14 Sep The teacher requires one resource per page, so we will need 6-7 resources (using a different one on every pag
The teacher requires one resource per page, so we will need 6-7 resources (using a different one on every page), and the teacher wants ACADEMIC resources.
– You can use the NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com)
– The book you did the chapter review (Christ and Culture – attached),
– Encountering World Religions: A Christian Introduction (https://books.google.ca/books?id=S2FgDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=zh-CN#v=onepage&q&f=false)
– I have also found 2 academic articles for you that is on the topic (attached).
I need to write the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism and discuss whether the similarities are significant or not. The research paper also needs to include a biography of the person who started the religion, an overview of their teachings, how those teachings are similar to and different from Christianity, and an explanation of the significance of those differences and similarities.
Introduction (about 1 page): introduce the two religions, the persons who started the two religions, overview of teachings, thesis (similarities and differences in teachings and significance of those differences and similarities)
Similarities in teachings 1: stay away from worldly corruption/desire (one of the articles attached discusses this)
Similarities in teachings 2: love all people (another attached article discusses this)
These are the points I can think of. The book Encountering World Religions: A Christian Introduction introduces Christianity and has parts on Buddhism, so you can just browse through those. I think if you can find another similarity and then may be 2 differences and discuss the significance + a conclusion, that should give you the length.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpr20
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION
ISSN: 1050-8619 (Print) 1532-7582 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpr20
Forgivingness: Similarities and Differences Between Buddhists and Christians Living in China
Regina Paz , Félix Neto & Etienne Mullet
To cite this article: Regina Paz , Félix Neto & Etienne Mullet (2007) Forgivingness: Similarities and Differences Between Buddhists and Christians Living in China, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, 17:4, 289-301, DOI: 10.1080/10508610701572788
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610701572788
Published online: 05 Dec 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 273
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, 17(4), 289–301
Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
RESEARCH
Forgivingness: Similarities and Differences Between Buddhists and
Christians Living in China
Regina Paz and Félix Neto University of Oporto
Etienne Mullet Institute for Advanced Studies (EPHE)
Paris, France
This study examined possible differences in dispositional forgiveness among Bud-
dhists, Christians, and Buddhist Christians living in China. It used the Forgiving-
ness Scale (Mullet et al., 2003). The three-factor structure already evidenced in
many other studies—lasting resentment, sensitivity to circumstances, and willing-
ness to forgive—was also evidenced in the present study. The Buddhist participants
were shown to be slightly (but significantly) more resentful and less forgiving than
the Christian participants. The responses of the Buddhist–Christian participants
were closer to the Buddhists’ responses for lasting resentment and closer to the
Christians’ responses for willingness to forgive. These results must, however, be
taken cautiously, because the complex concept of forgiveness is not addressed as
such in Buddhism.
Although it has, until recently, received relatively little empirical attention from
psychologists and social scientists, forgiveness is a central topic in everyday
Correspondence should be sent to Etienne Mullet, Quefes 17 bis, F-31830 Plaisance du Touch,
France. E-mail: [email protected]
289
290 PAZ, NETO, MULLET
life (Worthington, 2005). From the personal level, to the family level, to the
community level, to the country level, to the international level, the quality of
our relationships with others is largely determined by the willingness to forgive
that which we manifest toward the persons or the groups who have, intentionally
or unintentionally, severely or slightly, permanently or temporarily, harmed us.
Our attitude toward forgiveness may have important repercussions on our attitude
toward family (e.g., family violence, parenting practices), societal institutions
(e.g., educational system, justice system), or even major international events
(e.g., truth commissions, terrorism).
However, as recently stated by McCullough and Worthington (1999; see also
McCullough, Bono, & Root, 2005),
[most] of the empirical treatments of forgiveness that have appeared in the liter-
ature in the past decade have tended to overlook the deep religious roots of the
concept of forgiveness. This oversight is unfortunate, because basic research on
forgiveness could probably be enriched considerably by examining the ways that
religious traditions, beliefs, and rituals : : : influence the common, earthly aspect
of forgiveness. (p. 1143)
RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION AND FORGIVENESS
The earlier studies examining the link between forgivingness and religious affil-
iation have used the Rokeach Value Survey. In Rokeach’s (1969) study, partici-
pants ranked a set of 18 values according to the priorities of their value systems.
In general, forgiveness was ranked among the 5 most important values. Im-
portant differences in ranking, however, were found between different religious
affiliations. Among Protestants and Catholics, forgiving was ranked 4th. Among
Jews, it was ranked 15th. Among nonreligious people, it was ranked 16th.
Azar and Mullet (2001) examined the determinants of willingness to for-
give among Lebanese participants from different religious communities. They
used a technique borrowed from Anderson (1996) depicting various scenarios
where someone had been offended. The participants represented six of the largest
communities in Lebanon; that is, they shared the same Arab culture but were
members of different religious communities (Catholic, Druze, Maronite, Ortho-
dox, Shiite, and Sunni). They were instructed to express their willingness to
forgive in each situation. For overall forgiveness, differences between Muslim
and Christian participants were minimal. Also, the differences in the importance
attributed to the many circumstances of the harmful situations presented in the
scenarios (e.g., intent to harm, presence of apologies) were minimal; that is, the
conditions under which forgiveness was considered as easier (or more difficult)
were largely the same in each of the six communities (see also Azar, Mullet, &
Vinsonneau, 1999).
FORGIVENESS 291
Azar and Mullet (2002) applied a questionnaire that was intended to mea-
sure dispositional forgiveness—the Forgivingness Scale (Mullet et al., 2003)—to
Lebanese participants from the same six religious communities. Through factor
analysis, the same three forgivingness factors that had been found among West-
ern samples were identified: Lasting resentment, Sensitivity to circumstances,
and Willingness to forgive. Regarding Lasting resentment, the effect of commu-
nity was significant, and this effect was mainly due to the higher Druze’s mean
score. Regarding the two other factors, the effect of religious community was not
significant. Suwartono, Prawasti, and Mullet (2007) applied the same question-
naire to samples of Muslim and Christian Indonesians. The three-factor structure
was replicated, but no differences between the two samples were evidenced.
FORGIVINGNESS AND BUDDHISM
Our study was aimed at examining the possible differences in forgivingness—
dispositional forgiveness (Roberts, 1995) among Chinese participants who de-
clared themselves Buddhists, Christians, or Buddhist Christians, that is, among
three samples of participants sharing the same Chinese culture but who dif-
fer regarding their religious affiliation. The Forgivingness Scale that was used
by Azar and Mullet (2002) and Suwartono et al. (2007) in their cross-religion
studies was also used in this study.
The Forgivingness Scale was based on common Western, Christian concep-
tualizations of forgiveness (Wade & Worthington, 2003; Worthington & Wade,
1999). In the West, the most common view is that when one is the victim of an
intentional offense, a feeling of resentment is logical; the intensity and duration
would usually depend on the circumstances of the offense, the attitude of the
offender, and of course the personality of the victim. The end of the resent-
ment state could take many forms, which are probably directly in relation to
the victim’s and offender’s personalities and their environment. Different forms
of resentment typically end with forgiveness, revenge, or other types of closure
(e.g., formal complaint or oblivion).
Using factorial techniques, Mullet, Houdbine, Laumonier, and Girard (1998;
see also Mullet et al., 2003; Neto & Mullet, 2004) have shown that individual
differences concerning the intensity of resentment were sufficiently notable to
help identify a factor that they called lasting resentment. This factor coincides
with the concept of unforgiveness suggested by Worthington and Wade (1999)
and is highly reminiscent of the concept of rumination proposed by Caprara
(1986); the concept of avoidance of the offender used by McCullough and Hoyt
(2002); and the concept of presence/absence of negative thoughts suggested by
Rye et al. (2001). Mullet et al. (2003) and Mullet et al. (1998) also showed
that the individual differences in relation to sensitivity to circumstances were
292 PAZ, NETO, MULLET
sufficiently important to help identify another factor that they called sensitivity
to personal and social circumstances. Finally, these authors identified a third
factor that they called willingness to forgive, which was highly reminiscent of
the concept of dissipation (the tendency not to harbor feelings and desires of
revenge) proposed by Caprara and of the concept of presence of positive thoughts
suggested by Rye et al. (2001).
The distinction between lasting resentment and willingness to forgive that has
been empirically evidenced among Western samples, Arab samples, and South
Asian samples may also be present in the Buddhist tradition of forgiveness (Rye
et al., 2000). In the Buddhist tradition, two different notions, which are consid-
ered as distinct virtues, compose forgiveness. The first notion is the renouncing
of anger and resentment toward the offender, a notion that could be considered
as close to the concept of forbearance (McCullough, Fincham & Tsang, 2003)—
the desisting from causing suffering to others by reacting to their offenses with
anger. This may be the very essence of the lasting resentment factor. The second
notion is the removal of an expectation of retribution, a notion that could be
considered as captured by the concepts of empathy, compassion, or pity (the
easing of pain and suffering in others). This may be the very essence of the
willingness to forgive factor: A strong association between empathy and for-
giveness has been repeatedly evidenced among Western samples (McCullough,
Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; Walker & Gorsuch, 2004).
Taken together these two Buddhist notions approximate the notion of forgive-
ness as it is usually understood in Christian settings. If forgiveness per se is not
a core element in the Buddhist tradition, compassion may be considered as a
building block of all Buddhist practices. Forbearance may intervene at the very
moment of being wronged, and, as such, it does not depend on any repentance
on the part of the offender. It is indeed forbearance that allows the exercise of
compassion. In the Buddhist tradition, “it is others’ suffering which makes good
people suffer: it is that which they cannot endure, not their own suffering” (Rye
et al., 2000, p. 37).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Our first research question regarded the structure of the participants’ responses.
Would the same three-factor structure be found among Buddhist and Chris-
tian Chinese? Despite the similarity between the lasting resentment factor and
the willingness to forgive factor, and the two Buddhist notions that have been
previously discussed (the renouncing of anger and resentment toward the of-
fender and the removal of an expectation of retribution), this is not certain. In
fact, using the Forgivingness Scale on a Chinese sample, Fu, Watkins, and Hui
(2004) evidenced only two factors: lasting resentment (which they identified with
FORGIVENESS 293
forgiveness) and sensitivity to circumstances. Their sample, however, was de-
scribed as composed largely of atheistic participants. This may have caused the
impoverished factor structure; that is, the distinction between the two notions,
which is essential for practicing Buddhists, may have become blurred.
Our second research question regarded the possible differences in Buddhist–
Christian responses. Would the Buddhist participants be less resentful that the
Christian participants? Would the Christian participants be less forgiving that
the Buddhist participants? As shown by Azar and Mullet (2002), only small
differences have been evidenced between Muslims and Christians. These small
differences were expected because the two religions share very similar principles
regarding forgiveness. However, what about Buddhism, in which forgiveness as
such is not a core element of the tradition?
Finally, our third research question regarded the responses of the Buddhist
Christians who reported following both sets of principles. Would these partici-
pants be closer to Buddhists or Christians in the way that they report their daily
forgiveness experience?
METHOD
Participants
There were 491 participants in the study (252 female, 239 male). Their ages
ranged from 18 to 86 years (M age D 38.9, SD D 14:8). All participants
were unpaid volunteers from Macau (an autonomous territory close to Canton).
Among them, 238 were from Buddhist families (and declared that they followed
the Buddhist principles), 123 were from Christian families (and declared that
they followed the Christian principles), and 130 were from mixed families (and
declared that they followed both sets of principles).
The participants were recruited and tested by one of four research assistants
who were psychology students trained in the technique of questionnaires. The
research assistants contacted possible participants at universities or in the streets
(usually close to commercial centers), explained the study, asked them whether
they were Buddhist or Christian, asked them to participate (if the response
was positive), and, if they agreed, arranged where and when to give out the
questionnaire. The participation rate was high (61%).
Material
The material consisted of an extended version of the Forgivingness questionnaire
(Mullet et al., 2003). A pilot study was conducted among 20 Chinese partici-
pants, and 23 items were selected among those used by Mullet et al. (1998).
294 PAZ, NETO, MULLET
These were items that were clearly understood by all participants, and they ex-
pressed willingness to forgive under various circumstances (see Table 1). The
meaning of one of these items (Item 1) was made more precise (“The way I see
the world has brought me to never forgive and to cultivate resentment”). A 24th
item (Item 6) was created (“I consider taking revenge for an offense only if my
family and my friend have encouraged me to do so”). As in the original study,
a 17-cm scale was printed following each sentence. This was chosen to provide
enough latitude in the responses (especially in case the answers are at one or
the other extreme of the scale). The two extremes of the scales were disagree
completely and completely agree.
In designing the Chinese version of the items, guidelines proposed in the liter-
ature on cross-cultural methodology (Brislin, 2000) were followed as closely as
possible (e.g., independent, blind back-translations, educated translation, small-
scale pretests). The main investigator (RP) was fluent in Chinese and English
and was able to check for any inconsistencies in the material.
TABLE 1
Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis Conducted on the Sample of Buddhists.
Results of the CFA Conducted on the Pooled Data From the Sample of Christians
and From the Sample of Buddhist Christians
Factors
Items 1 2 3 CFA
Lasting resentment
1. The way I see the world has brought me to never forgive
and to cultivate resentment.
.70 �.17 �.13 .74
2. I cannot forgive even if the consequences of the harm
are minimal.
.69 .09 �.27 .81
3. I do not feel able to forgive even if the offender has
begged for forgiveness.
.70 �.03 �.16 .83
4. I hold on to my resentment even when a religious man
or a respected figure in my community has invited me to
forgive.
.64 �.11 .08 .72
5. I do not feel able to forgive even if the offender has
apologized.
.67 �.06 �.22
6. I consider taking revenge for an offense only if my
family and my friend have encouraged me to do so.
.59 .08 .08
7. I do not feel able to forgive even if my family or my
friends have invited me to do so.
.65 .00 �.12
8. My personal philosophy or my religious belief does not
encourage me to forgive.
.55 �.08 �.18
(continued)
FORGIVENESS 295
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Factors
Items 1 2 3 CFA
Willingness to forgive
9. I can easily forgive even when the offender has not
apologized.
�.02 .74 .05 .61
10. I can truly forgive even if the consequences of harm are
serious.
.11 .72 .12 .83
11. I can easily forgive even when the offender intentionally
harmed me.
.04 .68 �.16 .62
12. I can forgive easily even when the offender has not
begged for forgiveness.
�.11 .68 .00
13. I cannot forgive if the consequences of harm are serious. .24 �.63 .31 �.46
14. I cannot forgive if the offender intentionally harmed me. .19 �.61 .39
15. I cannot forgive if the offender has not apologized. .29 �.58 .34
16. I forgive easily even when I feel bad. .11 .49 .09
Sensitivity to circumstances
17. I feel it is easier to forgive when my family or my
friends have invited me to do so.
�.14 .07 .70 .54
18. I feel it is easier to forgive once the consequences of
harm have disappeared.
�.04 .08 .70 .74
19. I cannot forgive if I have not been able to take revenge
for the harm done.
�.10 �.04 .67
20. I can forgive more easily when I feel good. .03 �.18 .59 .56
21. I feel it is easier to forgive a member of the family than
anyone else.
�.19 �.10 .50 .46
22. I forgive more easily if the offender has apologized. �.36 .01 .47
23. I forgive more easily if a religious man has invited me to
do so.
�.20 .38 .45
24. I forgive more easily if the offender has begged for
forgiveness.
�.14 �.18 .38
Variance explained 3.86 3.63 3.24
% of total variance 16 15 14
Note. CFA D confirmatory factor analysis. Loadings higher than .40 in the exploratory factor
analysis have been written using bold faces.
Procedure
Each participant answered individually in a quiet room at the university or in
another site, depending on what he or she found most convenient. Usually the
participant immediately accompanied the experimenter to the chosen site. Two
versions of the questionnaires were used. They differed only regarding the order
of the items (direct and inverse order).
296 PAZ, NETO, MULLET
The experimenter explained to each participant what was expected of him
or her. The participant was to read a certain number of sentences expressing a
feeling or a belief about forgiveness and rate his or her degree of agreement
with the content of each sentence. The experimenter was, in most cases, present
when the participant filled in the questionnaires. It took approximately 15 min
to complete the questionnaire.
RESULTS
Each rating by each participant was converted to a numerical value expressing
the distance (number of centimeters, from 1 to 17) between the chosen point on
the response scale and the left anchor, serving as the reference. These numerical
values were then subjected to graphical and statistical analyses.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the more numerous sample
(composed of Buddhist participants). Based on the scree test, three interpretable
factors emerged. This three-factor solution was retained and subjected to Vari-
max rotation. Results are shown in Table 1.
The first factor explained 16% of the variance. It was named lasting resent-
ment (it loaded positively on items indicating inability to forgive despite positive
circumstances and the cultivation of resentment). The mean values for the items
corresponding to this factor ranged from 5.03 to 7.49 (i.e., they were all in the
disagreement area of the response scale). The overall mean value of these eight
items was 6.32.
The second factor explained 15% of the variance. It was named willingness
to forgive (it loaded positively on items indicating ability to forgive even under
unfavorable circumstances and negatively on items indicating inability to forgive
under unfavorable circumstances). The mean values for the items corresponding
to this factor, and for which the loading was higher than .50, ranged from
7.02 to 11.25 (i.e., they were close to the midpoint of the agreement scale). The
overall mean value of these seven items (once some of the scores were reversed)
was 7.65.
The third factor explained 14% of the variance. It was named sensitivity
to circumstances (it loaded positively on items expressing forgiveness asso-
ciated with good mood, external intervention and encouragement). The mean
values for the items corresponding to this factor, and for which the loading
was higher than .50, ranged from 11.65 to 13.59 (i.e., they were all higher
FORGIVENESS 297
than the midpoint of the agreement scale). The overall mean value of these five
items was 12.54.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
As the sample of Christian participants and the sample of Buddhist–Christian
participants were relatively small, the two corresponding sets of data were pooled
together. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on these pooled data.
The model tested was the correlated three-factor model suggested in the pre-
ceding section. Four (highest loading) items for each factor were retained and
incorporated in the model (except in the case of the willingness to forgive factor
where a negatively loading item was needed). All path coefficients (see Table 1,
far right column) were significant. The goodness of fit index and comparative fit
index values observed were .92 and .91. The chi-square/df value observed was
2.47. The root mean square residual and root mean square error of approxima-
tion values observed were .08 and .07. The correlations between factors ranged
from �.09 to .10 and were not significant.
Analyses of Covariance
Three overall scores were computed by simply averaging (and reversing some
of) the scores of the 12 selected items. The alpha values observed were .73,
.74, and .66 (Buddhists); .83, .68, and .66 (Christians); and .87, .75, and .69
(Buddhist Christians).
Three independent analyses of covariance were conducted on the factor
scores with sample as the independent factor, and age and gender as covari-
ables. Regarding the lasting resentment factor, the sample effect was not sig-
nificant (p D :08). However, post hoc analyses using the least significant
difference procedure showed that the Christian score (5.23) was significantly
different from the mixed score (6.32) and from the Buddhist score (6.05;
p < :05).
Regarding the willingness to forgive factor, the sample effect was significant,
F .2; 474/ D 9:96, p < :001. The Christian score (9.04), and the mixed group
score (9.13) were significantly different from the Buddhist score (7.53). Post
hoc analyses using the least significant difference procedure showed that the
Christian score and the mixed score were not significantly different.
Finally, regarding the sensitivity to circumstances score, the sample effect
was not significant. All three means were very close and of high values (12.23,
12.47, and 12.04).
298 PAZ, NETO, MULLET
Checking for Possible Differential Acquiescence Effects
As shown in Table 1, the same item (e.g., “I can truly forgive even if the
consequences of harm are serious”) was introduced twice, in two versions (direct
and reverse). Two separate analyses of covariance, similar to the ones reported
in the previous section, were conducted, one on each version. When the item
was expressed in the direct version, the Christian score (8.50) was significantly
higher than the Buddhist score (7.02), F .2; 474/ D 10:04, p < :001, and when
the item was expressed in the reverse version (e.g., “I cannot forgive if : : : ”), the
Christian score (8.92) was significantly lower than the Buddhist score (11.08),
F .2; 474/ D 7:48, p < :001.
DISCUSSION
The study examined possible differences in dispositional forgiveness among
Buddhists, Christians, and Buddhist Christians living in China. Our first research
question regarded the structure of the participants’ responses. The three-factor
structure already evidenced in many other samples was found: lasting resent-
ment, sensitivity to circumstances, and willingness to forgive. That this structure
was also found in a Buddhist sample is logical. As stated before, in Buddhism,
the renouncing of anger and resentment toward the offender (possibly corre-
sponding to the lasting resentment factor), and the removal of an expectation
of retribution (possibly corresponding to the willingness to forgive factor), are
considered as distinct virtues. In addition, in a collectivistic society, being able
to take into account the opinion of others and the social circumstances of every
event (Bond, 1986; Ho, 1993; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and being able to
conform to social duties (Ma, 1988; Ting-Toomey, 1988) are crucial qualities.
Hence, the emergence and the high value of the sensitivity to circumstances
factor.
Our second research question regarded the differences in Buddhist–Christian
responses. The Buddhist participants were shown to be slightly (but significantly)
more resentful and less forgiving than the Christian participants. Although not
attributable to any differential acquiescence effect, this result must, however,
be taken cautiously. As stated previously, the complex concept of forgiveness
is not addressed as such in Buddhism. This may be the main reason behind
the observed Buddhist–Christian differences. In other words, a Western and
thus largely Christian-minded tool (the Forgivingness Scale) was applied to two
Eastern samples (Buddhist and Christian). The observed differences between
these two samples may simply have been caused by the fact that the people in the
Christian sample could easily identify with the intended meaning of the items,
whereas this was not the case for the other sample (composed of Buddhists).
FORGIVENESS 299
Thus, future studies should be based on the Buddhist concepts of renouncing
anger and resentment toward the offender and removal of an expectation of
retribution, and a Buddhist-minded questionnaire should be designed (explicitly
including these two categories) and applied to both Buddhists and Christians
(sharing, if possible, the same culture as in our study).
The final research question regarded the Buddhist–Christian participants. Our
results indicated that their responses were closer to the Buddhist sample for last-
ing resentment and closer to the Christian sample for the willingness to forgive.
This pattern of responses, although difficult to explain, could suggest that, re-
garding forgiveness, the transition from Buddhism (or at least Buddhist culture)
to Christianity may be easier for one aspect of the concept (renouncing retribu-
tion) than for the other aspect (desisting from anger). In other words, it appears
to be easier to work on one’s cognitions (and behaviors) than on one’s emo-
tions. Cognitive processes (the decision to forgive) and behaviors (the possible
decision to reconcile) are at le
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Wridemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.