Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.
USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.
The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.
As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.
“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”
“Literaty transformations (water into wine at Cana, wate into blood, wine into blood, etc.) are all over the place in the Bible.”
At Cana, the host claimed the best wine was saved for last - not a metaphor.
Now, if the disciples at the last supper had eaten the bread and exclaimed, “Tastes like chicken (or lamb)”, THEN I would take it literally.
Context.
Please don't give up, truth IS knowable.
If we were to look at the definition of the "incarnation", it means the word became flesh and dwell among us-to coin John. I don't wish to get wrapped around the axle on this because 1) the word did become flesh and dwell among us on several occasions and 2) these events are not considered "the event". The incarnation in scripture is reserved of the blessed event of the Virgin Mary. Yet it remains that Christ did appear in human form in at least several instances in the Old Testament. The ONLY difference I can see between these prefiguring events in the Old Testament and the true Incarnation is in John's phrase "and dwell among us".
The danger here for all Christians lies in the Western compulsion to "understand" and "explain" Divine Mysteries, to "rationalize" the Incarnation as has been done here.
I think you'll find that there are precious few Westerns who understand the incarnation. I don't see any here. Rather, what I would suggest is there seems to be an overzealous danger on the Catholic/Orthodox side to "spiritualize" the Divine Mystery of the Incarnation to such a point it overshadows (if I may use that word) all other miracles of God and the purpose of God. In this zealousness the Incarnation, Mary is wrongfully deified. This is tantamount to deifying Elisha for raising an ax head or Moses for parting the Red Sea.
“Now, if the disciples at the last supper had eaten the bread and exclaimed, “Tastes like chicken (or lamb)”, THEN I would take it literally.
“Context.”
I didn't make a claim — you did. If you present a claim, then also provide evidence.
Of course. That is the expected and correct reply.
What I hoped my reply would do is what your question did for me. Encourage you to consider what evidence there could be on one side or the other of the question of whether it is within our capacity to develop the capability to observe without the judgment attached.
It’s a bit tangential to the point I’m trying to focus on, but I’ll give my thoughts on this in a few minutes.
Thank you for the lesson. It is really amazing that you can say with a straight face that Jesus dind't mean it literally when he said "eat, this is my body..." but you have no problem with the Bible says basically God is "uninformed" (and has to go and see, so he may know) and simply rationalize it as "uncommon way of speaking.
"Now, you insist that "eat, this is my body" is a metaphor. A metaphor for what? His "spiritual body?" Jesus never talks about spiritual bodies. That is yet another one of Pauline innovations! (1 Cor 15:44) No one else in the whole New Testament speaks of "spiritual bodies" except on-again-off-again Gnostic Paul.
I am not sure what he was thinking when he said "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (I guess you had to be there or something). "Spiritual bodies" is a Gnostic concept. Chrsitianity teaches physical resurrection. That was demonstrated in John's Gospel when Thomas placed his fingers into Jesus' wounds.
When Jesus said to the crowd that they must eat his body, the Jewish crowed was grossed out and all but the Twelve left him. The Jews took it literally and Jesus did not try to stop them by "explaining" it was really his "spiritual body."
I am grateful to the Church for sorting out the metaphors versus the literals. You bring up a very important point - the eating of the body and drinking of the blood - versus this ‘spiritual’ body example of Paul’s.
As well, the whole business of God having to go around and see things that He otherwise wouldn’t know unless He looked for it.
I prefer to let the 300’s to 800’s crowd tell me what should be a metaphor and what should be literal. They were a pretty intensive bunch.
Ok, on the question of evidence for whether or not “it is within our capacity to develop the capability to observe without the judgment attached…”
The possible value judgements we have divided into three categories. Your reference was experimental psychology, I assume that would be the study of human subjects by other observers.
My reference was buddhist teaching, centuries prior, and the result of the study of human subject by the subject himself.
The results are essentially the same: judgement accompanies our observation and perception of reality and can be divided into seek, avoid, ignore.
Note that so far we are describing what we normally do, we haven’t specifically addressed “can we change this to some degree?” The question is: can we develop the capability to observe without the judgment attached?
I don’t know if experimental psychology has addressed itself to the question or to what extent, be we have available experiential, by our own personal experience.
Looking for evidence on whether we can develop the capability, I’d ask questions to better get a look at it. First the extremes:
Can we control our thoughts at all? Do we have no control over our thoughts and perceptions and value judgements, some control or complete control?
Obviously we can control our focus of attention somewhat. The ability to select what we concentrate on and how much and how long can be developed a great deal. So we could, to some extent, control whether we ignore or give full attention to something perceptible.
In regards to another one of the three categories - the negative value, take the highest negative value - fear and flight: Do we have any control over our fears? Again, I would say yes, I think that’s obvious and likely proven in some lab somewhere even.
Take the other extreme: seeking pleasure. Do we have any control over our pleasure response. Again, I think yes; we can break harmful habits that are caused by the pleasure response by working to change or remove this response.
So I would say yes, we do have some control over our thoughts, perceptions, judgements. I think “no control” and “full control” are incorrect self-evidently and proven to some extent in our experience.
Now, getting back to my point, I referred to developing this capability as “one example.” I meant one example of following Jesus’ teaching to test validity.
The best illustration is, I think, “love your enemy.”
Experimental psychology is a study of behavior. Behavior is a conditioned response. It works for pigeons, rates, cockraoches, flatworms as well as humans.
No it's not. You can condition any living body to develop any behavior pattern by using proper stimulation. The response then is "learned" and becomes "reflexive." Example, Pavlov's dog. Sight of food provokes release of digestive acid (hydroclorich) in the stomach.
A whistle blown before the food is served becomes "associated" to food until it become a food 'substitute" and just a whistle, without any food, begins to elicit release of stomach acid. It all happens automatically; the subject's will is irrelevant. It's a body response. All our behavior is conditioned without us even being aware of it.
My reference was buddhist teaching, centuries prior, and the result of the study of human subject by the subject himself. The results are essentially the same: judgement accompanies our observation and perception of reality and can be divided into seek, avoid, ignore
Apples and oranges.
The question is: can we develop the capability to observe without the judgment attached? Even that would be a conditioned response, so it's not what we determine freely, but what we have been conditioned to do.
I don’t know if experimental psychology has addressed itself to the question or to what extent, be we have available experiential, by our own personal experience
Not a valid experiment.
Looking for evidence on whether we can develop the capability
What capability? To not judge? We can learn not to judge, which then becomes a learned judgment in itself. I am not sure where you are going with this, except maybe, possibly, potentially, etc...it's all speculation.
Do we have any control over our pleasure response.
Yes, a conditioned response. If we didn't have to learn to control it, we don't. Why would you stop doing what feels good unless you know you shouldn't be doing it at this moment and in this place?
What's the point?
I meant one example of following Jesus’ teaching to test validity. The best illustration is, I think, “love your enemy.”
Why should you love your enemy? What is there to test? If he is not hellbent to hurt you, then he is not your enemy. If he is going to hurt you no matter what, he is your enemy. Why do you have to love him?
It all boils down to this: the Protestants imply even if they don't say it, that they understand scriptures better than the Church that canonized them. I have yet to see an early Church document that shows the early Church understood "eat, this is my body" as a metaphor.
You don't but you could try it and see what results. Turn your "conditioning" on its head and see what happens. Observe where the resistance to this comes from and what's required to overcome it. See if there is anything to be learned about who we really are from this.
What's the point?
The same one as before as all during our discussion. To explore for truth and see if Jesus teachings apply. Simply observe, with the eyes of a child, drop the preconditioning, the anger, the fear, the resentment. Replace it with openness to whatever is, trust.
In essence, I'm agreeing with you: You can't figure it all out.
Stop trying. Surrender. And see what happens.
What do you have to lose? Where else do you have to go from here?
For someone who has quite obviously spent a lot of time in research and study, to come to the conclusion that truth is unknowable, is heartbreaking to me
That's like saying "for someone who spent all this time in research to discover that the world is not flat, but round" is heart breaking. It's not, it shows that the reality is not what we believed, as well as that our belief does not alter reality; just our perception of it.
If you wish to believe, then just believe and leave everything in God's hands as when you say "thy will be done." Amen. That's where we all surrender. And even if we protest the earth will still be round. :)
And for that you don't need the Bible or theology, especially Paul. What will be will be.
What does it mean to love your enemies?
Turn your "conditioning" on its head and see what happens.
You die. Remember you are dealing with your enemy. If the devil is God's enemy, as we are told, why doesn't God love him and 'convert' him through such love (what other purpose would loving your enemies have?). After all, loving your archenemy would be a great example...but instead God prepared a lake of fire for his enemy...there is no forgiveness for him!
You try it. Okay? I am not interested in that type of research.
After all, Jesus' "pacifism" was calculated. He had to die! He didn't let his enemies try to kill him because he loved them (and that "Forgive them because they don't know what they do" what was that all about?), but because he wanted them to try to kill him so he can die. It was in the "plan."
So, he could afford to love his enemies knowing that he will win in the end. Besides, he didn't forgive nor forget! His enemies are all going to the lake of burning sulfur — the retirement community for God's enemies, all expenses paid in pain! But not to worry, God loves them. Tough love.
To explore for truth and see if Jesus teachings apply. Simply observe, with the eyes of a child,
That's right, naive, gullible unsuspecting children...who know nothing and believe in Santa...ignorance is bliss. That's how God wants us?
In essence, I'm agreeing with you: You can't figure it all out.
Welcome!
Stop trying. Surrender. And see what happens
We know what happens — we die. Beyond that...tabula rasa. Nothing you can do about it, whether you are kicking and screaming or just accepting it for better or for worse. That is our unfailing destiny.
What do you have to lose?
A life.
Where else do you have to go from here?
This is it. That's how it is and no amount of speculation will change what's to come. So, be merry and enjoy the fruits of your life if you are lucky. Unfortunately, one child dies painfully every five seconds in the world from hunger.
We can of course deal with this reality as we deal with any other reality that doesn't concern us directly, we can sigh and say it's terrible and then stuff our faces with more pizza than we need or that is healthy. But if we had to watch those children in front of us we would probably lose our appetite for food or even for life.
So, we deal with our reality by hiding from it and creating castles in the sky for our "spiritual bodies" while living what is hell for most humanity, where even safe drinking water is a luxury, and most of it is our own doing.
Just think how many children have died of hunger just during our discourse. Don't you feel we "accomplished" something by pursuing theoretical Jesus' teachingand speculating if he existed or not? Wouldn't you better test your theories by looking reality right in the eye, and live like Mother Thersea (who lost her faith too, but not her heart)?
You die. Remember you are dealing with your enemy.
Try an enemy that's not out to kill you then. We usually have quite a few of them.
but instead God prepared a lake of fire for his enemy
I didn't think you believed in all that, or in God.
You won't die if you stop trying to figure it all out and drop your preconceptions for a bit and try seeing the world as if it wasn't like you have it all figured. You'll still be there, you can stop when if it gets dangerous to your survival.
Or go someplace safe and get it a whirl.
he wanted them to try to kill him so he can die. It was in the "plan."
Drop the story too. You don't believe it anyway.
That's right, naive, gullible unsuspecting children
No, adults, but letting go of the baggage of all the stuff adults force between themselves and experiencing reality. Again, like it was the first time.
We know what happens — we die.
If you surrender to whatever is and stop trying to figure it out? Nah.
That's how it is and no amount of speculation will change what's to come.
So stop speculating.
So, we deal with our reality by hiding from it
You could notice that I'm advocating the opposite, letting go, for a little bit, of the means we use to hide.
Wouldn't you better test your theories by looking reality right in the eye, and live like Mother Thersea (who lost her faith too, but not her heart)?
She didn't end up with "be merry and enjoy the fruits of your life." I did try that one for some time and the results weren't good. For me or for others around me. And I don't think it's dealing with reality either. It doesn't even seem to be successful in avoiding thinking about the suffering of others and what our response should be.
“It is really amazing that you can say with a straight face that Jesus dind’t mean it literally when he said “eat, this is my body...” but you have no problem with the Bible says basically God is “uninformed” (and has to go and see, so he may know) and simply rationalize it as “uncommon way of speaking.”
It isn’t amazing at all. Consider: in debriefing a mission, I hold up my right hand and say, “This is your plane”. I hold up my left. “This is the aggressor”. Now I move my hands as I explain what happened during the flight.
If any of the younger pilots/EWOs had said, “But my plane didn’t have fingers”, or, “How did your right hand become, truly, MY PLANE - has it transubstantiated?”, I’d have killed him on the spot. I was never fond of stupidity.
So when Jesus said, “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”, I find it hard to believe he meant, “This bread is truly my body...it has transubstantiated into flesh, so while it looks like bread and tastes like bread it is actually my body”.
You can believe what you want, but I honestly find the whole notion utterly stupid. That doesn’t mean the Eucharist is just some dorky symbology. When approached with faith, it can have deep meaning.
Here is an example. Now, I don’t believe John 6 is about the Eucharist, since it follows the feeding of the 5000 and Jesus works his way into the metaphor. However, Catholics keep insisting it does, so lets take Jesus literally, as Catholics want me to...
Jesus says, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”
So after a priest does whatever he does and it transubstantiates into the flesh and blood of Jesus, suitable for worship and adoration since it is actually the real flesh and blood of Jesus, then what happens if I take it from the priest and give it to a wino?
The wino may THINK it is just wine and bread, but since it is actually the real flesh and blood of Jesus, the wino will be transformed. For Jesus has promised, “whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”!
Wow! And here I thought we had to convert people. But no, if I feed them his actual flesh and blood, as transubstantiated by a priest, then the wino MUST convert, for “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”
Now, lets look again at what Jesus said, as found in Luke.
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
After giving thanks, he distributes it for them to divide among themselves, saying, “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
“Fruit of the vine”. Golly. It is stuck on wine. Maybe Jesus didn’t give thanks using the right words...
Or maybe it was too soon. Then we find “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
But wait. The cup itself is the new covenant. Oh, it still has the accident of a cup, but it is really the new covenant. No wonder it became the Holy Grail!
And again, what is it all about?
“Do this in remembrance of me.” Not, do this and be saved. Not, do this and be forgiven”, but “Do this in remembrance of me.”
As Paul puts it, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
I don’t know why you mix this subject with the subject of a post-resurrection body, but I haven’t.
You write, “I have yet to see an early Church document that shows the early Church understood “eat, this is my body” as a metaphor.”
I’ve given you two: The Gospel according to Luke, and the letter of Paul to the Corinthians.
I’m sorry to know that pagans, accustomed to eating sacrifices to idols, mixed their pagan ideas with what Jesus said and Paul wrote, and came up with a “thanksgiving” that has turned into an atoning sacrifice.
I would also point out that there were many church fathers who wrote of it being symbolic, or completely true by faith, but not actually transubstantiation waiting for the Magisterium to unfold the meaning.
But in the end, I’m more interested in what Jesus said than the church fathers. I’m more interested in what the Apostle Paul wrote, that what church father XYZ did. “Do this in remembrance of me.”
“I would also point out that there were many church fathers who wrote of it being symbolic, or completely true by faith, but not actually transubstantiation waiting for the Magisterium to unfold the meaning.”
So far as I know, no Father taught transubstantiation; that was a Latin Church concept unknown to the Pre-Schism Church and still not taught by the Orthodox Church, though some Russians in the past have used the term if not the concept. Which Fathers are you referring to?
Your understanding of what happened at the Last Supper and at a Divine Liturgy or a Latin Mass is very modern among Christians. Until after the Reformation, no one in The Church, to my knowledge, believed that Christ was speaking metaphorically. What The Church believes was given expression as early as the end of the 1st century or withn a few years of the dawn of the 2nd century and by +Ignatius of Antioch who was +Peter’s second successor as bishop of Antioch. He was a disciple of +John and by tradition was the child who sat on Christ’s lap.
+Ignatius wrote:
“”Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” Letter to the Smyrneans
“”I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” Letter to the Romans
And finally and perhaps most tellingly:
“”Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” Letter to the Philadelphians
Pretty early stuff, Mr. R. Its one thing to reject the Latin dogma of transubstantiation, an innovation in itself. It is quite another to deny the Real Presence.
What is meant by ‘real presence’ vs transubstantiation?
For example, the Baptist approach includes:
“The supper of our Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches until the end of the world as a perpetual remembrance [of him] and to show forth the sacrifice of himself in his death. It was also instituted to confirm the faith of believers in all the benefits in Christ’s death, for their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties they owe him, and to be a bond and pledge of their fellowship with him and with one another...
Worthy recipients, when outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly by faith, truly and in fact, not as flesh and body but spiritually. In so doing they feed upon Christ crucified, and receive all the benefits of his death. The body and blood of Christ are not present physically, but spiritually by the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
All ignorant and ungodly people who are unfit to enjoy fellowship with Christ, are equally unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot, without great sin against him, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted to them while they remain as they are. Indeed, whoever participates unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment on themselves.”
How does that differ from the Orthodox understanding?
And how does that differ from Catholic understanding?
“His body, that redeemed our sin can also condemn of a sin, and the sin here is precisely the Protestant cornerstone error: “not discerning the body of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:29). So they “walked no more with him” (John 6:67)”
Paul’s record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper is the earliest we have. His distinctive contribution to doctrine lies in his emphasis on the meal as an occasion of communion (koinonia); his interpretation of the bread, “This is my body”, to include Christ’s body corporate; the explicit memorial purpose of the meal; and the forward-looking perspective that harks back to Jesus’ saying in the upper room that the next time he ate the Passover or drank the fruit of the vine would be in the consummated kingdom of God. The Lord’s Supper not only commemorated Jesus’ passion but anticipated his parousia.
Because of the growth of divisions within the Church at Corinth, including rival schools of thought and social cliques, questions were raised in a letter (1 Cor. 7:1 ) concerning the issue of food in two areas: that offered to idols; and the fellowship meal, but both ultimately dealt with fellowship of the body corporate.
The issue of food (1 Cor. 10) that had been sacrificed to idols especially in a pagan city like Corinth was part of the wider problem of idolatrous associations. The more enlightened members of the church maintained that since “there is no God but one”, it followed that “an idol has no real existence” (1 Corinthians 8: 4), and that therefore food was neither better nor worse for coming from an animal which had been sacrificed in a pagan temple. Paul agreed; but he did not want to impose the Jerusalem decree on the church, nor subject his Gentile churches to the authority of Jerusalem. Paul’s way was not to impose a rule but to help his converts to judge such issues for themselves in the light of basic Christian principles.
He warns the Corinthian Christians against participation in idolatrous feasts. He draws an analogy between what happens there and what happens in the communion meal, in order to show the absurdity of thinking they can “drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (1 Corinthians 10: 21). “The ‘cup of blessing’ over which we say a blessing, is it not a participation (koinonia) in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread”, he adds, “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10: 16- ). Communion with Christ, which they enjoyed together at his table, excluded communion with a pagan divinity at his table; and such communion with a pagan divinity excluded communion with Christ.
He therefore pointed out, for many less enlightened Christians an idol had a real existence; it was a demonic power to those who ascribed a measure of reality to it, even if they did not worship it but rather abominated it. In the eyes of such people, the food had been in some sense contaminated by its association with the idol, and if they ate it they might become demon-possessed. Paul shows considerable sympathy with these “weak brethren”: he realized, as many of the men of knowledge did not, that to a person who believes in an idol or similar demonic being, it has real substance and power — not independently but none the less effectively.
The issue of food (1 Cor 11) at the Lord’s Table, which took a particularly unpleasant form made a mockery of their claim to have fellowship there with their Lord and with one another. The memorial bread and wine were taken in the course of a fellowship meal to which each member or family made a contribution, but instead of sharing what had been brought, the rich ate their own food and the poorer members made do with the little they could afford, so that, as Paul said, “one is hungry and another is drunk” (1 Corinthians 11: 21). Such selfish conduct was an outrage on the sacred occasion; those who participated in such an unworthy spirit, far from deriving any grace from their participation, were eating and drinking judgment upon themselves.
But their membership in the body of Christ could be violated at his own table by an unbrotherly attitude or conduct towards fellow-members of his body. When they broke the bread which was the token of the body of Christ they not only recalled his self-sacrifice on the cross but proclaimed their joint participation in his corporate body. If, then, they denied in practice the unity which they professed sacramentally in the communion meal, they ate and drank unworthily and so profaned the body and blood of the Lord; if they ate and drank “without discerning the body” they ate and drank judgment upon themselves). To eat and drink “without discerning the body” meant quite simply to take the bread and cup at the same time as they were treating their fellow-Christians uncharitably in thought or behavior. Participation in the communion meal, like baptismal incorporation into Christ, is no solitary matter: both involve sharing the common life in the body of Christ with all other believers.
I am traveling and will respond later on this week to your posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.