~mercedo 0 seconds ago
Surrealitic! I recall Dali's pictures.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
~mercedo 0 seconds ago
Surrealitic! I recall Dali's pictures.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Surrealitic! I recall Dali's pictures.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 24 minutes 9 seconds ago
The position of the left hand is nice.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
The position of the left hand is nice.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 24 minutes 9 seconds ago
The position of the left hand is nice.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
The position of the left hand is nice.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 1 second ago
Very nice, since it's realistic.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Very nice, since it's realistic.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 1 second ago
Very nice, since it's realistic.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Very nice, since it's realistic.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Difference between pro and amateur
Oct 30, '07 1:47 AMfor everyone
Pro tends to think evaluator couldn't evaluate him well when he was not evaluated well.
Oct 30, '07 1:47 AMfor everyone
Pro tends to think evaluator couldn't evaluate him well when he was not evaluated well.
Difference between pro and amateur
Oct 30, '07 1:47 AMfor everyone
Pro tends to think evaluator couldn't evaluate him well when he was not evaluated well.
Oct 30, '07 1:47 AMfor everyone
Pro tends to think evaluator couldn't evaluate him well when he was not evaluated well.
mercedo wrote today at 1:20 AM
Hi...Payton..How are you?It's a bit hard to see you, let's keep in touch on line.Of course I am interested in you. What do you do in the States?
Hi...Payton..How are you?It's a bit hard to see you, let's keep in touch on line.Of course I am interested in you. What do you do in the States?
mercedo wrote today at 1:20 AM
Hi...Payton..How are you?It's a bit hard to see you, let's keep in touch on line.Of course I am interested in you. What do you do in the States?
Hi...Payton..How are you?It's a bit hard to see you, let's keep in touch on line.Of course I am interested in you. What do you do in the States?
Monday, 29 October 2007
Re:How so? (Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.29 23:49 (#21156969) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.25 4:32)
Mathematical truth is the one we question the logical consistency but not the one we question whether it is applicable to physical reality. Someone before Perelman insisted to prove that the shape of the universe consists of eight different topological types including the shape of sphere and Perelman merely solved the shape of the universe is not other seven types if we can tag the rope.Poincare conjecture consists in two parts. One is condition clause..if we can tag the rope hung over the universe, then we can generally conclude that the shape of the universe is sphere. Reality has nothing to do with 'if'. Mathematical conjecture is interesting in that it merely leads to a lot of speculations.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.29 23:49 (#21156969) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.25 4:32)
Mathematical truth is the one we question the logical consistency but not the one we question whether it is applicable to physical reality. Someone before Perelman insisted to prove that the shape of the universe consists of eight different topological types including the shape of sphere and Perelman merely solved the shape of the universe is not other seven types if we can tag the rope.Poincare conjecture consists in two parts. One is condition clause..if we can tag the rope hung over the universe, then we can generally conclude that the shape of the universe is sphere. Reality has nothing to do with 'if'. Mathematical conjecture is interesting in that it merely leads to a lot of speculations.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:How so? (Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.29 23:49 (#21156969) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.25 4:32)
Mathematical truth is the one we question the logical consistency but not the one we question whether it is applicable to physical reality. Someone before Perelman insisted to prove that the shape of the universe consists of eight different topological types including the shape of sphere and Perelman merely solved the shape of the universe is not other seven types if we can tag the rope.Poincare conjecture consists in two parts. One is condition clause..if we can tag the rope hung over the universe, then we can generally conclude that the shape of the universe is sphere. Reality has nothing to do with 'if'. Mathematical conjecture is interesting in that it merely leads to a lot of speculations.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.29 23:49 (#21156969) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.25 4:32)
Mathematical truth is the one we question the logical consistency but not the one we question whether it is applicable to physical reality. Someone before Perelman insisted to prove that the shape of the universe consists of eight different topological types including the shape of sphere and Perelman merely solved the shape of the universe is not other seven types if we can tag the rope.Poincare conjecture consists in two parts. One is condition clause..if we can tag the rope hung over the universe, then we can generally conclude that the shape of the universe is sphere. Reality has nothing to do with 'if'. Mathematical conjecture is interesting in that it merely leads to a lot of speculations.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
wrote today at 3:34 AM
He is believed to prove that the shape of universe is not 7 other types but 1 globe shape if one can tag the rope. This is a conclusion drawn negatively from negative deletion, and this does not necessarily prove the correctness of conjuncture. I am expecting to solve the conjecture in E= mc 2 type formula.
He is believed to prove that the shape of universe is not 7 other types but 1 globe shape if one can tag the rope. This is a conclusion drawn negatively from negative deletion, and this does not necessarily prove the correctness of conjuncture. I am expecting to solve the conjecture in E= mc 2 type formula.
wrote today at 3:34 AM
He is believed to prove that the shape of universe is not 7 other types but 1 globe shape if one can tag the rope. This is a conclusion drawn negatively from negative deletion, and this does not necessarily prove the correctness of conjuncture. I am expecting to solve the conjecture in E= mc 2 type formula.
He is believed to prove that the shape of universe is not 7 other types but 1 globe shape if one can tag the rope. This is a conclusion drawn negatively from negative deletion, and this does not necessarily prove the correctness of conjuncture. I am expecting to solve the conjecture in E= mc 2 type formula.
mercedo wrote today at 3:23 AM
Sorry but I like someone who thinks it's useless to prove Poincaré conjecture cannot explain this from my standpoint. It is morally wrong, and it is even more useless to explain this useless idea. However for you it must be interesting, so let me explain by using parable. We can replace his conjuncture into other expression like ' If someone is over eighty, we can say as a whole that someone is an old person.' His conjuncture merely tells the overall conclusion followed by a condition clause, but says anything related to truth. His conjuncture was a game, so I said it's useless.
Sorry but I like someone who thinks it's useless to prove Poincaré conjecture cannot explain this from my standpoint. It is morally wrong, and it is even more useless to explain this useless idea. However for you it must be interesting, so let me explain by using parable. We can replace his conjuncture into other expression like ' If someone is over eighty, we can say as a whole that someone is an old person.' His conjuncture merely tells the overall conclusion followed by a condition clause, but says anything related to truth. His conjuncture was a game, so I said it's useless.
mercedo wrote today at 3:23 AM
Sorry but I like someone who thinks it's useless to prove Poincaré conjecture cannot explain this from my standpoint. It is morally wrong, and it is even more useless to explain this useless idea. However for you it must be interesting, so let me explain by using parable. We can replace his conjuncture into other expression like ' If someone is over eighty, we can say as a whole that someone is an old person.' His conjuncture merely tells the overall conclusion followed by a condition clause, but says anything related to truth. His conjuncture was a game, so I said it's useless.
Sorry but I like someone who thinks it's useless to prove Poincaré conjecture cannot explain this from my standpoint. It is morally wrong, and it is even more useless to explain this useless idea. However for you it must be interesting, so let me explain by using parable. We can replace his conjuncture into other expression like ' If someone is over eighty, we can say as a whole that someone is an old person.' His conjuncture merely tells the overall conclusion followed by a condition clause, but says anything related to truth. His conjuncture was a game, so I said it's useless.
Hey Wiktor... I finished submitting a number of shots taken in a short trip to Mojiko retro area. Hope you enjoy!
Thanks a lot...now it's my turn to take a look at your pictures...let me see...
I will send comments about your work after I browse your gallery. See you soon!!!
Oh, it's so atmospheric!
How did you take this photo?
The angle is nice!
Beautiful moment of tranquility!
mercedo 4 seconds ago
Very nice shot! You ought to be confident in this picture.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Thanks a lot...now it's my turn to take a look at your pictures...let me see...
I will send comments about your work after I browse your gallery. See you soon!!!
Oh, it's so atmospheric!
How did you take this photo?
The angle is nice!
Beautiful moment of tranquility!
mercedo 4 seconds ago
Very nice shot! You ought to be confident in this picture.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Hey Wiktor... I finished submitting a number of shots taken in a short trip to Mojiko retro area. Hope you enjoy!
Thanks a lot...now it's my turn to take a look at your pictures...let me see...
I will send comments about your work after I browse your gallery. See you soon!!!
Oh, it's so atmospheric!
How did you take this photo?
The angle is nice!
Beautiful moment of tranquility!
mercedo 4 seconds ago
Very nice shot! You ought to be confident in this picture.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Thanks a lot...now it's my turn to take a look at your pictures...let me see...
I will send comments about your work after I browse your gallery. See you soon!!!
Oh, it's so atmospheric!
How did you take this photo?
The angle is nice!
Beautiful moment of tranquility!
mercedo 4 seconds ago
Very nice shot! You ought to be confident in this picture.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Sunday, 28 October 2007
In Mojiko retro area these pyrotechnics display is held every weekend, I think, because we went there only last Saturday.
One minute later
In Mojiko retro area
Cafe in Mojiko retro area
Our tranquiling hours
We visited Mojko retro area for the first time. Here was much more than our expectations. Nice spot.
Back to 1889
Artist's Comments
In Mojiko station. 1889 is the year Mojiko port was opened to foreign countries.
One minute later
In Mojiko retro area
Cafe in Mojiko retro area
Our tranquiling hours
We visited Mojko retro area for the first time. Here was much more than our expectations. Nice spot.
Back to 1889
Artist's Comments
In Mojiko station. 1889 is the year Mojiko port was opened to foreign countries.
In Mojiko retro area these pyrotechnics display is held every weekend, I think, because we went there only last Saturday.
One minute later
In Mojiko retro area
Cafe in Mojiko retro area
Our tranquiling hours
We visited Mojko retro area for the first time. Here was much more than our expectations. Nice spot.
Back to 1889
Artist's Comments
In Mojiko station. 1889 is the year Mojiko port was opened to foreign countries.
One minute later
In Mojiko retro area
Cafe in Mojiko retro area
Our tranquiling hours
We visited Mojko retro area for the first time. Here was much more than our expectations. Nice spot.
Back to 1889
Artist's Comments
In Mojiko station. 1889 is the year Mojiko port was opened to foreign countries.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Poincaré conjecture
Oct 25, '07 4:33 AMfor everyone
The attempt to confirm Poincaré conjecture is a useless act.
Oct 25, '07 4:33 AMfor everyone
The attempt to confirm Poincaré conjecture is a useless act.
Poincaré conjecture
Oct 25, '07 4:33 AMfor everyone
The attempt to confirm Poincaré conjecture is a useless act.
Oct 25, '07 4:33 AMfor everyone
The attempt to confirm Poincaré conjecture is a useless act.
Re:Funny you should mention that.(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.25 4:26 (#21103881) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
I think spirit is merely a derivative of body. It disappears when we die.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.25 4:26 (#21103881) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
I think spirit is merely a derivative of body. It disappears when we die.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Funny you should mention that.(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.25 4:26 (#21103881) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
I think spirit is merely a derivative of body. It disappears when we die.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.25 4:26 (#21103881) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
I think spirit is merely a derivative of body. It disappears when we die.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Only one truth
Artist's Comments
Love is an eternal riddle, but only one truth is that I love her from the bottom of my heart.
Love is an eternal riddle, but only one truth is that I love her from the bottom of my heart.
Only one truth
Artist's Comments
Love is an eternal riddle, but only one truth is that I love her from the bottom of my heart.
Love is an eternal riddle, but only one truth is that I love her from the bottom of my heart.
A shot of original photo
Artist's Comments
Taken many years ago, but it is a precious shot in association with my girlfriend.
Taken many years ago, but it is a precious shot in association with my girlfriend.
A shot of original photo
Artist's Comments
Taken many years ago, but it is a precious shot in association with my girlfriend.
Taken many years ago, but it is a precious shot in association with my girlfriend.
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
mercedo 2 seconds ago
>See No Hear No Speak No
This had been thought to be a virtue in feudal society.There's a famous sculpture of three apes in Nikko, Japan.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
>See No Hear No Speak No
This had been thought to be a virtue in feudal society.There's a famous sculpture of three apes in Nikko, Japan.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 2 seconds ago
>See No Hear No Speak No
This had been thought to be a virtue in feudal society.There's a famous sculpture of three apes in Nikko, Japan.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
>See No Hear No Speak No
This had been thought to be a virtue in feudal society.There's a famous sculpture of three apes in Nikko, Japan.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo wrote today at 3:05 AM
briangriffith said And if I think depictions of sex are disgusting, it means I feel sex is disgusting rather than beautiful.
This is still one of the typical attitudes of some rigorous people. I think this attitude shows remains of the strong influence of the Middle Ages when only few people monopolised to enjoy having various sex conducts and the general public were banned to obtain various sexual pleasures. As a result people were forced to live under the dark side of life. I think both liberation of sex and the acquisition of economic freedom are connected very closely one another.
briangriffith said And if I think depictions of sex are disgusting, it means I feel sex is disgusting rather than beautiful.
This is still one of the typical attitudes of some rigorous people. I think this attitude shows remains of the strong influence of the Middle Ages when only few people monopolised to enjoy having various sex conducts and the general public were banned to obtain various sexual pleasures. As a result people were forced to live under the dark side of life. I think both liberation of sex and the acquisition of economic freedom are connected very closely one another.
mercedo wrote today at 3:05 AM
briangriffith said And if I think depictions of sex are disgusting, it means I feel sex is disgusting rather than beautiful.
This is still one of the typical attitudes of some rigorous people. I think this attitude shows remains of the strong influence of the Middle Ages when only few people monopolised to enjoy having various sex conducts and the general public were banned to obtain various sexual pleasures. As a result people were forced to live under the dark side of life. I think both liberation of sex and the acquisition of economic freedom are connected very closely one another.
briangriffith said And if I think depictions of sex are disgusting, it means I feel sex is disgusting rather than beautiful.
This is still one of the typical attitudes of some rigorous people. I think this attitude shows remains of the strong influence of the Middle Ages when only few people monopolised to enjoy having various sex conducts and the general public were banned to obtain various sexual pleasures. As a result people were forced to live under the dark side of life. I think both liberation of sex and the acquisition of economic freedom are connected very closely one another.
mercedo wrote today at 2:42 AM
Sex morality seems to have been used for a long time as a way to oppress people in general under the absolute rule of Middle Age Christendom.
Sex morality seems to have been used for a long time as a way to oppress people in general under the absolute rule of Middle Age Christendom.
mercedo wrote today at 2:42 AM
Sex morality seems to have been used for a long time as a way to oppress people in general under the absolute rule of Middle Age Christendom.
Sex morality seems to have been used for a long time as a way to oppress people in general under the absolute rule of Middle Age Christendom.
mercedo wrote today at 2:36 AM
ullangoo said >A photo taken to be used as evidence in court isn't art.If I write down a conversation that actually took place between some people, it isn't literature.
I think.. any photos, any writings can be a work of art or literature when those photos or writings were taken or written under serious intension and strong conviction.
>It may become literature if I put it in a context where it conveys something of general/universal interest.
I understand you put more artistic value on laborious work than spontaneous one, but I must say the work of genius often requires no great time and energy but simply an inspiration to come up with artistic work.
ullangoo said >A photo taken to be used as evidence in court isn't art.If I write down a conversation that actually took place between some people, it isn't literature.
I think.. any photos, any writings can be a work of art or literature when those photos or writings were taken or written under serious intension and strong conviction.
>It may become literature if I put it in a context where it conveys something of general/universal interest.
I understand you put more artistic value on laborious work than spontaneous one, but I must say the work of genius often requires no great time and energy but simply an inspiration to come up with artistic work.
mercedo wrote today at 2:36 AM
ullangoo said >A photo taken to be used as evidence in court isn't art.If I write down a conversation that actually took place between some people, it isn't literature.
I think.. any photos, any writings can be a work of art or literature when those photos or writings were taken or written under serious intension and strong conviction.
>It may become literature if I put it in a context where it conveys something of general/universal interest.
I understand you put more artistic value on laborious work than spontaneous one, but I must say the work of genius often requires no great time and energy but simply an inspiration to come up with artistic work.
ullangoo said >A photo taken to be used as evidence in court isn't art.If I write down a conversation that actually took place between some people, it isn't literature.
I think.. any photos, any writings can be a work of art or literature when those photos or writings were taken or written under serious intension and strong conviction.
>It may become literature if I put it in a context where it conveys something of general/universal interest.
I understand you put more artistic value on laborious work than spontaneous one, but I must say the work of genius often requires no great time and energy but simply an inspiration to come up with artistic work.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
~mercedo 2 seconds ago
Hi...Thank you very much for the faves!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Hi...Thank you very much for the faves!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 2 seconds ago
Hi...Thank you very much for the faves!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Hi...Thank you very much for the faves!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 3 seconds ago
Thank you so much for the fav!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Thank you so much for the fav!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 3 seconds ago
Thank you so much for the fav!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Thank you so much for the fav!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Re:Communication(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.23 1:24 (#21073323) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
It is certain that the real artist's works have us imagine what the intention of artists was.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.23 1:24 (#21073323) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
It is certain that the real artist's works have us imagine what the intention of artists was.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Communication(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.23 1:24 (#21073323) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
It is certain that the real artist's works have us imagine what the intention of artists was.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.23 1:24 (#21073323) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
It is certain that the real artist's works have us imagine what the intention of artists was.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Lighting(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.23 0:42 (#21072879) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
This is true. A well photographer uses the contrast of light and shadow over the object. It seems to be generally artistic that the ones that have an overall dark tone. I guess the reason is that that gives an unusual atomosphere to the object. As if it requires something unusual to be artitic.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.23 0:42 (#21072879) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
This is true. A well photographer uses the contrast of light and shadow over the object. It seems to be generally artistic that the ones that have an overall dark tone. I guess the reason is that that gives an unusual atomosphere to the object. As if it requires something unusual to be artitic.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Lighting(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.23 0:42 (#21072879) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
This is true. A well photographer uses the contrast of light and shadow over the object. It seems to be generally artistic that the ones that have an overall dark tone. I guess the reason is that that gives an unusual atomosphere to the object. As if it requires something unusual to be artitic.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.23 0:42 (#21072879) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
This is true. A well photographer uses the contrast of light and shadow over the object. It seems to be generally artistic that the ones that have an overall dark tone. I guess the reason is that that gives an unusual atomosphere to the object. As if it requires something unusual to be artitic.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Monday, 22 October 2007
mercedo wrote today at 11:37 PM
We cannot bring any treasure that we made an every effort to store up while we are alive on the earth to heaven after our death. Instead it's much better for us to store up treasures in heaven while we are still alive on the earth.
We cannot bring any treasure that we made an every effort to store up while we are alive on the earth to heaven after our death. Instead it's much better for us to store up treasures in heaven while we are still alive on the earth.
mercedo wrote today at 11:37 PM
We cannot bring any treasure that we made an every effort to store up while we are alive on the earth to heaven after our death. Instead it's much better for us to store up treasures in heaven while we are still alive on the earth.
We cannot bring any treasure that we made an every effort to store up while we are alive on the earth to heaven after our death. Instead it's much better for us to store up treasures in heaven while we are still alive on the earth.
mercedo wrote today at 9:54 PM
Show respect? Thanks. Last weekend I was absent from my house for two nights with my wife, making a short trip to a small city. Now I back to my daily routine.
Show respect? Thanks. Last weekend I was absent from my house for two nights with my wife, making a short trip to a small city. Now I back to my daily routine.
mercedo wrote today at 9:54 PM
Show respect? Thanks. Last weekend I was absent from my house for two nights with my wife, making a short trip to a small city. Now I back to my daily routine.
Show respect? Thanks. Last weekend I was absent from my house for two nights with my wife, making a short trip to a small city. Now I back to my daily routine.
Saturday, 20 October 2007
Re:blurry line(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.20 4:42 (#21046921) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
A witty, warmly humanistic and enlightened porn ought to be possible and would have wide appeal. It might even attract some quality actors.
I understand you thought not all porns are bad. It is beneficial for us to make good use of porn to enjoy, enrich our night life.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.20 4:42 (#21046921) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
A witty, warmly humanistic and enlightened porn ought to be possible and would have wide appeal. It might even attract some quality actors.
I understand you thought not all porns are bad. It is beneficial for us to make good use of porn to enjoy, enrich our night life.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:blurry line(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.20 4:42 (#21046921) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
A witty, warmly humanistic and enlightened porn ought to be possible and would have wide appeal. It might even attract some quality actors.
I understand you thought not all porns are bad. It is beneficial for us to make good use of porn to enjoy, enrich our night life.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.20 4:42 (#21046921) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.20 2:39)
A witty, warmly humanistic and enlightened porn ought to be possible and would have wide appeal. It might even attract some quality actors.
I understand you thought not all porns are bad. It is beneficial for us to make good use of porn to enjoy, enrich our night life.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
mercedo wrote today at 4:27 AM
My life is not at all conventional, I don't intend to store up treasures in heaven.
My life is not at all conventional, I don't intend to store up treasures in heaven.
mercedo wrote today at 4:27 AM
My life is not at all conventional, I don't intend to store up treasures in heaven.
My life is not at all conventional, I don't intend to store up treasures in heaven.
mercedo wrote today at 4:24 AM
I think artistic appreciation and sexual preferences are very closer to one another.For example, suppose there are three photos. One is a slim naked woman's and the other is a powerful naked man's. The third one is an obese naked woman's. I like a slim woman, so I put more artistic value on a photo of the slim naked woman. I don't like to see other two photos, but those who like either of those, two other photos might be artistically appreciable to them.Art is inevitably subjective and it is just a natural thing. We'd better not get rid of other photos in the name of art simply because they are not cut out for our preferences.
I think artistic appreciation and sexual preferences are very closer to one another.For example, suppose there are three photos. One is a slim naked woman's and the other is a powerful naked man's. The third one is an obese naked woman's. I like a slim woman, so I put more artistic value on a photo of the slim naked woman. I don't like to see other two photos, but those who like either of those, two other photos might be artistically appreciable to them.Art is inevitably subjective and it is just a natural thing. We'd better not get rid of other photos in the name of art simply because they are not cut out for our preferences.
mercedo wrote today at 4:24 AM
I think artistic appreciation and sexual preferences are very closer to one another.For example, suppose there are three photos. One is a slim naked woman's and the other is a powerful naked man's. The third one is an obese naked woman's. I like a slim woman, so I put more artistic value on a photo of the slim naked woman. I don't like to see other two photos, but those who like either of those, two other photos might be artistically appreciable to them.Art is inevitably subjective and it is just a natural thing. We'd better not get rid of other photos in the name of art simply because they are not cut out for our preferences.
I think artistic appreciation and sexual preferences are very closer to one another.For example, suppose there are three photos. One is a slim naked woman's and the other is a powerful naked man's. The third one is an obese naked woman's. I like a slim woman, so I put more artistic value on a photo of the slim naked woman. I don't like to see other two photos, but those who like either of those, two other photos might be artistically appreciable to them.Art is inevitably subjective and it is just a natural thing. We'd better not get rid of other photos in the name of art simply because they are not cut out for our preferences.
mercedo wrote today at 4:07 AM
This is a tough question. What is indecency and what is art vary according to times, places, cultures. For example 'hair' had been long regarded as ' obscene' in our country. It was merely about ten years ago that the ban was released. Important thing is that control of pornography had been used as the way to rule the general public by authority. Pornography had been prevailed in a process that the political power was held in democracy.
This is a tough question. What is indecency and what is art vary according to times, places, cultures. For example 'hair' had been long regarded as ' obscene' in our country. It was merely about ten years ago that the ban was released. Important thing is that control of pornography had been used as the way to rule the general public by authority. Pornography had been prevailed in a process that the political power was held in democracy.
mercedo wrote today at 4:07 AM
This is a tough question. What is indecency and what is art vary according to times, places, cultures. For example 'hair' had been long regarded as ' obscene' in our country. It was merely about ten years ago that the ban was released. Important thing is that control of pornography had been used as the way to rule the general public by authority. Pornography had been prevailed in a process that the political power was held in democracy.
This is a tough question. What is indecency and what is art vary according to times, places, cultures. For example 'hair' had been long regarded as ' obscene' in our country. It was merely about ten years ago that the ban was released. Important thing is that control of pornography had been used as the way to rule the general public by authority. Pornography had been prevailed in a process that the political power was held in democracy.
Covenant with God
Humans made a covenant with God two times, one time in Moses' times and the second one was made in Jesus's times. Humans have had no success in this world if they exchanged the contract with God.On the other hands, Faust made a contract with Mephistopheles in exchange for his soul, but he had regained his soul after his death even he succeeded in acquiring tens of interesting experiences in this world.You know Devil was one of archangels in heaven. He was a fallen angel. Devil symbolises the true figure of ambitious humans who succeeded in this world by opening a new frontier.Nothing happens if we kept on walking the path someone made.
Covenant with God
Humans made a covenant with God two times, one time in Moses' times and the second one was made in Jesus's times. Humans have had no success in this world if they exchanged the contract with God.On the other hands, Faust made a contract with Mephistopheles in exchange for his soul, but he had regained his soul after his death even he succeeded in acquiring tens of interesting experiences in this world.You know Devil was one of archangels in heaven. He was a fallen angel. Devil symbolises the true figure of ambitious humans who succeeded in this world by opening a new frontier.Nothing happens if we kept on walking the path someone made.
Art & Porno
On 2007.10.20 2:14
One day I thought about what the difference bewteen art and porno. Between art & porno solely depends on how a watcher feels, not a photo itself.
On 2007.10.20 2:14
One day I thought about what the difference bewteen art and porno. Between art & porno solely depends on how a watcher feels, not a photo itself.
Art & Porno
On 2007.10.20 2:14
One day I thought about what the difference bewteen art and porno. Between art & porno solely depends on how a watcher feels, not a photo itself.
On 2007.10.20 2:14
One day I thought about what the difference bewteen art and porno. Between art & porno solely depends on how a watcher feels, not a photo itself.
~mercedo 0 seconds ago
Nice shot!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Nice shot!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 0 seconds ago
Nice shot!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Nice shot!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 2 seconds ago
Sensual in good meanings.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Sensual in good meanings.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 2 seconds ago
Sensual in good meanings.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Sensual in good meanings.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Friday, 19 October 2007
~mercedo 2 seconds ago
Oriental's torso is familiar to me.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Oriental's torso is familiar to me.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 2 seconds ago
Oriental's torso is familiar to me.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Oriental's torso is familiar to me.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 0 seconds ago
The situation is not easily explicable, all the more I like it.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
The situation is not easily explicable, all the more I like it.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 0 seconds ago
The situation is not easily explicable, all the more I like it.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
The situation is not easily explicable, all the more I like it.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 1 second ago
Nice one-sided black hair.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Nice one-sided black hair.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 1 second ago
Nice one-sided black hair.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Nice one-sided black hair.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Thursday, 18 October 2007
~mercedo 2 seconds ago
Charmed by white.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Charmed by white.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 2 seconds ago
Charmed by white.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Charmed by white.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 1 second ago
Healthy, sexy, humorous..--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Healthy, sexy, humorous..--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 1 second ago
Healthy, sexy, humorous..--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Healthy, sexy, humorous..--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo wrote today at 1:55 AM
When I was 19 or 20, no panties cafe was in fashion. Japanese mean guys don't have enough courage to ask a woman to go out with her. Instead they tend to rely on various sex industries. Maid cafe is not thought to be a part of sex industries, but many nerds like to go there to taste the feeling of master. Maids are supposed to accept master's any demands no matter how stupid those are that sometimes include indecency. Famous maid cafe 'Chicks' is not like that, but there's countless stupid bars in Japan that often overwhelms our sane imaginations.
When I was 19 or 20, no panties cafe was in fashion. Japanese mean guys don't have enough courage to ask a woman to go out with her. Instead they tend to rely on various sex industries. Maid cafe is not thought to be a part of sex industries, but many nerds like to go there to taste the feeling of master. Maids are supposed to accept master's any demands no matter how stupid those are that sometimes include indecency. Famous maid cafe 'Chicks' is not like that, but there's countless stupid bars in Japan that often overwhelms our sane imaginations.
mercedo wrote today at 1:55 AM
When I was 19 or 20, no panties cafe was in fashion. Japanese mean guys don't have enough courage to ask a woman to go out with her. Instead they tend to rely on various sex industries. Maid cafe is not thought to be a part of sex industries, but many nerds like to go there to taste the feeling of master. Maids are supposed to accept master's any demands no matter how stupid those are that sometimes include indecency. Famous maid cafe 'Chicks' is not like that, but there's countless stupid bars in Japan that often overwhelms our sane imaginations.
When I was 19 or 20, no panties cafe was in fashion. Japanese mean guys don't have enough courage to ask a woman to go out with her. Instead they tend to rely on various sex industries. Maid cafe is not thought to be a part of sex industries, but many nerds like to go there to taste the feeling of master. Maids are supposed to accept master's any demands no matter how stupid those are that sometimes include indecency. Famous maid cafe 'Chicks' is not like that, but there's countless stupid bars in Japan that often overwhelms our sane imaginations.
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
mercedo 2 seconds ago
This is a great picture.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
This is a great picture.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 2 seconds ago
This is a great picture.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
This is a great picture.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Monday, 15 October 2007
Re:reasons why(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.15 22:57 (#20981653) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.12 23:32)
Jesus said return to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. National anthem or flag belongs to Caesar.Jehovah's Witnesses emphasise Hebrew values that were sometimes ignored before Reformation. They have succeeded Protestant's tradition in good sense.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.15 22:57 (#20981653) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.12 23:32)
Jesus said return to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. National anthem or flag belongs to Caesar.Jehovah's Witnesses emphasise Hebrew values that were sometimes ignored before Reformation. They have succeeded Protestant's tradition in good sense.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:reasons why(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.15 22:57 (#20981653) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.12 23:32)
Jesus said return to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. National anthem or flag belongs to Caesar.Jehovah's Witnesses emphasise Hebrew values that were sometimes ignored before Reformation. They have succeeded Protestant's tradition in good sense.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.15 22:57 (#20981653) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.12 23:32)
Jesus said return to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. National anthem or flag belongs to Caesar.Jehovah's Witnesses emphasise Hebrew values that were sometimes ignored before Reformation. They have succeeded Protestant's tradition in good sense.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
mercedo wrote today at 10:09 PM
New World Translation is the result of their interpretation of Bible. It is Ok as long as they use it in their study circle. If they claimed their Bible is the only right interpretation, they would face some friction. They were using King James, American Standard Bible before and still they use in pamphlet for the non member. They are excellent people if they are tolerant to other Christians, if they accept other point of view within Christian community.
New World Translation is the result of their interpretation of Bible. It is Ok as long as they use it in their study circle. If they claimed their Bible is the only right interpretation, they would face some friction. They were using King James, American Standard Bible before and still they use in pamphlet for the non member. They are excellent people if they are tolerant to other Christians, if they accept other point of view within Christian community.
mercedo wrote today at 10:09 PM
New World Translation is the result of their interpretation of Bible. It is Ok as long as they use it in their study circle. If they claimed their Bible is the only right interpretation, they would face some friction. They were using King James, American Standard Bible before and still they use in pamphlet for the non member. They are excellent people if they are tolerant to other Christians, if they accept other point of view within Christian community.
New World Translation is the result of their interpretation of Bible. It is Ok as long as they use it in their study circle. If they claimed their Bible is the only right interpretation, they would face some friction. They were using King James, American Standard Bible before and still they use in pamphlet for the non member. They are excellent people if they are tolerant to other Christians, if they accept other point of view within Christian community.
Sunday, 14 October 2007
mercedo wrote today at 2:34 AM
Internet can do almost everything except for physical touch. If we need physical touch among slashdotters? I don't think so either..
Internet can do almost everything except for physical touch. If we need physical touch among slashdotters? I don't think so either..
mercedo wrote today at 2:34 AM
Internet can do almost everything except for physical touch. If we need physical touch among slashdotters? I don't think so either..
Internet can do almost everything except for physical touch. If we need physical touch among slashdotters? I don't think so either..
mercedo wrote today at 1:34 AM
He sent me a letter describing he can't come just before the last moment the party starts. Thus I was the only participant. Last summer we Japanese Slashdotters had a party in a famous maid cafe 'Chicks' in Akiba, Tokyo. The number of participants was 6 or 7. The number of Slashdotters Japanese version is 30,000. Basically the main arena of our forum is located inside the screen we now face. I was always in a club in my early thirties hoping to find both friends and girlfriends. Now I found lots of friends in the screen and one girlfriend beside me. I have tens of friends in a local English circle. There's no absolute raison d'etre in my being in a club anymore. That said having a party is great fun. Next time I'm going to have a party in my room among close relations.
He sent me a letter describing he can't come just before the last moment the party starts. Thus I was the only participant. Last summer we Japanese Slashdotters had a party in a famous maid cafe 'Chicks' in Akiba, Tokyo. The number of participants was 6 or 7. The number of Slashdotters Japanese version is 30,000. Basically the main arena of our forum is located inside the screen we now face. I was always in a club in my early thirties hoping to find both friends and girlfriends. Now I found lots of friends in the screen and one girlfriend beside me. I have tens of friends in a local English circle. There's no absolute raison d'etre in my being in a club anymore. That said having a party is great fun. Next time I'm going to have a party in my room among close relations.
mercedo wrote today at 1:34 AM
He sent me a letter describing he can't come just before the last moment the party starts. Thus I was the only participant. Last summer we Japanese Slashdotters had a party in a famous maid cafe 'Chicks' in Akiba, Tokyo. The number of participants was 6 or 7. The number of Slashdotters Japanese version is 30,000. Basically the main arena of our forum is located inside the screen we now face. I was always in a club in my early thirties hoping to find both friends and girlfriends. Now I found lots of friends in the screen and one girlfriend beside me. I have tens of friends in a local English circle. There's no absolute raison d'etre in my being in a club anymore. That said having a party is great fun. Next time I'm going to have a party in my room among close relations.
He sent me a letter describing he can't come just before the last moment the party starts. Thus I was the only participant. Last summer we Japanese Slashdotters had a party in a famous maid cafe 'Chicks' in Akiba, Tokyo. The number of participants was 6 or 7. The number of Slashdotters Japanese version is 30,000. Basically the main arena of our forum is located inside the screen we now face. I was always in a club in my early thirties hoping to find both friends and girlfriends. Now I found lots of friends in the screen and one girlfriend beside me. I have tens of friends in a local English circle. There's no absolute raison d'etre in my being in a club anymore. That said having a party is great fun. Next time I'm going to have a party in my room among close relations.
mercedo wrote today at 1:34 AM
He sent me a letter describing he can't come just before the last moment the party starts. Thus I was the only participant. Last summer we Japanese Slashdotters had a party in a famous maid cafe 'Chicks' in Akiba, Tokyo. The number of participants was 6 or 7. The number of Slashdotters Japanese version is 30,000. Basically the main arena of our forum is located inside the screen we now face. I was always in a club in my early thirties hoping to find both friends and girlfriends. Now I found lots of friends in the screen and one girlfriend beside me. I have tens of friends in a local English circle. There's no absolute raison d'etre in my being in a club anymore. That said having a party is great fun. Next time I'm going to have a party in my room among close relations.
He sent me a letter describing he can't come just before the last moment the party starts. Thus I was the only participant. Last summer we Japanese Slashdotters had a party in a famous maid cafe 'Chicks' in Akiba, Tokyo. The number of participants was 6 or 7. The number of Slashdotters Japanese version is 30,000. Basically the main arena of our forum is located inside the screen we now face. I was always in a club in my early thirties hoping to find both friends and girlfriends. Now I found lots of friends in the screen and one girlfriend beside me. I have tens of friends in a local English circle. There's no absolute raison d'etre in my being in a club anymore. That said having a party is great fun. Next time I'm going to have a party in my room among close relations.
mercedo wrote today at 1:34 AM
He sent me a letter describing he can't come just before the last moment the party starts. Thus I was the only participant. Last summer we Japanese Slashdotters had a party in a famous maid cafe 'Chicks' in Akiba, Tokyo. The number of participants was 6 or 7. The number of Slashdotters Japanese version is 30,000. Basically the main arena of our forum is located inside the screen we now face. I was always in a club in my early thirties hoping to find both friends and girlfriends. Now I found lots of friends in the screen and one girlfriend beside me. I have tens of friends in a local English circle. There's no absolute raison d'etre in my being in a club anymore. That said having a party is great fun. Next time I'm going to have a party in my room among close relations.
He sent me a letter describing he can't come just before the last moment the party starts. Thus I was the only participant. Last summer we Japanese Slashdotters had a party in a famous maid cafe 'Chicks' in Akiba, Tokyo. The number of participants was 6 or 7. The number of Slashdotters Japanese version is 30,000. Basically the main arena of our forum is located inside the screen we now face. I was always in a club in my early thirties hoping to find both friends and girlfriends. Now I found lots of friends in the screen and one girlfriend beside me. I have tens of friends in a local English circle. There's no absolute raison d'etre in my being in a club anymore. That said having a party is great fun. Next time I'm going to have a party in my room among close relations.
Saturday, 13 October 2007
Slashdotten party
Oct 13, '07 1:02 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Tomorrow night we are going to have a party for ten year anniversary of Slashdot. We because I succeeded to have another participant. It takes two to tango. I am glad and satisfied. Two is perfect for the party if not one hundred. I am looking forward to seeing him. Here's the place & time. http://slashdot.org/anniversary.pl?view_id=349
We start having the first party in The Dark Room from 22 PM to midnight. Then move to Crazy Cock, Off Broadway, then The Dark Room. Here I intend to welcome morning.
I will get on a bus at 6 AM, that's what I often did in my early thirties.
Oct 13, '07 1:02 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Tomorrow night we are going to have a party for ten year anniversary of Slashdot. We because I succeeded to have another participant. It takes two to tango. I am glad and satisfied. Two is perfect for the party if not one hundred. I am looking forward to seeing him. Here's the place & time. http://slashdot.org/anniversary.pl?view_id=349
We start having the first party in The Dark Room from 22 PM to midnight. Then move to Crazy Cock, Off Broadway, then The Dark Room. Here I intend to welcome morning.
I will get on a bus at 6 AM, that's what I often did in my early thirties.
Slashdotten party
Oct 13, '07 1:02 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Tomorrow night we are going to have a party for ten year anniversary of Slashdot. We because I succeeded to have another participant. It takes two to tango. I am glad and satisfied. Two is perfect for the party if not one hundred. I am looking forward to seeing him. Here's the place & time. http://slashdot.org/anniversary.pl?view_id=349
We start having the first party in The Dark Room from 22 PM to midnight. Then move to Crazy Cock, Off Broadway, then The Dark Room. Here I intend to welcome morning.
I will get on a bus at 6 AM, that's what I often did in my early thirties.
Oct 13, '07 1:02 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Tomorrow night we are going to have a party for ten year anniversary of Slashdot. We because I succeeded to have another participant. It takes two to tango. I am glad and satisfied. Two is perfect for the party if not one hundred. I am looking forward to seeing him. Here's the place & time. http://slashdot.org/anniversary.pl?view_id=349
We start having the first party in The Dark Room from 22 PM to midnight. Then move to Crazy Cock, Off Broadway, then The Dark Room. Here I intend to welcome morning.
I will get on a bus at 6 AM, that's what I often did in my early thirties.
Re:Yahweh(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.13 0:00 (#20954085) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.12 23:32)
Yahweh is a name of God in Hebrew Scriptures. There's no Yahweh or Tetragrammaton in Greek Scriptures.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.13 0:00 (#20954085) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.12 23:32)
Yahweh is a name of God in Hebrew Scriptures. There's no Yahweh or Tetragrammaton in Greek Scriptures.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Yahweh(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.13 0:00 (#20954085) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.12 23:32)
Yahweh is a name of God in Hebrew Scriptures. There's no Yahweh or Tetragrammaton in Greek Scriptures.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.13 0:00 (#20954085) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.12 23:32)
Yahweh is a name of God in Hebrew Scriptures. There's no Yahweh or Tetragrammaton in Greek Scriptures.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Friday, 12 October 2007
Acceptance& tolerance
2007.10.12 23:32
Religious situation in America is very different from that of other countries. Almost all people believe in Christianity. Almost all people in America are Protestants. But the problem is there are tens of millions of denominations among American Protestants. Episcopal, Presbyterian, Evangelicals, Baptists, Anglican, Mormon, etc. It is somehow taken for granted that all people believe in God, Christianity in America. Which denomination that matters.You see in a country virtually all people believe in Christianity, people tend to believe in Christianity formally, not substantially. Some need to pretend to believe in God because only somebody next to them supposedly believe in God. I must say some people just pretend to believe in God as a pose.Jehovah's Witnesses were different among those might be pretending to believe in God as a posture.Situation here in Japan is very different from that in America. Usually I found almost all Christians here regardless of their denominations are very religious and faithful people. Many Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians. I agree, but I regret to say that some Jehovah's Witnesses are not. At the same time many Catholic believers, Protestants are true Christians. Again some Catholic, Protestants are not.You often say there's only one God's earthly organisation, though you don't clearly say which is so. Also you mention lots of times about Apostasy. But what is important is not an organisation. It is very beneficial to learn and keep in touch with organisation as long as it helps strengthen your faith. Most important thing is your relationship to God, not organisation.Now as to New World Translation. This translation was thought to be the work by one man with the help of other four members of committee in Watch Tower. In other major translations more than 100 scholars involved in the work of translation in order not to be biased in a particular idea. Important thing is Bible is a word of God and this book was written in very old times in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek. We need some interpretation for that reason. Ancient language must be very different from current language. Of course English is very different form Hebrew and Greek in the first place. So what we need to know is what message God really tried to send us humans. All translation of Bible are a result of how we interpret it from original text. Important thing is what God really wanted to send us, not merely what is written. There are many literal expressions as well as figurative expressions. Prophecy is basically figurative. We need to look into what was His real intention.It is very acceptable for us to use New World Translation in our daily study, but if we felt some questions as to what really God wanted to say, it is strongly recommended to refer to other version of Bible as well as what original language meant.You don't salute national flag or sing national anthem. You don't accept transfusion. I think national flag, anthem, transfusion have nothing to do with right or wrong. What matters is whether you feel it sinful or not. Jehovah's Witnesses usually feel those conducts violate God's command. Therefore you ought not to do them. Otherwise those have nothing to do with your faith.As to God's name. I am not sure whether God has a name though your supreme God, Almighty God is called Jehovah by Jehovah's Witnesses. But if some one who has different faith calls his God in different names like Deus in Catholicism, you ought to admit their God is the same as your God. God Himself is the same, but how to call Him that differs.These are the impressions that I had through conversations with Sister.Conversation with a visitor. Acceptance & tolerance. Most important factor in religion.
2007.10.12 23:32
Religious situation in America is very different from that of other countries. Almost all people believe in Christianity. Almost all people in America are Protestants. But the problem is there are tens of millions of denominations among American Protestants. Episcopal, Presbyterian, Evangelicals, Baptists, Anglican, Mormon, etc. It is somehow taken for granted that all people believe in God, Christianity in America. Which denomination that matters.You see in a country virtually all people believe in Christianity, people tend to believe in Christianity formally, not substantially. Some need to pretend to believe in God because only somebody next to them supposedly believe in God. I must say some people just pretend to believe in God as a pose.Jehovah's Witnesses were different among those might be pretending to believe in God as a posture.Situation here in Japan is very different from that in America. Usually I found almost all Christians here regardless of their denominations are very religious and faithful people. Many Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians. I agree, but I regret to say that some Jehovah's Witnesses are not. At the same time many Catholic believers, Protestants are true Christians. Again some Catholic, Protestants are not.You often say there's only one God's earthly organisation, though you don't clearly say which is so. Also you mention lots of times about Apostasy. But what is important is not an organisation. It is very beneficial to learn and keep in touch with organisation as long as it helps strengthen your faith. Most important thing is your relationship to God, not organisation.Now as to New World Translation. This translation was thought to be the work by one man with the help of other four members of committee in Watch Tower. In other major translations more than 100 scholars involved in the work of translation in order not to be biased in a particular idea. Important thing is Bible is a word of God and this book was written in very old times in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek. We need some interpretation for that reason. Ancient language must be very different from current language. Of course English is very different form Hebrew and Greek in the first place. So what we need to know is what message God really tried to send us humans. All translation of Bible are a result of how we interpret it from original text. Important thing is what God really wanted to send us, not merely what is written. There are many literal expressions as well as figurative expressions. Prophecy is basically figurative. We need to look into what was His real intention.It is very acceptable for us to use New World Translation in our daily study, but if we felt some questions as to what really God wanted to say, it is strongly recommended to refer to other version of Bible as well as what original language meant.You don't salute national flag or sing national anthem. You don't accept transfusion. I think national flag, anthem, transfusion have nothing to do with right or wrong. What matters is whether you feel it sinful or not. Jehovah's Witnesses usually feel those conducts violate God's command. Therefore you ought not to do them. Otherwise those have nothing to do with your faith.As to God's name. I am not sure whether God has a name though your supreme God, Almighty God is called Jehovah by Jehovah's Witnesses. But if some one who has different faith calls his God in different names like Deus in Catholicism, you ought to admit their God is the same as your God. God Himself is the same, but how to call Him that differs.These are the impressions that I had through conversations with Sister.Conversation with a visitor. Acceptance & tolerance. Most important factor in religion.
Acceptance& tolerance
2007.10.12 23:32
Religious situation in America is very different from that of other countries. Almost all people believe in Christianity. Almost all people in America are Protestants. But the problem is there are tens of millions of denominations among American Protestants. Episcopal, Presbyterian, Evangelicals, Baptists, Anglican, Mormon, etc. It is somehow taken for granted that all people believe in God, Christianity in America. Which denomination that matters.You see in a country virtually all people believe in Christianity, people tend to believe in Christianity formally, not substantially. Some need to pretend to believe in God because only somebody next to them supposedly believe in God. I must say some people just pretend to believe in God as a pose.Jehovah's Witnesses were different among those might be pretending to believe in God as a posture.Situation here in Japan is very different from that in America. Usually I found almost all Christians here regardless of their denominations are very religious and faithful people. Many Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians. I agree, but I regret to say that some Jehovah's Witnesses are not. At the same time many Catholic believers, Protestants are true Christians. Again some Catholic, Protestants are not.You often say there's only one God's earthly organisation, though you don't clearly say which is so. Also you mention lots of times about Apostasy. But what is important is not an organisation. It is very beneficial to learn and keep in touch with organisation as long as it helps strengthen your faith. Most important thing is your relationship to God, not organisation.Now as to New World Translation. This translation was thought to be the work by one man with the help of other four members of committee in Watch Tower. In other major translations more than 100 scholars involved in the work of translation in order not to be biased in a particular idea. Important thing is Bible is a word of God and this book was written in very old times in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek. We need some interpretation for that reason. Ancient language must be very different from current language. Of course English is very different form Hebrew and Greek in the first place. So what we need to know is what message God really tried to send us humans. All translation of Bible are a result of how we interpret it from original text. Important thing is what God really wanted to send us, not merely what is written. There are many literal expressions as well as figurative expressions. Prophecy is basically figurative. We need to look into what was His real intention.It is very acceptable for us to use New World Translation in our daily study, but if we felt some questions as to what really God wanted to say, it is strongly recommended to refer to other version of Bible as well as what original language meant.You don't salute national flag or sing national anthem. You don't accept transfusion. I think national flag, anthem, transfusion have nothing to do with right or wrong. What matters is whether you feel it sinful or not. Jehovah's Witnesses usually feel those conducts violate God's command. Therefore you ought not to do them. Otherwise those have nothing to do with your faith.As to God's name. I am not sure whether God has a name though your supreme God, Almighty God is called Jehovah by Jehovah's Witnesses. But if some one who has different faith calls his God in different names like Deus in Catholicism, you ought to admit their God is the same as your God. God Himself is the same, but how to call Him that differs.These are the impressions that I had through conversations with Sister.Conversation with a visitor. Acceptance & tolerance. Most important factor in religion.
2007.10.12 23:32
Religious situation in America is very different from that of other countries. Almost all people believe in Christianity. Almost all people in America are Protestants. But the problem is there are tens of millions of denominations among American Protestants. Episcopal, Presbyterian, Evangelicals, Baptists, Anglican, Mormon, etc. It is somehow taken for granted that all people believe in God, Christianity in America. Which denomination that matters.You see in a country virtually all people believe in Christianity, people tend to believe in Christianity formally, not substantially. Some need to pretend to believe in God because only somebody next to them supposedly believe in God. I must say some people just pretend to believe in God as a pose.Jehovah's Witnesses were different among those might be pretending to believe in God as a posture.Situation here in Japan is very different from that in America. Usually I found almost all Christians here regardless of their denominations are very religious and faithful people. Many Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians. I agree, but I regret to say that some Jehovah's Witnesses are not. At the same time many Catholic believers, Protestants are true Christians. Again some Catholic, Protestants are not.You often say there's only one God's earthly organisation, though you don't clearly say which is so. Also you mention lots of times about Apostasy. But what is important is not an organisation. It is very beneficial to learn and keep in touch with organisation as long as it helps strengthen your faith. Most important thing is your relationship to God, not organisation.Now as to New World Translation. This translation was thought to be the work by one man with the help of other four members of committee in Watch Tower. In other major translations more than 100 scholars involved in the work of translation in order not to be biased in a particular idea. Important thing is Bible is a word of God and this book was written in very old times in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek. We need some interpretation for that reason. Ancient language must be very different from current language. Of course English is very different form Hebrew and Greek in the first place. So what we need to know is what message God really tried to send us humans. All translation of Bible are a result of how we interpret it from original text. Important thing is what God really wanted to send us, not merely what is written. There are many literal expressions as well as figurative expressions. Prophecy is basically figurative. We need to look into what was His real intention.It is very acceptable for us to use New World Translation in our daily study, but if we felt some questions as to what really God wanted to say, it is strongly recommended to refer to other version of Bible as well as what original language meant.You don't salute national flag or sing national anthem. You don't accept transfusion. I think national flag, anthem, transfusion have nothing to do with right or wrong. What matters is whether you feel it sinful or not. Jehovah's Witnesses usually feel those conducts violate God's command. Therefore you ought not to do them. Otherwise those have nothing to do with your faith.As to God's name. I am not sure whether God has a name though your supreme God, Almighty God is called Jehovah by Jehovah's Witnesses. But if some one who has different faith calls his God in different names like Deus in Catholicism, you ought to admit their God is the same as your God. God Himself is the same, but how to call Him that differs.These are the impressions that I had through conversations with Sister.Conversation with a visitor. Acceptance & tolerance. Most important factor in religion.
Acceptance& Tolerance
Hi *** & ***..
Religious situation in America is very different from that of other countries. Almost all people believe in Christianity. Almost all people in America are Protestants. But the problem is there are tens of millions of denominations among American Protestants. Episcopal, Presbyterian, Evangelicals, Baptists, Anglican, Mormon, etc. It is somehow taken for granted that all people believe in God, Christianty in America. Which denomination that matters.
You see in a country virtually all people believe in Chrisianity, people tend to believe in Christianity formally, not substantialy. Some need to pretend to believe in God because only somebody next to them supposedly believe in God. I must say some people just pretend to believe in God as a pose.
Jehovah's Witnesses were different among those might be pretending to believe in God as a posture.
Situation here in Japan is very different from that in America. Usually I found almost all Christians here regardless of their denominations are very religious and faithful people. Many Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians. I agree, but I regret to say that some Jehovah's Witnesses are not. At the same time many Catholic believers, Protestants are true Christians. Again some Catholic, Protestans are not.
You often say there's only one God's earthly organisation, though you don't clearly say which is so. Also you mention lots of times about Apostasy. But what is important is not an organisation. It is very beneficial to learn and keep in touch with organisation as long as it helps strengthen your faith. Most important thing is your relationship to God, not organisation.
Now as to New World Translation. This translation was thought to be the work by one man with the help of other four members of committee in Watch Tower. In other major translations more than 100 scholars involved in the work of translation in order not to be biased in a particular idea. Importan thing is Bible is a word of God and this book was written in very old times in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek. We need some interpretation for that reason. Ancient language must be very different from current language. Of course English is very different fom Hebrew and Greek in the first place. So what we need to know is what message God really tried to send us humans. All translation of Bible are a result of how we interpret it from original text. Important thing is what God really wanted to send us, not merely what is written. There are many literal expressions as well as figurative expressions. Prophecy is basically figurative. We need to look into what was His reall intention.
It is very acceptable for us to use New World Translation in our daily study, but if we felt some questions as to what really God wanted to say, it is strongly recommended to refer to other version of Bible as well as what original language meant.
You don't salute national flag or sing national anthem. You don't accept transfusion. I think national flag, anthem, transfusion have nothing to do with right or wrong. What matters is whether you feel it sinful or not. Jehovah's Witnesses usually feel those conducts violate God's command. Therefore you ought not to do them. Otherwise those have nothing to do with your faith.
As to God's name. I am not sure whether God has a name though your supreme God, Almighty God is called Jehovah by Jehovah's Witnesses. But if some one who has different faith calls his God in different names like Deus in Catholicism, you ought to admit their God is the same as your God. God Himself is the same, but how to call Him that differs.
These are the impressions that I had through converstions with Sr ***.
Best regard,
Mer
Religious situation in America is very different from that of other countries. Almost all people believe in Christianity. Almost all people in America are Protestants. But the problem is there are tens of millions of denominations among American Protestants. Episcopal, Presbyterian, Evangelicals, Baptists, Anglican, Mormon, etc. It is somehow taken for granted that all people believe in God, Christianty in America. Which denomination that matters.
You see in a country virtually all people believe in Chrisianity, people tend to believe in Christianity formally, not substantialy. Some need to pretend to believe in God because only somebody next to them supposedly believe in God. I must say some people just pretend to believe in God as a pose.
Jehovah's Witnesses were different among those might be pretending to believe in God as a posture.
Situation here in Japan is very different from that in America. Usually I found almost all Christians here regardless of their denominations are very religious and faithful people. Many Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians. I agree, but I regret to say that some Jehovah's Witnesses are not. At the same time many Catholic believers, Protestants are true Christians. Again some Catholic, Protestans are not.
You often say there's only one God's earthly organisation, though you don't clearly say which is so. Also you mention lots of times about Apostasy. But what is important is not an organisation. It is very beneficial to learn and keep in touch with organisation as long as it helps strengthen your faith. Most important thing is your relationship to God, not organisation.
Now as to New World Translation. This translation was thought to be the work by one man with the help of other four members of committee in Watch Tower. In other major translations more than 100 scholars involved in the work of translation in order not to be biased in a particular idea. Importan thing is Bible is a word of God and this book was written in very old times in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek. We need some interpretation for that reason. Ancient language must be very different from current language. Of course English is very different fom Hebrew and Greek in the first place. So what we need to know is what message God really tried to send us humans. All translation of Bible are a result of how we interpret it from original text. Important thing is what God really wanted to send us, not merely what is written. There are many literal expressions as well as figurative expressions. Prophecy is basically figurative. We need to look into what was His reall intention.
It is very acceptable for us to use New World Translation in our daily study, but if we felt some questions as to what really God wanted to say, it is strongly recommended to refer to other version of Bible as well as what original language meant.
You don't salute national flag or sing national anthem. You don't accept transfusion. I think national flag, anthem, transfusion have nothing to do with right or wrong. What matters is whether you feel it sinful or not. Jehovah's Witnesses usually feel those conducts violate God's command. Therefore you ought not to do them. Otherwise those have nothing to do with your faith.
As to God's name. I am not sure whether God has a name though your supreme God, Almighty God is called Jehovah by Jehovah's Witnesses. But if some one who has different faith calls his God in different names like Deus in Catholicism, you ought to admit their God is the same as your God. God Himself is the same, but how to call Him that differs.
These are the impressions that I had through converstions with Sr ***.
Best regard,
Mer
Thursday, 11 October 2007
Re:Uisghe Beatha(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.11 0:29 (#20927261) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.10 3:46)
I think vodka also means water in Russian.Yeah next time I try famous Grouse, Caol Isla. My tongue will be contained by say a black velvet!
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.11 0:29 (#20927261) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.10 3:46)
I think vodka also means water in Russian.Yeah next time I try famous Grouse, Caol Isla. My tongue will be contained by say a black velvet!
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Uisghe Beatha(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.11 0:29 (#20927261) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.10 3:46)
I think vodka also means water in Russian.Yeah next time I try famous Grouse, Caol Isla. My tongue will be contained by say a black velvet!
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.10.11 0:29 (#20927261) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.10 3:46)
I think vodka also means water in Russian.Yeah next time I try famous Grouse, Caol Isla. My tongue will be contained by say a black velvet!
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
mercedo wrote today at 12:18 AM
What should I say..I was impressed in catchphrases of commercial message in whisky's advertisement. I myself is not a habitual consumer of liquor -what a circumvent way of saying! See yes I drink alcoholic beverages once or twice not in a day, not in a week, not in a month, not even in a year. Last time I had liquor was several years ago.I myself feel that I'd better have more liquor for health reasons.
What should I say..I was impressed in catchphrases of commercial message in whisky's advertisement. I myself is not a habitual consumer of liquor -what a circumvent way of saying! See yes I drink alcoholic beverages once or twice not in a day, not in a week, not in a month, not even in a year. Last time I had liquor was several years ago.I myself feel that I'd better have more liquor for health reasons.
mercedo wrote today at 12:18 AM
What should I say..I was impressed in catchphrases of commercial message in whisky's advertisement. I myself is not a habitual consumer of liquor -what a circumvent way of saying! See yes I drink alcoholic beverages once or twice not in a day, not in a week, not in a month, not even in a year. Last time I had liquor was several years ago.I myself feel that I'd better have more liquor for health reasons.
What should I say..I was impressed in catchphrases of commercial message in whisky's advertisement. I myself is not a habitual consumer of liquor -what a circumvent way of saying! See yes I drink alcoholic beverages once or twice not in a day, not in a week, not in a month, not even in a year. Last time I had liquor was several years ago.I myself feel that I'd better have more liquor for health reasons.
mercedo wrote today at 12:00 AM
Johnnie Walker Black Label was a pronoun of very high class liquor. It cost more than 10,000 yen when I was a kid. Thanks to the sharp risen yen's appreciation it came down to cost 3,500 yen when I was 27. 3,500 yen is roughly speaking equivalent to $35. Scotch was my first experience in liquor at age 27. Before 27 I had never had any alcohol at all, aside from whether you believe or not. 27 was also the age I started teaching in a school. Since then I have been an occasional lover of whisky. I have both Scotch and Bourbon. 'Famous Grouse' -I thought at a glace that it is Wild Turkey. I often drink Four Roses- Bourbon or Johnnie Walker Red Label. It costs slightly over $10, I'm not sure I can afford to buy Caol Isla though, I try having either Grouse or Caol thinking upon my best friend's relaxing hours.
Johnnie Walker Black Label was a pronoun of very high class liquor. It cost more than 10,000 yen when I was a kid. Thanks to the sharp risen yen's appreciation it came down to cost 3,500 yen when I was 27. 3,500 yen is roughly speaking equivalent to $35. Scotch was my first experience in liquor at age 27. Before 27 I had never had any alcohol at all, aside from whether you believe or not. 27 was also the age I started teaching in a school. Since then I have been an occasional lover of whisky. I have both Scotch and Bourbon. 'Famous Grouse' -I thought at a glace that it is Wild Turkey. I often drink Four Roses- Bourbon or Johnnie Walker Red Label. It costs slightly over $10, I'm not sure I can afford to buy Caol Isla though, I try having either Grouse or Caol thinking upon my best friend's relaxing hours.
mercedo wrote today at 12:00 AM
Johnnie Walker Black Label was a pronoun of very high class liquor. It cost more than 10,000 yen when I was a kid. Thanks to the sharp risen yen's appreciation it came down to cost 3,500 yen when I was 27. 3,500 yen is roughly speaking equivalent to $35. Scotch was my first experience in liquor at age 27. Before 27 I had never had any alcohol at all, aside from whether you believe or not. 27 was also the age I started teaching in a school. Since then I have been an occasional lover of whisky. I have both Scotch and Bourbon. 'Famous Grouse' -I thought at a glace that it is Wild Turkey. I often drink Four Roses- Bourbon or Johnnie Walker Red Label. It costs slightly over $10, I'm not sure I can afford to buy Caol Isla though, I try having either Grouse or Caol thinking upon my best friend's relaxing hours.
Johnnie Walker Black Label was a pronoun of very high class liquor. It cost more than 10,000 yen when I was a kid. Thanks to the sharp risen yen's appreciation it came down to cost 3,500 yen when I was 27. 3,500 yen is roughly speaking equivalent to $35. Scotch was my first experience in liquor at age 27. Before 27 I had never had any alcohol at all, aside from whether you believe or not. 27 was also the age I started teaching in a school. Since then I have been an occasional lover of whisky. I have both Scotch and Bourbon. 'Famous Grouse' -I thought at a glace that it is Wild Turkey. I often drink Four Roses- Bourbon or Johnnie Walker Red Label. It costs slightly over $10, I'm not sure I can afford to buy Caol Isla though, I try having either Grouse or Caol thinking upon my best friend's relaxing hours.
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
Whisky & Life
2007.10.10 3:46
'What does he think deep in his blue eyes? Rimbaud - the highest poet in literal history.''Nietzsche or Sartre, Socrates or Plato.. all raised up fighting with their inner trouble. You are a big shot. You and I are big shots. ''Do you like whisky, don't you? Shall we play a little bit more?'-All are taken from commercial messages of whiskies in TV.'
2007.10.10 3:46
'What does he think deep in his blue eyes? Rimbaud - the highest poet in literal history.''Nietzsche or Sartre, Socrates or Plato.. all raised up fighting with their inner trouble. You are a big shot. You and I are big shots. ''Do you like whisky, don't you? Shall we play a little bit more?'-All are taken from commercial messages of whiskies in TV.'
Whisky & Life
2007.10.10 3:46
'What does he think deep in his blue eyes? Rimbaud - the highest poet in literal history.''Nietzsche or Sartre, Socrates or Plato.. all raised up fighting with their inner trouble. You are a big shot. You and I are big shots. ''Do you like whisky, don't you? Shall we play a little bit more?'-All are taken from commercial messages of whiskies in TV.'
2007.10.10 3:46
'What does he think deep in his blue eyes? Rimbaud - the highest poet in literal history.''Nietzsche or Sartre, Socrates or Plato.. all raised up fighting with their inner trouble. You are a big shot. You and I are big shots. ''Do you like whisky, don't you? Shall we play a little bit more?'-All are taken from commercial messages of whiskies in TV.'
ullangoo wrote today at 3:06 AM
Quite true - and I'm impressed with your imagination. You pose lots of interesting questions and theories. If they sometimes need a little modification, so what? The "extreme" form leads to good discussions.
Quite true - and I'm impressed with your imagination. You pose lots of interesting questions and theories. If they sometimes need a little modification, so what? The "extreme" form leads to good discussions.
ullangoo wrote today at 3:06 AM
Quite true - and I'm impressed with your imagination. You pose lots of interesting questions and theories. If they sometimes need a little modification, so what? The "extreme" form leads to good discussions.
Quite true - and I'm impressed with your imagination. You pose lots of interesting questions and theories. If they sometimes need a little modification, so what? The "extreme" form leads to good discussions.
Re:Riddle of Steel(Score:?)
by mercedo (822671) on 2007.10.10 3:18 (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.08 1:43)
As was often the case with you Stargoat...lots of metaphor. Hard to understand by only one or two read. I will be able to know the meaning only after I graduated from a boy.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) on 2007.10.10 3:18 (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.08 1:43)
As was often the case with you Stargoat...lots of metaphor. Hard to understand by only one or two read. I will be able to know the meaning only after I graduated from a boy.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Riddle of Steel(Score:?)
by mercedo (822671) on 2007.10.10 3:18 (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.08 1:43)
As was often the case with you Stargoat...lots of metaphor. Hard to understand by only one or two read. I will be able to know the meaning only after I graduated from a boy.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) on 2007.10.10 3:18 (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.10.08 1:43)
As was often the case with you Stargoat...lots of metaphor. Hard to understand by only one or two read. I will be able to know the meaning only after I graduated from a boy.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
mercedo wrote today at 2:21 AM
ullangoo saidI agree with you that the Abraham myth reflects a transition from human to animal sacrifice.
That's the point. As to cannibalism, I went too far to say cannibalism was very common and widespread among prehistoric humans. Actually this is based merely upon my imaginative hypothesis. Probably cannibalism might have taken place only under extremely severe conditions like famine. Otherwise of course they would eat edible animals, fish and weeds. Writers have their imagination work utmost. Scientists gather as many clues as possible to make some decisions, but many scientists end up in feeling satisfied before any conclusions were made. Many scientists just show evidence. It is writer's job that combines those evidence with sometimes even 'ridiculously exaggerated' imaginations.
ullangoo saidI agree with you that the Abraham myth reflects a transition from human to animal sacrifice.
That's the point. As to cannibalism, I went too far to say cannibalism was very common and widespread among prehistoric humans. Actually this is based merely upon my imaginative hypothesis. Probably cannibalism might have taken place only under extremely severe conditions like famine. Otherwise of course they would eat edible animals, fish and weeds. Writers have their imagination work utmost. Scientists gather as many clues as possible to make some decisions, but many scientists end up in feeling satisfied before any conclusions were made. Many scientists just show evidence. It is writer's job that combines those evidence with sometimes even 'ridiculously exaggerated' imaginations.
mercedo wrote today at 2:21 AM
ullangoo saidI agree with you that the Abraham myth reflects a transition from human to animal sacrifice.
That's the point. As to cannibalism, I went too far to say cannibalism was very common and widespread among prehistoric humans. Actually this is based merely upon my imaginative hypothesis. Probably cannibalism might have taken place only under extremely severe conditions like famine. Otherwise of course they would eat edible animals, fish and weeds. Writers have their imagination work utmost. Scientists gather as many clues as possible to make some decisions, but many scientists end up in feeling satisfied before any conclusions were made. Many scientists just show evidence. It is writer's job that combines those evidence with sometimes even 'ridiculously exaggerated' imaginations.
ullangoo saidI agree with you that the Abraham myth reflects a transition from human to animal sacrifice.
That's the point. As to cannibalism, I went too far to say cannibalism was very common and widespread among prehistoric humans. Actually this is based merely upon my imaginative hypothesis. Probably cannibalism might have taken place only under extremely severe conditions like famine. Otherwise of course they would eat edible animals, fish and weeds. Writers have their imagination work utmost. Scientists gather as many clues as possible to make some decisions, but many scientists end up in feeling satisfied before any conclusions were made. Many scientists just show evidence. It is writer's job that combines those evidence with sometimes even 'ridiculously exaggerated' imaginations.
mercedo wrote today at 1:20 AM
Sacrifice was edible. Offerings were in more commonly used term, tax, of our times. They couldn't replace goat, bull, sheep, by cat, rat, mole. We need coins, not stones.God asked his followers to offer their kids when nothing was found for sacrifice or offerings. Abraham's God refrained from Abraham's offering human sacrifice for the first time in human history. Human sacrifice was common under Molek, God of surrounding peoples. It is needless to say that this incident became the important step to building a civilised society lasting up to current world. Humans were valued for the first time as a successor of culture, not a food for themselves.I think cannibalism was so common before the age of Abraham.
Sacrifice was edible. Offerings were in more commonly used term, tax, of our times. They couldn't replace goat, bull, sheep, by cat, rat, mole. We need coins, not stones.God asked his followers to offer their kids when nothing was found for sacrifice or offerings. Abraham's God refrained from Abraham's offering human sacrifice for the first time in human history. Human sacrifice was common under Molek, God of surrounding peoples. It is needless to say that this incident became the important step to building a civilised society lasting up to current world. Humans were valued for the first time as a successor of culture, not a food for themselves.I think cannibalism was so common before the age of Abraham.
mercedo wrote today at 1:20 AM
Sacrifice was edible. Offerings were in more commonly used term, tax, of our times. They couldn't replace goat, bull, sheep, by cat, rat, mole. We need coins, not stones.God asked his followers to offer their kids when nothing was found for sacrifice or offerings. Abraham's God refrained from Abraham's offering human sacrifice for the first time in human history. Human sacrifice was common under Molek, God of surrounding peoples. It is needless to say that this incident became the important step to building a civilised society lasting up to current world. Humans were valued for the first time as a successor of culture, not a food for themselves.I think cannibalism was so common before the age of Abraham.
Sacrifice was edible. Offerings were in more commonly used term, tax, of our times. They couldn't replace goat, bull, sheep, by cat, rat, mole. We need coins, not stones.God asked his followers to offer their kids when nothing was found for sacrifice or offerings. Abraham's God refrained from Abraham's offering human sacrifice for the first time in human history. Human sacrifice was common under Molek, God of surrounding peoples. It is needless to say that this incident became the important step to building a civilised society lasting up to current world. Humans were valued for the first time as a successor of culture, not a food for themselves.I think cannibalism was so common before the age of Abraham.
mercedo wrote today at 12:48 AM
I thought this comment was written by you till I finished reading 4. I read this as a reference. Thanks a lot.
I thought this comment was written by you till I finished reading 4. I read this as a reference. Thanks a lot.
mercedo wrote today at 12:48 AM
I thought this comment was written by you till I finished reading 4. I read this as a reference. Thanks a lot.
I thought this comment was written by you till I finished reading 4. I read this as a reference. Thanks a lot.
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
ullangoo wrote on Oct 8
Btw: the Islamic tradition claims that it was Ismael, Abraham's son with Hagar, that he almost sacrificed. Nowadays a sheep is sacrificed every year on the assumed day.
ullangoo wrote today at 12:29 AM
In this particular area, perhaps.
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:29 PM
"Human sacrifice was so common till 1945 in Japan;In Hebrew Biblical times there is one description that parents killed their child to feed themselves in time of extreme starvation. I think it's not uncommon for ancient people to eat their kids."I would add: "...And sent His only Son..." in Judeo-Christianity and Titans vs Tyrans in Greek-Roman tradition.Evolution of childrearing explains these phenomena. The steps are:1a. Early Infanticidal Mode (small kinship groups): This mode is characterized by high infanticide rates, maternal incest, body mutilation, child rape, tortures and emotional abandonment by parents when the child is not useful as a an erotic object or as a poison container. The father is too immature to act as a real caretaker and is emotionally absent. Prepubertal marriage of little girls is common, similar to cults like The Children of God. The schizoid personality structure of the infanticidal mode is dominated by alters, in which adults spend much of their time in ritual and magical projects, so they are not able to evolve beyond foraging and early horticultural economic levels nor beyond Big Men political organization1b. Late Infanticidal Mode (chiefdom to early states): Though infanticide rates remain high and child rape is still often routine-particularly royal and pedagogic pederasty the young child is not as much rejected by the mother, and the father begins to be involved with instruction of the older child. Child sacrifice as a guilt-reducing device for social progress is found in early states as the use of children as poison containers became more socially organized.2. Abandoning Mode (beginning with early Christianity): Once the child is thought as having a soul at birth, routine infanticide becomes emotionally difficult. Early Christians were considered odd in antiquity: "they marry like everybody else, they have children, but they do not practice the exposure of new-born babes." These Christians began Europe's two-millennia-long struggle against infanticide, replacing it with abandonment, from oblation of young children to monasteries, a more widespread use of swaddling, wetnurses if one could afford them, fosterage, wandering scholars and child servants. Child sacrifice was replaced by joining in the group-fantasy of the sacrifice of Christ, who was sent by his father as a poison container to be killed for the sins of others.3. Ambivalent Mode (beginning in the twelfth century): The twelfth century ended the oblation of children to monasteries, began child instruction manuals, began to punish child rape, expanded schooling, expanded pediatrics, saw child protection laws, and began to tolerate ambivalence-both love and hate-for the child, marking the beginnings of toleration of a child's independent rights. The child was seen less as a sinful poison container and more as soft wax or clay that could be beaten into whatever shape the parent wished. 4. Intrusive Mode (beginning in the sixteenth century): The intrusive parent began to unswaddle the child and even the wealthy began to bring up the infant themselves rather than sending it elsewhere or at least have the wetnurse come in to the home thus allowing closer emotional bonds with parents to form. 5. Socializing Mode (beginning in the eighteenth century): Obviously something new had entered the world when society could claim that "God planted this deep, this unquenchable love for her offspring in the mother's heart."During this period the number of children most women had dropped from seven or eight to three or four, long before any medical discoveries were made in limiting reproduction, because parents now wanted to be able to give more care to each child. 6. Helping Mode (beginning mid-twentieth century): The helping mode involves acknowledging that the parents' main role is to help the child reach at each stage of its life its own goals, rather than being socialized into adult goals. Parents for the first time consider raising children not a chore but a joy. Both mother and father are equally involved with the child from infancy helping him or her become a self-directed person. Children are given unconditional love, are not struck and are apologized to if yelled at under stress. From http://www.psychohistory.com/
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:31 PM
From myself: at the time of Abraham there was no psychiatry...
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:36 PM
"I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much."-This page of human history will (dis)approve your notion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
ullangoo wrote today at 10:41 PM
I believe one word in about twenty of that website quote. As for "From myself": you're absolute right - and Abraham needed it.Infanticide, yes, it has been fairly common when children were deformed as birth or when the family/group couldn't feed one more or the like. Sometimes for religious reasons; some African tribes used to kill e.g. twins because they were assumed to be demons or something. That's certainly not the same as cannibalism.
Btw: the Islamic tradition claims that it was Ismael, Abraham's son with Hagar, that he almost sacrificed. Nowadays a sheep is sacrificed every year on the assumed day.
ullangoo wrote today at 12:29 AM
In this particular area, perhaps.
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:29 PM
"Human sacrifice was so common till 1945 in Japan;In Hebrew Biblical times there is one description that parents killed their child to feed themselves in time of extreme starvation. I think it's not uncommon for ancient people to eat their kids."I would add: "...And sent His only Son..." in Judeo-Christianity and Titans vs Tyrans in Greek-Roman tradition.Evolution of childrearing explains these phenomena. The steps are:1a. Early Infanticidal Mode (small kinship groups): This mode is characterized by high infanticide rates, maternal incest, body mutilation, child rape, tortures and emotional abandonment by parents when the child is not useful as a an erotic object or as a poison container. The father is too immature to act as a real caretaker and is emotionally absent. Prepubertal marriage of little girls is common, similar to cults like The Children of God. The schizoid personality structure of the infanticidal mode is dominated by alters, in which adults spend much of their time in ritual and magical projects, so they are not able to evolve beyond foraging and early horticultural economic levels nor beyond Big Men political organization1b. Late Infanticidal Mode (chiefdom to early states): Though infanticide rates remain high and child rape is still often routine-particularly royal and pedagogic pederasty the young child is not as much rejected by the mother, and the father begins to be involved with instruction of the older child. Child sacrifice as a guilt-reducing device for social progress is found in early states as the use of children as poison containers became more socially organized.2. Abandoning Mode (beginning with early Christianity): Once the child is thought as having a soul at birth, routine infanticide becomes emotionally difficult. Early Christians were considered odd in antiquity: "they marry like everybody else, they have children, but they do not practice the exposure of new-born babes." These Christians began Europe's two-millennia-long struggle against infanticide, replacing it with abandonment, from oblation of young children to monasteries, a more widespread use of swaddling, wetnurses if one could afford them, fosterage, wandering scholars and child servants. Child sacrifice was replaced by joining in the group-fantasy of the sacrifice of Christ, who was sent by his father as a poison container to be killed for the sins of others.3. Ambivalent Mode (beginning in the twelfth century): The twelfth century ended the oblation of children to monasteries, began child instruction manuals, began to punish child rape, expanded schooling, expanded pediatrics, saw child protection laws, and began to tolerate ambivalence-both love and hate-for the child, marking the beginnings of toleration of a child's independent rights. The child was seen less as a sinful poison container and more as soft wax or clay that could be beaten into whatever shape the parent wished. 4. Intrusive Mode (beginning in the sixteenth century): The intrusive parent began to unswaddle the child and even the wealthy began to bring up the infant themselves rather than sending it elsewhere or at least have the wetnurse come in to the home thus allowing closer emotional bonds with parents to form. 5. Socializing Mode (beginning in the eighteenth century): Obviously something new had entered the world when society could claim that "God planted this deep, this unquenchable love for her offspring in the mother's heart."During this period the number of children most women had dropped from seven or eight to three or four, long before any medical discoveries were made in limiting reproduction, because parents now wanted to be able to give more care to each child. 6. Helping Mode (beginning mid-twentieth century): The helping mode involves acknowledging that the parents' main role is to help the child reach at each stage of its life its own goals, rather than being socialized into adult goals. Parents for the first time consider raising children not a chore but a joy. Both mother and father are equally involved with the child from infancy helping him or her become a self-directed person. Children are given unconditional love, are not struck and are apologized to if yelled at under stress. From http://www.psychohistory.com/
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:31 PM
From myself: at the time of Abraham there was no psychiatry...
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:36 PM
"I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much."-This page of human history will (dis)approve your notion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
ullangoo wrote today at 10:41 PM
I believe one word in about twenty of that website quote. As for "From myself": you're absolute right - and Abraham needed it.Infanticide, yes, it has been fairly common when children were deformed as birth or when the family/group couldn't feed one more or the like. Sometimes for religious reasons; some African tribes used to kill e.g. twins because they were assumed to be demons or something. That's certainly not the same as cannibalism.
ullangoo wrote on Oct 8
Btw: the Islamic tradition claims that it was Ismael, Abraham's son with Hagar, that he almost sacrificed. Nowadays a sheep is sacrificed every year on the assumed day.
ullangoo wrote today at 12:29 AM
In this particular area, perhaps.
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:29 PM
"Human sacrifice was so common till 1945 in Japan;In Hebrew Biblical times there is one description that parents killed their child to feed themselves in time of extreme starvation. I think it's not uncommon for ancient people to eat their kids."I would add: "...And sent His only Son..." in Judeo-Christianity and Titans vs Tyrans in Greek-Roman tradition.Evolution of childrearing explains these phenomena. The steps are:1a. Early Infanticidal Mode (small kinship groups): This mode is characterized by high infanticide rates, maternal incest, body mutilation, child rape, tortures and emotional abandonment by parents when the child is not useful as a an erotic object or as a poison container. The father is too immature to act as a real caretaker and is emotionally absent. Prepubertal marriage of little girls is common, similar to cults like The Children of God. The schizoid personality structure of the infanticidal mode is dominated by alters, in which adults spend much of their time in ritual and magical projects, so they are not able to evolve beyond foraging and early horticultural economic levels nor beyond Big Men political organization1b. Late Infanticidal Mode (chiefdom to early states): Though infanticide rates remain high and child rape is still often routine-particularly royal and pedagogic pederasty the young child is not as much rejected by the mother, and the father begins to be involved with instruction of the older child. Child sacrifice as a guilt-reducing device for social progress is found in early states as the use of children as poison containers became more socially organized.2. Abandoning Mode (beginning with early Christianity): Once the child is thought as having a soul at birth, routine infanticide becomes emotionally difficult. Early Christians were considered odd in antiquity: "they marry like everybody else, they have children, but they do not practice the exposure of new-born babes." These Christians began Europe's two-millennia-long struggle against infanticide, replacing it with abandonment, from oblation of young children to monasteries, a more widespread use of swaddling, wetnurses if one could afford them, fosterage, wandering scholars and child servants. Child sacrifice was replaced by joining in the group-fantasy of the sacrifice of Christ, who was sent by his father as a poison container to be killed for the sins of others.3. Ambivalent Mode (beginning in the twelfth century): The twelfth century ended the oblation of children to monasteries, began child instruction manuals, began to punish child rape, expanded schooling, expanded pediatrics, saw child protection laws, and began to tolerate ambivalence-both love and hate-for the child, marking the beginnings of toleration of a child's independent rights. The child was seen less as a sinful poison container and more as soft wax or clay that could be beaten into whatever shape the parent wished. 4. Intrusive Mode (beginning in the sixteenth century): The intrusive parent began to unswaddle the child and even the wealthy began to bring up the infant themselves rather than sending it elsewhere or at least have the wetnurse come in to the home thus allowing closer emotional bonds with parents to form. 5. Socializing Mode (beginning in the eighteenth century): Obviously something new had entered the world when society could claim that "God planted this deep, this unquenchable love for her offspring in the mother's heart."During this period the number of children most women had dropped from seven or eight to three or four, long before any medical discoveries were made in limiting reproduction, because parents now wanted to be able to give more care to each child. 6. Helping Mode (beginning mid-twentieth century): The helping mode involves acknowledging that the parents' main role is to help the child reach at each stage of its life its own goals, rather than being socialized into adult goals. Parents for the first time consider raising children not a chore but a joy. Both mother and father are equally involved with the child from infancy helping him or her become a self-directed person. Children are given unconditional love, are not struck and are apologized to if yelled at under stress. From http://www.psychohistory.com/
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:31 PM
From myself: at the time of Abraham there was no psychiatry...
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:36 PM
"I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much."-This page of human history will (dis)approve your notion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
ullangoo wrote today at 10:41 PM
I believe one word in about twenty of that website quote. As for "From myself": you're absolute right - and Abraham needed it.Infanticide, yes, it has been fairly common when children were deformed as birth or when the family/group couldn't feed one more or the like. Sometimes for religious reasons; some African tribes used to kill e.g. twins because they were assumed to be demons or something. That's certainly not the same as cannibalism.
Btw: the Islamic tradition claims that it was Ismael, Abraham's son with Hagar, that he almost sacrificed. Nowadays a sheep is sacrificed every year on the assumed day.
ullangoo wrote today at 12:29 AM
In this particular area, perhaps.
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:29 PM
"Human sacrifice was so common till 1945 in Japan;In Hebrew Biblical times there is one description that parents killed their child to feed themselves in time of extreme starvation. I think it's not uncommon for ancient people to eat their kids."I would add: "...And sent His only Son..." in Judeo-Christianity and Titans vs Tyrans in Greek-Roman tradition.Evolution of childrearing explains these phenomena. The steps are:1a. Early Infanticidal Mode (small kinship groups): This mode is characterized by high infanticide rates, maternal incest, body mutilation, child rape, tortures and emotional abandonment by parents when the child is not useful as a an erotic object or as a poison container. The father is too immature to act as a real caretaker and is emotionally absent. Prepubertal marriage of little girls is common, similar to cults like The Children of God. The schizoid personality structure of the infanticidal mode is dominated by alters, in which adults spend much of their time in ritual and magical projects, so they are not able to evolve beyond foraging and early horticultural economic levels nor beyond Big Men political organization1b. Late Infanticidal Mode (chiefdom to early states): Though infanticide rates remain high and child rape is still often routine-particularly royal and pedagogic pederasty the young child is not as much rejected by the mother, and the father begins to be involved with instruction of the older child. Child sacrifice as a guilt-reducing device for social progress is found in early states as the use of children as poison containers became more socially organized.2. Abandoning Mode (beginning with early Christianity): Once the child is thought as having a soul at birth, routine infanticide becomes emotionally difficult. Early Christians were considered odd in antiquity: "they marry like everybody else, they have children, but they do not practice the exposure of new-born babes." These Christians began Europe's two-millennia-long struggle against infanticide, replacing it with abandonment, from oblation of young children to monasteries, a more widespread use of swaddling, wetnurses if one could afford them, fosterage, wandering scholars and child servants. Child sacrifice was replaced by joining in the group-fantasy of the sacrifice of Christ, who was sent by his father as a poison container to be killed for the sins of others.3. Ambivalent Mode (beginning in the twelfth century): The twelfth century ended the oblation of children to monasteries, began child instruction manuals, began to punish child rape, expanded schooling, expanded pediatrics, saw child protection laws, and began to tolerate ambivalence-both love and hate-for the child, marking the beginnings of toleration of a child's independent rights. The child was seen less as a sinful poison container and more as soft wax or clay that could be beaten into whatever shape the parent wished. 4. Intrusive Mode (beginning in the sixteenth century): The intrusive parent began to unswaddle the child and even the wealthy began to bring up the infant themselves rather than sending it elsewhere or at least have the wetnurse come in to the home thus allowing closer emotional bonds with parents to form. 5. Socializing Mode (beginning in the eighteenth century): Obviously something new had entered the world when society could claim that "God planted this deep, this unquenchable love for her offspring in the mother's heart."During this period the number of children most women had dropped from seven or eight to three or four, long before any medical discoveries were made in limiting reproduction, because parents now wanted to be able to give more care to each child. 6. Helping Mode (beginning mid-twentieth century): The helping mode involves acknowledging that the parents' main role is to help the child reach at each stage of its life its own goals, rather than being socialized into adult goals. Parents for the first time consider raising children not a chore but a joy. Both mother and father are equally involved with the child from infancy helping him or her become a self-directed person. Children are given unconditional love, are not struck and are apologized to if yelled at under stress. From http://www.psychohistory.com/
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:31 PM
From myself: at the time of Abraham there was no psychiatry...
imelnychenko wrote today at 10:36 PM
"I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much."-This page of human history will (dis)approve your notion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
ullangoo wrote today at 10:41 PM
I believe one word in about twenty of that website quote. As for "From myself": you're absolute right - and Abraham needed it.Infanticide, yes, it has been fairly common when children were deformed as birth or when the family/group couldn't feed one more or the like. Sometimes for religious reasons; some African tribes used to kill e.g. twins because they were assumed to be demons or something. That's certainly not the same as cannibalism.
mercedo 0 seconds ago
Very artistic. Nice posture!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Very artistic. Nice posture!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo 0 seconds ago
Very artistic. Nice posture!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Very artistic. Nice posture!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 3 seconds ago
Cross, bosoms, genitals ..all represent resource of life.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Cross, bosoms, genitals ..all represent resource of life.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 3 seconds ago
Cross, bosoms, genitals ..all represent resource of life.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Cross, bosoms, genitals ..all represent resource of life.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo wrote today at 12:17 AM
ullangoo saidwe know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. Human sacrifice was so common till 1945 in Japan. Thinking the fact that Jewish tradition prohibited followers from making human sacrifice in times of Abraham, Jewish society was much more advanced than that of one East Asian country.
ullangoo saidwe know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. Human sacrifice was so common till 1945 in Japan. Thinking the fact that Jewish tradition prohibited followers from making human sacrifice in times of Abraham, Jewish society was much more advanced than that of one East Asian country.
mercedo wrote today at 12:17 AM
ullangoo saidwe know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. Human sacrifice was so common till 1945 in Japan. Thinking the fact that Jewish tradition prohibited followers from making human sacrifice in times of Abraham, Jewish society was much more advanced than that of one East Asian country.
ullangoo saidwe know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. Human sacrifice was so common till 1945 in Japan. Thinking the fact that Jewish tradition prohibited followers from making human sacrifice in times of Abraham, Jewish society was much more advanced than that of one East Asian country.
Monday, 8 October 2007
ullangoo wrote today at 10:58 PM
I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much.On the other hand: we know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. There are indications that they at least sometimes were done with the victim's consent. What Abraham performs is obviously a cult ritual - the altar and so on.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:28 PM
I'm no expert on the Jewish tradition, but in those I know better, myths have been preserved orally for no one knows how long. While the substance of the story - the events - is usually preserved, the why and wherefore undergo many changes. Sometimes the interpretations become almost nonsensical.As far as I know, no forerunner of the Abraham story is preserved in writing, but it's likely there was one. The Torah was thoroughly edited around 500 b.c.e., I've been taught.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:31 PM
Btw: the Islamic tradition claims that it was Ismael, Abraham's son with Hagar, that he almost sacrificed. Nowadays a sheep is sacrificed every year on the assumed day.
I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much.On the other hand: we know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. There are indications that they at least sometimes were done with the victim's consent. What Abraham performs is obviously a cult ritual - the altar and so on.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:28 PM
I'm no expert on the Jewish tradition, but in those I know better, myths have been preserved orally for no one knows how long. While the substance of the story - the events - is usually preserved, the why and wherefore undergo many changes. Sometimes the interpretations become almost nonsensical.As far as I know, no forerunner of the Abraham story is preserved in writing, but it's likely there was one. The Torah was thoroughly edited around 500 b.c.e., I've been taught.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:31 PM
Btw: the Islamic tradition claims that it was Ismael, Abraham's son with Hagar, that he almost sacrificed. Nowadays a sheep is sacrificed every year on the assumed day.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:58 PM
I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much.On the other hand: we know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. There are indications that they at least sometimes were done with the victim's consent. What Abraham performs is obviously a cult ritual - the altar and so on.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:28 PM
I'm no expert on the Jewish tradition, but in those I know better, myths have been preserved orally for no one knows how long. While the substance of the story - the events - is usually preserved, the why and wherefore undergo many changes. Sometimes the interpretations become almost nonsensical.As far as I know, no forerunner of the Abraham story is preserved in writing, but it's likely there was one. The Torah was thoroughly edited around 500 b.c.e., I've been taught.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:31 PM
Btw: the Islamic tradition claims that it was Ismael, Abraham's son with Hagar, that he almost sacrificed. Nowadays a sheep is sacrificed every year on the assumed day.
I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much.On the other hand: we know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. There are indications that they at least sometimes were done with the victim's consent. What Abraham performs is obviously a cult ritual - the altar and so on.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:28 PM
I'm no expert on the Jewish tradition, but in those I know better, myths have been preserved orally for no one knows how long. While the substance of the story - the events - is usually preserved, the why and wherefore undergo many changes. Sometimes the interpretations become almost nonsensical.As far as I know, no forerunner of the Abraham story is preserved in writing, but it's likely there was one. The Torah was thoroughly edited around 500 b.c.e., I've been taught.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:31 PM
Btw: the Islamic tradition claims that it was Ismael, Abraham's son with Hagar, that he almost sacrificed. Nowadays a sheep is sacrificed every year on the assumed day.
mercedo wrote today at 11:11 PM
I wonder there was a forerunner. This story was repeatedly referred and interpreted in many ways. Thanks for interesting quotations.
I wonder there was a forerunner. This story was repeatedly referred and interpreted in many ways. Thanks for interesting quotations.
mercedo wrote today at 11:11 PM
I wonder there was a forerunner. This story was repeatedly referred and interpreted in many ways. Thanks for interesting quotations.
I wonder there was a forerunner. This story was repeatedly referred and interpreted in many ways. Thanks for interesting quotations.
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
morosoph wrote today at 8:13 AM, edited today at 9:42 AM
Read Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" for a radical and religious insight into this story.Then there's always Leonard Cohen's classic song "Story of Isaac":
The door it opened slowly,My father he came in, I was nine years old.And he stood so tall above me,His blue eyes they were shiningAnd his voice was very cold.He said, I've had a visionAnd you know I'm strong and holy,I must do what I've been told.So he started up the mountain,I was running, he was walking,And his axe was made of gold.Well, the trees they got much smaller,The lake a lady's mirror,We stopped to drink some wine.Then he threw the bottle over.Broke a minute laterAnd he put his hand on mine.Thought I saw an eagleBut it might have been a vulture,I never could decide.Then my father built an altar,He looked once behind his shoulder,He knew I would not hide.You who build these altars nowTo sacrifice these children,You must not do it any more.A scheme is not a visionAnd you never have been temptedBy a demon or a god.You who stand above them now,Your hatchets blunt and bloody,You were not there before,When I lay upon a mountainAnd my fathers hand was tremblingWith the beauty of the word.And if you call me brother now,Forgive me if I inquire,Just according to whose plan?When it all comes down to dustI will kill you if I must,I will help you if I can.When it all comes down to dustI will help you if I must,I will kill you if I can.And mercy on our uniform,Man of peace or man of war,The peacock spreads his fan.
ginaslove wrote today at 12:56 PM
I believe ,it was a test of obedience that the God of Abraham was asking him to do . After waiting all those years for a son ,God wanted to see who was loved more . The son or Him (meaning God )
mercedo wrote today at 9:52 PM
Ok, you believe in God and every night and day you pray. God is invisible and keeps silent. One day you insist God ordered to kill your son. Are you going to do by order of invisible silent being? It is better for us to take God for his conscience. The situation Abraham had to consider killing his only son is nothing but for Abraham's own sake. It is natural for us to guess that he must have had a time of starvation.
ullangoo wrote today at 7:50 PM
Yes, the test interpretation is the traditional one. It's not logical to me. If God knows everything, he'd know what Abraham would do, so why put him - and Isaac! - through that? For all I know, the myth may be a memory of a time when human sacrifice was practiced.
mercedo wrote today at 10:56 PM
ullangoo saidFor all I know, the myth may be a memory of a time when human sacrifice was practiced. I think so, too.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
iamrevmike wrote today at 9:43 PM
It is foreshadowing. Abraham was willing to make the same sacrifice that God actually made, thereby man kind was worthy of salvation.
mercedo wrote today at 10:53 PM
Abraham was willing to offer his only son but he didn't have to do that. God sent Jesus to redeem the original sin Adam made. Jesus was crucified but resurrected soon. He ascended to heaven and now he is going to rule God's Kingdom. thereby man kind was worthy of salvation.God created Adam and Adam was given free will. He practiced the free will and got an original sin. Jesus is God's only son and sent to save mankind. God loves humans as deep as he sent his only son. It's hard to understand Christian theology.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:00 PM
mercedo saidIt's hard to understand Christian theology. I won't contradict you on this, my friend.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:01 PM
Mer - the last thing a parent would do if the family starved was to kill his/her children. Most parents would rather kill themselves so that the children could survive. It's an insane interpretation. Abraham, I think, was used to getting answers from God. Personally, if I received such a message: that I had to kill my child or any child, I'd go looking for another object of worship.
mercedo wrote today at 10:32 PM
In Hebrew Biblical times there is one description that parents killed their child to feed themselves in time of extreme starvation. I think it's not uncommon for ancient people to eat their kids.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:58 PM
I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much.On the other hand: we know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. There are indications that they at least sometimes were done with the victim's consent. What Abraham performs is obviously a cult ritual - the altar and so on.
morosoph wrote today at 8:13 AM, edited today at 9:42 AM
Read Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" for a radical and religious insight into this story.Then there's always Leonard Cohen's classic song "Story of Isaac":
The door it opened slowly,My father he came in, I was nine years old.And he stood so tall above me,His blue eyes they were shiningAnd his voice was very cold.He said, I've had a visionAnd you know I'm strong and holy,I must do what I've been told.So he started up the mountain,I was running, he was walking,And his axe was made of gold.Well, the trees they got much smaller,The lake a lady's mirror,We stopped to drink some wine.Then he threw the bottle over.Broke a minute laterAnd he put his hand on mine.Thought I saw an eagleBut it might have been a vulture,I never could decide.Then my father built an altar,He looked once behind his shoulder,He knew I would not hide.You who build these altars nowTo sacrifice these children,You must not do it any more.A scheme is not a visionAnd you never have been temptedBy a demon or a god.You who stand above them now,Your hatchets blunt and bloody,You were not there before,When I lay upon a mountainAnd my fathers hand was tremblingWith the beauty of the word.And if you call me brother now,Forgive me if I inquire,Just according to whose plan?When it all comes down to dustI will kill you if I must,I will help you if I can.When it all comes down to dustI will help you if I must,I will kill you if I can.And mercy on our uniform,Man of peace or man of war,The peacock spreads his fan.
ginaslove wrote today at 12:56 PM
I believe ,it was a test of obedience that the God of Abraham was asking him to do . After waiting all those years for a son ,God wanted to see who was loved more . The son or Him (meaning God )
mercedo wrote today at 9:52 PM
Ok, you believe in God and every night and day you pray. God is invisible and keeps silent. One day you insist God ordered to kill your son. Are you going to do by order of invisible silent being? It is better for us to take God for his conscience. The situation Abraham had to consider killing his only son is nothing but for Abraham's own sake. It is natural for us to guess that he must have had a time of starvation.
ullangoo wrote today at 7:50 PM
Yes, the test interpretation is the traditional one. It's not logical to me. If God knows everything, he'd know what Abraham would do, so why put him - and Isaac! - through that? For all I know, the myth may be a memory of a time when human sacrifice was practiced.
mercedo wrote today at 10:56 PM
ullangoo saidFor all I know, the myth may be a memory of a time when human sacrifice was practiced. I think so, too.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
iamrevmike wrote today at 9:43 PM
It is foreshadowing. Abraham was willing to make the same sacrifice that God actually made, thereby man kind was worthy of salvation.
mercedo wrote today at 10:53 PM
Abraham was willing to offer his only son but he didn't have to do that. God sent Jesus to redeem the original sin Adam made. Jesus was crucified but resurrected soon. He ascended to heaven and now he is going to rule God's Kingdom. thereby man kind was worthy of salvation.God created Adam and Adam was given free will. He practiced the free will and got an original sin. Jesus is God's only son and sent to save mankind. God loves humans as deep as he sent his only son. It's hard to understand Christian theology.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:00 PM
mercedo saidIt's hard to understand Christian theology. I won't contradict you on this, my friend.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:01 PM
Mer - the last thing a parent would do if the family starved was to kill his/her children. Most parents would rather kill themselves so that the children could survive. It's an insane interpretation. Abraham, I think, was used to getting answers from God. Personally, if I received such a message: that I had to kill my child or any child, I'd go looking for another object of worship.
mercedo wrote today at 10:32 PM
In Hebrew Biblical times there is one description that parents killed their child to feed themselves in time of extreme starvation. I think it's not uncommon for ancient people to eat their kids.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:58 PM
I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much.On the other hand: we know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. There are indications that they at least sometimes were done with the victim's consent. What Abraham performs is obviously a cult ritual - the altar and so on.
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
morosoph wrote today at 8:13 AM, edited today at 9:42 AM
Read Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" for a radical and religious insight into this story.Then there's always Leonard Cohen's classic song "Story of Isaac":
The door it opened slowly,My father he came in, I was nine years old.And he stood so tall above me,His blue eyes they were shiningAnd his voice was very cold.He said, I've had a visionAnd you know I'm strong and holy,I must do what I've been told.So he started up the mountain,I was running, he was walking,And his axe was made of gold.Well, the trees they got much smaller,The lake a lady's mirror,We stopped to drink some wine.Then he threw the bottle over.Broke a minute laterAnd he put his hand on mine.Thought I saw an eagleBut it might have been a vulture,I never could decide.Then my father built an altar,He looked once behind his shoulder,He knew I would not hide.You who build these altars nowTo sacrifice these children,You must not do it any more.A scheme is not a visionAnd you never have been temptedBy a demon or a god.You who stand above them now,Your hatchets blunt and bloody,You were not there before,When I lay upon a mountainAnd my fathers hand was tremblingWith the beauty of the word.And if you call me brother now,Forgive me if I inquire,Just according to whose plan?When it all comes down to dustI will kill you if I must,I will help you if I can.When it all comes down to dustI will help you if I must,I will kill you if I can.And mercy on our uniform,Man of peace or man of war,The peacock spreads his fan.
ginaslove wrote today at 12:56 PM
I believe ,it was a test of obedience that the God of Abraham was asking him to do . After waiting all those years for a son ,God wanted to see who was loved more . The son or Him (meaning God )
mercedo wrote today at 9:52 PM
Ok, you believe in God and every night and day you pray. God is invisible and keeps silent. One day you insist God ordered to kill your son. Are you going to do by order of invisible silent being? It is better for us to take God for his conscience. The situation Abraham had to consider killing his only son is nothing but for Abraham's own sake. It is natural for us to guess that he must have had a time of starvation.
ullangoo wrote today at 7:50 PM
Yes, the test interpretation is the traditional one. It's not logical to me. If God knows everything, he'd know what Abraham would do, so why put him - and Isaac! - through that? For all I know, the myth may be a memory of a time when human sacrifice was practiced.
mercedo wrote today at 10:56 PM
ullangoo saidFor all I know, the myth may be a memory of a time when human sacrifice was practiced. I think so, too.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
iamrevmike wrote today at 9:43 PM
It is foreshadowing. Abraham was willing to make the same sacrifice that God actually made, thereby man kind was worthy of salvation.
mercedo wrote today at 10:53 PM
Abraham was willing to offer his only son but he didn't have to do that. God sent Jesus to redeem the original sin Adam made. Jesus was crucified but resurrected soon. He ascended to heaven and now he is going to rule God's Kingdom. thereby man kind was worthy of salvation.God created Adam and Adam was given free will. He practiced the free will and got an original sin. Jesus is God's only son and sent to save mankind. God loves humans as deep as he sent his only son. It's hard to understand Christian theology.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:00 PM
mercedo saidIt's hard to understand Christian theology. I won't contradict you on this, my friend.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:01 PM
Mer - the last thing a parent would do if the family starved was to kill his/her children. Most parents would rather kill themselves so that the children could survive. It's an insane interpretation. Abraham, I think, was used to getting answers from God. Personally, if I received such a message: that I had to kill my child or any child, I'd go looking for another object of worship.
mercedo wrote today at 10:32 PM
In Hebrew Biblical times there is one description that parents killed their child to feed themselves in time of extreme starvation. I think it's not uncommon for ancient people to eat their kids.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:58 PM
I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much.On the other hand: we know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. There are indications that they at least sometimes were done with the victim's consent. What Abraham performs is obviously a cult ritual - the altar and so on.
morosoph wrote today at 8:13 AM, edited today at 9:42 AM
Read Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" for a radical and religious insight into this story.Then there's always Leonard Cohen's classic song "Story of Isaac":
The door it opened slowly,My father he came in, I was nine years old.And he stood so tall above me,His blue eyes they were shiningAnd his voice was very cold.He said, I've had a visionAnd you know I'm strong and holy,I must do what I've been told.So he started up the mountain,I was running, he was walking,And his axe was made of gold.Well, the trees they got much smaller,The lake a lady's mirror,We stopped to drink some wine.Then he threw the bottle over.Broke a minute laterAnd he put his hand on mine.Thought I saw an eagleBut it might have been a vulture,I never could decide.Then my father built an altar,He looked once behind his shoulder,He knew I would not hide.You who build these altars nowTo sacrifice these children,You must not do it any more.A scheme is not a visionAnd you never have been temptedBy a demon or a god.You who stand above them now,Your hatchets blunt and bloody,You were not there before,When I lay upon a mountainAnd my fathers hand was tremblingWith the beauty of the word.And if you call me brother now,Forgive me if I inquire,Just according to whose plan?When it all comes down to dustI will kill you if I must,I will help you if I can.When it all comes down to dustI will help you if I must,I will kill you if I can.And mercy on our uniform,Man of peace or man of war,The peacock spreads his fan.
ginaslove wrote today at 12:56 PM
I believe ,it was a test of obedience that the God of Abraham was asking him to do . After waiting all those years for a son ,God wanted to see who was loved more . The son or Him (meaning God )
mercedo wrote today at 9:52 PM
Ok, you believe in God and every night and day you pray. God is invisible and keeps silent. One day you insist God ordered to kill your son. Are you going to do by order of invisible silent being? It is better for us to take God for his conscience. The situation Abraham had to consider killing his only son is nothing but for Abraham's own sake. It is natural for us to guess that he must have had a time of starvation.
ullangoo wrote today at 7:50 PM
Yes, the test interpretation is the traditional one. It's not logical to me. If God knows everything, he'd know what Abraham would do, so why put him - and Isaac! - through that? For all I know, the myth may be a memory of a time when human sacrifice was practiced.
mercedo wrote today at 10:56 PM
ullangoo saidFor all I know, the myth may be a memory of a time when human sacrifice was practiced. I think so, too.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
iamrevmike wrote today at 9:43 PM
It is foreshadowing. Abraham was willing to make the same sacrifice that God actually made, thereby man kind was worthy of salvation.
mercedo wrote today at 10:53 PM
Abraham was willing to offer his only son but he didn't have to do that. God sent Jesus to redeem the original sin Adam made. Jesus was crucified but resurrected soon. He ascended to heaven and now he is going to rule God's Kingdom. thereby man kind was worthy of salvation.God created Adam and Adam was given free will. He practiced the free will and got an original sin. Jesus is God's only son and sent to save mankind. God loves humans as deep as he sent his only son. It's hard to understand Christian theology.
ullangoo wrote today at 11:00 PM
mercedo saidIt's hard to understand Christian theology. I won't contradict you on this, my friend.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:01 PM
Mer - the last thing a parent would do if the family starved was to kill his/her children. Most parents would rather kill themselves so that the children could survive. It's an insane interpretation. Abraham, I think, was used to getting answers from God. Personally, if I received such a message: that I had to kill my child or any child, I'd go looking for another object of worship.
mercedo wrote today at 10:32 PM
In Hebrew Biblical times there is one description that parents killed their child to feed themselves in time of extreme starvation. I think it's not uncommon for ancient people to eat their kids.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:58 PM
I think killing (and eating) children has always been extremely rare. Basic human instincts haven't changed that much.On the other hand: we know human sacrifice from many so-called primitive religions. There are indications that they at least sometimes were done with the victim's consent. What Abraham performs is obviously a cult ritual - the altar and so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)