Taste - Guangdong Essay Example for Free

Taste Guangdong Essay All over the world every culture has a unique and special cuisine. Each cuisine is very different because it can range from the different tastes to the different methods of cooking the food. However Chinese cuisine and American cuisine stand out the most because they are completely different and value different things. Chinese cuisine is a very versatile type of cuisine because there are many styles of Chinese food that make up the Chinese cuisine. These styles of Chinese food originate from the many provinces in China. Like the Chinese cuisine, American cuisine is also very diverse, but most of the cuisine is a combination of many different culture’s food styles because America was the melting pot for many ethnic backgrounds. Therefore American cuisine is made up of many other culture’s cuisine. Because of these varieties, both these cuisines are able to attract a great group of people which makes them favorites of many people all over the world. In China many of the people love eating different styles of food because they offer so many different tastes. There are a total of 8 styles of culinary arts; a few are Cantonese, Szechuan, Hunan, and Zhejiang. Cantonese style comes from the Southeast Coast next to Hong Kong and the cuisine is the most popular of all because the chefs value the sweetness of their dishes. Cantonese cuisine is so popular because when Chinese immigrants came to America they introduced it to the western world. Another popular style of cuisine is Szechuan and it attracts many people with a love for spicy food. This style originated from the middle part of China, and values the use of spicy sauces and spicy pastes to create dishes that give the people’s taste buds a sensation. The next style is Hunan which originated from the East part of China, and is most known for its spicy food too. This style is very similar to the Szechuan style, but the chefs tend to use fresh and dried peppers rather than sauces. Also Hunan dishes appear to be more attractive than Szechuan style because most of the dishes are not covered in sauce and paste like the Szechuan style. Overall both of these spicy styles are equally as delicious. One last style is the Zhejiang style which comes from the East Coast of China, and known for its freshness, tenderness, softness, and crispness dishes. Because this style originated from the coast, most of the food is seafood. There are many traditions to Chinese cuisine. All the dishes are served separately either on a plate or in a bowl. Never is one’s food served all on one plate. Then there is an empty plate for you to put your food. Another tradition is that it is ideal to eat more of the dishes than rice because rice is a complimentary item during each eating course. The main utensil for eating Chinese cuisine are chopsticks, and it has many uses ranging from grabbing food to drinking soup. All in all, Chinese cuisine is very unique and something worth trying. Because America was the melting pot, American cuisine includes Latin, Asian, and European tastes. Latin styles of cooking introduced the use of beans and flour. With flour, the American cuisine produces a lot of breads and wraps. Asian cooking introduced the sweet and sour taste and rice became one of the major sources for Americans to get their daily need of whole grains. Also, Asian cuisine introduced soy and the many uses of fish. Lastly European styles of cooking introduced delicacy of luxurious pastas and desserts. Like Chinese cuisine, there are also many traditions. American cuisine is usually served on a plate with all the dishes. The utensils used are mainly a spoon, knife, and a fork to pick up and cut the food. In conclusion, American cuisine is diverse because of America being a melting pot for many cultures to combine and form this type of cuisine.

The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier :: The Chocolate War

The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier was a book that we read in class, it was about good and evil. It is about how the to forces battle for superiority over one another. The book tells how one of the sides over powers the other to claim its spot on top. The people are like pawns to two of the characters, Archie and Brother Leon because they use the people to get what they want from them, and will stop at nothing to get it. Both of characters will stop at nothing to have what they want, which is to have the power over the school.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The good characters even though few in number are willing to go the distance (especially for Jerry). Jerry is the main character of the story. He has a struggle with in himself to do the right thing. He mess with the wrong people in the school and they make him pay for it, because no one can mess with the Vigils and get away with it. He was to refuse to take chocolates for ten days. However he still refuses to take the chocolates after the ten days. Brother Jacques is another one of the good guys because he sees that Brother Leon is truely an evil man and abuses his power the power that he has over the kids. He saves Jerry at the of the story from the boxing match. Goober is a good person with a big heart, but is not to smart to get out when in to deep helping Jerry to get out. All that he wanted to do was to play football and to run.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There is more of a power struggle among the evil side for them to want to work together. Archie is the Vigils’ Assigner giver. Archie has a struggle with Brother Leon and Carter. First a struggle with Leon because both are trying to carrie the power of the school. Second with Carter both trying to control the Vigils. Carter the president of the Vigils puts Archie on probation tries to stab him in the back at the boxing match using the black box. He smashes Jerry in practice every day just because he can do the. Brother Leon is a sadistic teacher because of the things that he does to the kid in his class, like when he put Bailey in front of the class and smacked him on the cheek with a pointer.

The Bible Among Myth

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY A BOOK SUMMARY THE BIBLE AMONG THE MYTHS: BY AUTHOR JOHN N. OSWALT NAME OF STUDENT: FABIOLA REID STUDENT ID: 22379938 CLASS: OBST 590 INSTRUCTOR’S NAME: DR. ALVIN THOMPSON DATE SUBMITTED: 03/03/2013 INTRODUTION The author, John N. Oswalt, begins his introduction, speaking in regards to the differences between the Old Testament, religions and cultures of the people from the Ancient Near East. As The Bible Among the Myths begins it is the assumption that while there has been no change since the 1960’s, there has been a shifted.Before then, Scholars believed that the Old Testament was true and not compared to any other, however, now scholars questioned this belief and have begun to believe that the Old Testament writings are similar to the other religions of its day. [1] Oswalt continues by discussing a most important philosophical difference within the Old Testament and its contemporaries. He states that there is a clear distinction between â€Å"essen ce† and â€Å"accident. † [2] Oswalt states that an accident can be something as similar as hair, while self-consciousness is an essential.To remove an accident will not cause change but to remove an essential, this thing will cease to be itself. [3] ————————————————- The author establishes to the reader the conception of myth also imitating the option that scholars continue to differ greatly on this definition; Oswalt insists that this ought to not dissuade the individual from seeking a good definition of the word. In order for him to define this word, he list four basic characteristics of a myth. 1. John N. Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009, 11-12 2.Ibid, 13. 3. Ibid. The first characteristic; mankind having little or no intrinsic value and the second characteristic was the relative lack of interest in historical studies. T he third is the practice of magic and involvement with the occult. The fourth is the refusal to accept responsibility for individual actions. [4] Oswalt concludes his introduction with a substantial claim. He emphasizes that theological claims are inseparable from historical claims. [5] Oswalt states that trustworthiness must be contingent upon both the theological and historical claims.If the historical claims are patently false, then no credence ought to be given to the theological decrees, In the end, I am not advocating a â€Å"the Bible says it, and I believe it, and that settles it† point of view, although those who disagree with me may argue that to be the case. What I am advocating is a willingness to allow the Bible to determine the starting place of the investigation. [6] CHAPTER ONE ————————————————- The first chapter discusses the Bible in milieu of its surroundings and contribution to society as a whole.Oswalt mentions that there are many contributions to way the Western world views reality. The Bible, however, is the most important contributor. [7] 4. Ibid, 14. 5. Ibid, 16. 6. Ibid, 17. 7. Ibid, 21. Greek Thought: The Greek philosophers of the early centuries brought in this way of thinking that was to have a profound effect on the western world. The belief, in a â€Å"universe† instead of a â€Å"polyverse,† adding, simple cause and effect, as well as non-contradiction were three of their most significant contributions. [8] Hebrew Thought:While the Greek philosophers were struggling to express their point of view, the Hebrews were also articulating their beliefs by way of the prophets. Their beliefs were as follows: There is only one God, God is the sole Creator of all that is, God exist apart from creation, God has made himself known to his people, God has made his will known to his people, and God rewards and pun ishes people for following or disobeying his will. [9] Combing Greek and Hebrew Thought: ————————————————-Oswalt states; when the Gospel of Jesus presupposed the Israelite worldview, penetrated into the Greco-Roman world, this set the stage for the combination of the Greek and the Hebrew worldviews in the distinctively Christian way. The Greeks’ rational thought combined with Hebrew people’s belief in monotheism. [10] 8. Ibid, 22. 9. Ibid, 23. 10. Ibid, 25 Oswalt argues that logic was not completely developed until after people realized that God not only was the sole creator of the universe, but was also completely separate from the creation.What is most important is that science and logic cannot stand on their own and if they attempt to then this will lead to self-destruction. Oswalt gives an example; Hiroshima and the Buchenwald concentration camp and human ity’s achievements when it is devoid of God’s influence. [11] CHAPTER TWO In this second chapter, Oswalt discusses his definition of myth. However before Oswalt begins this definition he begins to argue the very question with regard to the myth and why it is questioned at this time. Oswalt mentions that fifty years ago there would not be such a question.However by the 1960’s and as more scholars begin to research the Bible, more questions aroused. [12] ————————————————- Oswalt wishes to apply the appropriate classification to the Bible. Unequivocally, he describes whether or not the Bible should be considered a myth or not. In order to properly answer the question, Oswalt list several definitions posed by scholars today. As Oswalt listed these definitions, he also explains why he feels that they are inadequate. 11. Ibid, 27. 12. Ibid, 29-30. The catego ry of definitions falls under one group known ashistorical-Philosophical and they are as follows; 1.Etymological – based on a false and fictitious deity or event. 2. Sociological-Theological – the truth is seen as relative and something is seen as true if it is seen by others. 3. Literary – the events are not seen as right or wrong. Instead, the narrative employs heavy use of symbolism to express its meaning. [13] ————————————————- These definitions all have one thing in common which is at their core; they all believe in the philosophy of continuity. Oswalt states that continuity is a philosophical principle that asserts that all things are continuous with each other.Oswalt uses an example of a person being â€Å"one with the tree. † Not merely symbolically or spiritually, but actually. The tree is me; I am the tree. [14] 13. Ibid, 33, 36, 38. 1 4. Ibid, 43. CHAPTER THREE Chapter three discusses Continuity as the center of topic. Carrying over from chapter two the one thing that myths have in common at their core is the presence of continuity. This way of thinking is viewed as all things are viewed as related in some form or fashion. There are three major forces (humanity, nature, and the divine) this is where everything exists within the circle. 15] The effects of continuity are numerous and varied in accordance. One of these effects is looking at signs in nature. The effects are attempted to be explained by weather patterns, floods, fire, plagues and the celestial beings. Other examples are the effects of fertility and potency and the preoccupation of the people thereof. Oswalt uses the example of how sexuality is so central to people’s lives today is a reason for this effect of continuity. [16] ———————————————à ¢â‚¬â€- Finally, Oswalt deals straightforwardly with what he feels are the common features of myth.Excluding a few exceptions, myths all share the belief that their existence is based on Polytheism. Which is the belief of more than one god or and many gods. The second is these gods in the form of images. The use of symbols and icons are believed strongly in order to interact with nature and the divine. The gods themselves are not view highly in fact view lowly, they are not seen as actual beings. Confliction is what is needed in order for the universe to evolve and myths have a low view of mankind. [17] 15. Ibid, 48. 16. Ibid, 50-56. 17. Ibid, 57-59.CHAPTER FOUR In chapter four Oswalt reverts back to characteristics of the Bible. Here he argues with the topic of transcendence, where God (who has been in existence before the universe) interacts with all things thereof. In this Biblical thought process there is uniqueness with regard to the modern-day belief systems in many ways. How ever one must bear in mind that the Old Testament is remarkably self-consistent regarding the things it maintains about the nature of reality. [18] Oswalt provides the reader with a broaden list of some common characteristics.Monotheism, of course one of the most obvious characteristics of the Bible that stands out among other religions. With the exception of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam which are all directly correlated from the Bible. Most other religions are polytheistic. The existence of Yahweh being the only God was a defining characteristic for the Old Testament and the Bible as a whole. [19] ————————————————- Another characteristic of the Old Testament theory is that God was in existence prior to the all creation. All that exist is after God and God created it.Oswalt states that if the world is full of chaos that it is not due to God but the spirits of this worl d. Oswalt mentions that the Bible is a position to insist that the problem of humanity is not a tragic fatedness to evil, but a spirit that prefers evil to good. [20] 18. Ibid, 63. 19. Ibid, 64-65. 20. Ibid, 66. CHAPTER FIVE In chapter five Oswalt argues that the Bible is totally different from other religious writings and is unique in its self. Oswalt further discusses the issues of ethics, In the Ancient Near East; the non-biblical worldviews held two sets of ethics.One set is related to how people interacted with each other. The other set of ethics is related to how people acted upon the deities. In Bible ethics behavior was defined by God and God alone and not subject to the social changes in society, they obey God. [21] Oswalt discusses some of the similarities between Israelites and non-Israelites. Some of the practices were quite similar. The sacrificial ceremonial, the manner of their offerings, the layout of the tabernacle and temple and also the decoration of the temple al l seem similar to those of the Israelite and non-Israelite people.Their practices of expression and thought pattern were similar to where Oswalt indorses his belief that these areas are incidental and not essential to the basic identities of the people. [22] CHAPTER SIX ————————————————- Chapter six introduces the Bible and History, Oswalt points out the there is a distinction, between myths and the Bible, whereas the myths are based on many gods, the Bible is based on one God. History and the Bible run parallel to each other. Oswalt argues the idea that to state the Bible is not â€Å"historical â€Å"is something of an oxymoron. 23] 21. Ibid, 85-87. 22. Ibid, 91-97. 23. Ibid, 112. Oswalt uses Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language to describe the definition that he feels would best fit history. History functions on different levels. Its connecti ons could be to someone or something or both. Yet the Bible is its own form of history correlated with mankind and their surroundings. [24] CHAPTER SEVEN AND EIGHT Oswalt attempts to address some of the issues that were used against the Bible concerning its historical stance.Oswalt does mentions some gaps, progress and lack of progress, whether the Bible is â€Å"history-like† or â€Å"historical fiction† as well as how it relates to revelation and supernatural events and whether Israel is unique in these areas. [25] Oswalt makes the case in the eight chapter that the Bible is historical and completely accurate. Oswalt states this matter is of the utmost importance. While one would state that there are sections of the Bible that are not historical for example; poetic and wisdom, these too are historical because they describe people, relationships weaknesses and failures.The entire Bible is historical especially when it pertains to the history of the Jesus Christ. †”———————————————- The author states that one could argue German distinction between Historie (defining what happen) and Geschichte (telling what is going on) as being valid. [26] 24. Ibid, 112-115. 25. Ibid, 138-141. 26. Ibid, 157-168. The conclusion of this section determines that history is inseparable from theology in the Bible. Theology is in relation to the historical events. The author uses an exceptional example with regard to the resurrection to support this conclusion.He directs the reader to one of the epistles written by the Apostle Paul to the church of Corinth. The Apostle Paul states that one’s faith cannot exist without a historical belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [27] If Christ was not raised then your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17) CHAPTER NINE AND TEN ———————â⠂¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€- In chapter nine the author discusses alternative views pertaining to the biblical narrative as it is known today. He began with the arguments of John Van Seters.Professor Van Seters emphasizes that the Bible had to have been altered by Jewish priest after Babylonian exile. [28] Oswalt mentions that the second is Frank Cross who assumes that the Bible used to be an epic poem, however was changed into the Old Testament’s current state at some point. [29] The third is William Dever who believes that Israel’s belief systems were identical to Canaanite beliefs and the Christian scholars have overlooked certain facts throughout history to portray an inaccurate account of ancient Israel. 30] Then, finally, Oswalt discusses Mark Smith and his opinion of Israel’s belief system. Mark Smith argues that Israel’s beliefs are directly originated from the Canaanite’s polytheistic beliefs. [31] 27. Ibid, 170. 28. Ibid, 173. 29. Ibid, 175. 30. Ibid, 177-180. 31. Ibid, 181-184. The author concludes this book in chapter ten where he reiterates his main points taken from previous chapters. He stresses the major theme is that contrast between biblical and non-biblical views of reality. The biblical view is deep-seated in transcendence and the non-biblical view is deep-seated in continuity. 31] In the end, we may differ on the biblical worldview and theology, given to them, but what matters in the end is how we answer the following questions: Is there a God? Does he have a will for our lives? Has he made known that will to us in intelligible actions and speech in time and space? If we answer â€Å"no† then the entire enterprise is bootless. However, if our answer is â€Å"yes† the question of what God’s will is and how he has chosen to reveal it becomes one of absolutely ultimate significance. [32] ———————â⠂¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€- 31. Ibid, 185. 32. Ibid, 194.REFERENCES 1. Oswalt, John, N. , The Bible Among the Myths Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009, 11-12 2. Ibid, 13. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid, 14. 5. Ibid, 16. 6. Ibid, 17. 7. Ibid, 21. 8. Ibid, 22. 9. Ibid, 23. 10. Ibid, 25. 11. Ibid, 27. 12. Ibid, 29-30. 13. Ibid, 33, 36, 38. 14. Ibid, 43. 15. Ibid, 48. 16. Ibid, 50-56. 17. Ibid, 57-59. 18. Ibid, 63. 19. Ibid, 64-65. 20. Ibid, 66. 21. Ibid, 85-87. 22. Ibid, 91-97. 23. Ibid, 112. 24. Ibid, 112-115. 25. Ibid, 138-141. 26. Ibid, 157-168. 27. Ibid, 170. 28. Ibid, 172. 29. Ibid, 175. 30. Ibid, 177-180. 31. Ibid, 181-184. 32. Ibid, 185 33. Ibid, 194

Why Women Should Wear A Dress - 1033 Words

â€Å"Ma’am, what were you wearing when it happened?† â€Å"What was I wearing when I was raped? My pajamas.† Many women when raped are asked what they were wearing. But why ask that question? â€Å"The police officer who asked what I was wearing was talking in the context of what evidence they could collect†, said Rachel when she was raped. Rape is wrong regardless what the circumstance is and I am quite flabbergasted on how many people think it is the victim fault for wearing a certain piece of clothing. Long pants, short dress, T-shirt, sweats, or bikini, it is not the person’s fault for what they wear, no one asks for it regardless of what they are wearing, isn’t that obvious, though? Apparently not- an Amnesty International survey found that more†¦show more content†¦First of all, they are dressing for themselves, they want to feel good and look good, there is nothing wrong with that. I cannot fully comprehend why on earth a per son might think just because a person dresses a certain way means that they are asking for it. New York City says, Sexual assault is the only crime in the book, literally, where the offender repeatedly blames the victim. I ve ... had men who attacked 5-year-old girls who ve said, she climbed on my lap and she was very sexy and I thought she was inviting me to touch her. Victims knew their rapists most of the time which means that the clothes people wear are irrelevant whether they are raped or not. Studies show that approximately 80%-90% of women reporting sexual assaults knew their assailant. Another reason why it doesn’t matter what the victims wears is that Costello, a CNN reporter states that, â€Å"And it has little to do with what a woman looks like and everything to do with violent, criminal tendencies.† She points out that normally rapists love to have control and desire domination over their victims. They look for vulnerable women and for the right opportunity. However, in once case, a 15-year-old was sexually assaulted by a 24-year-old and his excuse was I don t think it is fair to say this was a very vulnerable person. There was a suggestion the girl had been sexually active before. The complainer was wearing shorts, black boots, and a white top. She was trying to dress older than her years.