Abstract This paper analyzes whether there is a good God or whether things are good only because God says they are. This paper gives examples throughout the Bible and contemporary literature on this topic as well as philosophical and sociological arguments regarding this religious question.
From the Paper "It is an old question, though some would suggest a largely semantic one. "Is the good good because God approves of it, or does God approve of the good because it is good?" Or in other, older words, which is greater -- the righteousness of a man or the righteousness --the holiness-- of God. There are three essential ways to approach the question, and they render answers of entirely different authoritative natures. The orthodox thinker can say with some bravado that he has a definite, entirely scriptural response. The humanitarian, the secularist, and the philosopher can find themselves in a bind approaching the idea, which eventually finds itself ending not as a question about the nature of good, but rather about the nature of God. The third approach, which it is unfortunate more people do not explore, is to deny the existence of the question. This response simple says that the question cannot be answered because it is nonsensical, making no more sense than to ask, in a Seussical manner, "Is Binting Binting because a Binterdingis Bints, or does a Binterdingis Bint because Binting is Binting?" But for the moment, let the reader assume that there is a difference between the God and the Good, and that both exists -- at least in the minds ands texts of the mass of humanity."
Abstract This paper analyzes the nature of good and evil in Herman Melville's novella Billy Budd. The author beleives that the main theme of the novella the concepts of good and evil and the fine line that separate between the two.
Abstract "Tartuffe" (Hypocrite) became public in the year 1664 for the first time as a three-act play that, when produced, attracted unfavorable denigration from religious factions. This paper discusses the hidden matter or the message of the play in addition to critical analysis from scholarly sources. In the play, one sees hypocrisy of the characters, especially hypocrisy of the main character in the play. However, it is not always clear that what one sees is true, and it is also true that seeing does not always leads to believing. In the play, the writer, Moliere, derided unnecessary godliness that he views as being a true from of hypocrisy; he did not condemn the actions of the pious people, but those who appear to be religious and, thus, are hypocrites.
From the Paper "Thus, the hypocrisy that is evidently ridiculed in the play is specifically related to religious hypocrites. In fact, the theme and message of the play is convened to the public by means of satire and comedy in the play. If we go in to the history of the play, the time and the situation when it was written, we come to know that the play was directed most probably at the Company of the Holy reparation. This was a furtive society that was instituted in the year 1627 and the main aims of the society was to oppress unorthodoxy and religious opposition, where other aims concerned with spreading the extreme religious faiths by means of charity as well as other missionary work, in addition to improvement of its well defined standards ethics and morals. In effect, the society was a sort of a representation of a pious police from whom the private lives of the people were no secret."
