Karl Marx wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party, better known as the Communist Manifesto, between December 1847 and February 1848.  The Central Committee of the Communist League, also known as the Communist Party, had requested that he should write a manuscript explaining the goals of Communism and the principles of the movement.  It is supposed that Fredrich Engles also played a role in the composition of the Communist Manifesto, as it is also believed that Engles titled the work.  Unfortunately, no letters continue to exist of this time period proving that Engles had any part it the creation of the document.  Nevertheless, the significance of the Manifesto remains the same, regardless of its authors.
The Communist Manifesto was created to be a simplified clarification of the league’s expectations and strategies for a pending revolution that they believed to be inevitable.  Before 1848, Europe had experienced a rapid growth of industry, an industrial revolution that proved to be a benefit, as well as, an affliction on European society.  While Europe seemed to be triumphing with the successes of an industrial revolution, the working class citizens were struggling to survive as Europe was turning into a highly capitalistic society.  The remarkable success and wealth of the capitalists and the bourgeoisie caused an imbalance of wealth within European society. The prosperity of the wealthy caused a downfall in the quality of life of the working class.  While the bourgeoisie were becoming increasingly wealthy, the working class citizens were battling famine and turning towards Socialistic and Communistic ideologies. The imbalance of wealth and the constant struggle of the working or “proletarian” class during Europe’s industrial revolution set the stage for the Communist Manifesto to be written.
Inescapable political mayhem finally surfaced in 1848.  Frederic L. Bender stated in his writing on the Historical and Theoretical Backgrounds of the Communist Manifesto that, “The cost of food skyrocketed, just as wages tumbled during the depression of 1847. Food riots and demonstrations became common” (3).  To emigrate, to fight, or to do nothing and consequently die were the only options made available to the working class.  The Committee of the Communist League had chosen the perfect time to announce their plan for the creation of a new and revolutionary Communistic society through Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
Throughout history, society has been constantly in a battle between the “oppressor” and the “oppressed,” which was also the case in 1848.  Karl Marx begins the Communistic, literary work with a brief history of class struggles and an account of the influence class structure has on society.  Marx writes:
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-construction of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes.  (55)
The bourgeoisie and the proletarians were famously at odds and against one another. The Communist Manifesto states that, “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle” (56).  In the late 1700s, European society believed that it had revolutionized its societal structure and had grown from the “primitive” and feudalistic-type society, it had known in the past, to a more improved and civilized culture.  However this “grown-up” version of European class structure was highly representative of feudalism.  It could be best described as feudalism in disguise.  Little had improved, let alone changed, from the initial feudalistic society to the current capitalistic and industrial culture. As soon as Europe had decided to do away with feudalistic class structure, it recreated it, building new classes, which included the bourgeoisie and the proletarians.  The Central Committee of the Communist League believed that there was only one way to renovate the class structure and that was through a Communistic revolution.  Marx writes of the working class plight and the Communistic belief that the detrimental consequences of class structure are responsible.
Karl Marx continues his manuscript, in the second section of the Communist Manifesto, by explaining the Central Committee of the Communist League’s main goals, which were the “formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat” (Marx 67).  The league aspired to implement a Communistic society.  Marx writes, “The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property” (68).  The Communists wanted to do likewise.  They planned to launch their own revolution in the hopes of weakening the power of the bourgeoisie and instating a society in favor of the proletariat or working-class people.
In the third section of the Communist Manifesto, Marx explains why previous manuscripts and literature written by various socialist groups have failed to revolutionize society.  Literature written by Feudal Socialists failed because the “bourgeoisie regime…is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society” (Marx 76). The Central Committee of the Communist League believes that a classless society could never be established under Feudal Socialism.  The Communist Party believes that a classless society is necessary to eliminate the oppressor and oppressed relationship that has become a structural flaw in societies that maintain classes. The Conservative Socialist Party failed because they did not realize the gravity of class structure and its impact on the working-class.  They fail to see the oppressor and oppressed relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  Marx explains that the Critical-Utopian Socialists also failed to bring about change because they did not understand that revolutions must occur in order to alter society.  Dreaming of change, without action, will not bring about the desired change.  According to the Communist Manifesto, Communism is the only key to unlocking the change desired by the working-class.
The fourth, and final section of the Communist Manifesto explains that the Communist Party will stop at nothing to overthrow all existing social arrangement. It is written in the Manifesto that, “The Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things” (Marx 86).  Marx makes it clear that they are willing to do anything to promote political and social change, even if that means supporting the bourgeoisie for a period.  If it will result in a revolution in favor of the proletariat, the Communists are supportive.
Marx’s Communist Manifesto was written to end the confusion that was present in the mid 1800s and rid Communism of its bad reputation.  Marx helped to clarify the theories and goals of “true” Communism, as defined by the Central Committee of the Communist League.  Marx concludes his manuscript with the following motivational proclamation:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.  They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!  (86)
This memorable declaration led many individuals of the working-class to join with the Communist Party.  With the promise of freedom and improved living conditions, men and women of the working-class were more than willing to unite and fight for a revolution. Though the Communist Manifesto did not reach the level of success that Marx and the Central Committee of the Communist League had hoped for, it did not fail like previous Socialistic literature.  Even today, one hundred and sixty years after the composition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Communistic values can be found in several societies around the globe.

List of Works Cited
Bender, Frederic L. “Historical and Theoretical Backgrounds of the Communist
Manifesto.” The Communist Manifesto. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
1988.
Davidson, Rondel V. “Reform versus Revolution: Victor Considerant and the Communist
Manifesto.” The Communist Manifesto. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
1988.
Kautsky, Karl. “The Communist Manifesto after Six Decades.” The Communist
Manifesto. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1988.
Levack, Brian. The West. New York: Pearson Education, Inc, 2007.
Marx, Karl. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” The Communist Manifesto. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1988.
Selsam, Howard. “The Ethics of the Communist Manifesto.” The Communist Manifesto.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1988.

It has been said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder;” however, there is much more to beauty than mere individual opinion. There exists an objective, intrinsic beauty in all creations that can be admired by every rational being if he or she is in the right moral state to view such beauty.  Creation, as it is a God-given power, is, in itself, the greatest representative of beauty. Beauty is in the very nature of every good thing that proves equally satisfactory towards God and every morally righteous individual in the universe.
Beauty has been a matter of philosophical debate for hundreds of years.  Beauty, as defined by Apple’s Dictionary 1.0.2, is “ a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.”  Mathematics explains that beauty is about proportion and symmetry. However, “perfect” proportion or symmetry does not adequately define “beauty.”  Defining beauty is much more complex.
Beauty is of God.  It is present in everything that has been created, that is created, and that will ever be created by the upright and God.  Beauty is an essence that belongs to all objects of which the morally righteous and God deem as beautiful. Plato believed that beauty was one of the “Forms”.  These “Platonic Forms” are “abstract entities that exist independently of the sensible world” (Kemerling).  Beauty is something that exists in all beautiful things.  It exists independently of whether or not we are capable of acknowledging it. Therefore, we are able of failing to recognize beauty.  However, God acknowledges all beauty for He was the creator of beauty.
In humans, beauty is not about physical attractiveness, but rather the condition of the soul. Everything good is equally beautiful. Sin makes us ugly; however, Jesus Christ died for our sins so that we may become beautiful in the eyes of God.  Beauty can be achieved if only we focus on goodness and seek forgiveness when we stray from the path of righteousness.  Beauty is about maintaining a virtuous soul and thus repenting when mistakes are made.
The true meaning of beauty goes much deeper than its conventional definition. Beauty is about upholding moral values and appreciating that which is truly good.  True beauty entails supreme integrity and virtuosity.  Beauty is not evil, it does not provoke hatred, and it does not cause harm.  Conversely, it exists for the pure benefit of humanity and for the universe.

In the Book of Isaiah, there are two written definitions of the role of the biblical “Messiah.”  The differences in these definitions caused the split between Judaism and Christianity.  The dissimilarities also may have been the reasoning behind Jesus’ sentencing and death. The two chapters that contain the contradicting images of the Messiah are Isaiah 41 and Isaiah 53.
Isaiah 41 describes the Messiah as a great political leader. It is written in the Old Testament that the Messiah will be a defender of righteousness, who “delivers the nations, subdues the kings; [and] with his sword he reduces them to dust” (Isaiah 41:2).  Isaiah 41 also continues to explain that the Messiah will cause “the ends of the earth [to] tremble”.  The Messiah, according to these Scriptures, will be a great leader who will conquer all of the enemies of Israel.
Isaiah 53, conversely, describes the Messiah as weak. It is written of the Messiah that, “He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; there was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him” (Isaiah 53:2).  The Messiah, according to this Scripture, will be a humble, lowly, and submissive individual.  This image of the Messiah is far different from that posed in Isaiah 41.
Isaiah 41 states that the Messiah will destroy all those who threaten the wellbeing of his people while, “passing on without loss” (Isaiah 41:3).  The Scripture explains that the Messiah will triumph over the enemies of Israel in a take-no-prisoner fashion. It is written that the Messiah will cause all those who offer resistance against his people to die (Isaiah 41:11).  This image of the Messiah is one of fearsome power, strength, and force.
In Isaiah 53, the Messiah is described as Jesus was; as a man with great compassion, who saved his people from their own sins.  It is written, “He was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, and by his stripes we were healed” (Isaiah 53:5).   The Messiah in Isaiah 53 is described as a savior of his people from their own transgressions. The Scriptures state that the Messiah will be condemned and will be assigned a grave among the wicked and “a burial place with evildoers, though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood” (Isaiah 53:9).
The individual who will be Messiah, according to Isaiah 53, will be of a submissive, compassionate, and modest nature.  He will act as a servant of his people.  This image of the Messiah contrasts that of the Messiah in Isaiah 41.  Both are leaders, but in different ways. The Messiah of Isaiah 41 is a physical and political leader, while the Messiah of Isaiah 53 is a leader of the spiritual realm.
During the time of Jesus, these two definitions of the Messiah caused a split within the Jewish community.  Some Jews agreed with the first definition, while others were more in favor of the second.  The second definition defined Jesus, as he was, a gentle and caring savior of sins.  The first did not. The Jewish men and women who agreed with the first definition, in Isaiah 41, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah and executed him because of their belief.  Today, the Jewish individuals who chose to follow Jesus are known as Christians.  The majority of those who remained Jewish are still waiting for their Messiah, the great political leader, as described in Isaiah 41.

Thomas Paine, a historic intellectual and liberal philosopher, aided in the transformation of the western world by instating revolutionary principles of independence, absolute rights, and republicanism through the writing of his renowned literary works. However, Thomas Paine was not born a revolutionary man. Before 1776, Thomas Paine was a man of great failure. He obtained through his many setbacks, characteristics required of influential, political leaders, such as strength, bravery, drive, and perseverance that prepared his way to becoming a highly revered political activist. It was because of these qualities and the accompaniment of destiny that Thomas Paine was able to become one of the most acknowledged political thinkers and revolutionaries of all time.
Born in Thetford, England in 1737, Thomas Paine was a man of humble origins. As Eric Forner writes in Tom Paine and Revolutionary America, “It would be foolhardy indeed to predict that a child born in Thetford would become one of the leading figures of the eighteenth-century world” (Foner 1). Paine’s family, however, was not impecunious in the least. His father was a Quaker, stay-maker, and a small farmer, while his mother was the daughter of a local attorney. By forgoing many of their own desires, his parents were able to save enough money to send Thomas Paine to grammar school, a luxury that many young men did not dare to dream of in the early 1700s.
Paine attended grammar school for seven years. At the age of 13, he apprenticed as a stay-maker under his fathers close watch. Stay making is the art of manufacturing whalebone stays that are used in corsets. Paine felt that the trade was not for him. After twelve years in the trade, he left stay making to work aboard a ship. His dream of sailing the seas, however, failed and he returned to stay making under the guidance of Mr. Morris of London. In 1759, Thomas Paine, with the financial aid of Mr. Morris, erected his own stay making shop in Sandwich. It was in Sandwich where he met his first wife, Mary Lambert. Unfortunately, Mary passed away in 1760, only months after the wedding. Mary’s father encouraged Paine to relinquish stay making and become a part of the Excise Services.
Paine returned to his hometown of Thetford to study for the excise officers’ examination, which required a great deal of knowledge and skill in both mathematics and in writing. He was an officer for three years before being officially ousted by the Excise Board for a common mistake. He attempted to practice stay making once again, but moved to London shortly after. For a couple years, Thomas Paine taught at an academy, making half of his previous salary as an excise officer.
In 1768, after constructing a letter of apology to the Excise Board, Paine was permitted to continue his work as an excise officer in Lewes, Sussex. He remarried and ran a tobacconist shop while still collecting excise taxes at his post. However, Paine was dissatisfied with his lifestyle and career. He wanted more. Paine dreamt of a profession that incorporated all of his skills. To society and himself he seemed a failure, however, destiny had something great in store for Thomas Paine. He was born to be a revolutionary. Thomas Paine decided to try his luck in America in 1774, a decision that would literally make history.
Thomas Paine arrived in the American Colonies at the most opportune time. He wrote a pamphlet that would set fire to a revolution that would burn throughout the unsettled and dejected British-ruled colonies of North America. This pamphlet, he titled Common Sense. As Thomas Paine stated in The American Crisis, “When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir” (Paine 84). This was the inspiration of his writing. Through Common Sense, Thomas Paine was able to bring to attention the political issues that were problematic within the American colonies. He brought about revolutionary ideas and helped to ignite a war with Great Britain. Thomas Paine, from this point on, was no longer the failed excise officer he had previously been. On the contrary, he was a successful writer and had single-handedly created one of the most influential literary works in American history.
After the war in America, Paine returned to Europe to compose a second radical pamphlet, The Rights of Man. He finished writing on January 29th, 1791; however, he had trouble finding a brave publisher that would publish his controversial writing. His book was published and finalized on March 13th, 1791 by J.S. Jordan, three weeks after it’s original, projected publication due date. As suggested by William Blake, Paine then fled to Paris to ensure his safety.
Paine’s booklet, The Rights of Man, was a response to Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France. In his literary work, Burke heavily supported the decisions of the royal family. Paine was disgusted by his approval of the royal family and his “indifference towards the victims of the old regime” (Foner 215). In The Rights of Man, Paine fully supported and justified the Revolution in France, as well as, described the basic philosophy behind a republican government. The notorious pamphlet sold rapidly throughout the countryside, however the British government was not nearly as approving. In 1792, Thomas Paine was put on trial for seditious libel. It was in court where Thomas Paine spoke his famous words:
If to expose the fraud and imposition of monarchy, and every species of hereditary government — to lessen the oppression of taxes — to propose plans for the education of helpless infancy, and the comfortable support of the aged and distressed — to endeavor to conciliate nations with each other — to extirpate the horrid practice of war to promote universal peace, civilization and commerce and to break the chains of political superstition, and raise degraded man to his proper rank — if these things be libelous, let me live the life of a Libeler, and let the name of Libeler be engraved on my tomb. (Paine)
In February of 1792, Paine published what is known as his “greatest and boldest work” (Foner 216), The Rights of Man, Part Second. He claimed that the second book united, “principle and practice.” He sought to make a distinction between society and government. He wrote that society was, “natural and benevolent,” while government, “at, least in the Old World, was nothing more than ‘a disgustful picture of human wretchedness” (Foner 216). Paine fervently targeted the monarchy with his sequel to The Rights of Man.
Over 200,000 copies of The Rights of Man were sold before 1774. As stated in Tom Paine and Revolutionary America, “The Rights of Man helped to inspire the creation of new radical organizations with a social base far broader than the groups previously involved in the movement for Parliamentary reform” (Foner 220). Thomas Paine’s influence of western civilization is truly remarkable. His books encouraged philosophical and working-class men and women to challenge governmental policies that they saw unfit and unjust. He proved that an individual, with or without hereditary status, could be destined to change the world. The writings of Thomas Paine have been widely read. Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Edison, as well as nearly every American in the United States has at least heard of and, in most cases, have read part, or all of Thomas Paine’s literary works. Thomas Edison once stated:
I have always regarded Paine as one of the greatest of all Americans. Never have we had a sounder intelligence in this republic… It was my good fortune to encounter Thomas Paine’s works in my boyhood… it was, indeed, a revelation to me to read that great thinker’s views on political and theological subjects. Paine educated me then about many matters of which I had never before thought.” (Edison vii)
Thomas Paine was an inspiration to many and is, even today, an unparalleled resource on governmental responsibility, republicanism, and the possession of indisputable rights.

Fast, Howard. The Selected Work Of Tom Paine & Citizen Paine. New York: Random House, Inc, 1945.
Foner, Eric. Tom Paine and Revolutionary America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Keane, John. Tom Paine: A Political Life. Toronto: Little, Brown, & Company, 1995.
Paine, Tomas. The American Crisis. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2004.
Thomas Edison. Introduction to The Life and Works of Thomas Paine. New York: Citadel Press, 1945.

Sociologists are finding evidence that specific children’s toys may be hazardous to future generations. Children, who presently enjoy these psychologically harmful toys, could be facing major social and emotional problems in the future.  These psychological issues are avoidable, so long as we prevent the future generation from obtaining these plastic breeding grounds of self-loathing and hatred.  One of the most powerful of these threatening toys was introduced to America in 1959.
Andy Warhol painted a portrait of her. She has appeared in several films, including “Toy Story”.  She has been to over 150 countries. She owns over forty pets and several pink convertibles and jeeps. She has been a pilot, a flight attendant, an astronaut, a doctor, and a racecar driver.  She is almost 50 years old, arguably flawless, and is the envy of nearly all women in the United States. Sold three times every second, the success of the incredible Barbara Millicent Roberts, better known as Barbie, has become a phenomenon to the entire manufacturing and marketing industry.
However, as she is a financial blessing to a company like Mattel, Barbie is also a threat to the social and the emotional health of young girls across America.  As stated in Kamy Cunningham’s, Barbie Doll Culture and the American Waistland, “Many women (young and old) try to meet the standards, often harming their bodies and their self-concepts.”  These women struggle to become the “perfect” woman, “wholesome, popular, and perky.  In short, a plastic doll” (Cunningham).  The Barbie doll, as harmless as she first may seem, is destroying the youth of America.  She is a slow and silent predator, infiltrating and obliterating your child’s perception of the world and destructively redefining it.  She creates unrealistic expectations for women within the minds of youth.
It has come to a point where Barbie has become so influential in American society that it is no longer necessary to own or even to see a Barbie to be affected by it.  Nearly all young woman in America have fallen prey to the influential doll.  They dream of becoming Barbie, as if she were real, a six-foot, 100-pound, physical wonder.  Most of these women will spend their whole lives thinking their bodies are less than perfect; their breasts are too small, they are not tall enough, or their thighs and buttocks are too big. Whatever the case may be, these women feel pressured to fit an impossible mold constructed by Barbie herself.
The repercussions are seemingly endless.  Even after Barbie has found her final resting place in the attic of your home, the seeds of self-hatred already have been planted.  Barbie never leaves the lives of your children. Approximately seven million girls and women in America have an eating disorder. About 25% of these females will die as a direct result of their disorder. Half of all teenage girls think they should be on a diet.  Around 81% of ten-year-olds are afraid of being fat.  The effect Barbie has on the body images of women across America is appalling. However, eating disorders encompass only a fraction of the problems caused by the infamous doll.  Not only do women feel pressured to appear physically flawless, they also have to be flawlessly successful.  They want the high-profile careers, the pink convertibles, and the mansions with the pink hot tubs.  They will settle for nothing less.  It is no wonder why, presently, depression is more prevalent in women.
Manufacturers of children’s toys should research more carefully the social and emotional impact their “harmless plastic toys” may have on children. Are Barbie’s financial benefits more important to corporate leadership than the lives of millions of Americans?  I sincerely hope not. American society needs repair. The perception of beauty has been so severely altered that it would take years to recover, however, recuperation is possible.  With persistence and determination we can eliminate the “social terrorism” caused by toys such as Barbie, one G.I. Joe at a time.

Today I read the first chapter of John…one of my favorite chapters in the New Testament. It starts off…

“In the beginning was the Word.”

The Word.

I have a Study Bible, so I have side notes and explanations of every verse. The explanation I read for John 1:1 was that “The Word” is God’s creative word, his wisdom, and his “instrument of creative activity”. In my opinion, though, that interpretation is not entirely accurate…

The chapter continues, “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” At this point I’m questioning the analysis I had read from my Study Bible. If The Word is God than God is creativity? God is HIS creative power? God is His own instrument of creative activity? Then I realized, God is not creativity…he HAS creativity. He is Creator not creativity. Creativity is one of the great and many characteristics that are encompassed by God.

So, what is The Word?

I believe it’s simple to answer that question if we continue to read the chapter. Sometimes not reading enough can lead to misinterpretation…Anyway.

“He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.” John 1:2-5

“…And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

If you haven’t gotten it by now… The Word is Jesus Christ.

Another thing I’ve been thinking about is…well, it says in the first chapter of John that Jesus is the Light. All Christians know this, as we call him the “Light of the World” and “The light that shines in the darkness”…

Now if we go back and read the first few lines of Genesis, we understand that God the Father made the light before he made anything else. He saw how good the light was and continued to create the world.

What I was thinking is could this light be The Light?

heey. kinda a response to a friend’s blog…

people should never be easily convinced that one specific religion is correct, but use their own reasoning skills to develop the truth. its easy to simply select a “religion” and follow the rules, but its harder to use reason to figure out the truth. thats how come we have so many radical religions killing one another. they never took the time to figure out if what they were doing is..well..rational and reasonable. if we used rational thought and combined it with religion, or the belief in God, we wouldn’t have that problem because clearly a rational, God-inspired person would not go about killing others. it wouldnt make sense.

umm.. idk i have never completely agree with any one religion’s view of God and the truth. i like hearing what other people believe and have to say about it. then i like to reason with it, and formulate my own beliefs…

you really dont have to “pick a religion” but it is good to go to church and have a group of people that share similar/common beliefs… like im technically catholic..but when i go to mass, i dont always believe everything i am told. that doesnt make me a bad catholic or a bad christian…it just shows that im interested enough to really think about it and maybe even challenge that…

and by challenging it, that doesnt mean i do not have faith. i believe that my challenging the common held belief builds my faith…because i spend a lot of time reading the bible to determine the legitimacy of that specific belief.

Also…i think its good to get different perspectives. thats one reason why i started going to the DC. Getting these different perspectives has only built my faith. I am now more interested than ever in simply knowing the truth…so i spend a lot of time digging through the bible.

ultimately there is one truth. no one knows who is right/wrong. but there is a right and a wrong. the only tools we have to decipher right from wrong is our own reason and the word.

that was kinda rambley. but i like rambley.

We just went over a bunch of parables in theo class…this one kinda stuck out at me…or got me going? idk. but heres some stuff i wrote on it.

There are consequences for failures in faith found throughout the Bible. In Matthew, Chapter 22, Jesus is explaining the parable of the wedding feast.

In the first part of the parable the king invites guests to the wedding feast to celebrate his son. They decide not to come. He sends his servants a second time, and again the invitation is turned down and his servants are met with hostility and some are even murdered. The King, angry at the treatment of his servants, burns down the city of the people of whom he had invited to the wedding feast.

Okay, so we all know parables…they are moral and religious lessons that are metaphoric in nature.

the king is God, the father
the invited guests are his people, the jewish population
the wedding feast represents the community of believers
the son is Jesus Christ

The invitation to the wedding feast represents the invitation to faith in Jesus Christ. The refusal to accept this faith is met with fire and death. The invited, who turned down the invitation to faith, refused to join the community of believers, and killed the messengers, were already spiritually dead. They had set themselves up for disaster. “Burning the city down” does no more harm to the unbelievers than they were already doing to themselves. By refusing to accept the faith they were throwing themselves into the flame.

But there is more to the parable than that…

There is a second dilemma that is presented in the parable of the wedding feast…

Finally, the king tells his servants to invite anyone they see to the wedding feast. One man, who arrives at the wedding feast, is not wearing a wedding garment. Because of his unpreparedness he is thrown out of the party and into the darkness where he will suffer the “wailing and gnashing of teeth”–not a good time.

God allows all people to join into the community of believers, not just the descendants of Abraham. The man without the wedding garment represents someone who goes to the “party” but is just there for the free ride. He hasn’t prepared his heart and soul for the journey into the community of believers. He didn’t put any investment into his faith and hasn’t earned the right to be there. Maybe he doesn’t really believe. He just heard about the consequences of not joining this party and is like “Well, just in case this ‘God thing’ is real, I better show up”. As George Michael once sang you’ve, “Gotta have faith”. You have to believe.

It is not enough just to “show up” you have to put an effort into your faith if you are to be accepted. Let God know you are serious! Don’t be like the unprepared visitor. Work on your faith, fill up on the Word, and “let your light shine before men.” Make an effort to join the community of believers!

soo. i wrote a paper. and this is parts of it..with a few added things.

In Mark’s gospel, because he must solve the contradiction between the two definitions of the messiah role presented in the book of Isaiah(41 and 53), he gives several solutions and examples of how JESUS is the messiah. With the support of Isaiah 53, Mark presents Jesus as he was, a savior of sins and death, not the great political leader the Jewish people had hoped for. ANYWAYS.

We must realize that life will not always be “smooth sailing,” even with God on our side. Mark presents this idea of suffering, death, and resurrection that must occur not only with Jesus, but also in the very souls of his followers.

This was Mark’s warning to the Jewish people: that they should not give up when life begins to get difficult. [[The Jewish people had a history of leaving the land given to them by God to look for better land, when life in "Canaan" got harsh or difficult]] Leaving only got them into further trouble because of the abandonment of the covenant with God.

What Mark was trying to tell us was…
God will test his people, but he will never give them more then they can handle. There will be good times and bad times, but if you stay faithful to God, God will be faithful to his covenant and the people. “If you are faithful, then God will be your protection”

Through the concept of suffering, death, and resurrection, Mark is trying to tell the Jewish people that God never did plan on sending a great political leader who would make all things perfect and wonderful. Instead, God sent us Jesus to teach us how to deal with life’s problems. He sent us a role model.

There will be suffering, “mini deaths” and resurrection within our souls. These “mini deaths” represent the difficult times in your life, times in which you WILL suffer. BUT! WAIT! Jesus brought a message, there will ALWAYS be resurrection, as long as you are faithful to God. Everything will be okay in the end.

Bottom line… dont give up on God because life isnt easy. IF you have faith in him, he will help you overcome, your soul will experience resurrection from the suffering and death. You are strengthened through the tests, so dont runaway from God, without God you cannot experience true resurrection of the soul. God is your salvation.