Heroes

Harriet Tubman is a well known African American Hero. What we don’t is all her untold stories. Why, you ask? We only told a glimpse of her accomplishments because all they seem to wrap their heads around is the underground railroad. Yes indeed, Harriet did build the underground railroad freeing slaves, but she did so much more. First, who is Harriet Tubman? Tubman was born in 1822 to Harriet Ross.

How did Minty Ross become Harriet Tubman? Minty ross was Harriet’s original name,that is until she married the freed black named John Tubman. This lead to taking her mother’s first name,harriet, and her husband’s last. This is who we all know as Harriet Tubman. While Harriet lived, she contributed to many things and impacted the world in many ways including going back to the south to give people a chance to be free. But where do we feel her biggest impact on her accomplishments? Out of the many harriet accomplished, her greatest contribution is to the civil war.

Harriet’s first great achievement was when she was 28. Harriet made her first rescue at this age and her last rescue was at age 38. In this decade harriet rescued a total of 23 fugitives in about 8-19 trips. To avoid dangers harriet ensured her trips occured at night . also, she prevented danger upon herself and others by meeting fugitives at prearranged places. This was a great achievement because in doing this she could have a lot of obstacles and life threats come up.

Furthermore, Harriet assisted the poor and sick. And “During the 48 years between the end of the Civil War and her death in 1913. Much of Harriet Tubman’s time was spent taking care of poor people in her home. Harriet often had six to eight people in her care”. As said by Harriet herself, “The aged,…the babe deserted, the epileptic,the blind,the paralyzed, … all found shelter and welcome.” In this quote , she makes it clear that the state your in doesn’t matter. This was another great achievement because after winning one battle instead of taking a step back for herself, she took care of others in need. Not a lot of people would take care of others in need before themselves, and for this I admire her.

Harriet’s not last, but Greatest achievement is the ones she completed during the civil war. During the civil war harriet played the key role, the spy. During this, harriet was to[get] 800 people that day, and [they] tore up the railroad and fired the bridge”. These amazing things were all completed in one single night. And even after, “Tubman was asked by the governor of massachusetts to join the union troops in south Carolina”. There she lead “ a team of 8 black spies to operate behind the lines and prvoide[d] Union raid to free slaves.

Not to mention, Harriet was also a war Nurse. Harriet “served as nurse for the wounded survivors of the (all black) 54th Massachusetts Volunteers. And even with all she had done harriet was never acknowledge or recognized, “she never even received pay or pension”. This was her greatest achievement because no one is capable of risking their lives yet alone saving 800 in a day. Her heart is so big that even after helping the wounded, that could potentially expose her to disease, she did not ask of money. And still, she kept doing so.

These accusations were made by people such as John Clue and Nicholas De Jingo. Shackled suggests that these critics didn’t take into account that writers and their work would have been rejected or censored. (Shackled; 1998). Gay men and women were subject of Senator McCarty Witch’ hunts during the ass, they were considered by the government as security risks. The government accused homosexuals as potential acting as spies who would betray them as this type of lifestyle was UN-American. (Shackled; 1998).

Homosexuals were also seen as communists, and during the witch hunt in the asses they were prosecuted, even thou proof. Government officials were fired from their jobs. This was known as McCarthy. (Shackled; 1998). “Inspired by McCarthy, a legislative committee sought to rid Florida of any perceived homosexual, for being gay was not only perversion of the highest magnitude but, more importantly, also tantamount to being a traitor” (Shackled; 1998). During the time that Williams wrote ‘Cat on a Hot Tin Roof’ being gay was one of the worst crimes that someone could commit.

Homosexuality was also considered as a mental illness, which meant that anyone ho was open about their gay lifestyle was immediately seen as ‘abnormal. ‘ This meant that the medical procedure known as a Lobotomy could be performed in order to cure homosexuality. These procedures went ahead despite Sigmund Fried’s claims that homosexuality was ‘neither an asset nor a liability. ‘ (Shackled; 1998). In ‘Cat on a Hot Tin Roof It Is clear that Skipper was a gay man. He drank himself to death after admitting his love for Brick, and falling to prove that he wasn’t when sleeping with Maggie. Alcohol becomes the means by which both the gay or quasi- ay male characters, Skipper and Brick, run from their inner selves. Skipper is portrayed as a disturbed but clearly homosexual man whose love and admiration for Brick are such that he cannot face the truth Maggie helps reveal to him. ” (Shackled; 1998). Skipper is a key role In this play, despite being dead before It begins.

Hero is not Just a title and to be a true hero it takes more than getting your elderly neighbors cat out of the tree. Throughout the play it is also safe to say Brutes Is not a villain. The best category for Brutes falls under the personnel of a tragic hero. Throughout the play it is obvious to the reader that Brutes is loved by most, including Caesar. Secondly, Brutes revolves his actions around the people of Rome and less his own wants/needs. Lastly, he can not be classified a true hero because of the violence that leads him to “victory”.

In the play the characteristic of tragic hero easily connect o Brutes making it very easy to demonstrate why that Is the best title for Brutes. It Is safe to say Brutes Is not a hero from head to toe. Some of his acts Inflict tragedy on others and Inflict pain on him self. Brutes causes much pain to people close to Caesar such as California and Antonym “O mighty Caesar! Dost thou Ill so low? Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils, shrunk to this little measure? Fare thee well. ” (Shakespeare In 148-150 act 3 sin 1). This shows that Brutes “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. (Shakespeare In 22-23 act 3 sin 2) is not hinging about the entire Rome but only the majority. This means that through some eyes Brutes is a villain. On the other hand the majority see him as a savior of Rome and he truly believes that what he has done to Caesar and those close to Caesar is for the better of the people. It is clear what Brutes goal is and as we learn he is setting out to accomplish that goal. It seems to be a fairly straight forward but it is not told to the reader that Brutes seems to be a good representation of the roman people. This means that he is a favorite throughout Rome.

In Career’s final words “Et u, Brute! Then fall Caesar! ” (Shakespeare In 77 act 3 sin 1) shows that even though Brutes is the killer of Caesar, Caesar trusted Brutes. Caesar is a good representation of Rome and what most think of Brutes. With this power Cassias uses Brutes to help leave an opening in Caesar spot. Some may think that by killing Caesar this makes Brutes a hero but as we know the killing of Caesar does not please everyone in Rome. Brutes is a well known and loved man in Rome and the fact that he kills Caesar brings out a naive side of him.

Cassias uses Brutes to open up a spot for himself. Brutes does not see that this is what Cassias is doing and is suddenly in a spot he might not have originally been in if it wasn’t for Cassias. The murder of Caesar brings out the corruption of Rome and suddenly turns to battle with Rome torn. “Defiance, traitors, hurl we in your teeth: If you dare fight to-day, come to the field” (Shakespeare In 65-66 act 5 sin 1). This shows how Brutes killing of Caesar seemed to be good but after all raised more chaos than Intended, therefore making him a tragic hero.

In the paragraphs above it Is clear that Brutes Is not a Hero nor a villain but a tragic ere. The definition of a tragic hero Is a great or virtuous character In a dramatic tragedy that Is destined for downfall. Brutes Is a powerful man but seems to be a little naive about where he stands In Rome and who he stands for or with. Brutes seems to do a lot for the roman people, and putting them In front of himself. Lastly not all that Brutes does Is good for everyone making him not a true hero. This explains why Brutes is caught in the middle of hero and villain. Say Julius creaser brutes villain or hero By battlefronts neighbors cat out of the tree. Throughout the play it is also safe to say Brutes is not that leads him to “victory’. In the play the characteristic of tragic hero easily connect to Brutes making it very easy to demonstrate why that is the best title for Brutes. It is safe to say Brutes is not a hero from head to toe. Some of his acts inflict tragedy on others and inflict pain on him self. Brutes causes much pain to people close to Caesar such as California and Antonym “O mighty Caesar! Dost thou lie so low? Are all leave an opening in Career’s spot.

Some may think that by killing Caesar this makes after all raised more chaos than intended, therefore making him a tragic hero. In the paragraphs above it is clear that Brutes is not a Hero nor a villain but a tragic hero. The definition of a tragic hero is a great or virtuous character in a dramatic tragedy that is destined for downfall. Brutes is a powerful man but seems to be a little naive about where he stands in Rome and who he stands for or with. Brutes seems to do a lot for the roman people, and putting them in front of himself. Lastly not all that Brutes does is good for everyone making him not a true hero. This

The Medici; Heroes of the Renaissance In the year 2004, PBS broadcasted the series, “Medici; Godfathers of the Renaissance”. This four-part documentary, in attempt to gain viewer interest, compared the Medici to the mobsters found in Francis Ford’s “The Godfather”. The relation of the Medici to Italian mobsters in the PBS is in no way accurate, for they were not villains of the renaissance, but heroes. The Medici were very connected with the church, and used their extensive wealth to promote religion.

The Medici became powerful as a result of being the official Papal bankers. They used a lot of their power and wealth to give back to the church throughout their lives. Throughout the Medici timeline there were a total of four Medici Popes. The family was very much intertwined with the church. The Medici patronized the sculpture of David by Michelangelo as a gift to publicly show the beauty their religion. The Medici found and sponsored an architect named Brunelleschi to successfully complete the a dome for the Sistine Chapel.

The building of the dome was an on-going problem and embarrassment for the church for many years, and the Medici had solved it. The Sistine Chapel was now a pride for the people of Florence. The Sistine Chapel was also flooded with famous paintings from Medici artists such as Michelangelo and Botticelli. These painting connected the church with modern society because the Medici artists were used, and they were very popular to the people of Florence. The Medici contributed to the church’s beauty, and connection with society throughout the renaissance.

Art and architecture was a crucial part of the renaissance. It was the celebration of humanism, the competition between cities, and the start of new ideas. The Medicis were patrons of the most talented and radical people. The people the Medici supported all contributed greatly to the renaissance outlook on life and human pride. Art was so important to the Medici family that Lorenzo di Medici created a Flourentine School of Art. It was at this school Michelangelo was discovered, and brought in as part of the family.

Michelangelo under the name of the Medici completed many inspiring pieces of art that would uplift the feel to society. He created the towering statue of David, which became a proud symbol of the city of Florence. Another Medici sponsored artist, Botticelli was famous for a different kind of art. Botticelli’s artwork was sensual , and contained many mythical gods and godesses. In his painting ‘The Birth of Venus’ this is seen the most clear. Venus is known as ‘the goddess of love’ , and in this painting she is naked emerging from the sea.

This type of artwork was popular because it radically celebrated humanism, and portrayed ‘the perfect humans’. This type of art inspired people, and were uplifting. However, it was controversial because although society accepted it, the church did not approve. This was only one of many Medici artists’ artworks that was frowned upon by the church during the renaissance. Architecture played a big role in the uplifting of society as well. Architecture, like art, was another chance to out-do other cities, and win the title as most beautiful city.

The Medici were patrons of the most famous architecture of the renaissance–Brunelleschi. Brunelleschi was the architect responsible for the completion of many Florentine buildings such as The Orphan’s Hospital, the Chapel of the Pazzi family, and most memorably; the Sistine Chapel’s dome. Brunelleschi’s architectural success brought forth a feeling of accomplishment, pride, and happiness for the people of Florence. These feelings were common characteristics of the renaissance era, brought forth by the Medici family.

By supporting a questioning society, proving their power through patronizing, and discovering their own ways of gaining power, the Medici changed the political ways of the renaissance. Before the renaissance, the church was the most powerful and controlling leader. However, it only had power as long as their followers remained loyal. The Medici were household members with, and big supporters of ,the very intelligent, church-defying Galileo Galilei. Galileo’s completely valid discovery that the Earth travels around the Sun defied the teachings of the Old Testament.

Galileo published a book of his discoveries disguised as a fiction novel. This was not the first scientific discovery to defy Bible teachings, however it was the most publicised. This caused society to begin to question the teachings of the Bible, and everything they had been taught. This theme of questioning lead to less loyal followers of the church, and more loyal followers of non-religion based rulers. The Medici also introduced power through patronage. Rather than fighting to prove power like in the past, the Medici found creating the most beautiful city was just as rewarding.

Their rise to the very top after completing the dome of the Sistine Chapel proved this theory completely. Most of the Medici valued public involvement, modesty, and connections, for that was how they gained power. According to Pope Puis II Cosimo di Medici was “not so much a citizen, as master of his city…he was king in all but name and state. ”The more people they befriended, the more loyal followers they would have. Cosimo Medici I however, ran Tuscany based on fear. He felt a powerful military and security would produce better results and less threats.

Both forms of government worked for the Medici, and were continued to be used throughout the renaissance, and into today. The Medici positively contributed to the Renaissance through religion, art, architecture, and politics. For this, the Medici should be honoured as heroes of the renaissance. Through their constant contributions to the church, unique taste in art, and daring bold choices, it is not questionable how the Medici kept power and influence throughout the renaissance. Countries in today’s society should aim for well-rounded leaders like the Medici.

The final title of her novel ‘North and South’, suggests the important role setting and location play in Gaskell’s story of Margaret Hale and her relationship with Milton mill-owner John Thornton. During the course of the novel, we see Margaret settled in three locations; Harley Street, Helstone and Milton. Each of these settings represents a different social stratum and we see Margaret develop in her perception and attitude towards each of them.

They all contribute, in some way, to making Margaret the girl that she is at the end of the novel. The book opens in Harley Street, where we are presented with the character of Edith. Edith’s role in the novel is to act as a contrast to Margaret or ‘control sample’. Through her, we can see what Margaret’s life would have been like had she accepted Lennox. Edith is the model Victorian woman and she fits in perfectly with her Harley Street surroundings, but Margaret is far more independent, strong-minded and unconventional.

When having her lover describe her future life in Corfu, “the very parts which made Margaret glow as she listened, Edith pretended to shiver and shudder at… because anything of a gipsy or make-shift life was really distasteful to her. Margaret, on the other hand appears to be ill at ease with the superficial attitudes and concerns of those around her. As she tells her mother; “I think what you call the makeshift contrivances at dear Helstone were a charming part of the life there”.

Margaret has no pretensions and this dislike of the superficial relationships is particularly evident in her description of her aunt’s view of her “neighbours whom Mrs Shaw called friends, because she happened to dine with them more frequently than with any other people, and because if she or Edith wanted anything from them, or they from her, they did not scruple to make a call at each other’s houses before luncheon”. This relationship contrasts with her experiences in Milton were the term ‘neighbours’ is applied to people such as Higgins and his daughters; a far more personal and sincere relationship.

The opening scenes also provide the reader with an explanation of Margaret’s position in Aunt Shaw’s house. It is shown to be a warm and affectionate household with her “gentle aunt and dear cousin”, but Margaret’s position within it was that of ‘poor cousin’ and companion to Edith. Margaret’s proud character and regard for social stature is clear from her eager “delight of filling the important post of only daughter in Helstone parsonage”. This perception of class and positions in society is one that shapes many of her dislikes of Milton and its inhabitants and is one that she must eventually overcome.

The title of chapter two, “Roses and Thorns” has significance in that is shows the contrast between the life Margaret expects at Helstone, surrounded by roses and the outdoors, and the “thorns” in her life that she hadn’t expected. It shows how beneath the idyll of her memories of Helstone, lie problems waiting to cause pain. Margaret feels that she belongs in Helstone where “its people were her people”. As an example of this, she “learned and delighted in using their particular words”.

However, she is later to acquire the language of the people in Milton, showing her adaptability and also how she ‘belongs’ in Milton to the same extent as she does in Helstone. Margaret is aware that “one had need to learn a different language and measure by a different standard up here in Milton”. The embracing of the local dialect by a middle-class girl is highly unusual in novels, showing the unconventional, clever and independent mind that Margaret possesses. Her return to Helstone and her “keen enjoyment of every sensuous pleasure” shows how Margaret is a sensuous woman, greatly appreciative of the outdoors.

The loss of the countryside and the geographical differences between Milton and Helstone are perceived greatly by Margaret. In Helstone, Margaret walks “out on the broad commons into the warm scented light, seeing multitudes of wild, free, living creatures, revelling in the sunshine, and the herbs and flowers it called forth” whereas “at Milton the chimneys smoked, the ceaseless roar and mighty beat, and dizzying whirl of machinery, struggled and strove perpetually. Senseless and purposeless were wood and iron and steam in their endless labours”.

The difference in the environments is emphasised through Gaskell’s use of language and tools such as alliteration. Margaret shows her attitude to social class on her first arriving at Helstone, to have been shaped by her childhood in the fashionable Harley Street. She conforms to the conventional perception that a man’s status as a gentleman is reliant on birth, property and an appropriate (or no) occupation. This topic is one that is discussed at length with Mr Thornton and we see that Milton, and her acquaintance with Thornton, changes Margaret’s opinion on this.

Thornton believes that “”gentleman” is a term that only describes a person in his relation to others”, whereas the term “a man” comprehends more, a person not merely considered “with regard to his fellow-me, but in relation to himself”. It is one of the many prejudices concerning class relations that Margaret must overcome before she can be happily united with Thornton. Although she declares that “I am not standing up for [the cotton spinners] any more than for any other trades-people”, she is later to stand up for both the masters through Thornton and the workers through Higgins.

The change in Margaret is forced upon her through her change in situation and circumstance. The frailties and failings in Mr Hale’s character can be seen in his being unable to tell his wife of his change of conscience and their subsequent more to Milton-Northern. This means that greater responsibility is placed on Margaret’s shoulders, but her strength of character shines through because although she “did dislike it, did shrink from it more than from anything she had ever had to do in her life before” she then manages to “conquer herself”. This is something that Mr Hale is unable to do.

The area the Hales move into in Milton is cleverly named, Crampton. Like Dickens in ‘Hard Times’, Gaskell uses the names of places to suggest their nature. Edith’s letters from Corfu provide not only the reader, but Margaret also, with a constant reminder as to what her life could have been like. The first letter from Edith tells of her arrival and is received on the day of Margaret’s own arrival in Milton. The lively and gay description of their happy days in Corfu provides a stark contrast between the dark, chaotic and cramped life in Milton.

The lives of the two young cousins have diverged completely. At this point in the novel, Margaret would have preferred Edith’s life, but later on we see that she would not have been content with such a life. Margaret’s humanitarian interest is awakened in her through her life in Milton. She provides a counter-argument to that of J. S. Mill and those of the utilitarian movement such as Gradgrind in ‘Hard Times’. She sees a smaller section of Milton society and was “thrown in with one or two of those who, in all measures affecting masses of people, must be acute sufferers for the good of many”.

She, like Dickens’ Sissy Jupe sees the cost in terms of human suffering, her concern is for the individual. Margaret is interested in people and it is through her acquaintance with Higgins and his family that Milton “became a brighter place… in it she had found a human interest”. She does not like to hear the mill workers referred to as “Hands”. This is an issue discussed also in ‘Hard Times’ but it reflects on her interests in the individual in society. Referring to a whole class of people by the same generic term, removes the personal contact and identity of the workers. They no longer have “independence of character”.

As we hear of Frederick and his story, we see how and why Margaret looks up to him. Her creed in life is that; “Loyalty and obedience to wisdom and justice are fine; but it is still finer to defy arbitrary power, unjustly and cruelly used – not on behalf of ourselves, but on behalf of others more helpless”. This is what Frederick did. She sees his crime as elevated through his motives to a “heroic protection of the weak”. This concords with her great interest in humanity. When she saves Thornton from the mob at the mill, “she did it because it was right, and simple, and true to save where she could save”.

Margaret, coming fresh to the industrial troubles in Milton, provides a new outlook on the problems. Although she is biased in that she considers the south a lot less hostile and full of suffering, she can see “two classes dependant on each other in every possible way, yet each evidently regarding the interests of the other as opposed to their own”. She correctly identifies communication as being the root of a lot of their problems and endeavours to improve this. Margaret’s relationship with Dixon shows her capacity to love fiercely.

It also highlights her perception of her position in the household and her willingness to take on all the responsibilities of nursing her mother. Mrs Hale’s fatal illness brings Dixon and Margaret together in sympathy and support for one another. Through Mrs Thornton’s scathing opinion of Margaret and her condescending attitude to her surroundings, we see others’ perception of Margaret’s breeding and social awareness. Although her opinions as regards her surroundings change gradually during her time in Milton, Mrs Thornton never credits her with this.

Bessy too is surprised that Margaret is associating with the “first folk in Milton”. More particularly because it is unusual that someone of Margaret’s middle class breeding visits both the masters and the men, thus straddling the two very distinct classes in the industrial town. Margaret finds this hard to come to terms with when she is invited to dine at the Thornton’s, where she is expected to “dress up in my finery, and go off and away to smart parties, after the sorrow I have seen today”.

Margaret, with all the sorrow and hardship she has to bear, has all the propensity to become a martyr. Many a self-sacrificing heroine has had her true character poorly developed throughout the history of the novel. Despite this, Margaret is not a martyr, she is a much more three-dimensional character. While she bears the responsibility and pain of her life and family troubles, “her whole life just now was a strain upon her fortitude”. She doesn’t deny the hardship and must struggle against complaining. This makes her a much more ‘real’ and enjoyable character.

In her darkest times in Milton, she still looks back to Helstone as the “sunny times of old”, showing that her character has not yet completed its journey. In the wake of her mother’s death, we see Margaret beginning to redress her prejudices regarding trades people; “her cheeks burnt as she recollected how proudly she had implied an objection to trade (in the early days of their acquaintance)” This is also a sign of her growing feelings for Thornton, which she is yet to admit to herself. When Higgins visits, he is asked upstairs; something which astonishes Dixon, as “folk at Helstone were never brought higher than the kitchen”.

During their time in Milton, class distinctions as perceived by the Hales have weakened. The change in Margaret is also shown through her beginning to address the poor in the south with a more objective attitude. Margaret’s view of trades people goes full circle when her brother goes into trade in Spain and she reflects on her “old tirades against trade”. Not only does her perception of trade go full circle, but also in her returning to London, her lifestyle does likewise. Her London life no longer satisfies her and she fears becoming “sleepily deadened into forgetfulness”.

The pace of life in London is very different from the bustle of Milton and she finds that it is the commotion and excitement of the industrial town that she prefers. Leaving it has left a “strange unsatisfied vacuum in Margaret’s heart”. She also longs for contact with other classes such as she experienced while in Milton. On returning to Helstone, Margaret comes with the view that she was returning ‘home’, but she finds that little things have changed and moved on and Helstone will never be the place it once was.

It is this realisation of the changes that “carry us on imperceptibly from childhood to youth and thence through manhood to age, whence we drop… into the quiet mother earth” that allows Margaret to make a break with Helstone and all the memories attached to it. She is able to come to terms with it as her past and remember it solely as such. Mr Lennox comments that Margaret returns at the end of the novel to the “Margaret Hale of Helstone”, but he is wrong; she is quite a different woman to the now.

Thornton too fails to see that it was her time in Milton that made Margaret the independent woman she is at the end of the novel, describing Helstone as “the place where Margaret grew to be what she is”. Margaret’s character is shaped not only by her young childhood in Harley Street, her summers in Helstone, but also her young womanhood in Milton. It is probably the latter that had the most substantial impact on her, causing her to see both Harley Street and Helstone through different eyes on her return.

Ultimately, she chooses the life and spirit and vigour of Milton over the laziness of London, through her choice of Thornton over Mr Lennox as a husband. The vast differences in the scenery and setting over the course of the novel reflect Margaret’s attitude and her changing opinions regarding herself and those around her. The changes she undergoes in Milton are highlighted by her return to the familiar scenes of Helstone and Harley Street, her new attitude to them and the people connected with them.

I waited to enter the debate again until my heart was In the right place and free of anger towards those who disagree with my viewpoint. Now I ask you prayerfully consider these words, not Just rejecting them in favor of your personal prejudices. Search the Scriptures, casting aside all previous viewpoints and open your heart to what the Spirit of God is speaking to you. Many well meaning people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. They, Just as l, value the ancient text, and seek its guidance In their lives. Unfortunately, many of them have never really studied what the Bible does and isn’t say about homosexuality. I was unaware until about 2 years ago that a lot of what I’d been taught about the Bible by people who love God and want to teach others the words, was derived from an improper understanding of context, history, and also literalism, which was seen as heresy even going back to Origin and Popularly, early church fathers who were students of Apostle John. When I searched further, I came to see the Bible as more.

I saw Its many cultures, religions and spiritualistic, but more importantly, I saw people who were trying with their limited understanding of the universe, nature, biology, and overall knowledge, to make sense of a world, and a God, they didn’t understand. The Bible has a powerful message for all regardless of gender, sexual orientation, personal philosophy or spiritual practice. But it’s a message of love and acceptance, not condemnation and, hate, and fear. Don’t take my word for It, though.

I ask only that you’d consider what careful research. Prayer, and meditation has taught me about the passages used by some people to condemn God’s children simply because of a biological factor like attraction. Premise 1: The rampant epidemic of biblical illiteracy in this country A recent study quoted by DRP. Peter Gomes in The Good Book found that 38 percent of Americans polled were certain the Old Testament was written a few years after Jesus’ death. Ten percent believed Joan of Arc was Nosh’s wife.

Many even thought the epistles were the wives of the apostles. A few key points Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior. The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality. Only six or seven of the Bible’s one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way ? and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as It’s understood today. Premise 2: Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.

Over the centuries, people, well meaning or otherwise, who misunderstood or misinterpreted the Bible have done terrible things. The Bible has been twisted to defend bloody crusades and tragic inquisitions; to support slavery, apartheid, and segregation; to persecute Jews and other non- Christian people of faith; to support Hitter’s Third Reich and the Holocaust; to oppose medical science; to condemn Interracial marriage; to execute women as witches; and Scripture for his purpose. Looking at recent history, within the past 60 years, countless LIGHT people, all of them children of God, were murdered, assaulted, abused, arrested, rejected, ostracizes, fired from Jobs, had their children taken away, and denied basic civil rights because of six or seven verses, most of them taken grossly out of context. Most of the people I know who say “the Bible condemns homosexuality’ would never condone these acts. Most Christians have no idea that the people killing gay and lesbian persons go around quoting those few verses of Scripture as Justification.

But it’s important to hear these stories, because I’m not writing this little pamphlet as a scholarly exercise. It’s a matter of life and death. I’m pleading on the side of love. Premise 3: We must be open to new truth from Scripture God is constantly speaking. What was once adamantly declared as truth in one age is now regarded with ignorance in another. SST. Peter was commanded to kill and eat animals he once regarded as unclean to show that the old covenant dietary laws had been lifted. SST.

Paul, who once killed those who claimed the name of Jesus, in a matter of hours loved the God-Man whom he once despised as a false prophet. Even Jerry Falafel, a bastion of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity, believed the Bible supported segregation in the church until a black shoeshine man asked him, “When will someone like me be allowed to become a member of your congregation? ” I ask you to look again, with careful prayer, study, and meditation, this issue of sexual orientation. Don’t Just accept mindlessly the words of a pastor or priest, but as SST.

Paul said in 1st Thessalonians, “”Test all things and hold fast to that which is good. ” We must look at all verses within two frameworks Galatians 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, Joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, and self control. There is no law against such things. ” Philippians 4:8 “Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is Just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think upon these things.

Even if we believe the Bible is “infallible” or “without error,” it’s dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error. We are human. We are fallible. And we can misunderstand and misinterpret these ancient words often with devastating results. Premise 4: The Bible is a book about God, not human sexuality The Bible is about God’s love for his children and all of his creation. It’s a story of God who is healing, renewing, empowering, and loving us, his sons and daughters, so we can follow God’s example with others.

“She abandoned them under a delusion” he said, “picturing in me a hero of romance and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. ” Heathcliff is portrayed as a villain but at the same time, a romantic hero. It seems that he is double edged. He schemes to get Thrushcross Grange and Wuthering Heights, but he is not always so vengeful and rancorous. For example, when the ghost of Catherine Earnshaw came to the window, he wept for her and begged for her to come back.

“Come in! Come in! Cathy do come. Oh do once more! Oh! My heart’s darling! Hear me this time, Catherine at last! ” in this he shows his hypersensitive side and emotional side. He begs Catherine to go to him and be with him forever. However, his vengeful side does get the better of him quite often and demonstrates him to be gothic, dark, evil and morose. “Though it’s as dark, almost as if it came from the devil. ” This explains his gothic and dark approach. The evil and morose trait is unveiled with Hindley, where he swears revenge on him for all the grief and pain Hindley inflicted on Heathcliff.

Hindley was so callous and malicious towards Heathcliff and always belittled him as well as treating him like a dog, that this made Heathcliff become so vengeful, he became bitter, twisted and calculating. This vengeance has built up inside Heathcliff stemmed from the mistreatment that he received as a young boy. The fact that he ran away from Wuthering Heights was because of an Earnshaw, just not Hindley, but Catherine. An archetypal romantic hero is one that was typical and habitual. They can be dark and moody and vampiric, like Heathcliff, or hypersensitive, passionate and emotional, also like Heathcliff.

In the Victorian era, there would’ve been lots of heroes like Heathcliff, called Byronic heroes. Bronti?? challenges the morals of the Victorian era, by creating a dark, bitter, twisted mind that is Heathcliff. Also she challenges the morals of the Victorian era by giving Catherine the more dominant role. Her husband, Edgar Linton, is made out to be more feminine than Catherine is. In the Victorian period, the male would’ve played the dominant role traditionally. Bronti?? defies convention by portraying Catherine as the more dominant of the two.

Bronti?? depicts Edgar as somewhat womanly up against Heathcliff. She describes Heathcliff as a tall grown man and up against him; Edgar looks and acts more pale and feminine than normal. Bronti?? also makes Edgar out to be the weaker sex. He is always being pushed around by Catherine and is a complete walkover. He never sticks up for himself around Heathcliff and cannot fight Heathcliff on his own. Edgar is constantly hiding behind his men or Catherine because he is so weak and anxious. Even his sister, Isabella, completely makes him out to be superfluous and unneeded.

Bronti?? also defies convention by giving the females the authoritive role. She gives Nelly the role of the person who stirs things up and blows things right out of proportion. Nelly always interferes with other people’s business and meddles in other people’s affairs. She stirs up a rumour about Catherine and Heathcliff ‘arguing’ and tells Edgar. This sparks off a massive argument between Catherine and Edgar because he won’t fight Heathcliff on his own. Catherine is thought to be attention seeking by Nelly, who doesn’t believe her at all.

By being an attention seeker, Catherine gets what she wants, and if she doesn’t, then she will do her damnedest to make sure she gets it. Because she cannot have both Edgar and Heathcliff, she makes herself terribly ill because they have both broken her heart by arguing. By doing all of this, Catherine makes herself so ill, that she eventually dies. But before she dies, Heathcliff wills to see her. He is portrayed as the romantic hero then towards Catherine. He cries when she is drastically ill and dying in his arms. “Oh Cathy! Oh my life! How can I bear it? This shows how hypersensitive he can be. He truly loves Catherine and doesn’t want to lose her.

He blames her for inflicting pain on him by making herself ill. He hates her for it but he still madly and deeply loves her and cannot find it in himself to hate her forever. He has an absolute determination to be with her for as long as they both shall live and even when she dies, he cries. He detests being away from her and wills her to haunt him. He cannot bear the thought of someone else having her, which is why he was so cut up about Catherine and Edgar getting married.

He believes in transcendent love and wants to carry on loving her but wants to be with her. He wants Catherine to come back to him so they can carry on together. Whilst he is with Catherine, he turns quite violent on her and shouts at her, demanding to know why she has been making him suffer so badly. She is very apologetic towards him and begs for his forgiveness, as well as wishing she wasn’t dying so she could be with him for even longer. Heathcliff is intent of pushing the boundaries so as he and Catherine can be together forever.

Towards Hindley’s son Hareton, he deviously takes away his rights, but at the same time, makes Hareton love his oppressor. Because Hindley has neglected Hareton due to his drink problem, Heathcliff has taken the liberty of acting like Hareton’s parent, but at the same time, taken all of Hareton’s rights away from him and downtrodden him to the level Hindley walked over and belittled Heathcliff to. This is one form of many ways of revenge Heathcliff has on the Earnshaw family. We wouldn’t have expected this of Heathcliff, because Nelly described him as a sweet little boy who never stirred whilst ill.

Heathcliff has shown and intrinsically evil villainous side to him. He is a born evil character and is always seeking revenge on everyone who mistreated him or anyone who did something to him or did something he didn’t like, such as Edgar and Catherine getting married. An intrinsically evil villain is one who is pure evil, 100% evil even. He or she will stomp and trample over anyone to get what he or she wants and will not stop until they get it. His actions and evil motives are essential to the plot because he is the most unpredictable person in the novel.

What he does is so unpredictable, yet so obvious. This reading of Heathcliff is backed by his mistreatment of Isabella and Hareton, his scheming to get what he wants (namely Wuthering Heights, Thrushcross Grange and Catherine) and his violence towards Hindley. “If you don’t let me in, I’ll kill you! ” this evil quote was spoken by Heathcliff and aimed towards Isabella. This was when she locked him out in the cold, just like when Hindley made him sleep in the stables. We cannot however, deny the fact that we are secretly impressed with his cleverness, shown through his scheming and wickedness.

We are impressed because we are all a tiny bit envious of him because of his cleverness and amazed at how he gets away with the scheming. Not only does he act a role of the villain but he also challenges the generic description of a romantic hero. He has no morals, his behaviour is devilish and demonic, his gothic and vampiric connotations and his sheer enjoyment of being with the dead. He is, to some extent an anti-hero, yet has the charm and with to win over anyone he chooses. He is cunning, conniving, scheming and hell-bent on revenge. This type of behaviour makes him out to be an anti-hero.

He is so outrageous and demonic, he lacks all heroic, admirable morals and qualities and is so evil, and it is hard to describe him as a hero. Throughout the book, Heathcliff only ever shows his ‘romantic’ qualities he has to Catherine. He doesn’t show them to Isabella, who really he should because she is his wife. He is totally iniquitous towards Isabella. However, she does antagonise him by taunting him about the death of Catherine and derides him about how he is going to live without her. It doesn’t help that she locks him out of his own house.

We sympathise with Heathcliff over the way he treats Isabella because she is silly and has a terrible attitude. His vengeance also stemmed from abuse he suffered as a young child from Hindley. Although he was a calm and peaceful child, his revenge grew and grew. So we fell his actions towards these two individuals is justifiable. For some strange reason he always has our feeling that, however unscrupulous his behaviour is, he is always right and justified. We see him as a villain but sympathise with him on the night of the funeral for the reason that he is distraught at the thought and reality of losing Catherine.

Bronti?? is making a stand against convention. She feels that by giving males the dominance in novels and life is unfair, so she makes a stand against it. She wants people to be shocked by reading this novel and feels the only way she can do it is by doing the normal, then flipping it upside down. For example, Catherine is a rich female living with her husband. However, she is the more dominant of the two, which would have been strange to individuals in the Victorian era. The novel at the time was received with great criticism.

One review of the novel quotes “too disgusting for the eye or the ear to tolerate, and unredeemed, so far as we could see, by one single particle either of wit or humour, or even psychological truth, for the characters are as false as they are loathsome. ” This was one of the reviews that many people would have agreed with. They would have agreed with this because the characters were indeed eccentric and officious, but they were what they were. They were characters in a kind of love triangle. They were ordinary people who had very tumultuous relationships but deeply loved each other.

Edgar loves Catherine, Heathcliff loves Catherine and Catherine loves both Heathcliff and Edgar. The novel was considered to be evil and immoral. Bronti?? wrote about females dominating some men in the novel. She defied convention to try and shock the reader into reality. She truly believed that women should have had the same rights as the men had. She criticised the way that women had to give up themselves and remain silent. This means they had no say in what happened. They could not work. They had to sit at home all day and sew or serve.

Bronti?? didn’t like that, so she wrote a novel that would make the reader see reality and hopefully change the way women lived. To publish the novel however, she used a pseudonym. She used the pseudonym ‘Ellis Bell’. If women wrote anything for example, it would not be published. The world then was considered to be male. The only way for women to heard was if they somehow managed to present themselves as male. This is why she used the pseudonym Ellis Bell. Her sister, Charlotte Bronti??, also a writer, used the pseudonym Currer Bell, so as her novels, including Jane Eyre, could be published.

Emily Bronti?? challenges stereotypes and the archetypal heroes that the readers are familiar with. She criticises the people who do not stand up for what they believe in. in Heathcliff, there is a character that everybody has to love because he poses a threat to conventional order and morality. Without Heathcliff, the novel would lack all passion and be boring and tentative. Bronti??’s suggestion in this novel is that people should follow their heart and not convention. Heathcliff and Catherine’s idea of heaven is returning to the Heights.

This is highly unconventional and totally unchristian. The raison d’i??tre of all the tragedy and evil in the novel was a result of Catherine doing what every other women in the Victorian era, not standing up for what she believed in and not standing up for what she really wanted. Heathcliff is full of contradictions. He has been described by many as a villain and also described as a romantic hero. He is intrinsically evil and contradictory. He is also an archetypal romantic hero. He flouts the typical description of him as a romantic hero and swears he is not a romantic hero.

He seems to be double edged and has an absolute determination to be with his one true love forever. He is a great believer in transcendent love and assumes he can push the boundaries and be with Catherine for as long as time. His connotations with the devil and death are clearly stated and he refuses to be classed as a hero. He fascinates yet repulses us. We seem to take his side no matter how awful and immoral his actions are. I think that Bronti?? challenged the Victorian critics because she wanted to change the way life was. Women were not allowed a say in anything that happened, and she felt that that wasn’t fair.

Personally, I don’t think Heathcliff is a very approachable character. He is moody, self-centred, annoying, vile, hypocritical and malevolently malicious. He only cares about himself, even after 150 years he is problematically difficult to understand. “His black eyes withdraw so suspiciously under his brows” is a perfect description of the demonic, evil mortal he is; he denotes the demonic qualities of a flea. He is annoying, you wish he wasn’t there; you purposefully avoid anything like him and certainly do not want to be another victim of his cruel, malicious, blood sucking nature.