Write My Essay We are the most trusted essay writing service. Get the best essays delivered by experienced UK & US essay writers at affordable prices.
Ethics and the protection of assets
Ethics and the protection of assets
Read: “What Security Executives Should Know about Ethics.” 1A. Explain why security directors must have a keen understanding of the role ethics plays in an organization’s plan to protect assets. 1 B. Search the internet and find an example a ethical challenge that has confronted a security director. Discuss that challenge and the results. EXERCISE #2- Private-public relationships Read: “Examining the Roles of the Police and Private Security Officers in Urban Social Control.” Read: “Engaging the Private Sector to Promote Homeland Security.” 2A. What are the significant benefits private security-law enforcement partnerships could gain from each other? 2B. Identify and discuss in general terms the primary obstacles that must be addressed before these partnerships can be fully operational. 2C. As a security director how would you go about establishing or enhancing a partnership with law enforcement to protect your company’s assets?
Sample Solution
Feinberg, in speaking of the image of God as what he called an âinalienable part of manâs constitution,â spoke of that image as currently being in a âmarred, corrupted, and impaired stateâ (1972, 129:245). Hoekema elaborated on the same point when he wrote: in other words, there is also a sense in which human beings no longer properly bear the image of God, and therefore need to be renewed Ethics and the protection of assets in that image. We could say that in this latter sense the image of God in man has been marred and corrupted by sin. Nevertheless, we must still see fallen man as an image-bearer of God, but as one who by nature images God in a distorted way (1986, p. 31). (6) II Likeness: Jim Schicatano believes that âlikeness and image are different.â Likeness, he says, âdoesnât convey such preciseness as âimage.â To be like someone means you possess many, but not all of the characteristics of that person. Obviously, man does not possess Godâs omnipotence, wisdom, righteousness, perfection, ability to create, and divineness, he said. (5) In these others (along with Lyons and Thompson) differs with Schicatano in relations to the image/likeness of God. They say, the âimageâ (tselem) of God does not refer to something different than the âlikenessâ (demuth) of God. The Greek and Latin âchurch fathersâ frequently suggested a distinction between the two words. They taught that tselem referred to the physical, and demuth to the ethical, part of the divine image (Feinberg, 1972, 129:237). Other theologians (like Irenaeus, A.D. 130-c. 200) taught that âimageâ denoted manâs unchangeable essence (viz., his freedom and rationality), whereas âlikenessâ referred to the changing part of man (i.e., his relationship with God). Thus the former related to the very nature of man, while the latter was that which could be lost (Crawford, 1966, 77:233). As of 1972, this still was the official Ethics and the protection of assets view of the Roman Catholic Church (Feinberg, 129:237). Get help with your essay today, from our professional essay writers! Qualified writers in the subject of theology are ready and waiting to help you with your studies. Get help with your essay View professionally written samples They go on to say despite the influence of those who claim that these words carry very different ideas about the image of God, a careful study of such passages as Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-3, and 9:6 reveals that, in fact, these two Hebrew words do not speak of two different entities. âLikenessâ simply emphasizes the âimage.â As William Dyrness noted in regard to tselem and demuth: âThe two words should be seen as having complementary rather than competing meanings. The first stresses the image of God as its being shaped and the second express its being like the original in significant waysâ (1972, 15:162). Charles Feinberg, writing on âThe Image of Godâ in the respected religious journal Bibliotheca Sacra, agreed when he remarked: A careful study of Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1,3; and 9:6 will show beyond question that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the two Hebrew terms are not referring to two different entities. In short, use reveals the words are used interchangeably (1972, 129:237).>
Feinberg, in speaking of the image of God as what he called an âinalienable part of manâs constitution,â spoke of that image as currently being in a âmarred, corrupted, and impaired stateâ (1972, 129:245). Hoekema elaborated on the same point when he wrote: in other words, there is also a sense in which human beings no longer properly bear the image of God, and therefore need to be renewed in that image. We could say that in this latter sense the image of God in man has been marred and corrupted by sin. Nevertheless, we must still see fallen man as an image-bearer of God, but as one who by nature images God in a distorted way (1986, p. 31). (6) II Likeness: Jim Schicatano believes that âlikeness and image are different.â Likeness, he says, âdoesnât convey such preciseness as âimage.â To be like someone means you possess many, but not all of the characteristics of that person. Obviously, man does not possess Godâs omnipotence, wisdom, righteousness, perfection, ability to create, and divineness, he said. (5) In these others (along with Lyons and Thompson) differs with Schicatano in relations to the image/likeness of God. They say, the âimageâ (tselem) of God does not refer to something different than the âlikenessâ (demuth) of God. The Greek and Latin âchurch fathersâ frequently suggested a distinction between the two words. They taught that tselem referred to the physical, and demuth to the ethical, part of the divine image (Feinberg, 1972, 129:237). Other theologians (like Irenaeus, A.D. 130-c. 200) taught that âimageâ denoted manâs unchange Ethics and the protection of assets able essence (viz., his freedom and rationality), whereas âlikenessâ referred to the changing part of man (i.e., his relationship with God). Thus the former related to the very nature of man, while the latter was that which could be lost (Crawford, 1966, 77:233). As of 1972, this still was the official view of the Roman Catholic Church (Feinberg, 129:237). Get help with your essay today, from our professional essay writers! Qualified writers in the subject of theology are ready and waiting to help you with your studies. Get help with your essay View professionally written samples They go on to say despite the influence of those who claim that these words carry very different ideas about the image of God, a careful study of such passages as Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-3, and 9:6 reveals that, in fact, these two Hebrew words do not speak of two different entities. âLikenessâ simply emphasizes the âimage.â As William Dyrness noted in regard to tselem and demuth: âThe two words should be seen as having complementary rather than competing meanings. The first stresses the image of God as its being shaped and the second express its being like the original in significant waysâ (1972, 15:162). Charles Feinberg, writing on âThe Image of Godâ in the respected religious journal Bibliotheca Sacra, agreed when he remarked: A careful study of Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1,3; and 9:6 will show beyond question that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the two Hebrew terms are not referring to two different entities. In short, use reveals the words are used interchangeably (1972, 129:237).>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals