and did Buddah ever claim to be God?
Question for those who believe the bible.
I personally do not need to believe in myth to be a good person and be happy.
You are absolutely right by YOUR OWN definition of happiness and good. But...
A few realities that were once called 'myths' because of lack of understanding:
the earth being round
Lack of understanding doesn't necessitate a reality being a myth, rather just a lack of understanding.
In Noah's day, so much of the KNOWN static physical laws would have been put to the test SIMULTANEOUSLY at such a cataclysmic event, I don't think anyone could just explain it all away with simplicity.
Besides, what's harder to believe, the flood or bringing the dead back to life?
For me, the latter takes more faith than the flood. My faith believes God can raise the dead. HOW? Beats the $h_t outa me...
Flood? Beats the $h_t outa me...
Bottom line, if your HAPPY great! But, I don't understand why the inquiry?
Edited by - pomegranate on 18 July 2002 16:50:45
Who resurrected this old thread?
The last savior of the world I heard about was Superman. I still think he can kick Spiderman ass. Iv pretty much abandoned this kind of thread and have only posted a few times in the last month or so. I have decided to keep my thoughts about all this god stuff to myself. I don't care to step on the fragile philosophies of anymore Christians. My new thoughts on all this are, "To each their own," and "buy a book."
I'm pretty much done with anymore exJW stuff. I have found it's better to let those who wish to believe in all this stuff alone. It's time for me to move on to more important things like painting nudes. There seems to be a shortage of them in the world and I hear my paint brush's calling.
Buddha, Jesus, Superman, Spiderman, what's the difference? Some people just need to believe in something bigger and stronger than themselves. I don't.
What ever wakes them up in the morning and puts a smile on their face is good enough for me. I just don't care about it all anymore.
Take care all,
Edited by - seven006 on 18 July 2002 17:20:53
That was a classy exit Dave.
Seven, one of your comments was ambiguous. Do you take nude women and paint their bodies. I have seen this and it is interesting art. Or, do you have a canvas you paint on, with a nude model to help complete your painting. Or, do you picture a nude in your mind and then paint from this mental image. This, to me, is important. Why? I have no idea.
Larc buddy, you are such a perv!
I have done several types of nudes. The one you mentioned first is called body printing. That is where you put paint on their body and press them up against a canvas or heavy weight water color paper. Once the print is made your paint around the impressed image. This type of nudes I no longer do but they did sell very well when I did them.
I have also done studies in pencil and oil as well as complete paintings with live models. I quit painting a few years back and at that time I used both live models and photos.
I caught too much shit from a girlfriend at the time so I quit painting all together. Now I spend so much time doing computer art I feel I need to hit the canvas again. I no longer have my studio so nudes might be out of the question for a while. Once I start again it will probably be experimentation with a few new stiles that I have been thinking about. Believe it or not, there is nothing sexual going on when I do nudes, it's all about the art. I think,...If I remember correctly.......I think.....ya,....nothing sexual........oh hell, it's been a few years, Maybe there was once or twice or.............now I think I'm going to paint old barns, rusty trucks and stuff like that.
Does that answer your question?
PS: If I can find photos of some of the old body prints I did I will e-mail them to you.
Since we're on the subject of nude women and bibles, has anyone by chance, or does anyone by chance watch the History channel?
They have been exploring the discovery of the scrolls and the flood and evolution vs. creation and also dinos this week.
Pretty interesting stuff.
They haven't folded to the idea of creation but they (the scientists on the program) stated they are now able, with DNA, to trace every race on the planet back to one female. So they are now pondering the existence of one female having mothered the human race.
They also believe that the dino theory of billions of years ago is off by billions of years.
They are leaning more toward dinos existing as little as 10,000 years ago.
Edited by - plmkrzy on 19 July 2002 10:1:37
Back to the flood, some other questions. How long would it take Noah and his three sons to cut down trees and hew the timber needed for the ark with hand tools? How long would it take to gather the food to feed all the animals for ll months, again using hand tools. How much food and how many animals could he fit into the ark? The math of all this just doesn't add up. On one thread on this subject, RedHorseWoman pointed out the huge amount of food and bedding that would be necessary for just two horses. While on the Ark would there be enough time in a day for eight people to feed all the animals, and remove all the manure? Just a few more questions to ponder.
Did they have only 2 fly's?
Don't believe everything you see on TV. DNA testing is still in baby land in comparison to the much longer history of many other scientific research technologies. When people say "scientist say this or scientist say that" I always like to find out exactly who those particular scientist are and if they have a particular agenda when doing their research.
The piece of fruit, talking snake, and naked lady theory has been tried many times to be proven. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of naked ladies but the talking snake part of the story I will never buy.
Watch the show again and try to find out who the actual scientist are and if they are associated with any kind of a Christian organization.