of evidence in favor of viewing these sons of God as Heavenly beings. Vs. 2 is also strong contextual evidence in favor of theory 3. Consider this verse, "The sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful." if that verse is simply talking about human males, the descendants of Seth, or whomever, then it is a strange, strange passage. Did it really take hundreds (or thousands!) of years for human males to realize that human females were beautiful? Frankly, I think that is silly. I believe the biblical text is pointing us to theory #3 that these beings were heavenly. One more bit of evidence, and this evidence is weak, but worth noting. The Book of Enoch is not a biblical book, and was not written by the Enoch spoken of in Genesis. It was not canonical, and I do not believe it to be inspired. It is, however, a very old book and it was read by people in the early church, and many early church fathers. Scholars' best guess is that the book of Enoch dates to around 100-300 years before the birth of Jesus, though some sections could be older. That book is very, very clear about who the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 were. Listen to this!  Book of Enoch –  Enoch 15: And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: 'Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: "You should intercede" for men, and not men for you: Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die 5 and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. [As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them. One objection that many have to theory #3 is from Matthew 22:30, " 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven." I do not believe this objection holds much water for two reasons: #1 Genesis 6 seems to be talking about intimate relations and not necessarily marriage. It is possible to have relations and not be married. #2, Jesus specifically mentions "angels in Heaven," and Genesis 6 is quite obviously dealing with beings that are on earth. Perhaps angels in Heaven do not marry, but the beings in Genesis 6, be they human or angels are not at all in Heaven, and don't seem to be concerned with the rules of Heaven. Another objection might say that Heavenly beings are without gender, but I don't see that in Scripture either. There are Heavenly beings in Zechariah 5 that are female (not necessarily angels) and the Heavenly beings in Genesis 18 are clearly male. Can heavenly beings procreate? The only bit of biblical evidence in favor of that possibility would seem to be here in Genesis 6 and I see nothing anywhere else that gives me the idea that they are incapable of such things. Question #2: Is Genesis 6 telling us that giants used to exist on the earth? Not necessarily - the Hebrew word there is the word Nephilim. It is a difficult word to translate because it only appears in one - or two - other places in the entire Old Testament. Reference #1 is from Numbers 13 and is probably where the King James translators got the inspiration to use the word, "giant." 30 Then Caleb quieted the people in the presence of Moses and said, “Let's go up now and take possession of the land because we can certainly conquer it!”31 But the men who had gone up with him responded, “We can't attack the people because they are stronger than we are!” 32 So they gave a negative report to the Israelites about the land they had scouted: “The land we passed through to explore is one that devours its inhabitants, and all the people we saw in it are men of great size. 33 We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim! To ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and we must have seemed the same to them.” Numbers 13:30-34 So - these Nephilim are clearly quite big and impressive...but are they giants? I live in Salinas, California - about an hour from where the Golden State Warriors play basketball. If I went over to practice one day, and somehow, someway got a chance to shoot around with those guys, I'd probably come home and tell my family that I felt like a grasshopper. I'm 6'1, but compared to Kevin Looney (6 feet, 9 inches) or Willie Cauley-Stein (7 feet!) I'm quite short. I believe that these Nephilim were the offspring of heavenly beings and human females, so it is certainly possible that they possessed traits that were above human capability, but we just can't be sure about their size at all, beyond saying that they were likely significantly larger than the Hebrews. Question #3: Did God flood the earth because of human-angelic relationships? If definitely seems like there is a subtle relationship between God flooding the world and whatever was going on with these sons of God and daughters of men. Could 2nd Peter 2 be giving us a clue about this? 4 For if God didn't spare the angels who sinned but cast them into hell and delivered them in chains of utter darkness to be kept for judgment; 5 and if he didn't spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when he brought the flood on the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5 That passage is quite interesting, but also fairly obscure. I'm not sure we should build a lot of theology on it. The fact is, however, that the first part Genesis 6 seems to indicate that the sins of humans grieved God in the context of the flood. 5 When the Lord saw that human wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every inclination of the human mind was nothing but evil all the time, 6 the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth,and he was deeply grieved. 7 Then the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I created, off the face of the earth, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them.” 8 Noah, however, found favor with the Lord.... Genesis 6:5-8 The second part of Genesis 6, however, seems to make room for more than humans to be involved in the judgment. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with wickedness. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth was, for every creature had corrupted its way on the earth. 13 Then God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to every creature, for the earth is filled with wickedness because of them; therefore I am going to destroy them along with the earth. Genesis 6:11-13 So, my conclusion to the question is a weak 'maybe.' If the sons of God are indeed heavenly beings, as I suspect they are, it would appear that their dalliance with human females had at least a small part to play in the flooding of the earth. We might go too far past the text if we say much more than that. I'll close with the conclusions of Jonathan Edwards - probably American's foremost theologian - on the question of the giants/nephilim: “And there were giants in the earth in those days,” etc. “Pausanias, in his Laconics, mentions the bones of men of a more than ordinary bigness, which were shown in the temple of Aesculapius at the city of Asepus; and in the first of his Eliacs, of a bone taken out of the sea, which aforetime was kept at Pisa, and thought to have been one of Peleps'. Philostratus, in the beginning of his Heroics, [says] that many bodies of giants were discovered in Pallene, by showers of rain and earthquakes. Pliny, Bk. 7, ch. 16, says, ‘That upon the bursting of a mountain in Crete, there was found a body standing upright, which was reported by some to have been the body of Orion, by others, the body of Eetion. Orestes' body, when it was commanded by the oracle to be digged up, is reported to have been seven cubits. And almost a thousand years ago, the poet Homer continually complained, that men's bodies were less than of old.' And Solinus, ch. I, ‘Were not all that were born in that age, less than their parents?' And the story of Orestes' funeral testifies the bigness of the ancients, whose bones, when they were digged up, in the 58th Olympiad at Tegea, by the advice of the oracle, are related to have been seven cubits in length. And other writings, which give a credible relation of ancient matters, affirm this, that in the war of Crete, when the rivers had been so high as to overflow and break down their banks, after the flood was abated, upon the cleaving of the earth, there was found a human body of three and thirty foot long, which L. Flaccus, the legate, and Metellus himself, being very desirous of seeing, were much surprised to have the satisfaction of seeing, what they did not believe when they heard.” Grotius, De Veritate, Bk. 1, sec. 16, notes. “Josephus, Bk. 5, ch. 2, of his ancient history. ‘There remains to this day some of the race of the giants, who by reason of the bulk and figure of their bodies, so different from other men, are wonderful to see, or hear of. Their bones are now shown, far exceeding the belief of the vulgar.' Gabinius, in his history of Mauritania, said that Antaeus' bones were found by Sertorius, which, joined together, were sixty cubits long. Phlegon Trallianus, in his 9th chapter of Wonders, mentions the digging up [of] the head of Ida, which was three times as big as that of an ordinary woman. And he adds also, that there were many bodies found in Dalmatia, whose arms exceeded sixteen cubits. And the same man relates out of Theopompus, that there were found in the Cimmerian Bosphorus, a company of human bones twenty-four cubits in length.” Le Clerc's notes on Grotius, De Veritate, Bk. 1, sec. 16. “We almost everywhere in the Greek and Latin historians meet with the savage life of the giants, mentioned by Moses. In the Greek, as Homer, Iliad 9, and Hesiod in his Labors. To this may be referred the wars of the gods, mentioned by Plato in his Second Republic, and those distinct and separate governments, taken notice of by the same Plato, in his third book of Laws. And as to the Latin historians, see the first book of Ovid's Metamorphosis, and the 4th book of Lucan, and Seneca's third book of Natural Questions, Ques. 30, where he says concerning the deluge, ‘That the beasts also perished, into whose nature men were degenerated.' ” Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture, ed. Harry S. Stout and Stephen J. Stein, vol. 15, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 506–508. By the way, Augustine - writing all the way back in the 300s! Makes a case contra the above, and believes that the sons of God were merely men. His reasoning is that there are at least two men in the Bible that are designated as angels/messengers that were obviously human, and that is likely what is going on here too. I respect and admire Augustine, but disagree with him here, noting that "sons of God" does not, of necessity, equate to angels. WHETHER WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT ANGELS, WHO ARE OF A SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE, FELL IN LOVE WITH THE BEAUTY OF WOMEN, AND SOUGHT THEM IN MARRIAGE, AND THAT FROM THIS CONNECTION GIANTS WERE BORN In the third book of this work (c. 5) we made a passing reference to this question, but did not decide whether angels, inasmuch as they are spirits, could have bodily intercourse with women. For it is written, “Who maketh His angels spirits,”4 that is, He makes those who are by nature spirits His angels by appointing them to the duty of bearing His messages. For the Greek word ἄγγελος, which in Latin appears as “angelus,” means a messenger. But whether the Psalmist speaks of their bodies when he adds, “and His ministers a flaming fire,” or means that God's ministers ought to blaze with love as with a spiritual fire, is doubtful. However, the same trustworthy Scripture testifies that angels have appeared to men in such bodies as could not only be seen, but also touched. There is, too, a very general rumor, which many have verified by their own experience, or which trustworthy persons who have heard the experience of others corroborate, that sylvans and fauns, who are commonly called “incubi,” had often made wicked assaults upon women, and satisfied their lust upon them; and that certain devils, called Duses by the Gauls, are constantly attempting and effecting this impurity is so generally affirmed, that it were impudent to deny it.5 From these assertions, indeed, I dare not determine whether there be some spirits embodied in an aerial substance (for this element, even when agitated by a fan, is sensibly felt by the body), and who are capable of lust and of mingling sensibly with women; but certainly I could by no means believe that God's holy angels could at that time have so fallen, nor can I think that it is of them the Apostle Peter said, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”1 I think he rather speaks of these who first apostatized from God, along with their chief the devil, who enviously deceived the first man under the form of a serpent. But the same holy Scripture affords the most ample testimony that even godly man have been called angels; for of John it is written: “Behold, I send my messenger (angel) before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way.”2 And the prophet Malachi, by a peculiar grace specially communicated to him, was called an angel.3 But some are moved by the fact that we have read that the fruit of the connection between those who are called angels of God and the women they loved were not men like our own breed, but giants; just as if there were not born even in our own time (as I have mentioned above) men of much greater size than the ordinary stature. Was there not at Rome a few years ago, when the destruction of the city now accomplished by the Goths was drawing near, a woman, with her father and mother, who by her gigantic size over-topped all others? Surprising crowds from all quarters came to see her, and that which struck them most was the circumstance that neither of her parents were quite up to the tallest ordinary stature. Giants therefore might well be born, even before the sons of God, who are also called angels of God, formed a connection with the daughters of men, or of those living according to men, that is to say, before the sons of Seth formed a connection with the daughters of Cain. For thus speaks even the canonical Scripture itself in the book in which we read of this; its words are: “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair [good]; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became the giants, men of renown.”4 These words of the divine book sufficiently indicate that already there were giants in the earth in those days, in which the sons of God took wives of the children of men, when they loved them because they were good, that is, fair. For it is the custom of this Scripture to call those who are beautiful in appearance “good.” But after this connection had been formed, then too were giants born. For the words are: “There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.” Therefore there were giants both before, “in those days,” and “also after that.” And the words, “they bare children to them,” show plainly enough that before the sons of God fell in this fashion they begat children to God, not to themselves,—that is to say, not moved by the lust of sexual intercourse, but discharging the duty of propagation, intending to produce not a family to gratify their own pride, but citizens to people the city of God; and to these they as God's angels would bear the message, that they should place their hope in God, like him who was born of Seth, the son of resurrection, and who hoped to call on the name of the Lord God, in which hope they and their offspring would be co-heirs of eternal blessings, and brethren in the family of which God is the Father. Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 303–304.

Today's reading is Genesis 6, Ezra 6, Matthew 6, and Acts 6. It may be that our focus reading for the day should continue in Matthew 6, because Jesus' teaching there is so majestic and beautiful that no passage should really overshadow it. If you will indulge me a bit, we will return to Matthew tomorrow for our focus, but today - we are going to discuss the Genesis passage. Genesis 6 has long been one of my favorite passages in the Bible. It is fascinating, scary, and very, very mysterious. I wrote a book last year called Angels, Ghosts and other Bible Mysteries (on Amazon) that is very focused on many of the mysteries that are brought up in this passage. If you like this discussion, you will probably enjoy that book. If not, then skip the book! Before we get to the question and answer section, however, let's mine some spiritual gold from this passage. Here is a powerful and encouraging word from our friend and mentor, Charles Spurgeon: My brethren, how displeased the great God has been with men. He said that it repented him that he had made men upon the earth. That was a striking expression which is used in Genesis 6:6: “It grieved him at his heart.” He seemed to grow so weary of man's wanton wickedness that he was sorry that he ever made beings capable of so much evil. Yet he is so well content with his beloved Son, who has assumed our nature, that we read of him, “The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake: he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.” (Is. 42:21). The Lord looks down upon those who are in Christ with an intense affection, and loves them even as he loves the Son, for that is the meaning of this word, “In whom I am well pleased.” All who are in Christ Jesus are pleasing to God; yea, God in Christ looks with divine satisfaction upon all those who trust his Son: he is not only pleased, but well pleased. If you are pleased with Jesus, God is pleased with you: if you are in the Son, then you are in the Father's good pleasure C. H. Spurgeon, “The Voice from the Cloud and the Voice of the Beloved,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 29 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1883), 355–356. I would say that Genesis 6 presents us with one of the top five mysteries in the Bible - especially if you read it in the King James Version! Check this out: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6;1-4, King James Version SO MANY QUESTIONS! What is going on here? Are angelic beings having relations with human women (apparently...) were the offspring of those unions giants (maybe...but that's not the best translation.) did God send the flood because heavenly beings and earthly beings were having relationships?! These are all tough questions and likely too big for our short little podcast to cover, but I'll try to at least give a short answer to some of them. (maybe we'll do a special episode on this chapter at some point) Question #1: Are heavenly beings in Genesis 6 actually having children with human females? The answer to this question depends on who, exactly, the "sons of God" are in Genesis 6. There are three main theories. The first is that they are powerful men and leaders that were human - maybe significantly above average humans. Think body-builders, great/tall athletes, charismatic politicians, etc. Theory #2 is that these 'sons of God' are descendants of Seth, thus making the 'daughters of men,' primarily descendants of Cain. This theory is the one I have heard most at seminary and in academic circles. Theory #3 is that 'sons of God' are some type of heavenly creature - an angel, or something like an angel. I personally see no grammatical or historical evidence of theory #1. All of the sudden these guys realized that human females were beautiful (vs. 2)? This theory doesn't seem to fit the context of the verse very well, and theory #2 even less so. There is literally NOWHERE in Scripture that suggests that the daughters of men were of the line of Cain and the sons of God were of the line of Seth. Seth is mentioned ten times in the Bible, and only twice after Genesis 5. (Once in a genealogy in Luke and in 1st Chronicles) Cain is mentioned only 3 times after Genesis 5, and all three times are in the New Testament, and do not discuss his descendants at all, but only his murder and his wrong-offering. Genesis six mentions neither Cain nor Abel, so this theory - and it is a popular one - simply has no biblical support whatsoever that I can find. Which brings us to theory #3 - the sons of God are some type of heavenly creature. Believe it or not, this theory has the most textual support by far. The phrase 'sons of God,' occurs three times outside of Genesis in the Old Testament. All three times are in the book of Job, and all three times are clearly speaking of heavenly creatures - angels, or something like angels. That is a strong bit of evidence in favor of viewing these sons of God as Heavenly beings. Vs. 2 is also strong contextual evidence in favor of theory 3. Consider this verse, "The sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful." if that verse is simply talking about human males, the descendants of Seth, or whomever, then it is a strange, strange passage. Did it really take hundreds (or thousands!) of years for human males to realize that human females were beautiful? Frankly, I think that is silly. I believe the biblical text is pointing us to theory #3 that these beings were heavenly. One more bit of evidence, and this evidence is weak, but worth noting. The Book of Enoch is not a biblical book, and was not written by the Enoch spoken of in Genesis. It was not canonical, and I do not believe it to be inspired. It is, however, a very old book and it was read by people in the early church, and many early church fathers. Scholars' best guess is that the book of Enoch dates to around 100-300 years before the birth of Jesus, though some sections could be older. That book is very, very clear about who the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 were. Listen to this!  Book of Enoch –  Enoch 15: And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: 'Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: "You should intercede" for men, and not men for you: Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die 5 and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. [As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them. One objection that many have to theory #3 is from Matthew 22:30, " 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven." I do not believe this objection holds much water for two reasons: #1 Genesis 6 seems to be talking about intimate relations and not necessarily marriage. It is possible to have relations and not be married. #2, Jesus specifically mentions "angels in Heaven," and Genesis 6 is quite obviously dealing with beings that are on earth. Perhaps angels in Heaven do not marry, but the beings in Genesis 6, be they human or angels are not at all in Heaven, and don't seem to be concerned with the rules of Heaven. Another objection might say that Heavenly beings are without gender, but I don't see that in Scripture either. There are Heavenly beings in Zechariah 5 that are female (not necessarily angels) and the Heavenly beings in Genesis 18 are clearly male. Can heavenly beings procreate? The only bit of biblical evidence in favor of that possibility would seem to be here in Genesis 6 and I see nothing anywhere else that gives me the idea that they are incapable of such things. Question #2: Is Genesis 6 telling us that giants used to exist on the earth? Not necessarily - the Hebrew word there is the word Nephilim. It is a difficult word to translate because it only appears in one - or two - other places in the entire Old Testament. Reference #1 is from Numbers 13 and is probably where the King James translators got the inspiration to use the word, "giant." 30 Then Caleb quieted the people in the presence of Moses and said, “Let's go up now and take possession of the land because we can certainly conquer it!”31 But the men who had gone up with him responded, “We can't attack the people because they are stronger than we are!” 32 So they gave a negative report to the Israelites about the land they had scouted: “The land we passed through to explore is one that devours its inhabitants, and all the people we saw in it are men of great size. 33 We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim! To ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and we must have seemed the same to them.” Numbers 13:30-34 So - these Nephilim are clearly quite big and impressive...but are they giants? I live in Salinas, California - about an hour from where the Golden State Warriors play basketball. If I went over to practice one day, and somehow, someway got a chance to shoot around with those guys, I'd probably come home and tell my family that I felt like a grasshopper. I'm 6'1, but compared to Kevin Looney (6 feet, 9 inches) or Willie Cauley-Stein (7 feet!) I'm quite short. I believe that these Nephilim were the offspring of heavenly beings and human females, so it is certainly possible that they possessed traits that were above human capability, but we just can't be sure about their size at all, beyond saying that they were likely significantly larger than the Hebrews. Question #3: Did God flood the earth because of human-angelic relationships? If definitely seems like there is a subtle relationship between God flooding the world and whatever was going on with these sons of God and daughters of men. Could 2nd Peter 2 be giving us a clue about this? 4 For if God didn't spare the angels who sinned but cast them into hell and delivered them in chains of utter darkness to be kept for judgment; 5 and if he didn't spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when he brought the flood on the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5 That passage is quite interesting, but also fairly obscure. I'm not sure we should build a lot of theology on it. The fact is, however, that the first part Genesis 6 seems to indicate that the sins of humans grieved God in the context of the flood. 5 When the Lord saw that human wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every inclination of the human mind was nothing but evil all the time, 6 the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth,and he was deeply grieved. 7 Then the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I created, off the face of the earth, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them.” 8 Noah, however, found favor with the Lord.... Genesis 6:5-8 The second part of Genesis 6, however, seems to make room for more than humans to be involved in the judgment. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with wickedness. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth was, for every creature had corrupted its way on the earth. 13 Then God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to every creature, for the earth is filled with wickedness because of them; therefore I am going to destroy them along with the earth. Genesis 6:11-13 So, my conclusion to the question is a weak 'maybe.' If the sons of God are indeed heavenly beings, as I suspect they are, it would appear that their dalliance with human females had at least a small part to play in the flooding of the earth. We might go too far past the text if we say much more than that. I'll close with the conclusions of Jonathan Edwards - probably American's foremost theologian - on the question of the giants/nephilim: “And there were giants in the earth in those days,” etc. “Pausanias, in his Laconics, mentions the bones of men of a more than ordinary bigness, which were shown in the temple of Aesculapius at the city of Asepus; and in the first of his Eliacs, of a bone taken out of the sea, which aforetime was kept at Pisa, and thought to have been one of Peleps'. Philostratus, in the beginning of his Heroics, [says] that many bodies of giants were discovered in Pallene, by showers of rain and earthquakes. Pliny, Bk. 7, ch. 16, says, ‘That upon the bursting of a mountain in Crete, there was found a body standing upright, which was reported by some to have been the body of Orion, by others, the body of Eetion. Orestes' body, when it was commanded by the oracle to be digged up, is reported to have been seven cubits. And almost a thousand years ago, the poet Homer continually complained, that men's bodies were less than of old.' And Solinus, ch. I, ‘Were not all that were born in that age, less than their parents?' And the story of Orestes' funeral testifies the bigness of the ancients, whose bones, when they were digged up, in the 58th Olympiad at Tegea, by the advice of the oracle, are related to have been seven cubits in length. And other writings, which give a credible relation of ancient matters, affirm this, that in the war of Crete, when the rivers had been so high as to overflow and break down their banks, after the flood was abated, upon the cleaving of the earth, there was found a human body of three and thirty foot long, which L. Flaccus, the legate, and Metellus himself, being very desirous of seeing, were much surprised to have the satisfaction of seeing, what they did not believe when they heard.” Grotius, De Veritate, Bk. 1, sec. 16, notes. “Josephus, Bk. 5, ch. 2, of his ancient history. ‘There remains to this day some of the race of the giants, who by reason of the bulk and figure of their bodies, so different from other men, are wonderful to see, or hear of. Their bones are now shown, far exceeding the belief of the vulgar.' Gabinius, in his history of Mauritania, said that Antaeus' bones were found by Sertorius, which, joined together, were sixty cubits long. Phlegon Trallianus, in his 9th chapter of Wonders, mentions the digging up [of] the head of Ida, which was three times as big as that of an ordinary woman. And he adds also, that there were many bodies found in Dalmatia, whose arms exceeded sixteen cubits. And the same man relates out of Theopompus, that there were found in the Cimmerian Bosphorus, a company of human bones twenty-four cubits in length.” Le Clerc's notes on Grotius, De Veritate, Bk. 1, sec. 16. “We almost everywhere in the Greek and Latin historians meet with the savage life of the giants, mentioned by Moses. In the Greek, as Homer, Iliad 9, and Hesiod in his Labors. To this may be referred the wars of the gods, mentioned by Plato in his Second Republic, and those distinct and separate governments, taken notice of by the same Plato, in his third book of Laws. And as to the Latin historians, see the first book of Ovid's Metamorphosis, and the 4th book of Lucan, and Seneca's third book of Natural Questions, Ques. 30, where he says concerning the deluge, ‘That the beasts also perished, into whose nature men were degenerated.' ” Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture, ed. Harry S. Stout and Stephen J. Stein, vol. 15, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 506–508. By the way, Augustine - writing all the way back in the 300s! Makes a case contra the above, and believes that the sons of God were merely men. His reasoning is that there are at least two men in the Bible that are designated as angels/messengers that were obviously human, and that is likely what is going on here too. I respect and admire Augustine, but disagree with him here, noting that "sons of God" does not, of necessity, equate to angels. WHETHER WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT ANGELS, WHO ARE OF A SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE, FELL IN LOVE WITH THE BEAUTY OF WOMEN, AND SOUGHT THEM IN MARRIAGE, AND THAT FROM THIS CONNECTION GIANTS WERE BORN In the third book of this work (c. 5) we made a passing reference to this question, but did not decide whether angels, inasmuch as they are spirits, could have bodily intercourse with women. For it is written, “Who maketh His angels spirits,”4 that is, He makes those who are by nature spirits His angels by appointing them to the duty of bearing His messages. For the Greek word ἄγγελος, which in Latin appears as “angelus,” means a messenger. But whether the Psalmist speaks of their bodies when he adds, “and His ministers a flaming fire,” or means that God's ministers ought to blaze with love as with a spiritual fire, is doubtful. However, the same trustworthy Scripture testifies that angels have appeared to men in such bodies as could not only be seen, but also touched. There is, too, a very general rumor, which many have verified by their own experience, or which trustworthy persons who have heard the experience of others corroborate, that sylvans and fauns, who are commonly called “incubi,” had often made wicked assaults upon women, and satisfied their lust upon them; and that certain devils, called Duses by the Gauls, are constantly attempting and effecting this impurity is so generally affirmed, that it were impudent to deny it.5 From these assertions, indeed, I dare not determine whether there be some spirits embodied in an aerial substance (for this element, even when agitated by a fan, is sensibly felt by the body), and who are capable of lust and of mingling sensibly with women; but certainly I could by no means believe that God's holy angels could at that time have so fallen, nor can I think that it is of them the Apostle Peter said, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”1 I think he rather speaks of these who first apostatized from God, along with their chief the devil, who enviously deceived the first man under the form of a serpent. But the same holy Scripture affords the most ample testimony that even godly man have been called angels; for of John it is written: “Behold, I send my messenger (angel) before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way.”2 And the prophet Malachi, by a peculiar grace specially communicated to him, was called an angel.3 But some are moved by the fact that we have read that the fruit of the connection between those who are called angels of God and the women they loved were not men like our own breed, but giants; just as if there were not born even in our own time (as I have mentioned above) men of much greater size than the ordinary stature. Was there not at Rome a few years ago, when the destruction of the city now accomplished by the Goths was drawing near, a woman, with her father and mother, who by her gigantic size over-topped all others? Surprising crowds from all quarters came to see her, and that which struck them most was the circumstance that neither of her parents were quite up to the tallest ordinary stature. Giants therefore might well be born, even before the sons of God, who are also called angels of God, formed a connection with the daughters of men, or of those living according to men, that is to say, before the sons of Seth formed a connection with the daughters of Cain. For thus speaks even the canonical Scripture itself in the book in which we read of this; its words are: “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair [good]; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became the giants, men of renown.”4 These words of the divine book sufficiently indicate that already there were giants in the earth in those days, in which the sons of God took wives of the children of men, when they loved them because they were good, that is, fair. For it is the custom of this Scripture to call those who are beautiful in appearance “good.” But after this connection had been formed, then too were giants born. For the words are: “There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.” Therefore there were giants both before, “in those days,” and “also after that.” And the words, “they bare children to them,” show plainly enough that before the sons of God fell in this fashion they begat children to God, not to themselves,—that is to say, not moved by the lust of sexual intercourse, but discharging the duty of propagation, intending to produce not a family to gratify their own pride, but citizens to people the city of God; and to these they as God's angels would bear the message, that they should place their hope in God, like him who was born of Seth, the son of resurrection, and who hoped to call on the name of the Lord God, in which hope they and their offspring would be co-heirs of eternal blessings, and brethren in the family of which God is the Father. Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 303–304.

Erst 26 Jahre alt war der Jurist Hugo Grotius, als er den Papst gegen sich aufbrachte. Grotius blieb unbequem und handelte sich lebenslange Festungshaft ein. In einer Bücherkiste gelang ihm die Flucht.

In this episode we discuss how ideas about human differences evolved in Europe during the 1600s. From Noah's Curse to the Lost Tribes of Israel, to pre-Adamism, to race--this was a dynamic time in the history of race. Resources: Popkin, Richard H. "Pre-adamism in 19th century American thought: “Speculative biology” and racism." Philosophia 8, no. 2-3 (1978): 205-239. Grotius, Hugo. On the Origin of the Native Races of America: A Dissertation. Edinburgh:[sn], 1884 ([London: Unwin Bros.]), 1884. de La Peyrere, I. Praedamitae sive Exercitatio... quibus inducuntur primi homines ante Adamum conditi [-Systema theologicum ex prae-adamitarum hypothesi]. Louis et Daniel Elsevier, 1655. Anonymous [François Bernier]. “Nouvelle Division de la Terre, par les différentes Espèces ou Races d’hommes qui l’habitent, envoy par un fameux Voyageur à M. l’Abbé de la *****, à peu prés en ces termes.” Journal des Sçavans, (April 24, 1684): 133-140.

Ioannis E. Evrigenis, professor of political science at Tufts University, presents on the rise of political theory that arose between the reigns of James VI and James I.

Lecture summary: At various points throughout this work, Grotius makes reference to a category that he variously calls 'morals' (moralia), 'moral things' (res morales) or 'the matter of morals' (materia moralis). This field of entities is always invoked in conjunction with certain principles of reasoning that shape the scope and application of more strictly legal principles and reasoning. This lecture looks at how 'moral' reasoning intersects with legal reasoning to produce Grotius's distinctive view of the international order. I argue that it is the appeal to 'morals' that allows him to craft a jurisprudence that accommodates the concrete realities of power within and between states while still differentiating itself from politics and reason of state. Dr Annabel Brett is a Reader in the History of Political Thought, University of Cambridge and Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

We may think that because we invented modern technology we must remain in charge of it but taking an evolutionary perspective suggests a very different prospect. Universal Darwinism is the principle that when any kind of information is copied with variation and selection an evolutionary process inevitably begins. Genes are Earth's best-known replicator and gave rise to biological evolution, but there may be other replicators on earth that, like genes, will evolve ever faster. What might this mean for the future of both human and artificial intelligence? Monday 29 October 2018 | 19.30 – 21.00 hrs | Grotius building, Radboud University Read the review: https://www.ru.nl/radboudreflects/terugblik/terugblik-2018/terugblik-2018/18-10-28-genes-memes-and-tremes-the-future/ Or watch the video: https://youtu.be/8KdP5dodum0 Never want to miss a podcast again? Subscribe to this channel. Radboud Reflects organizes in-depth lectures about philosophy, religion, ethics, society and culture. www.ru.nl/radboudreflects Wil je op de hoogte blijven van onze activiteiten? Schrijf je dan in voor de tweewekelijkse nieuwsbrief: https://www.ru.nl/rr/nieuwsbrief Do you want to stay up to date about our activities? Please sign in for the English newsletter: www.ru.nl/rr/newsletter

No episódio número #02, Angélica Fontella, Eduardo Seabra, Rodrigo Elias, Thalyta Mitsue e nosso convidado especial Thiago Facina falam sobre o apelo da ordem. Puxando o gancho da intervenção militar no Rio de Janeiro (aprovada pelo DL 10/2018), tentamos historicizar o desejo por autoridade, principalmente do brasileiro, que flerta com um candidato fascista à Presidência em 2018. Pauta: Rodrigo Elias Edição: Eduardo Seabra Locução: L. C. Csekö Participações especiais: Thiago Facina (Mestre em Ciências Sociais pela Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro e autor da dissertação "Eles que se matem": notas sobre o varejo de drogas ilícitas nas favelas cariocas, 2013) Leticia Matheus (professora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), coordenadora do Núcleo de Estudos Emergenciais em Ódio (UERJ) e coorganizadora de História da Comunicação: experiências e perspectivas, Mauad X, 2014) Nashla Dahás (doutora em História Social pela Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro e autora de "O Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria do Chile e a construção de uma memória radical para a América Latina" In: Janaína Martins Cordeiro; Isabel Cristina Leite; Diego Omar da Silveira; Daniel Aarão Reis. (Org.). À sombra das ditaduras. Brasil e América Latina, Mauad, 2014). João Trajano Sento-Sé (professor da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), integrante do Laboratório de Análise da Violência (UERJ) e coautor de Polícia, segurança e ordem pública. Perspectivas portuguesas e brasileiras, Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 2012) Dicas: "A origem dos deuses", Coisas que você precisa saber #27 (Justificando, 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSLc4USDEwc) A revolução dos bichos (George Orwell, 1945 - Livro) Com Amor, Van Gogh (Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman, 2017 - Filme) Fruitvale Station: a última parada (Ryan Coogler, 2013 - Filme) For your own good (Alice Miller, 2002 - Livro) "Hated in the Nation", Black Mirror (2016 - Série) Indignos de vida: a forma jurídica da política de extermínio de inimigos na cidade do Rio de Janeiro (Orlando Zaccone, 2015 - Livro) O experimento de aprisionamento de Stanford (Kyle Patrick Alvarez, 2015 - Filme) O experimento Milgram (Paul Gibbs, 2009 - Filme) "Os pobres vão à praia", Documento Especial (Programa jornalístico de TV exibido em 1989: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOzGFJZZVe8). Referências AGAMBEN, Giorgio. Estado de exceção. Trad. Iraci D. Poleti. São Paulo, Boitempo, 2004. ANDERSON, Perry. Linhagens do Estado Absolutista. Trad. Telma Costa. Porto, Afrontamento, 1984. ARISTÓTELES. Política. Edição bilíngue. Trad. e notas António Campelo Amaral e Carlos de Carvalho Gomes. Lisboa, Vega, 1998. BAKUNIN. Textos Anarquistas. Trad. Zilá Bernd. Porto Alegre, L&PM, 2014. BOBBIO, Norberto; MATTEUCCI, Nicola; PASQUINO, Giangranco. Dicionário de política. Tradução de Carmen C, Varriale et ai.; coord. trad. João Ferreira. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 1998. CHAMAYOU, Gregoire. Teoria do Drone. Trad. Célia Euvaldo. São Paulo, Cosac Naify, 2015. CERQUEIRA, Daniel. et al. Atlas da violência 2017, Ipea e Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública, 2017. (http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/170609_atlas_da_violencia_2017.pdf) FOUCAULT, Michel. Microfísica do poder. Org. e trad. Roberto Machado. Rio de Janeiro, Graal, 1979. GROTIUS, Hugo. The rights of war and peace. Book I. Ed. Richard Tuck. Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, 2005. HOBSBAWM, Eric. A Era das Revoluções (1789-1848). 10a Ed. Trad. Maria Tereza Lopes Teixeira e Marcos Penchel. São Paulo, Paz e Terra, 1997. HOBSBAWM, Eric. A Era do Capital (1848-1875). 10a Ed. Trad. Luciano Costa Neto. Rio de Janeiro, Paz e Terra, 1996. LEBRUN, Gerard. O que é poder. São Paulo, Brasiliense, 1981. ... [Continua em passadorama.com]

Guests Oona Hathaway Professor @YaleLawSch, Director @YaleLawGLC, Editor @just_security, fmr Special Counsel @DeptofDefense, co-author of The Internationalists Oona A. Hathaway - Yale Law School Oona Hathaway (@oonahathaway) on Twitter Scott Shapiro Prof @YaleLawSch + Philosophy @Yale. Visiting Quain Prof @UCLLaws. Editor, Legal Theory and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. #Internationalists THE INTERNATIONALISTS Scott Shapiro (@scottjshapiro) on Twitter Given how Xi today struts on the world stage with ambitions to use today's "historic opportunity" to reshape the international order, its useful to look back in history to the last time the world faced a revolution in legal norms. Yale Law Professors Scott Shapiro and Oona Hathaway recently published The Internationalists, an intellectual history of how international legal norms have evolved since the days of Grotius. In particular, they focus on the movement to outlaw war peaking in the early 20th century with the Kellogg Briand Pact fundamentally reframed interstate relations and created many aspects of the modern international system China is navigating today. This discussion ranges from how Japan adopted to the western legal reality in the late 19th and early 20th century, to origins of sanctions, the South China Sea and even wars started by claims of wife-stealing.

Guests Oona Hathaway Professor @YaleLawSch, Director @YaleLawGLC, Editor @just_security, fmr Special Counsel @DeptofDefense, co-author of The Internationalists Oona A. Hathaway - Yale Law School Oona Hathaway (@oonahathaway) on Twitter Scott Shapiro Prof @YaleLawSch + Philosophy @Yale. Visiting Quain Prof @UCLLaws. Editor, Legal Theory and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. #Internationalists THE INTERNATIONALISTS Scott Shapiro (@scottjshapiro) on Twitter Given how Xi today struts on the world stage with ambitions to use today's "historic opportunity" to reshape the international order, its useful to look back in history to the last time the world faced a revolution in legal norms. Yale Law Professors Scott Shapiro and Oona Hathaway recently published The Internationalists, an intellectual history of how international legal norms have evolved since the days of Grotius. In particular, they focus on the movement to outlaw war peaking in the early 20th century with the Kellogg Briand Pact fundamentally reframed interstate relations and created many aspects of the modern international system China is navigating today. This discussion ranges from how Japan adopted to the western legal reality in the late 19th and early 20th century, to origins of sanctions, the South China Sea and even wars started by claims of wife-stealing. Get bonus content on Patreon See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Fellows hand over the reigns to Dr. Franscico to teach us about Hugo Grotius. Grotius was a Reformation era apologist who also had a large political influence. Sit back, relax, grab a drink, and enjoy the show.  Show Notes: The Truth of the Christian Religion  On the Law of War and Peace Sensible Christianity

In the 17th and early 18th centuries in Britain, there were no clear divisions between what we now call moral epistemology, moral metaphysics, and normative moral theory. In this talk, Aaron Garrett argues that Francis Hutcheson, in refuting the work of Mandeville, attempted to make good on this long tradition of lumping these ideas together, and that this variant of a demonstrative moral science is both associated with the natural law tradition following from Grotius, and supportive of the ancient moralists.

Professor M Koskenniemi, University of Helsinki

Keynote paper given by David Owens (University of Reading). On one influential theory of promising, promising involves the transfer of a right to determine whether you do something. So when I successfully promise you that I'll be at the bus stop at a certain time, I transfer to you the right to determine whether I'll show up. Advocates of the 'transfer theory' include both the dead (like Grotius, Hobbes and Locke) and the living (like Gary Watson and Seana Shiffrin). One apparent implication of this theory is that I can successfully promise to do only what I have a right to do, so if I have no right to be at the bus stop (e.g. because I've promised to be elsewhere) then I can't successfully promise to show up. So my promissory duties are limited by my pre- promissory rights. This paper considers the merits of the transfer theory and the plausibility of this implication.

The title of this episode is, The Rationalist Option Part 1.I want to give a brief comment at the outset that this episode doesn't track much of church history per se. What we do over the next minutes is take a brief look at the European Enlightenment. We need to because the ideas that came out of the Enlightenment influenced theology and the modern world.The 30 Years War ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia. But decades of bitter conflict left Europe a ravaged land. People were weary of conflict whatever its nature; political, religious, or martial. And though the War was over, the following decades were by no means peaceful. Among other things, they witnessed the English Civil War with its execution of Charles I, and yet more wars between European powers, albeit on a smaller scale. Against this turmoil-laden backdrop, a new spirit was brewing in Europe: one desperate to make a break with the past with its religious tension, dry scholasticism, incessant bickering and the numerous occult fetishes the Renaissance spun off. By the mid-17th C, the seeds of the Enlightenment were well sown.A new breed of thinkers inhabited a Continent quite different from their ancestors. At the dawn of the 16th C Europe was dominated by the resolute Catholic power of Spain. In 1492, Spain both ended the lingering presence of Islam and discovered the New World. Italy, while having little political power, exercised massive cultural influence due to its claim as the birthplace of the Renaissance.Fifty years later, everything had changed. Spain was exhausted by the 30 Years War and political hegemony had moved to France, finally free of the threat of its powerful neighbors, Spain and Germany.  The Netherlands, previously under Spanish rule, won their freedom with the Treaty of Westphalia and almost overnight became the world's leading trade nation. Amsterdam was the exchange capital of the world, and the Dutch merchant fleet was the largest on the planet.The threat once posed by Islam was uprooted. Though Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453, 40 years later saw the Spanish remove the last Muslim strongholds from the Iberian Peninsula.  In 1683, despite being outnumbered five to one, the Polish king Sobieski routed the Ottomans besieging Vienna.Europe was a land of independent nations: of trade and colonialism, and a rising middle-class. Instead of the hegemonies of the past, when a single power, whether emperor or pope, sought to govern the Continent, a new idea arose of a ‘balance of power' between states—and between churches too. The Pope's hand was declawed, even in Catholic countries, by the Treaty of Westphalia, which permitted every state to follow whatever religion it saw fit. Although France, the new dominant force in Europe, was mostly Catholic, it tended not to listen too closely to Rome. The Netherlands were strict Calvinists. It was a world in which the notions of nationhood, human rights, and law were going to play an increasingly important role, and they were going to be rethought along rationalist rather than religious lines.The most vaunted ideal of the Age of Reason was Reason itself: the human capacity, by means of investigation, rather than by relying on external authority, to, in a word = Understand. In the first half of the 17th C, two philosophers, the Englishman Thomas Hobbes and the Frenchman René Descartes pioneered a new way of understanding the world and the mind. Instead of the Neoplatonic world of the Renaissance, dominated by occult forces, where objects exerted mysterious ‘influences' on each other, they sought to understand the world in mechanistic terms. The universe was conceived as a complicated system of levers, pulleys, and bearings. Given enough time and the proper intellectual tools, the cosmos was comprehensible to almost anyone who took the time to study it.At the same time, there was a desire to forget the old divisions of the past and embrace what was common to all humanity. One important movement of the time we'll talk about later was ‘syncretism', which sought to reunite the churches of Europe. A leading figure in this was the Dutch Reformed thinker Hugo Grotius, who contended Christians of all denominations should come together on the basis of their common faith and heritage. Grotius was arrested in The Netherlands and spent some years in prison until he made a daring escape and fled the country.Despite his work as a theologian, Grotius is most remembered as a legal theorist. His On the Law of Peace and War of 1625 was the first major study of the theory of international law. In it, he sought to place binding human laws—transcending national boundaries—on a naturalistic and rational footing. This vein of thought was the result of the application to philosophy and theology of the laissez-faire principles which nations like the Netherlands applied to economics with such remarkable success.It took eighty years of on-and-off warfare before the Netherlands finally achieved its independence from Spain in 1648. The country had already become a great trading nation, and during the 17th C entered a golden age, quickly becoming one of the most powerful nations in Europe. Culture, the arts, and science flourished, with the works of the 17th C Dutch painters quickly becoming classics to rank alongside the best the Italian Renaissance had produced.The Netherlands was (not “were” I looked it up. So, The Netherlands was - the premier bastion of the Reformed faith in Europe. It was there Calvinists who'd suffered persecution elsewhere, emigrated. Dutch theologians defined and refined their faith, a process that led to the Arminian controversy. And while the persecution of Arminians was carried out in the Netherlands, it was nothing compared to what the French and English were dishing out to their religious dissidents. The rule of merchants meant the Netherlands were renowned for tolerance—racial, philosophical, and national. It was to the Netherlands a substantial Jewish community, fleeing the persecutions of Philip II in Spain, had come. Charles II of England sought refuge there after his father's execution. It was there, too, fringy-ish philosophers and theologians like Descartes and his disciple Spinoza, found sanctuary and carried on their work. In providing an environment in which their ideas could develop, free of interference, the wealthy mercantile ruling class of the Netherlands played a key role in the evolution of the Enlightenment in the 17th C.If one person could have claimed to be the most powerful man in the world in the late 17th C, it would have to have been Louis XIV of France. The ‘Sun King' of legend ascended to the throne at the age of four, in 1643. He remained there until his death in 1715. When Cardinal Mazarin, effectively the prime minister, died in 1661, the 23-year-old king decided not to appoint a successor to run the country and did it himself. Whether or not he really uttered the famous words, “I am the State,” under his personal rule, France was established as a leading force for culture and enlightenment. The magnificent palace of Versailles, completed in 1682 after twenty years of construction, symbolized the spirit of the age. It was an era of formalism, geometry, beauty, and intellect. And where France led, Europe followed. Fifty years earlier, scholars spoke Latin. Now, French became the language of scholarship.At the same time, Louis did everything he could to extend France's political power, which he achieved by means of an aggressive foreign policy. The wealth of the Netherlands, so close at hand, tempted him into a series of wars with the Dutch. In 1689, he plunged the world into a conflict that threatened a level of devastation not seen for a half-century. This was the War of the Grand Alliance, during which the fighting covered Europe, Ireland, and North America. Barely had that finished, in 1697, before Louis launched the War of the Spanish Succession of 1701–14, which left his grandson occupying the throne of Spain.The age over which Louis presided was an avowedly Catholic one. His favored slogan was “One faith. One law. One king.” The Catholicism of France at that time was nationalistic, rather than a papal. People were devoted to the Church more because of the ancient roots of Catholicism in France than out of a sense of duty to Rome. This came to be called ‘Gallicanism.' One of its leading proponents in the court of the Sun King was Jacques Bossuet [BOO-sway], the Catholic bishop of Meaux [Muh].Despite the pacific influence of men like Bossuet, Louis XIV's determination to unite his subjects under a single faith became heavily coercive. Of the roughly fifteen million inhabitants of France—the largest population of any European state—about a million were Protestants-Huguenots. Their freedom to worship was guaranteed by the Edict of Nantes of a half-century before Louis, but he saw to it that things were not easy for them. They suffered restrictions on where they could go, what professions they could take up, where they could worship, and what schools they could attend. In 1681, oppression became suppression, when the army was ordered to harass Huguenots until they converted. Four years later, the king revoked the Edict of Nantes.Little wonder, then, that a growing number of French intellectuals began to think religion didn't seem to offer much of a basis for an enlightened modern society. It wouldn't be long before some questioned the point of religion altogether. In the meantime, many were impressed by their Dutch neighbors who'd worked out a far more satisfactory social philosophy of reason and liberalism.England had a harder time than France. Politically, most of the 17th C was something of a disaster, involving civil war, a short-lived republic, the overthrow of two monarchs—a Revolution and the eventual coronation of the Dutch William of Orange as King of England; who was invited to invade by a Parliament desperate to secure a Protestant monarch.As England finally established some political stability, it fostered major intellectual developments that would put the country on a cultural par with France. British thinkers pioneered new ideas about government, politics, ethics, and economics; ideas that aimed to avoid the extremes absolutist monarchs such as Charles I and despots like Cromwell had slipped into. While the nations of the Continent developed an ever-higher reverence for their monarchs, the political and military struggles of 17th C England saw an erosion of the monarchy. The idea took hold that kings rule by consent of the governed, who retain the ability to judge and even remove him if they don't approve of his policies.The process was started by Thomas Hobbes, who sought to create a new political theory that was rational and humanist, without any reliance on religion. In his famous Leviathan of 1651, Hobbes put forward the claim that government is based on natural law, not on divine sanction, and that a government exists only by the will of the people.The appearance of modern ‘liberalism', is associated above all with John Locke, one of the most prominent British intellectuals at the turn of the 18th C. Locke is most famous for his political ideas, and his values of tolerance and liberalism, which would have an enormous impact in both America and France. Like Hobbes before him, Locke was determined to develop a new understanding of how society and its members operate and interact. He was inspired in this by the advances in science over the preceding century—climaxing in the work of Isaac Newton, revered throughout England as a genius, a new Aristotle. If the exercise of cool mathematical reason could produce Newton's Principia, regarded by many as the final word in the study of physics, who could say what it might produce in other spheres as well?Locke's attempts to do this in philosophy, psychology, politics, and religion resulted in his starting the English Enlightenment virtually single-handedly. Locke believed human reason should be the final arbiter of what we believe, in politics, ethics, and religion alike; and he believed the values of tolerance and individual liberty, of education and freedom, would provide the proper environment for the exercise of reason. This was the philosophy of the Enlightenment in a nutshell. Yet despite his enormous prestige at home, Locke's influence was greatest in Continental Europe. French intellectuals were impressed by the commonsense political philosophy coming from across the Channel. Between them, Britain and France were responsible for the most characteristic trends and movements of the Enlightenment.If Hobbes was the Enlightenment's midwife and Locke birthed it, the man who epitomized its values and dreams was François Marie Arouet [Ah-roo-eh]; known by his pen name, Voltaire. He was the dominant cultural force of his day, and the smiling figure he presents in contemporary paintings, with a wicked glint in his eye, conveys the intellectual power, wit, and irreverence that characterized his version of the Enlightenment.Born in 1694 in Paris, Voltaire was educated by the Jesuits and quickly became known for his satirical poetry and biting wit. His penchant for attacking the aristocracy saw him holed up in the Bastille for almost a year. That wasn't enough to teach him what the authorities hope and in 1726, we was sent into exile. He spent three years in England learning the values of liberalism, rationalism, and religious tolerance. On his return to France in 1729, Voltaire set out to enlighten France by extolling the virtues of the British philosophers, above all Locke and Newton. In his Philosophical Letters of 1734, which he called ‘the first bomb against the Old Regime', he compared France's government, science, and philosophy unfavorably to England's. And as might be expected, he was expelled once again from Paris. Voltaire headed for the French countryside, where he immersed himself in the study of the natural sciences. In 1749, at the invitation of Frederick the Great, he moved to Prussia for a few years. He eventually ended up in Switzerland, where he devoted himself to writing plays, essays, novels, and articles. His success was so great, and his influence so enormous, his estate became a place of pilgrimage to writers, philosophers, and the celebrities of the time. So popular was his home he became known as ‘the innkeeper of Europe'. In 1778, in order to direct one of his own plays, Voltaire returned to Paris to enormous acclaim and died shortly after.Voltaire devoted his life and work to the principles of reason and tolerance that he saw exemplified in British philosophy. His slogan was ‘Crush infamy!' and to Voltaire, the most infamous institution in France was the Roman Catholic Church, an organization which in his eyes demanded loyalty from its members, which forced on them a ridiculous and barbarous mythology, and which put down dissenters with the sword. Voltaire was not an irreligious man, and was one of the foremost proponents of ‘deism.' Yet he was notorious as an arch-heretic and enemy of Christianity for the contempt with which he held what he regarded as the superstitious and authoritarian elements of the Faith. Voltaire attacked the doctrines and practices of Christianity as mercilessly as he lampooned the secular rulers of society.There is a story that his local bishop once ordered that under no circumstances was Voltaire to be admitted to Mass. Voltaire, who had no intention of letting a mere bishop exercise authority over him, therefore faked a terminal illness and forced a priest to give him the sacrament, which could not be denied to a man on his deathbed. The moment he had consumed it, Voltaire jumped out of bed and went for a walk. The notion that one could eat God was as blasphemous to him as it was ludicrous, and mockery seemed to him the only appropriate response.At the time of his death, Voltaire had produced some two thousand books and pamphlets. Probably the greatest was his Philosophical Dictionary of 1764, devoted primarily to ethical and religious subjects. The fact that this work was burnt throughout France showed that few in authority had heeded his Treatise on Tolerance of the previous year, in which Voltaire had condemned the atrocities that had been perpetrated throughout history in the name of religion and called for the freedom of each individual to practice whatever religion they chose.Because Voltaire was such a towering figure, his celebrity tends to diminish the many others who shared his views, though with less aplomb. He was no iconoclast, no lone voice in the wilderness. On the contrary, while he may have been the loudest voice, it was accompanied by a chorus of French critics, writers, and philosophers, all of whom extolled reason and human progress and critical of the traditional authorities and mores. The first and most famous of these philosophes, as they were known, was Baron Montesquieu. His Persian Letters, published in 1721, took the form of a series of letters by two fictitious Persians traveling Europe. Montesquieu bitterly satirized the Establishment of his day: the French king, government, society and, above all, the Catholic Church, which Montesquieu hated for much the same reasons as Voltaire. However, Montesquieu's attitude to Christianity softened over the years, and he was much more sympathetic to it in his most famous work, The Spirit of the Laws of 1748, which attempted to set out legal principles.One philosophe who never moderated his views was Baron d'Holbach, another French aristocrat. D'Holbach wasn't only an atheist, which was a much more daring position than the deism of Voltaire; he believed atheism was the only possible basis for a reasonable ethical system. Politically, he opposed all kinds of absolutism, including even the enlightened monarchies of the sort Louis XIV had tried. Here again, we see the influence of British thought. In his System of Nature of 1770, d'Holbach set forth a wholly materialistic and mechanistic understanding of the world. It's hard to imagine a more different figure from Bossuet a century earlier: such was the radical turnaround, from supporting religion to undermining it, that the French Enlightenment had taken.Next on our stop will be the German Enlightenment. But we'll have to leave that for next time.