Or, what is much much more likely to occur is this newly "saved" individual will end up proselytizing and judging others and making a complete nuisance of themselves until they eventually end up annoying and marginalizing everyone else in their lives and being avoided. Thats what I have seen go down more often than not.

Krimsa... good morning

no aint gonna do it!!!

Just wanna say Hi to JustWannaSayHi

QFT

Eljay, I mainly brought it up just because it is strange. I dont know what the hell that is in that painting honestly. Granted its supposed to be all 12 of them but it is a little odd looking dont you think? Was John supposed to be a young male? Why does that thing look so effeminate? The only reason I think people guess that it might be Mary Magdalen is for one it looks like a woman. Secondly it has red hair and looks very much like how Mary Magdalen is depicted in other paintings. I know that isnt conclusive evidence of anything of course and Im not claiming it is. Just that its a strange looking dude and if someone told me it was a woman, I would believe them. I think also because MM was supposed to be his "girlfriend" or at least a very close companion that it might not be terribly unusual for her to be present there sitting in close proximity to him. In this case, by his side nearly though it appears she's conversing or being spoken to.

Well - I ask this question because it is one of the wild "facts" that Dan Brown introduced into his book "The DaVinci Code" in order to support his plot line. Since the time of his writting the book - and subsequently the making of the film, this theory has run amok. But it defies the basic logic of what remains as the history of Da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper". Obviously, Leonardo had nothing by which to base his charaters on, as no visual description or depiction of Jesus or any of the apostles exists outside of painters imaginations. Da Vinci was commissioned to create the work of art, and in order to get paid - he would have remained true to the words of the text - which states: "When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. It is also worth noting that Jesus knew that following the passover meal, he was about to be captured - so this was the last opportunity he had to be with the 12 Apostles. Mary would not have been included in this.

So the fact that DaVinci chose to make John appear as "effeminate" - as is presumed, was a mere matter of choice onn his part. John was in fact a twin (Brother of James) - of which DaVinci made no effort to depict. There were in fact 3 sets of brothers amoungst the apostles, but it is obvious from the painting that this was not important enough to DaVinci to indicate it.

Just so you know. I never read "The Da Vinci Code" nor did I watch the movie so Im not privy to any of those details or theories. I just wasn't very interested at the time that everyone else was. Now I may have to go read the book. So I'm looking at that painting in a totally objective light. That one to the left of Jesus looks like a woman Eljay. Thats just my opinion. Im not saying it is definitely Mary Magdalen but John must have been a little ambiguous then as far as his sexuality. That would be the only manner in which I could explain it. Im sure that was not unheard of especially in this day. Bisexuality would have been very common. Once again, another aspect of an established Pagan belief system which would have been much more accepting and encompassing. I will get The Da Vinci Code and see what that book has to say about it exactly. And if like you state, Da Vinci was simply relying on his imagination in order to paint these folks, well he painted a woman for whatever reason. The fact that it was not a posed painting according to you would seem to indicate that Da Vinci could have been much more capable of taking liberties based on his personal interpretation of events and the individuals involved. Mary would have been one of those individuals. Also, she would have been arguably the one most likely to draw the attention of men since she was a woman.

The confusion of books like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and the DaVinci code are propaganda that comes with an agenda. The agenda is basically to spread the rumor that the character people believe to be 'Jesus' did not die on the cross but lived to get married and have children. His so-called ancestors are being traced by secret societies and every person who is supposedly related to him is being kept track of.

The descendants are supposedly "royal blood" and are traced to the current "royal" families. The Windsor royal family (Prince Charles etc.) will be said to be some of these descendants of "Jesus." (but are most probably descendants of the serpent race or Cain.)

But then when this "secret" is revealed it will destroy the current known Christian story. This will be attempted at the point in the future where the "New World Order" takes power and attempts to establish a new religion with a new spiritual and "god like" ruler who will be proclaimed to be a descendant of the royal bloodline of Jesus, Proclaimed "King of Kings."

Anyway that is the game plan. The earth game is like a game of checkers and the race is to see who can get crowned king of the world.

You might ask how can a game last so many generations and so many years working for this specific goal? I would tell you but you probably would not believe it.

I'm just watching the game...

JB

Anything that is truly "opposite" means that there is none of it's "opposite" within it.

To be defined as light it can not have dark. There are different levels of sight in a lighted room......but if there is light at all, it is not "dark". If it is "dark" there is no light. This is what I argue about with my children who insist on turning the lights on in their rooms in the middle of the day. Just because there is not enough "light" for your comfort doesn't make your room dark.

If it is cold it has no heat.......opposites.

You can not have truth in evil........or evil in truth......opposite. We are not talking about "good" vs "bad" as they are a matter of opinion. The opposite of truth is lies (the only true evil in the world)

But I see what your saying.......u turn on a light to get rid of darkness, but u don't turn anything "on" to get rid of light.........

That is the way all true opposites work, you must add to something negative to get the opposite of it.

"To be defined as light it can not have dark."

This is a very strict assessment of the meaning of the word "opposite". I would hold things which cannot be expressed in a finite set can still be considered to have opposites.

Websters online dictionary First entry:
Define Dark - devoid of or deficient in light or brightness; shadowed or black; "sitting in a dark corner"; "a dark day"; "dark shadows"; "dark as the inside of ..."

It can be dark without having to be completely devoid of light in most peoples definitions of the word.

Words are very deceptive things by themselves. When left alone they don't like to be definitive.

Opposite is an even harder word to define. . .
Websters online dictionary:
# moving or facing away from each other; "looking in opposite directions"; "they went in opposite directions"
# antonym: a word that expresses a meaning opposed to the meaning of another word, in which case the two words are antonyms of each other; "to him the antonym of `gay' was `depressed'"
# the other one of a complementary pair; "the opposite sex"; "the two chess kings are set up on squares of opposite colors"
# reverse: a relation of direct opposition; "we thought Sue was older than Bill but just the reverse was true"
# opposition: a contestant that you are matched against
# altogether different in nature or quality or significance; "the medicine's effect was opposite to that intended"; "it is said that opposite characters make a union happiest"- Charles Reade
# face-to-face: directly facing each other; "the two photographs lay face-to-face on the table"; "lived all their lives in houses face-to-face across the street"; "they sat opposite at the table"
# diametric: characterized by opposite extremes; completely opposed; "in diametric contradiction to his claims"; "diametrical (or opposite) points of view"; "opposite meanings"; "extreme and indefensible polar positions"
# inverse: something inverted in sequence or character or effect; "when the direct approach failed he tried the inverse"



Is Evil the inverse of truth . . . no I dont agree.

I think it is evil to kill. Their does not seem to be any lies involved with cold blooded drive by shootings, that seems evil.

I think truth can stand alone. Truth even can create potential evil, truth makes nukes . . .

Lies . . . . sometimes lies can prevent evil from happening . . . I have seen it. The truth would have got someone killed. The truth itself was wrong in nature but not evil . . . .

So in science we trap words with adjectives, or make new ones, or express something mathematically. Out side of science you just cant get hung up on words. You have to use alot of them to get at meanings.

If you mean to say god = truth = balance = good

Then who's sense of good are we talking about? From what frame of reference? God? What if good to god is a smaller population? Then maybe aids is good? Darwin Awards? What is good or bad or evil, or true(Empirically true, and math true aside)is based on perception.

Black holes are good, because they promote galaxy formation, but if one eats your solar system its bad . . . . however its both true and very bad and balanced, and natural.

Now the only thing that stands out here is that evil requires a will. There must be conscious thought to be evil.

But evil is still determined by the subjective reference frame of the individual, it is proportional to bad on yer good/bad scale, evil lies at far edge of the curve.

I mean is there an absolute evil even? Can someone be more evil? Do you think hitler was less or more evil then Jeffrey Dahmer, or John wayne gacy?

it would seem then a definitive knowing of what "hell is" would be needed, to know if this was a "bad" thing, and as interpreted and respoken mant times over thruout history.....

for any communication, a word of description MUST be created, so perhaps "hell" was just a "word" coined and used to describe the complete essence of the worst pain possible as flet while mortal.....

like who would decide what word would be deemed as "better", lol.......

there is nothing in text that cannot be made to "prove" any certain perception, as al words can have many multiple meanings......

to say this is where "god" sends people, could be said to be "proven" by any that wish to make it so, but by the same token, it can easily be proven that this is not the same as percieved, lol......

the premise that "god" send any to hell goes against the entire premise of free will, and all other text, UNLESS EARTH IS HELL AND HUMANITY IS AS SENT THERE WHEN BORN.......

it cannot be missed that it was said ALL OF TEXT WOULD HAVE TO USED AS ONE "ENTIRE MEANING", TO GET THE WHOLE PICTURE OF ANY TRUE MEANING........

if anything greater than self is as "god", and declare to it's creation that "badness" will result in CERTAIN damntion, then this is obviously going to create fear, which even within text one of the "truths" written and called as of the "greatest essence" to NOT leave out, was "god" was totally unconditional love, and that "perfect love" could cast out fear, and this would seem the same as to say, if there is any truth found within these pages, it CANNOT produce FEAR, OR IT IS FALSE, and if it produce PEACE, then it is greatest or infinite truth, as "god" was called first in the story of text as THE TRUTH, THE LIFE, THE WAY, so then how could any "fearful interpretation" be as the truth, that make for life to continue to be able to exist, as divide amoungst man erase man, so peace would have to be able to be found within the pages, and if believed, show the way, which would have to create "peace" if god was of peace, and said to be able to create "peace" as what that has NO FEAR can hate.......

it is only hate that can produce fear is it not........

if hell has been interpreted to be as somehting that man "hate", then it eludes how teachers of text could call it as "truth of god"......

not to even begin to pronounce that there is any "truth" in text, as this would only be as subjective to each hearer, and each is truly unique, within a certain "space in time" of experience and learning, but it seems text could never be proven to be true, as it proclaims itself to be, unless all things within were as heeded with none left out to form any true meaning, which would be the only way to access if humanity has indeed experienced all things written within the pages.......

so if hell as interpreted thus far is where a dictator, having no greater patience than any man, and no greater love than any man, no greater temperance than man, no greater wisdom than any man, sends to burn forever, than these interpretations would redily appear to be possible true words, but interpreted BY MAN ALONE, thru fear......

are not all things interpreted as percieved.....

if fear was called as satan, by THE VERY REFERENCE that "god" as perfect love was the only thing that cast out FEAR, then what interpretation that give fear could come from "god", lol.........

it certainly seems one would have to first interpret the entire text without ANY FEAR, to then see and make some final assessment of of truth or not, lol......

if i drink everyday, and come to seperate myself from "love", from the ones i love and love me, then have i not seperated myself from "god", as god was called as love, lol.......

if i live on the earth, have i not already been as cast to the place of everlasting fire, as it is under each foot in the center of the earth.....

certainly it is not missed that it was called as "everlasting" wich would show by the word used for description that it DOES NOT exist outside of mortal life, and man time, as for something to be lasting and ever, would be the same as to say it only last as long as mankind is alive, which would lead to as long as the EARTH is as EARTH, as there was a distinct difference used to describe all things called as from god, as "eternal" existence, as "no beginning and end", alpha and omega, simply I AM, infinite.......

WOULD NOT THESE SAME THINGS ALSO BE THE SAME AS TO SAY ALL MORTAL PERCEPTION WILL BE NATURALLY THRU FEAR, AND IMMORTAL OR INFINITE OR "OF GOD" AS FEARLESS PERCEPTION OF ALL TRUTHS BELIEVED, AS AGAIN, BELIEF CREATE ANY PERCEPTION PEERED THRU........

if one of my dearest loved ones passes away, or terminal illness is found within the body, is there not weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth......

hell, we have weeping of pain of starvation, nashing of teeth of war, in many countries all around the world in a grand scale........

there is nothing in text that DOES NOT even MOST indicate that humans as mortals, live in "hell" during many times within mortal life, AND THAT NO OTHER MEANING HATH ANY GREATER PROBABILITY OF TRUTH, AND AS EVEN STATED, TEXT ITSELF WOULD SEEM TO SAY HELL AS A FEARFUL PLACE IS OF "LESS" POSSIBLE TRUTH, LOL.........

just ideas man.......peace

Of course it was DaVinci's imagination. What would he have had to work with otherwise? You don't think the painting on the roof of the Sisteen Chapel is what God looks like do you?

The movie was a pretty accurate portrayal of the book. It is essentially a mystery. Most of what you have been refering to - or to understand what background Dan Brown drew from will be found checking out "The Illuminati" - and the "Knights Templar". Google those teo things and check them out before you see the film, and it will be easier to follow the sub-plot that runs through the movie. It's a pretty interesting film - even if it does stretch the boundries between truth and fiction.

watchin the game

merely an artist rendition of the supper, some have said it also looks like the face in the mona lisa, who knows,

Though light and darkness are conceptually opposites - light can be measured - darkness cannot. We can create the color black - however, by definition it is not black because black is the absense of color. We do not measure cold - we measure heat. We only feel "cold" because we are used to a certain amount of heat to feel comfortable. These are not opposites in an absolute sense of the word. The same can be said for Good and evil. Good is an absolute - evil falling short of good. Perception is the distortion. Just as with heat. There is always heat. Without it - there would be no motion. It is just an indiscriminate measure of the lack of heat which is determined as "cold". we define them as opposites in order to understand the differences - however, in using these terms analogously - the term opposites does not hold up as a valid premise. We cannot state that "Heads" and "tales" are opposites - and then attempt to draw the same analogy to "hot" and "cold". By the same reasoning - we cannot extend the same comparison by saying "hot and cold" are opposites as are "good and evil". Each is a measurement of unrelated entities.

A true example of opposites would be "heads" or "tales" on a coin. If you flip the coin - you can only get one or the other as a result. East and West are opposites. You can only travel in one of the directions. There are many terms in mathematics which are opposites.

Though we explain these ideas - all of them - as opposites, there is actually a wide difference between the properties of each which make them opposites.

man........i cant get into any of that.......gods in all of us.........thats all....act right..

Eljay tell me your not trying to comparing science and religion. LOLOLOLOL

He is fact doing just that I do believe. Speaking of the other planets in the solar system, god suposidly made all that also? Yet it is not mentioned except that he created the universe. I mean no where is it discussed that there were these other large planets in our solar system. Did I miss that in Genesis? What about Jupiter? Not a one? Whats up with that? He didn't feel it necessary to fill Moses in on some of these other great bodies floating out in space? And why does the surface of Mars in fact appear that it "might" have held the capacity for life or vegetation at one point in time? No mention of Mars either Im guessing. Hmmm.

Right after you tell me you're kidding when you think my analogy is about religion and science.

I mean - if you're not - That's embarrasing.