lindyhopper

Bingo! Now hold that same standard to yourself. To think that the god that you have faith in, which is based on your own subjective experiences and POV, is absolute and universal, you would have to know everything, the ins and outs of the ways of God. That is, of course, if there is a god and if there is only one God and if there is not another universe of gods and if there is not a race of intelligent machines that has us in a virtual existence feeding off our juices and if there is not an alien race that controls us telepathically across light years of space and time etc etc. The number of unverifiable possibilities exceeds our ability to imagine them. How can you possibly know the scope of the reality of God's existence and how the Bible conforms to it and how this God deals with human beings without knowing everything? And, if you only know it in part, couldn't the parts that you don't know be rather significant given the presumed scope of God? Couldn't those unknown aspects amount to something greater or lesser or different than the absolute and universal beliefs that you hold?

You see, anoDan, that is where they tricked you. The MacDonald's double cheeseburger was never good. They just made you think it was. Looked good indefinitely, tasted good while warm, smelled good for a while, but it was actually never good for you.

I'm sorry Dan I don't debate demons. It's kinda my three D's. Add to that you're invisible and your name is Dan and that makes it four D's... (the number of earthly things and is very unlucky in Chinese) I just can't go any further with you without possibly infecting my keyboard and eventually me and most likely my immediate family and perhaps other inanimate objects in my home. I don't know what I would do if you infected my TV. You could infect FoxNews then and God knows what else. I have spam-ware and spy-ware protections but I don't yet have demon-ware. Until then... ixnay on the Arcionmay uffstay. Okay, uh, ay?

Ah hahahaha! Demons? That is funny. Daimone? Careful if you read this post you may get possessed! Back evil pagan BACK! Cue "Triller"!

I think part of this problem is considering where God exists or when. I've heard from a lot of people that God exists outside of time... "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day." I've also heard the the idea that God sees time from a birds eye view, so to speak, seeing it all at once. So, I don't think the ratio of 1:365,250 (one day to the number of days in a thousand years) is of importance, it could be a million years or a trillion years as a day. It's the concept being expressed. So what of the "days" of creation. I've heard this point made that "a day is as a thousand years" so the six days of creation could have been the millions of years that science says. Why stop there, though? What about the other side of that quote... "a thousand years as a day"? For God existing outside of time he would not just create the beginning but he would create the beginning to the end all at once. "FOREknowledge" and "PREdestination" are too linear for a being existing outside of time. Foreknowledge is a human perspective. For God as most Christians and some other religions perceive him it is just knowledge of all things... all knowing. Predestination is again a human perspective. For God it would just be creation.

This is a hard one for me. Hindsight sliding doors the paradox of time travel Would changing certain aspects of my childhood really have made me better off? I don't know. I doubt it. I'm fairly happy now. Certain things sucked, some a lot. Life wasn't perfect. I wasn't protected. Somehow, though, I still managed to make it through without getting into drugs, having a lot of sex, getting in with the "wrong crowd." Outside of my brothers I didn't have a lot of TWI kids in the areas we lived. Maybe that was a good thing. I had friends that smoked cigs and weed and drank and bragged about their sexual escapades, but I only drank a little on occasion. My genetics would say I have a 50/50 chance of being an alcoholic. I guess I got the non-alcoholic side of that chance. I never had the urge or thought or understood why people drank or smoked. I was a dirty, skater, art kid as a teen. Outside the "cool" groups. My parents were pretty hands off when my older brother an I were teens. We couldn't afford getting a car for me. So I rode with crazy friends or took the bus or skated most places. School was a mix of getting in fights, being picked on, and slowly making friends. Welcome to the REAL cool club. Looking back the family corps was a weird idea. I mean we were living on a compound in the middle of BFE farmville Indiana for two years. It was ok for me though. I know it wasn't for everyone, but we worked we played... we were hit with spoons and bibles (which was f'ed up) but it's not like it scared me for life or anything. Gong WOW was bizarre and we lived with a lady who had a son who would torture us. A lot of people have that kid around though. Not just cult members. Of course, when us geeks and fringe freaks grow up, that dude is in jail while the rest of us are decent well rounded people. I feel worse for my parents. They're still in, locked in, hooked in, what ever. They don't see anything wrong with what IS and has been so wrong. They have spent most of their adult lives in the way. Adulthood in twi was what sucked for me. Childhood was mostly fun. Of course, my parents were pretty cool, for the most part. If you don't have that, childhood is going to suck a lot more. I must say, I think more than anything what helped me get through some of those tougher times was having my older bother around (even though we did pi$$ each other off a bit.) We laugh about it now. *shout out to my bro*

Well, part of how he did it has to do with color theory. Most people are familiar with complimentary colors (opposites on the color spectrum wheel) but color theory goes much further than that. Bringing this back to a modern era again : ) ... one person you can see color theory in stark, effective, simplicity is Joseph Albers. He was perhaps more of a scientist than an artist. In this painting the two X's are the same color (see where they connect -top center) but the effect of the "local colors" completely changes the look of the color. Similar tricks can make a color or object look like it is popping off the page. This is a fun part of art school in my opinion. It takes some time to figure out what colors you need to mix to make something look transparent or make areas recede and other areas protrude just by finding the right color... the right tone and shade. Another way some painters made things "pop" was to actually build up the paint in highlighted areas so that certain parts of the painting were literally coming towards you... just on a small scale, but it was effective.

My roommate from college and I used to joke about what was a "bathroom painting" or a "sofa painting." That is one of the one's I was looking at Dooj. Thanks. I like it for it's color the painterliness of it. The trees and the leaves are treated in virtually the same way with the only difference being the color. I of course like the abstract nature of it. Kind of a running them with me I guess.

Kilmt's tree paintings are very cool in my book. http://www.booksplendour.com.au/gallery/cl...rch%20Trees.jpg I just lost the beach forest link, and I have to go, but I'll be back.

This is the first I've heard of it. LCM used to teach that fasting was less about not eating as it was about an extended period of intense focus.

Happy Birthday, Sushi. Hope it was "off the hook"... as the kids say.

Well, I started this and then haven't come back much, but I have been doing more reading of the Bible (more than I have in a while and more than I care to do anytime soon) as well as other writings on this subject and I've changed my mind. I don't see anyway to read what is written and say the Bible does not consider homosexuality a sin (in that a sin is something the god of the Bible or the people writing it considered as wrong.) Sorry to disappoint anyone. I have read plenty that I disagree with and it I has reaffirmed why I am not a Christian. I could go off on a number of things, but I won't. I don't believe TWi's teachings on this are completely in line with the bible. I also don't think the OT abominations are as clear as some like to think, although, there is no way to make it say that the writers thought it was ok or that one could say God thought it was ok, IMO. Romans 1 is the clearest, though, I don't see it saying that they are "deserving of death"... while clearly disobedient children are. Instead, they merely receive their "fitting" punishment "within themselves." Of course, the immediate context of this is the concept of "judge not lest ye be judged" and circumcision vs. the heart. In Romans 2:12 you see anomos that WW spoke of. Although, I don't see applying Durkheim's definition to this case as appropriate or accurate. In this case, as it is with most cases of this word and it's root, it is in terms of those without the Mosaic Law or who are ignorant of the law... meaning Gentile as it clearly states in the context, or those violating the law. The verse in 2 Thess doesn't seem to fit his definition either, rather it is referring to those that have departed from the law or violated the law. After looking at this anomos a little, I can't see how you say that Durkheim's definition is nearly identical to the Greek word. WW, you didn't say it implicitly but you seemed to be implying this definition of "normlessness" might fit here in Romans 1 and 2 or perhaps you are saying it applies to people like me and some of the conversations that have been taking place lately. Either way I see that as quite a distortion of reality. In my world, something is wrong based on it's own merits, it's effect on others, the big and small picture, not just because someone's god says so. This, IMO, is how it has always been, filtered through every society's values and ethics, including the OT Jews. That is why I take a different view of those OT abominations. I didn't ask for your opinion of me or my motives in starting this thread (they were all wrong, BTW). I asked honestly for an open discussion. I was hoping for some to have a little more on the topic that fit my view of things, but that doesn't seem to exist. No big deal. Oh and uh, WW, you're a close-minded, reactionary knuckle-dragger.

Ok, I see I'm gong to have to keep up with this thread a little bit more. George, if you aren't familiar with Hokusai (you probably are) you should take a look. He is one of Japan's most famous painters. Many people know his print "The Great Wave." It was one of his series of thirty-six(?) prints of Mt. Fuji. He also had another series of 100 views of Mt. Fuji. He was a huge influence on many impressionists, post-impressionists, and other artists of that time. He also had a major impact on Dutch landscape painting. I'm definitely a fan of his prints and could live with any of them. Another painter he influenced is another one of my favorites, James McNeal Whistler. He is famously known for the painting often referred to as "Whistler's Mother", but is actually called "Arrangement in Grey and Black: Portrait of the Artist's Mother." He had an interesting take on the relationship between painting, color, and music. Many of his paintings had titles like "Symphony in Grey and Green: the Ocean." I'll come back to him in another post. I've never been a fan of de Kooning and not because I don't like abstract expressionism, because I do like a lot of pieces from that period. With a few exceptions I think his sense of color was not the greatest, perhaps by choice. The painting Dooj posted has a very muddy palette, as does much of his work, IMO. I too used to think of his paintings as having too much energy. I often imagined him going crazy with the paint brush and flinging paint here and there much like Pollock dancing around his canvas, except with more anger or something. His paintings seem almost violent at times, which I think leaves many people uneasy looking at his work. Then I saw a video of him painting at a museum. He was so slow and methodic. He stroked the canvas almost in slow motion. I was even more disappointed. lol What kind of "expressionism" was that? Anyways, I do like some of his work, but it is the stuff that leans more towards color field painting. Paintings like this: http://www.improvis.org/walden/Files%20-%2...ighway_1958.jpg I'm not sure that education (as in someone giving a long explanation for a piece, or going to art school) is necessary or if it changes one's view towards the work or whether one likes it or not. I think as with all painting, the viewer has a gut aesthetic reaction. That changes as we change and perhaps that is where the education part come in. Sometimes learning about the background, the history of the era, the science and discoveries of the era, the artist's life and views and those of his/her peers lead to an appreciation even when we don't like the work or the style of the art per se. I have found that this can sometimes go from appreciation to actually enjoying the work. Other times, like with my experience with the de Kooning video, it leads to just more distaste. Another factor is in the viewing of the piece. The size, the light, the details, seeing the strokes or the apparent lack of strokes and the skill, or lack there of, that was involved in making it can effect your impression of the piece . Your view of what art is and what it is supposed to be obviously effects your like or dislike of certain art and artistic styles, as well. When I went to art school I was still in the Way and had a much more conservative view of art than I do now and I had long not appreciated things like color field painting. I didn't expect it, but going to the National Gallery in DC for the first time (first major museum I had been to) and seeing the work of Franz Kline and Mark Rothko and many others for the first time in person totally changed my view of their work. Walking in and seeing the gigantic black and white Kline paintings had an awesome impact. The Rothkos I saw there gave such a nice warm, calm feeling and rather quickly I became a fan of abstract art... more specifically non-representational abstract art. As I learned more about it, it reinforced my first aesthetic reaction. Understanding more the science behind the power of color, color theory, composition, and concepts like "art for art's sake" helped change the way I approached and thought about art. Now having moved into interior design as well, I see the impact of simple non-representational and expressionistic work can fit in a space as part of the whole, the space itself being a form of art. Still, it all comes down to the eye of the beholder, your own sense of aesthetic and how you approach art. Gotta go... but this is cool, I'll be back.

Well, in Deuteronomy 14, supposed to have been written by Moses as was Leviticus, where it talks about what to eat and what not to eat, it uses the word tow'ebah. Either someone changed their mind, or that distinction isn't all that it seems.

I think to look at whether it is a sin or not in the Bible, one should look at all those abominations, what that word actually means in Hebrew. First, from what I've read the word is not as harsh in the Hebrew as it is in English. Secondly, compare it to the other "abominations" to get an idea of what sort of "error" it is if it is an error at all in today's world. Was eating shellfish or pork or the wrong type of bug an error and a sin or was it taboo because of potential health factors? Were these abominations sins or were they condemned for practical reasons? In a world where carrying on your blood line was of major importance, was being a homosexual very practical? Probably not. In a world where population growth will eventually have a major impact on our world, is a same sex couple who is unable to reproduce on there own really such a bad thing? Perhaps the practical error is no longer applicable in today's world. Shellfish seems to be fair game, and pork is now the other white meat. Is that an add campaign from Satan or have we learned how to overcome certain health threats? In Romans 1 it says that "God gave them up to" this behavior. Are we to read this as "idiom of permission"? That whole concept is up for debate, IMO, and has been here. It also doesn't say the behavior is worthy of death as TWI taught. It says their penalty due is received within themselves. What that means, I'm not sure. As to the separation between the masculine and the feminine, I think it is much more of a sliding scale than it is black and white. Absent of gender, those things are largely attributes influenced by societal expectations and pressures. There is, of course, a real physicality to be associated with those words but even physically we have quite a bit of variation. You have men with penises as small as a women's clitoris and women with clitorises as big as some men's penises. You have some people born with both sexual reproductive organs. You have people born with one set of sexual organs on the inside and another on the outside. When it comes to hormones we again have a range of possibilities and that alone has an effect on a number of things for an individual. When it comes to attraction you have another set of possibilities. So I think it is a little more fluid. Of course, you have the norms in terms of the numbers. "Most people are hetro" or "most people have one set of sex organs." That would be true, but whether the norm according to the numbers makes one thing morally right over another is another game altogether. The closer in detail you get, the more differences you see and what is normal and what is not according to the numbers becomes less specific. But I digress...

Sargent is one of my favorite painters of all time. Definitely a great one. So, sorry for the art-gasm that follows. This painting is not one of my favorites, but it is an excellent painting and I like it. IMO though, it does not display Sargent's greatest attribute. His handle on light is superb as always and that is one of the great things about him. Although, i think his greatest qualities as a painter is his ability to get just the right amount of detail with as few strokes as possible. It is like great poetry, saying the most with as few words as possible. I would take the painting... no doubt, but there are others I'd rather have and so as to not take up a ton of space I will post one of his I would really like to live with and then just have post a bunch of links to other works of his, because if you haven't seen them you need to. One of my favorites of Sargent's work would be his "Daughters of Edward Darley Boit." ... through the eye of the beholder... I tend to look at art in the same way I approach my own art. I don't necessarily enjoy a piece because I like the subject matter. Rather I look at all paintings first abstractly, in a compositional sense... how it is laid out and put together and the spacial and organizational choices the artist made, the impact and skill in the line of the work (both in the actuall line and in the implied lines of the composition). Secondly, I look at the technique and what I like most is what I said above... saying the most with as few strokes as possible... the "hand" of the artist. So in light of that, I feel that the lily painting is almost overworked for Sargent. I much more enjoy his "Study of the Vicker's Children". In that one you can see how it is much flatter and "unfinished" looking, but you see his process, his decisions, how he is unafraid to paint right over areas and rework it quickly as he goes. I think I might like more of Sargent's "studies" than many of his more finished paintings. In the painting of the Boit Daughters you see that abstract quality of his composition that I like. His geometric breakup of the composition is quite clear, simplistic, and striking and they are not without purpose. It is a simple relatively flat backdrop but creates areas of interest that move the viewer across the canvas. Plus, what the hell is that orange triangle over on the right? A screen? Just a random orange triangle? It's a bold choice no matter and it balances the girl on the left and as you "read" the painting (for most of us from left to right) it keeps you in the frame and brings you back down to that cute little girl and the beauty of that persian rug. The rug and the huge vessels are classic Sargent in that simplistic stroke, yet giving you just the right amount of detail. You see the same in the simple strokes of light bouncing around highlights in room. The figures, while life-like (I'm sure they look just as the girls did), to those of us who don't know them it is less about the figures and more about the rhythm of those white dresses and for Sargent, I would say, it was the same- less about the individuals and more about the composition. The limited palette again lends to the abstract qualities of this painting. Those blue, brown, and orange colors are actually very modern and contemporary today. I could go on... Take a look at these other Sargent works. another favorite..the Pailleron kids a simple "sketch" of a young man and a woman another great abstract composition of a landscape another favorite a fantastic painting in white- Fumée d'Ambre Gris. I love the rug and floor again on this one. Another beautiful thing he does in many of these paintings is his treatment of the edges of the canvas. In the Boit Daughters you see everything contained within the canvas with the exception of that vase on the right going off the page, but again the orange triangle keeps things in the frame. You see this sort of thing in the "Fumee d'Ambre Gris" painting (the capital on the upper right peeking in), the painting of Robert Stevenson (lady on the right and furniture on the left), and the bottom border of the Pailleron Children. He did this little compositional trick all the time and it works really well.

How many of you would you open a door to a guy in Levis and a t-shirt claiming to be Jesus? I can't say that I would. If he were persistent I might call 911. Jim Gaffigan's inner voice: "He'd put Jesus in the slammer? That's not right! That guy's going to hell."

WWJS? JC-"Oh, ye of little sweeping! Wherefore art thou broom and dustpan?" Me-"But Jesus I live right by the beach, sand happens." JC-"A wise man builds his house upon a rock." Me-"We use concrete these days and aren't you used to dirt floors" JC-"Well, when you put it that way... break out the wine and bread! " Me-"Please don't say White Zin." JC-"Now THAT, my brother, would be a sin!" We both laugh. *pop* goes the cork and scene!

With all the talk of late on other threads and in politics etc, I thought I'd go back to the Bible and and see what it says (as I have done with many things since leaving TWI) from my new perspective. I was somewhat surprised with what I read. So, what are your views of homosexuality and what are the verses you use to back up that view? Eyes has written a book in which her research has lead her to believe it is not a sin. I don't expect her to discuss this too much given she has a book out (which is understandable) but I think I may have come to the same conclusion (biblically speaking). I obviously expect to see things on abominations and Romans 1, but maybe some of you have much more. Anyways, I thought a discussion on this is timely... so lets do it.

Thank you Rhino for actually reading that link from the AAP, a group that has children's health and well being and by default the families they are growing up in as their main "agenda." Nope! The TV isn't on much in our house either. There isn't much of interest or quality on and we definitely don't think it is best for our kids. They watch virtually zero TV or movies. My sense of morality comes from my personal experience, my education (both formal and on my own), my Christian upbringing, and my reason. Sounds like what this initiative and the voters were trying to do, just replace "ignorant, unwashed masses" with your own personal homosexual pejorative.

Your god is Mahatma Gandhi? That is who said that. From the Garden bit though I assume you mean the god of the Bible. In that case, your God also said eating shellfish was an abomination, as was wearing clothes of mixed fabric, and letting your women out in public when "aunt Flow" was visiting. My god, if I have one that I am unaware of, hasn't made themself known to me. So, I don't know what they have to say on the matter. My reason though tells me that as long as shellfish is cooked properly I will be just fine eating shellfish. My sence of style tells me that certain clothes of mixed fabric aren't only perfectly fine to wear but quite comfortable and stylish. Although, lightening should fall from heaven and strike people wearing spandex dead. My television tells me that as long as a woman uses one of any number of products they can walk around during their time of the month without anyone being the wiser. My sense of morality tells me that homosexuals should be able to marry just like the rest of us, no matter what your god or anyone else's god says. Their choice... your belief not fact necessarily. The garden... your belief not fact necessarily. The abominations... your belief not fact necessarily. Your God... your belief not fact necessarily. Don't force your religious beliefs on others please. BTW, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

No one is forcing anything down your throat, Weout. You can still hold all the exact same opinions that you always have. Your church would continue to be able to make it's own decisions on who they will and who they will not marry. What has been going on for a long time is that the heterosexual definition of marriage has been forced upon homosexual couples who love eachother and want the same legal protections and benefits as the rest of us. Including them in the legal definition of marriage will not effect your life or your lifestyle at all. The way it has been to this point has effected the lives of homosexuals, though. No one needs to compare their struggles to that of black history in our country. Not much will match up. But discrimination is discrimination and inequality is inequality. Women abolitionists identified with slaves even though the comparison was not equal. While we won't find 400 years of overt discrimination to compare to the civil rights movement, we could definitely find incidents going back far longer than 400 years of violent crime and discrimination towards homosexuals. If being gay was as apparent as being black then I would bet we would see a very different history. Homosexuals did not chose to be "in the closet", they didn't have much choice. Only in the last few decades has it been more acceptable socially and more and more gay people have come out. People still hide it from their parents, family, and friends and with good reason. Your opinion is clear and no one will change that, but your opinion and your god or anyone else's god(s) do not make policy and law in this country, thank goodness. lol Do you need rigorous training, a degree, license, or certificate program to become gay in your world?

Very good points, cake. I think "marriage" may occupy a "shared space" in our culture as you said, but just not in the same space at the same time necessarily. The Catholic church has the right to deny people who have been divorced, or who are gay, or who are not catholic, but all of those same people can go get married somewhere else. In a Catholic church one might consider the marriage of a divorced person to another a violation of the sacred institution of marriage. In the civil arena it is common practice. It should be the same for gay couples. No one should "force acceptance" of homosexuality "down the throat" of any religious institution and no one is shoving acceptance down the throat of an individual. "They are looking for equality not equivalency" is exactly the way to put it.

Well, I can't say that it was said exactly like that or specifically in a witnessing scenario but the quiet well behaved child was a topic of pride in TWI. Those without quiet, well behaved children were reproved. If you were not quiet and well behaved in a fellowship then you to be removed and possibly spanked with the spoon, yet parents were expected to bring young children to fellowship on weeknights. Oddly enough, kids usually started acting up if the fellowship went long. Go figure. They were probably tired or still hungry after a rushed meal trying to get to fellowship. On the other hand, for those of us raised in TWI, fellowship was a natural part of life and we were used to it.

I don't know, I've been living in Grenada for about four months and with the sunsets we get every night, you might thing God's favorite color is pink. :blink: