Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I gave you three passages which clearly stated that it was understood that the ordinances of the Mosaic Law were to be a temporary nature, that they were not contained in the book of Deuteronomy is hardly important nor telling, you just make up stuff when faced with certain incontrovertible evidences. That there is no longer a temple in Jerusalem, t ...[text shortened]... do not offer up sacrifices, that the Levitical priesthood no longer operates, ringing any bells?

Robbie, I know you're an "artist" and so are probably great at right brained stuff like appealing to emotion, liking swirly colours and stuff, accepting fantasies, etc... but following through/constructing a logical argument is understood to be a left brained procedure; and you consistently fail at this.
Let me try once more:


1)Deuteronomy has a passage that says people should stone others
No other books written at this time (as far as you have demonstrated) contain any statements that this was to be a temporary or permanent thing. Furthermore the Deuteronomy statement contained no statement (explicit or implicit) it was to be temporary or permanent.
Therefore it is not valid to assume it was to be a *temporary thing* at the time it was written; indeed It later turns out that a statement is made which says this is a permanent thing as we'll see in (2).


2)It is claimed in Ecclesiastes whatever God does remains forever
No other books written at this time or prior (as far as you have demonstrated) contain any clauses or exceptions; nor do they overturn the statement in Deuteronomy above. Therefore any laws god sets down are to be understood at this point as binding forever. In particular (1) is rendered permanent


3)Other people come along *afterwards* and write in Jeremiah & Hebrews that a change in God is coming
This is either invalidated by (2) or invalidates the veracity of the Bible.


Which of (1), (2), or (3) is a problem?

Robbie, I know you're an "artist" and so are probably great at right brained stuff like appealing to emotion, liking swirly colours and stuff, accepting fantasies, etc... but following through/constructing a logical argument is understood to be a left brained procedure; and you consistently fail at this.
Let me try once more:


1)Deuteronomy has a passa y (2) or invalidates the veracity of the Bible.


Which of (1), (2), or (3) is a problem?

what about Escher? was not he a geometric artist? were his visions illogical, swirly colours, hardly! what of Dali with his fantastic surreal visions, a better draughtsman than a painter was he, what of the Cubists, with their emphasis on planes, Picaso himself was a terrible colourist, but he made up for it with an intellectual appeal! thus your comments are ill founded and once again prejudiced, what is more, the onus of proof lies with you, not with me, for I have already given three scriptural passages which clearly show that the law was of a temporary nature, as yet you have provided nothing to say that it has not, except the now obligatory, provisos and conditions, your post now resembles a patchwork quilt, made by ladies in minnesota!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about Escher? was not he a geometric artist? were his visions illogical, swirly colours, hardly! what of Dali with his fantastic surreal visions, a better draughtsman than a painter was he, what of the Cubists, with their emphasis on planes, Picaso himself was a terrible colourist, but he made up for it with an intellectual appeal! thus your co ...[text shortened]... provisos and conditions, your post now resembles a patchwork quilt, made by ladies in minnesota!

No Robbie thes books (Jeremiah and Hebrews) were later written by some people after Ecclesiastes, they probably didn't like the implications of Ecclesiastes, and so then patched in changes. If you were to show me a passage in a book predating Ecclesiastes or any other book I find claiming God does not change then you'd have a point. You cannot do this.


As for your other point Robbie I can draw...I draw pretty frickin well actually; I am defined by *others* to be an artist...but I reject this definition since there is no emotion or appeal to ones senses in my renderings. I aim only to capture what lies in front of me or the ideas articulated to me by others as accurately as possible - The stuff I do is pretty much mechanical. Escher being one of my favourite "artists" is also logical; indeed much of what he did was inspired by mathematics, in particular hyperbolic geometry. As for Dali; some of his works "look nice" but garner no real appreciation on my part. As for Picasso- not a fan of his cubism stuff...I'm aware he could draw, but probably thought his expressive, right brained creativity was being hampered by a mechanical, procedural methodology towards "art".

Originally posted by Agerg
No Robbie thes books (Jeremiah and Hebrews) were later written by some people after Ecclesiastes, they probably didn't like the implications of Ecclesiastes, and so then patched in changes. If you were to show me a passage in a book predating Ecclesiastes or any other book I find claiming God does not change then you'd have a point. You cannot do this.


As ...[text shortened]... , righ brained creativity was being hampered by a mechanical methodology towards "art".

the Bible is a whole from beginning to end, we make no such partial distinctions as you have attempted to establish.

as for your art, it need not appeal to either the emotions nor the senses, indeed, art galleries are full of art that reaches no one, that is not to say though, that there is not an intellectual appeal. When we are children Agers we learn through imitation, do we not? thus in previous times, especially among the Dutch painters, imitation of nature was held to be the ultimate goal of the artist, as it progressed, the idea was put forth that a human should be able to transcend mere imitation and forge ahead with his own vision. Consider this passage from an Artist, Master Reti a chess player,

''We believe today in the execution of human ideas, deeper possibilities lie within than in the works of nature or to put it more accurately, that at least for mankind, the human mind is of all things, the greatest that nature has provided. We are, not therefore willing to imitate nature and want to imbue our own ideas with actuality.''

Thus i am sure Agers as your art grows so will your striving for originality of composition, despite any doubts that you may now entertain 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the Bible is a whole from beginning to end, we make no such partial distinctions as you have attempted to establish.

as for your art, it need not appeal to either the emotions nor the senses, indeed, art galleries are full of art that reaches no one, that is not to say though, that there is not an intellectual appeal. When we are children Agers w ur striving for originality of composition, despite any doubts that you may now entertain 🙂

You have failed to demonstrate that...all you have demonstrated is that someone came along, read the books which were written before his time and decided to make some ammendments.


As for your other point I have no ambitions to change my "art" or be the pretentious Saatchi, Photoshop+lens flare/twirl filter chimps others aspire towards.
That which will grow is my potential to capture finer degrees of detail and accuracy in my renderings. Indeed, my take on "art" is: if I would find it easy (in a technical sense) to do the same sort of thing then it is crap.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This is what you wrote in a previous post with my emphasis added in bold.

The second thing I consider is that these were not God's crimes, but [b]all of God's acts are righteous.

As you are well aware there are a list of 'crimes' in the OT that are punishable by death, stoning being the preferred method of execution and in a few instanc osition, i've done nothing of the sort, you walked into this position on your own accord.[/b]

============================
As you are well aware there are a list of 'crimes' in the OT that are punishable by death, stoning being the preferred method of execution and in a few instances, the lovely scenario of being burned alive. You've claimed, as i've demonstrated above, that all of Gods acts are righteous, so how does condemning someone to death by stoning and burning, in your eyes, fulfill the criteria for being righteous?
============================

I am aware that along with offenses against the law of Moses which were punishable by death there were in addition, offerings such as "the sin offering", "the trespass offering", and "the peace offering" which were provided for atoning sacrifices.

I think you should spend at a least equal time to examine the "offerings" which were commanded by God as remedies for serious infractions.

Had God not provided any consecration, sin, trespass, and peace offerings, I would wonder why the Divine Will left no way out of being found by the priests in irreconcilable infraction of the Law of Moses.

It stands to reason to me that for God to impress generations of His hatred for sins that He had to make some examples. Otherwise many of us would not appreciate that in the ultimate divine scheme, His Son received into Himself the unimaginable Justice for all human offenses for eternal redemption and eternal reconciliation to God.

When I worked at the Pan Am Building in midtown Manhatten, on the 24th floor, I use to look out over the city of New York. I looked down upon millions of people and I recited to my self in awe "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes AWAY the sin of the world". One atoning act by the Son of God which was effective enough to atone for the sins of every human being who has lived in the world history was accomplished by Christ.

We usually have no sense of what it meant for the Son of God to bear up in His person the sins of us all for eternal redemption.

So while I see the hatred of God against the sins of the sinner, unlike you, I see also the indications of His remedy for the sinner's redemption. And I see how the focus of universal reconcilation for all time and eternity centers on the cross of Jesus on Calvary.

I consider the atonements in typology and the great and final universal atonement in Jesus Christ along with the examples of God's harsh temporal judgments on some offenders in the Old Testament.

Originally posted by Agerg
You have failed to demonstrate that...all you have demonstrated is that someone came along, read the books which were written before his time and decided to make some ammendments.


As for your other point I have no ambitions to change my "art" or be the pretentious Saatchi, Photoshop+lens flare/twirl filter chimps others aspire towards.
That which will g if I would find it easy (in a technical sense) to do the same sort of thing then it is crap.

oh Agers you are missing the point, if you want fine detail and photo reality then take a picture, why must art be laboured, have we learned nothing from the impressionists, that art need not be a labour, that it may contain an element of spontaneity which enhances the works itself? I agree that it may not suit a particular style, say two dimensional graphic art, but even here, creativity need to be stifled by a rigid adherence to detail. Check out Ivan Bilibin, the Russian artist, he truly made two dimensional graphics an art form.

as for the passages i cited, i have seen nothing to sway my mind that the Law was to be anything other than a temporary measure.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh Agers you are missing the point, if you want fine detail and photo reality then take a picture, why must art be laboured, have we learned nothing from the impressionists, that art need not be a labour, that it may contain an element of spontaneity which enhances the works itself? I agree that it may not suit a particular style, say two dimensiona ...[text shortened]... ave seen nothing to sway my mind that the Law was to be anything other than a temporary measure.

I'm not going to argue my first point any more as it involves a logical deduction based upon the statements in the texts and chronology of the texts. That is:
If book A says x, Book B written later says x is always true, then Book C written after books A and B says x will change; then we have a contradiction with books B and C.
I fully expect your response, should you offer one to be the same insistance there is no contradiction.

As for your latter point, that is why I don't accept the appellation "artist" being applied to myself; I consider myself a draftsperson. The goal of my endeavours (which I have not yet attained) is to capture what lies in front of me; or ideas articulated to me in maximally accurate detail. Any other goals such as looking nice have no interest to me - i.e. I'd be happier making a perfect rendering of a rusty bin full of rotting banana skins, than I would painting a "nice" but non-accurate impression of a vase of flowers.

To this end, if someone asks me to draw a detailed picture of them riding a horse at night (in non-coloured pencil - my favourite medium), then inspite of any photographs to copy off, they will recieve, should I accept the project,
1) an accurate (though not yet perfect) rendering of them...
2) sitting on a horse (again, accurately rendered to the best of my ability) - and I will endeavour to make sure it looks like a person is sat on that particular horse as opposed to a simple juxtaposition of sitting person and horse.
3) person and horse will be set in a plausible and sufficiently detailed environment (again rendered properly)
4) the shading will be accurate to represent the ambient lighting consistent with night time...
5) shadows will be correct (I consider this important), scaling will be correct, and perspecitve will be correct.
6) Horse and person will be centralised horizontally, and distance from lowest part of drawn "stuff" to lowest point of human/horse combo will be shorter than highest part of drawn "stuff" and highest part of horse/human combo - consistent with my standard template.
7) there will be no other extraneous details - no swirly colours or reality destroying graphics etc.... Many trials will be thrown in the bin until I have something that I deem is accurate - only then do they get their picture.

As you may have guessed I don't accept many major projects; my last was for my best friend done as a favour - it took me a week to get it done properly (I'm out of practice).

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm not going to argue my first point any more as it involves a logical deduction based upon the statements in the texts and chronology of the texts. That is:
If book A says x, Book B written later says x is always true, then Book C written after books A and B says x will change; then we have a contradiction with books B and C.
I fully expect your response, ...[text shortened]... done as a favour - it took me a week to get it done properly (I'm out of practice).

if as i think you have Agers, a talent for rendering persons and animals, landscapes and moods, then that is well and good, for a portrait must resemble the likeness to be sure, but is it enough? should we not gain an insight into the character of the person? why should we restrict ourselves to imitation? you seem to me to be the opposite end of the spectrum as those conceptual artists who can neither paint nor render anything with accuracy, and who, in an effort to proclaim themselves artists, make up for the deficiency by introducing purely intellectual concepts, you on the other hand want none of that, its must be solid and true to the likeness, and that is all well and good, although a little mechanical in my measly opinion. Why do you resist interpretation? indeed when i was a student it became apparent to me that all who render an image interpret it differently, for all are individuals. Monochrome to be sure can be beautiful, but why neglect the white keys of the piano and simply play on the black ones? colour has its own essence, its own intensity, yet must be handled as delicately as a 2B pencil.

I personally think it is like a kind of reflection of the person we are inside, in your case confidence comes from accuracy, from being true to the likeness, perhaps even Calvinistic in a sense that you do not wish to be wasteful or extravagant, it throws up all manner of things and is interesting in itself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if as i think you have Agers, a talent for rendering persons and animals, landscapes and moods, then that is well and good, for a portrait must resemble the likeness to be sure, but is it enough? should we not gain an insight into the character of the person? why should we restrict ourselves to imitation? you seem to me to be the opposite end of the ...[text shortened]... h to be wasteful or extravagant, it throws up all manner of things and is interesting in itself.

I'm willing to accept this change of conversation...Artistic "interpretation" I defer to artists (with the hope this is complimented by sound technical skill); my enjoyment of drawing owes a major part to the expectation that the finished product will be accurate (and perhaps shamefully) will be difficult to emulate by (and admired by) those with less skill. It may well be a by-product of the way my mind works. If I use colour then it has to be applied in a plausible/accurate manner. If something isn't there or wouldn't realistically be there with respect to optical considerations, then why include it it? It would be counter to my intentions if I introduced elements that detract from the realism I seek.

I had to spend my entire two years in traing to be a graphic designer defending my approach to "art". (and I wish I hadn't done that course - I hate the industry - moreover it has no utility given the direction I have taken since) One comment I'll never forget from one of my more harsh critics (a tutor) is that I took the things I liked to mount Everest and crapped on everything else - she and others tried their best to change me and I resisted at every step (and they chided some of the scathing guest book comments I left at certain galleries)

I defend my resilience to this day for the simple reason that the kind of mindset a graphic designer should have is not, and never will be the mindset I have.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
As you are well aware there are a list of 'crimes' in the OT that are punishable by death, stoning being the preferred method of execution and in a few instances, the lovely scenario of being burned alive. You've claimed, as i've demonstrated above, that all of Gods acts are righteous, so how does condemning someone to amples of God's harsh temporal judgments on some offenders in the Old Testament.[/b]

I've not forgotten this. I'll get to it in time.

Originally posted by 667joe
Most people who profess to believe in god or Christ really don't, and I think I can prove it. Many believers state that god (or Jesus) is always present and is aware of everything that is going on. Yet most human beings will at least on occasion do, say, or at least think reprehensible things that they would never even consider if Jesus were actually in the ...[text shortened]... , as an active being does not exist. His reported teachings affect people, but not he himself.

God's omnipotence doesn't preclude bad thoughts. Just because one might try to "contain" his evil thoughts in the presence of the Divine One, doesn't mean he will be successful. And more importantly, God knows what is in one's heart anyway, so it doesn't matter how much one tries to cloud his thoughts. God know all, and there's just no gettin' 'round that 🙂

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
God's omnipotence doesn't preclude bad thoughts. Just because one might try to "contain" his evil thoughts in the presence of the Divine One, doesn't mean he will be successful. And more importantly, God knows what is in one's heart anyway, so it doesn't matter how much one tries to cloud his thoughts. God know all, and there's just no gettin' 'round that 🙂

Victory is in taking Christ, enjoying Christ, and letting Christ flow out of you.
His humanity overcomes. This why He came into the Christian that the Christian could live by abiding in Him.

This empowering is called the grace of Christ.

Originally posted by 667joe
Most people who profess to believe in god or Christ really don't, and I think I can prove it. Many believers state that god (or Jesus) is always present and is aware of everything that is going on. Yet most human beings will at least on occasion do, say, or at least think reprehensible things that they would never even consider if Jesus were actually in the ...[text shortened]... , as an active being does not exist. His reported teachings affect people, but not he himself.

Sadly, we are incapable of being perfect, try as we might. Therefore it IS possible to believe in Christ and still have reprehensibile thoughts. We have this thing called the "Old Man" within us,and it keeps us from being sinless. Hey, we're stuck with it. Luckily, Christ imbued us with the "New Man" and forgives us the sins od=f our sin nature.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
As you are well aware there are a list of 'crimes' in the OT that are punishable by death, stoning being the preferred method of execution and in a few instances, the lovely scenario of being burned alive. You've claimed, as i've demonstrated above, that all of Gods acts are righteous, so how does condemning someone to amples of God's harsh temporal judgments on some offenders in the Old Testament.[/b]

I still don't see how you've explained that God condmening people to death by stoning is in your view righteous.