Give me faith的問題，透過圖書和論文來找解法和答案更準確安心。 我們找到下列地圖、推薦、景點和餐廳等資訊懶人包

How Bad Do You Want It? It’’s Time to P. U. S. H.

為了解決Give me faith的問題，作者Mixon, Regina G.,Williams, Evangelist Lavina D. 這樣論述：

At various stages in our lives, we must decide how badly we really want something. There is always a price to pay in order to attain that which we desire.Seasons change. Sometimes what was will not fit in our new season. In order to get what we want; it is sometimes necessary to let go of what wa

s.We cannot hold on to what was while reaching for a new thing. In the book of James, it states that a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. ＂But let him ask in faith, with no doubting; for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.8 For let not that man suppose

that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.＂ (New King James Version, James 1:6-8)To move into a new season, there are some things we absolutely must do. Allow Evangelist Lavina Williams and me to share some things with you, from a Biblical persp

ective and a practical perspective, that you can begin to do immediately. Start to P. U. S. H. and walk into the new thing that God wants to do for you. There is always a price to pay for one’s freedom. Are you now ready to pay the price? Wishing won’t make it happen. Faith alone won’t make it happe

n. It is time to do the work! It is time to P. U. S. H. and give birth to whatever it is God has placed inside you.

Give me faith進入發燒排行的影片

網路信仰應用在傳統宮廟之研究-以玉敕慈保宮為例

為了解決Give me faith的問題，作者陳君涵 這樣論述：

臺灣的傳統宮廟大部分都是以傳統科儀的方式，來為其信眾解決問題，信眾的舊有觀念也是如此，但隨著現在時代和科技的趨勢，產生了網路信仰的宗教信仰方式。本研究採用質性研究的方式，透過文獻探討、訪談資料、觀察紀錄等資料，並以桃園八德玉敕慈保宮為例，試圖去了解一間原本是使用傳統科儀的傳統宮廟是如何去調整和改革成一間使用網路信仰的傳統宮廟，內容包含宮廟歷史沿革、參與動機、體驗感受與阻礙因素等來說明對於宮廟、信眾和網路小編三個不同立場的參與者，對於改革成為網路信仰的過程中有了哪些影響。此外，在研究的過程中適逢covid-19疫情盛行，網際網路結合信仰勢必是宗教信仰的未來趨勢，因此本研究探討到傳統宮廟於網路社

群平台設立Facebook粉絲專頁、LINE@來協助信眾可以線上問事，且以「准賜文件」方式來協助解決問題。研究者依據研究結果得出以下結論一、網路信仰進行方式大多以消息分享和社群平台的互動為主。二、傳統宗教信仰改革成為網路宗教信仰時，以目前的生活型態而言，仍是利大於弊。三、臺灣固有的傳統宗教信仰觀念難改，因此改革過程中需花較多時間適應網路信仰所面臨的問題。

Drucker on Totalitarianism and Salvation by Society

為了解決Give me faith的問題，作者Peter F. Drucker 這樣論述：

　　TO OUR READERS 　　I have long wanted to compile a volume that brings together Peter Drucker’s discourses on totalitarianism and salvation by society to make them easily accessible to readers. Now the work has finally been completed. 　　The book is comprised of selections from five of Peter Drucker

’s works, The End of Economic Man, The Ecological Vision, Landmarks of Tomorrow, Adventures of a Bystander, and A Functioning Society. My job was to sort the content into nine chapters, draw up titles, and write related introductions to the chapters. Drucker’s reflections on and critiques of totalit

arianism run through most of his works, but they are more focused and systematic in the five books mentioned above. Known as “the father of modern management”, Peter Drucker had a lifelong hatred of totalitarianism. He studied management because he felt that only the effective management of pluralis

tic social organizations—including non-profit organizations, industrial and commercial enterprises, and government agencies—could provide options or alternatives to resist totalitarian rule. 　　Totalitarianism is an ugly phenomenon in human society and politics, and it is also a terrifying disease.

It has caused more suffering to humankind than any other tyranny in history. What it seeks is to fully and thoroughly manipulate and control every individual, both in body and mind, turning humans not only into animals but also into machines and tools as well. Totalitarianism aims for absolute power

, but no one except the Creator has such power. Hence, it manifests as a state of absurdity and madness in which “the movement (persecution) is everything, yet there is no purpose.” By its nature, totalitarianism cannot tolerate the existence of even a tiny bit of humanity. The Nazis’ “final solutio

n” (genocide), the mass murder of Jews, is its logical result. Today, highly developed new technologies are also providing imaginative physical and psychological methods of manipulation, giving those with totalitarian ambitions the means to carry out a “final solution,” the extinction of unmankind (

the extinction of human nature; that is, essentially exterminating the human species.) Totalitarianism is the result of the failure of “salvation by society”. 　　History has repeatedly proven that any perfect, or nearly perfect society that claims to have no conflict, no class differences, complete

fairness, justice, benevolence, and harmony, is a utopia. However, using society to eliminate evil in human nature, to save human beings from depravity, and transform them into perfect people, is merely a naïve fantasy. Marxism is the most recent, most rigorous, and most alluring social rescue plan

but also the utmost failure at “salvation by society”. Today, political parties and nations still under the banner of Marxist communism or socialism have essentially sunken into totalitarianism. 　　From the perspective of philosophy, “Salvation by society” belongs to the category of absolute rationa

lism. It originates from human beings’ pride and conceit, is the notion that people can grasp absolute truth and become the master of everything in the world, including their own destiny. 　　Tracing their respective roots in different fields of knowledge, people regard their discoveries as the only

correctness. They develop various “isms,” including progressivism, scientism, economic utilitarianism, rational liberalism, nationalism or ethnocentrism, and socialism and communism. 　　 　　These doctrines may be impeccable logically, and some are emotionally moving. But they all have an a priori hypo

thesis that cannot be empirically proven or falsified—that is, human beings can be absolutely rational and can comprehend absolute truth. 　　Now we finally know this priori hypothesis is wrong, not because of logic’s merits or demerits, but because it simply doesn’t work in real life. So, where is t

he way out? Peter Drucker suggested that we return to spiritual values and faith: to experience and recognize there is a higher authority beyond society and above human beings. That authority has already planted compassion and justice in human’s hearts, what we usually call “conscience.” If humans i

ndeed have a purely rational nature, conscience is its master. With conscience derived from faith, rationality can perform its beneficial functions. Like the conservatism’s counterrevolutionary movement that took place in the United States and Great Britain more than two hundred years ago, it shines

with the glory of true freedom and genuine rationality: Those movements were constructive, not destructive; they appealed to the love, faith, and humility of Christ. Based on religious conviction, they firmly rejected human’s absolute rationality, or irrational absolutism, and were solemnly committ

ed to human dignity.   　　 　　Peter Drucker inherited the tradition of the conservatism’s counterrevolution in the United States and Great Britain. Inspired by observing social and political realities in the United States, he formed a social concept that differs from a social rescue plan (salvation by

society): lesser evils instead of greater good. Although imperfect, it would create a less painful and tolerable society. Such a society should have the following characteristics: 　　1. It would replace solipsistic “isms” with an open and tolerant attitude. 　　2. It would replace centralized and uni

form structures with diversified social organization and decentralized power centers. 　　3. It would replace revolutionary dogma with experimental, gradual improvement and review from time to time. 　　4. It would replace the rigid social relationship that mutually exclude and negate between individual

and the whole, or between the different parts of the society, with the principle of mutual dependence and mutual benefit to establish a dynamic equilibrium between the individuals and society, freedom and order. 　　Such a society would not follow a preset scientific design, nor would it need to rel

y on charismatic leaders or supermen. It would not be perfect, but it would be better and achievable. 　　It should be emphasized that Drucker’s openness, tolerance, diversity, and eclecticism are not without a bottom line. The bottom line is that he will never tolerate any form of totalitarian autoc

racy. Drucker noted that human beings have two essential qualities that other creatures don’t have—knowledge and power. These attributes can neither be removed nor avoided, and their aims and uses must be regulated and restricted. He was wary of sovereign states and modern governments. He believed t

hat regardless of whether they adopted a democratic system or an autocratic system, they were essentially the same but only different in extent, to which they infringed on individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, within every sovereign state and modern government, there exists a gene for the growt

h of totalitarianism. When any nation abuses its knowledge and power to violate human rights, the international community must restrict or even deprive it of its sovereignty. 　　However, Drucker believed that thus far, the United States may be the only country that has never entirely accepted the co

ncept and system of a sovereign state. Therefore, as the leader of the free world and developed countries in the West, the United States is best suited to be the first to serve as a model for global actions to resist totalitarianism. Constructive frontiers of work are more important and decisive tha

n confrontations in the military sphere. Such frontiers are not found in the East, where totalitarianism is firmly rooted and far-reaching, but in the free world, especially in the West, where the U.S. has an advantage. These “West” frontiers are: 　　• the educated society; 　　• the world economy of

dynamic development; 　　• the new political concepts and institutions needed in this pluralist age, internationally, 　　nationally and locally; and civilizations that can take the place of the East that has vanished. 　　Ultimately, when the “West” constructive endeavors bring forth the tolerable new s

ociety that Ducker envisioned, restoring confidence in freedom and equality, totalitarianism will evaporate just as the sun rises and the dew will naturally be disappeared, losing its deceptive magic. 　　For those who are not free today, who unfortunately live under totalitarian rule or in totalitar

ian revolutionary movements, Drucker offers advice on how to deal with the environment based on his personal experiences in Europe as a teenager. The first is what not to do. Power has the potential for absolute and comprehensive control, and human nature is weak, unable to withstand the threats and

temptations of power, let alone face the opening of “Pandora’sBox”—totalitarianism. If a person is not ready to stand up, fight, and sacrifice him—or herself for righteousness— and it is only the few of the best, noblest, and courageous among us who can do that—the wisest thing to do is to break of

f with totalitarianism. 　　If some people try to control it with ambition or to make a deal with it by using wisdom and ingenuity, whether out of selfish motives or sincere goodwill, totalitarianism will use them, and they will become accomplices to its evildoing. In “The Monster and the Lamb” of th

is book, Drucker termed the former type “monster” and the latter “lamb.” Compared with above two types of people who voluntarily join the totalitarian camp, the other type of people is often the majority. Although they do not participate in themselves, they acquiesce totalitarianism to abuse others,

they turn their heads, safely latch their door then enjoy “peace and quiet.” Totalitarian careerists derive their greatest encouragement from public indifference, which is an “endorsement” to behave unscrupulously and do whatever they please. 　　As for what people should do vs what should not do, D

rucker didn’t give an easy answer. He didn’t tell us what proactive actions we can take under the terror, pressure, and false propaganda of totalitarianism that would effectively weaken totalitarian rule while protecting as much as possible ourselves and families. The situation is similar to the Bib

lical story of Abraham, who accepted God’s order to sacrifice his son. Abraham felt compelled to obey God’s command, yet also wanted to save his beloved son Isaac. Considering and formulating what strategies and courses of action is the responsibility of every entrepreneur, teacher, scholar, media p

erson, government official, professional knowledge worker, and citizen. However, the principles and directions have been given, and the constraints of the objective environment are also clear. Therefore, we can at least know the understanding of ethics, morals, and performance are required for holdi

ng a position or running a business in a totalitarian country are different than they would be for the same position or business in a democratic country. For example, if you have to set up a business in a totalitarian country, your goal should not be to contribute to the country’s GDP or tax revenue

. Nor should you aid in strengthening its national defense or “stabilizing” its society. And, not to mention that you should never use the national ideology to educate employees and unite them.   　　Lastly, I’d like to point out that the book ends on an optimistic note, which Drucker wrote in 1959.

He was fifty years old then, vigorous and confident. He saw a pluralistic and autonomous organizational new society taking shape in the United States and the West. The boom in modern　management and the emergence of an educated group of knowledge workers (also known as the “middle class”) complementi

ng each other at that time. But on the other hand, he also noticed that mankind had begun to master knowledge of the natural science and behavioral science that could end up destroying humanity. And that kind of knowledge was creating conditions for the exercise of absolute power. In that era of gre

at change, he urged society, human beings, and individuals to “return to spiritual values and return to religion,” and he emphasized knowledge workers’ responsibilities, because in inherence, “knowledge is power, and power is responsibility.” It is also because only through the specific and subtle p

ractice of assuming responsibility and thus realizing dignity at the individual level could humankind’s long-standing grand and lofty ideal of “freedom and equality” be achieved. Hereby, I would like to revisit with the readers on Drucker’s clarion call that he made sixty years ago as encouragement

for us all: 　　“Everyone must be ready to take over alone and without notice, and show himself saint or hero, villain or coward... played out in one’s daily life, in one’s work, in one’s citizenship, in one’s　compassion or lack of it, in one’s courage to stick to an unpopular principle, and in one’s

refusal to sanction man’s inhumanity to man in an age of cruelty and moral numbness. 　　In a time of change and challenge, new vision and new danger, new frontiers and permanent crisis, suffering and achievement, in a time of overlap such as ours, the individual is both all-powerless and all-powerf

ul. He is powerless, however exalted his station, if he believes that he can impose his will, that he can command the tides of history. He is all-powerful, no matter how lowly, if he knows himself to be responsible.” 　　Ming Lo Shao, Editor 　　October 2020, in Los Angeles, USA   編者簡介 　　FOREWORD O

N BEHALF OF THE AUTHOR 　　If the author of this book, Peter Drucker, were still alive, faced with the reality of the current rifts in American politics and society, I believe he would warn and advise us all, particularly the young and enthusiastic among us, with the following words from the preface

of The End of Economic Man, reprinted in 1969: 　　But can we still be sure? Or are there not signs around us that totalitarianism may re-infest us, may indeed overwhelm us again? The problems of our times are very different from those of the ’twenties and ’thirties, and so are our realities. But som

e of our reactions to these problems are ominously reminiscent of the “despair of the masses” that plunged Europe into Hitler’s totalitarianism and into World War II. In their behavior some groups—they racists, white and black, but also some of the student “activists” on the so-called Left—are frigh

teningly reminiscent of Hitler’s stormtroopers—in their refusal to grant any rights, free speech for instance, to anyone else; in their use of character assassination; in their joy in destruction and vandalism. 　　In their rhetoric these groups are odiously similar to Hitler’s speeches and so is the

dreary nihilism of their prophets to hatred from Mao to Marcus. But above all, these groups on the “Right” as well as on the “Left,” like the totalitarians of the generation ago, believe that to say “no” is a positive policy; that to have compassion is to be weak; and that to manipulate idealism fo

r the pursuit of power is to be “idealistic.” They have not learned the one great lesson of our recent past: hatred is no answer to despair. 　　Understanding of the dynamics of the totalitarianism of yesterday may help us better to understand today and to prevent a recurrence of yesterday. It may, I

hope above all, help young people today to turn their idealism, their genuine distress over the horrors of this world, and their desire for a better and braver tomorrow into constructive action for, rather than into totalitarian nihilism as their predecessors did thirty years ago. For at the end of

this road there could only be another Hitler and another “ultimate solution” with its gas chambers and extermination camps. 　　Those words not only embody the book’s practical significance today but also the historical importance it will have in the future. 　　Editor     　　November 2, 2020, America

n Presidential Election Eve 　　Los Angeles, USA   CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PREFACE PREFACE TO OUR READERS FOREWORD ON BEHALF OF THE AUTHOR   CHAPTER ONE The Morbid Phenomena of Totalitarian Countries Introduction 1 The Totalitarian Economic System and the “Noneconomic Society” 2 By Justifying Per

sonal Sacrifice to Deny the Meaning of Life and Society 3 Create Enemies and Incite Hatred Between Classes, Races, and Nations 4 Control the Entire Country and Society by One Top-to-bottom Totalitarian Organization 5 Mystifying Leader, Creating an Atmosphere of Personal Worship 6 Encourage Informers

and Undermine Traditional Ethical Values   CHAPTER TWO The Origins and Essence of Totalitarianism from the Prospective of Society and Politics Introduction 1 The Total Failure of Marxism Had Been a Main Reason for the Europe’s Masses to Supported Totalitarianism 2 Why Can Totalitarianism Win the Su

pport of the Masses? 3 No Revolutionary Leader Can Oppose the Inner Dynamic of the Revolution or Impose Measures That Go Against Public Opinion   CHAPTER THREE Totalitarianism Inevitably be Replaced by a New Noneconomic Society Based on Individual Freedom and Equality Introduction   CHAPTER FOUR The

Origins and Essence of Totalitarianism from the Perspective of Rationality and Faith Introduction 1 From Rousseau to Hitler 2 Why Society Is Not Enough: Introduction to The Unfashionable Kierkegaard 3 The Unfashionable Kierkegaard   CHAPTER FIVE The Origins and Essence of Totalitarianism from the P

erspective of Technology Progress Introduction Abstraction Part One of The Human Situation Today   CHAPTER SIX Criticism of Marxism Introduction 1 How Did Marxist “Political Economics” Be Debunked? 2 Marxism’s Failure   CHAPTER SEVEN Do We Want “Salvation by Society” or a Society That Is Not Perfec

t but Tolerable? Introduction 1 No More Salvation by Society 2 A Society that May Be the Best We Can Possibly Hope For   CHAPTER EIGHT The Free World’s “West” Strategy to Resist Totalitarianism Introduction 1 “The Work to Be Done”—The Overview of the “West” Strategy 2 Discussion on the Frontiers of

“West” Strategy   CHAPTER NINE How Should Individuals Deal with the Threat and Temptation of Totalitarianism? Introduction 1 The Maverick Young Drucker 2 The Monster and the Lamb 3 Abstraction Part Two of The Human Situation Today   推薦序 PREFACE 　　Peter Drucker was a friend and advisor to me duri

ng my leadership years at ServiceMaster. Minglo Shao has become a very special friend of mine. We first met as he became a partner of ServiceMaster, assisting us in expanding our business to China and other countries in the Far East. I later had the privilege of introducing him to Peter Drucker, and

the two of them developed a good friendship which extended over the balance of Peter’s life. 　　Minglo Shao has now developed an abstract of Drucker’s writings reflecting Drucker’s view on “totalitarianism and salvation by society.” As you read this, it is well to reflect upon the application of th

ese thoughts—especially to the young people of today—providing appropriate warnings and excellent advice. Thank you, Minglo, for the example of your life and your continued friendship. C. William Pollard November 2, 2020 American Presidential Election Eve Chicago, Illinois, USA 2 By Justifying Pe

rsonal Sacrifice to Deny the Meaning of Life and SocietyThe consistent new concept of society which totalitarianism proclaims is nothing but a mirage unless war is accepted not only as legitimate but as supreme. Man’s function and his place in war must lay the basis of his function and place in soci

ety altogether. Hitler’s and Mussolini’s entire social and political edifices are necessarily built upon Heroic Man as the concept of man’s true nature.* * * * *The anonymous soldier in the trenches, the equally anonymous worker on the assembly line, are fundamental symbols of this new concept of ma

n. And Ernst Juenger, the one really profound German philosopher of the totalitarian state, has therefore consciously based his new society upon the figure of the Worker-Soldier; physical pain and the ability to endure it are the basis of his new order of values.

通網拼湊的「新時代」：台灣網路靈性頻道使用者的媒體經驗與自我宗教初探

為了解決Give me faith的問題，作者沈芸巧 這樣論述：

本研究將YouTube靈性頻道的使用者，設定為網路時代下具自我宗教（self-religion）特徵的新時代者（New Ager），以問卷調查法輔深度訪談法，捕捉網路靈性頻道使用者對於與自我宗教相關的媒體使用之主觀看法與詮釋。研究者以「知」與「行」兩層面切入網路宗教的概念，並參考與補充Hackett（2006）所提出的網路之於宗教的功能，理解網路靈性媒體使用經驗如何輔助使用者進行自我拼湊的宗教實踐，包含其為使用者的內在追尋與療癒轉化帶來何種意義、建立起怎樣類型的信仰社群、為個人化的信仰行為帶來了怎樣的新氣象，又為新時代（New Age）帶來何種改變。研究者藉由上述提問初探當代新媒體在自我宗教

實踐過程中所扮演的角色以及在使用者媒體經驗中具有的符擔性，研究發現：（1）網路靈性媒體對於使用者而言的共同意義包含陪伴、智庫以及作為療癒與轉化的引擎；（2）線上靈性社群發展出了三種關係圖像包含網友式、小圈圈式以及摯友式關係，並且在特定情境下出現了分裂跡象；（3）使用者的「知」具有擴展型與更新型兩種類型的拼湊模式；（4）使用者對演算法的詮釋以及對媒體使用策略轉變的自述皆與他們的靈性觀一同脈動；（5）使用者的轉化與療癒之實踐交融在以網路靈性媒體為中心的媒體經驗當中，而支持與輔助他們的資源，分為內在與外在兩種層面；（6）網路靈性頻道使用者是不同程度的自我宗教者。