van Gogh and Gauguin
Sensation! It turns "Vincent van Gogh" his ear cut off druzhban "Paul Gauguin" .
Although FIGS knows what it's there actually was. Perhaps Hans Kaufmann and Rita Vildegans simply wanted to earn a little money and / or fame sucked on the finger "sensation" .
That is, if judged reasonably, another book about the famous artist, listing all the known facts, is unlikely to be enjoyed in high demand (for this "theme" is already extremely "Hackneyed", only one movie about it from a few dozen), but the book is written in the spirit of "everything you said before - not true, but, in fact, it was so, I believe, may well become "commercially successful".
In general, wildly sorry if destroy such a beautiful legend ... Remember, it is that van Gogh, allegedly cut off his left ear (which is also a "myth", in fact, it is not "ear" and "ear lobe") in a fit of madness and alcoholism, and then, wrapped in a newspaper, gave the deposit of the prostitute Rachel, saying "take care of it."
me, incidentally, the father of a child, too earlobe chop off with scissors when tonsured. True, do not remember even what it is, left or right, and if you look in general has quietly ...
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Sample Community Service Letters For Court
image sex god (poschekochivaya "sensitive issue")
arose spontaneously here a few "stupid" but "interesting" question about the gender of God ... On the one hand, as if, he really should not be any sex. On the other, nevertheless there Some established an "image" of him and often say it is in masculine , as sort of Loving Father (which, moreover, at the same time even the Son, and Holy Spirit), but the mother or daughter, you see, God somehow did not call ...
Again, the Bible, the narrative of the period of creation of the world and man " I think there are indications that God is "man." At one point, which many confusing, says: "Let us make man in our image (s) after our likeness "(Gen. 1:26), that is, plural some perceive as masculine and feminine God. But then, in my opinion, it's wildest heresy (Or stupid) as totally agree here with many reputable Christian theologians, that relate the use of multiple number with a clear indication of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit).
Then the same note, said the creation of "human" rather than the creation of the "people". That is, we are definitely talking about the creation of a singular .
In other places, actually, and disclosed the subject matter, What is the "first person" he had done. "The first man was" the man "was Adam (whose name in Hebrew, among other things, means" man "). God certainly created not only men but also women. But this does not mean that He created them "at once": "woman" He created a little later, God created Eve from the "edge" Adam (true, "edge" not everybody thinks the exact translation, but that's another story). And also it does not mean that He created Eve in His image and likeness. According to its image and likeness of God made "man." That is to say, Adam.
Of course, there are many interpretations of the "Bible", but we take the first available (synodal translation), where the first chapter of Genesis says the following:
27. So God created man in his own image, the image of God he created him ; man and female he created them.
Note to the "semicolons" - says one thing, but after - some otherwise.
In the second chapter of Genesis is and this:
22. And the Lord God formed from the rib he had taken man , his wife and brought her to the man .
I mean that from these illustrative examples should be? It should be two things ... Firstly, the first was created by "man" (Adam). Secondly, the image was created by "man" (Adam), and that the image and likeness Eve was created does not say.
Or take, so to speak, "second Adam", "God the Son, Jesus Christ, who, of course, also did not produce impression of "women". He was not the daughter, not an amorphous It is, namely, the Son (at the same time, vestimo and God).
Well, then is not for nothing called God not only as Lord, not Mrs., and God, not God (and not even "srednerodnoe" God).
seemingly "all clear". No, really well - all is far from clear "... Many with ohottsey talk about God in "masculine", but at the same time, vehemently do not want to admit it "masculine." Well, the truth is why hesitate. For example, where there is a "male", there is "sexual characteristics." And if God created "man" (Adam) in His own image and likeness, then why, I ask God the same "sexual member? What does he have him perform? "Decorative" or something? "I mean, 'Beauty'? unclear ...
It was then, indeed, a paradox ... God made represent a sort of powerful "uncle with a beard and speak of him as a" man "in masculine , but at the same time, if rises suddenly somewhere the question of "kind" of God, "male" violently and sometimes even violently denied, despite having a place to be "more than" stand "image."
So it appears that the only thing that really did "clearly", so it is only that "nothing is clear."
another matter that this "vacuum of knowledge does not prevent anyone have some own "view", giving rise to sometimes "fun debate" , where everyone saying "I introduce myself this way" can not be refuted from the point of "precise knowledge" (which could not be challenged), because of the fact that it simply does not exist, as in "Christian religion" too many areas, where people do not operate with "knowledge" and "representation".
Such is the peculiarity of the phenomenon of "faith."
To "believe" in something - not necessarily something to "know". Important - is to have a "view".
arose spontaneously here a few "stupid" but "interesting" question about the gender of God ... On the one hand, as if, he really should not be any sex. On the other, nevertheless there Some established an "image" of him and often say it is in masculine , as sort of Loving Father (which, moreover, at the same time even the Son, and Holy Spirit), but the mother or daughter, you see, God somehow did not call ...
Again, the Bible, the narrative of the period of creation of the world and man " I think there are indications that God is "man." At one point, which many confusing, says: "Let us make man in our image (s) after our likeness "(Gen. 1:26), that is, plural some perceive as masculine and feminine God. But then, in my opinion, it's wildest heresy (Or stupid) as totally agree here with many reputable Christian theologians, that relate the use of multiple number with a clear indication of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit).
Then the same note, said the creation of "human" rather than the creation of the "people". That is, we are definitely talking about the creation of a singular .
In other places, actually, and disclosed the subject matter, What is the "first person" he had done. "The first man was" the man "was Adam (whose name in Hebrew, among other things, means" man "). God certainly created not only men but also women. But this does not mean that He created them "at once": "woman" He created a little later, God created Eve from the "edge" Adam (true, "edge" not everybody thinks the exact translation, but that's another story). And also it does not mean that He created Eve in His image and likeness. According to its image and likeness of God made "man." That is to say, Adam.
Of course, there are many interpretations of the "Bible", but we take the first available (synodal translation), where the first chapter of Genesis says the following:
27. So God created man in his own image, the image of God he created him ; man and female he created them.
Note to the "semicolons" - says one thing, but after - some otherwise.
In the second chapter of Genesis is and this:
22. And the Lord God formed from the rib he had taken man , his wife and brought her to the man .
I mean that from these illustrative examples should be? It should be two things ... Firstly, the first was created by "man" (Adam). Secondly, the image was created by "man" (Adam), and that the image and likeness Eve was created does not say.
Or take, so to speak, "second Adam", "God the Son, Jesus Christ, who, of course, also did not produce impression of "women". He was not the daughter, not an amorphous It is, namely, the Son (at the same time, vestimo and God).
Well, then is not for nothing called God not only as Lord, not Mrs., and God, not God (and not even "srednerodnoe" God).
seemingly "all clear". No, really well - all is far from clear "... Many with ohottsey talk about God in "masculine", but at the same time, vehemently do not want to admit it "masculine." Well, the truth is why hesitate. For example, where there is a "male", there is "sexual characteristics." And if God created "man" (Adam) in His own image and likeness, then why, I ask God the same "sexual member? What does he have him perform? "Decorative" or something? "I mean, 'Beauty'? unclear ...
It was then, indeed, a paradox ... God made represent a sort of powerful "uncle with a beard and speak of him as a" man "in masculine , but at the same time, if rises suddenly somewhere the question of "kind" of God, "male" violently and sometimes even violently denied, despite having a place to be "more than" stand "image."
So it appears that the only thing that really did "clearly", so it is only that "nothing is clear."
another matter that this "vacuum of knowledge does not prevent anyone have some own "view", giving rise to sometimes "fun debate" , where everyone saying "I introduce myself this way" can not be refuted from the point of "precise knowledge" (which could not be challenged), because of the fact that it simply does not exist, as in "Christian religion" too many areas, where people do not operate with "knowledge" and "representation".
Such is the peculiarity of the phenomenon of "faith."
To "believe" in something - not necessarily something to "know". Important - is to have a "view".
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Watch All Episodes Of Kutumb
"empty" - does not mean "Useless" (secret and obvious benefit of "emptiness")
all heard that "everything is relative, but some refer to this expression is fairly skeptical. And, characteristically, "the outlook is, the more skeptical frame of mind."
However, in my opinion, there is no need to go to the hard-nosed about a one-sided stereotypes, if there are some quite clear "alternative", which they say is that things are not so "clearly" how "relatively". And this "relativity" If you look closely, there is literally everywhere, we only need to think carefully and try to take a fresh look at the famous things or phenomena.
For example, I would like to rehabilitate such a widespread phenomenon of "emptiness", which is usually regarded as something utterly "Useless" (that is to say, "worthless"). This terribly popular stereotype is so powerful and so ubiquitous that "emptiness" used to characterize and other words, to make emphasis on quite specific properties (constituting, in their view, the essence of the stereotype). Samples of this "neglect" lots: "Blank generation", the "empty people", "empty head", "empty knowledge", "empty words", "empty space", "waste of time" and sput-holes and sput-Pyr.
But whether everything is uniquely "emptiness"? Is it no alternative "useless"?
In my opinion, "not." Rather might say, all "is not so." To begin with, that even in the human being, there are some "void" without which he would simply "unsustainable."
Or take, perhaps, another important for our everyday life example - absolutely any dwelling house. Agree that completely "sealed" homes would be built to the highest extent is absurd, because so that we could by them to "use", of course, we need to have some access to the interior, and to do all certainly need to make void-door. Because people can not seep through walls, but the "use" the door "emptiness" We very much "by force".
Availability of benefits, and is available in these "void" make them fit for "eat."
So I would not-so "unequivocally" belittling "the void". It can be very "useful" and therefore "good."
On the other hand, are quite clear and the reasons why people choose to ignore the "ambiguity", if any. First, apparently it is much easier to navigate in that they do not "respect" and absolutely "definitely." To-one "opinion" inspires "confidence" and "certainty" tends to be "comfortable" under the "certainty" (within, at least, eliminate the disturbing "confusion"). Secondly, many of the trite "confuse cause with the consequences. "As an example, a typical situation:" empty bottle "curse of the" void ", while forgetting that this is the same" emptiness "and let it" fill. " Do not be in the flask of "emptiness", it generally can not be anything "stuff."
That is, I think the main benefit of "emptiness" is that it provides a "use". And so that opportunity for some reason did not "use" myself "emptiness" in fact did not guilty.
She sort of "open" and ready to "use" and "fill" it - it is our task.
It turns out that the "evil" is not "void" itself , "evil" only in our impotence properly as the judges to "fill."
all heard that "everything is relative, but some refer to this expression is fairly skeptical. And, characteristically, "the outlook is, the more skeptical frame of mind."
However, in my opinion, there is no need to go to the hard-nosed about a one-sided stereotypes, if there are some quite clear "alternative", which they say is that things are not so "clearly" how "relatively". And this "relativity" If you look closely, there is literally everywhere, we only need to think carefully and try to take a fresh look at the famous things or phenomena.
For example, I would like to rehabilitate such a widespread phenomenon of "emptiness", which is usually regarded as something utterly "Useless" (that is to say, "worthless"). This terribly popular stereotype is so powerful and so ubiquitous that "emptiness" used to characterize and other words, to make emphasis on quite specific properties (constituting, in their view, the essence of the stereotype). Samples of this "neglect" lots: "Blank generation", the "empty people", "empty head", "empty knowledge", "empty words", "empty space", "waste of time" and sput-holes and sput-Pyr.
But whether everything is uniquely "emptiness"? Is it no alternative "useless"?
In my opinion, "not." Rather might say, all "is not so." To begin with, that even in the human being, there are some "void" without which he would simply "unsustainable."
Or take, perhaps, another important for our everyday life example - absolutely any dwelling house. Agree that completely "sealed" homes would be built to the highest extent is absurd, because so that we could by them to "use", of course, we need to have some access to the interior, and to do all certainly need to make void-door. Because people can not seep through walls, but the "use" the door "emptiness" We very much "by force".
Availability of benefits, and is available in these "void" make them fit for "eat."
So I would not-so "unequivocally" belittling "the void". It can be very "useful" and therefore "good."
On the other hand, are quite clear and the reasons why people choose to ignore the "ambiguity", if any. First, apparently it is much easier to navigate in that they do not "respect" and absolutely "definitely." To-one "opinion" inspires "confidence" and "certainty" tends to be "comfortable" under the "certainty" (within, at least, eliminate the disturbing "confusion"). Secondly, many of the trite "confuse cause with the consequences. "As an example, a typical situation:" empty bottle "curse of the" void ", while forgetting that this is the same" emptiness "and let it" fill. " Do not be in the flask of "emptiness", it generally can not be anything "stuff."
That is, I think the main benefit of "emptiness" is that it provides a "use". And so that opportunity for some reason did not "use" myself "emptiness" in fact did not guilty.
She sort of "open" and ready to "use" and "fill" it - it is our task.
It turns out that the "evil" is not "void" itself , "evil" only in our impotence properly as the judges to "fill."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)