TXPhotog wrote:

Just because something is infinite doesn't mean that it can't be bigger, or that something else can't be bigger still.  For instance, consider the set of "all integers".  Then consider the set of "all even integers".  One is twice the size of the other, but both are infinite.

And people misunderstand what is meant by the expansion of the universe.  It doesn't mean that the boundaries of the universe are expanding (infinite things don't have boundaries) but rather that the structure of the universe is expanding.  Very different.

You're going to make my head explode...lol...I willingly admit I don't have the mental capacity to understand this stuff...but then...I've never found anyone who could say what the universe was expanding into...so maybe I'm not the only one.

Jason P Hunt wrote:

Vance, if there is no God, where does your "moral judgment" come from? There has to be a source for our understanding of right and wrong.

Empathy perhaps? Why does it have to be God?

StMarc wrote:

I'm sure that knowing God fixed Job up with new shorties and a crib twice as bling was a great condolence to the dozens of people who were killed during this little drama. "Never mind what happens to everybody else, *I* will be okay if I just believe," that's a fine, fine lesson for a Father to teach His children.

M

That's not the purpose of Job. There are several lessons to be learned from this book:

1. Faith is rewarded, although not necessarily in this life.
2. Satan will never prevail over true believers.
3. God will always win.
4. Satan has limits imposed by God.
5. There will always be events that test our faith.

Job even asks God to explain Himself - demands it, even. God puts Job in his place by saying that His plan is sometimes too complex to understand. His role in the universe is not to be questioned. Things happen to us in order to glorify God. It's all in how we react to it, and Job responded properly by not turning his back on God.

If you take Job out of context, which some are doing, you get the wrong message about what God's purpose is.

Six years ago, my son died two days after his birth. The event has tested my faith tremendously, but I know that any issues I have with God come from me, not from Him. I still question the necessity of my son's death, but I don't question the existence of God because of it.

Habenero Photography wrote:

Many of the Gnostic writers were among those witnesses.  It comes down to politics.  Gnostic texts differ enough from the ones that were selected for inclusion in the bible and make many more points of contradiction with the desired outcome thus they got shit canned to the desert.  Come to think of it most of archeology is spent rummaging in piles of discarded shit.

Actually, most of the Gnostic texts were written two hundred years or so after the events chronicled in the New Testament. There is no conclusive proof that any of them were written by witnesses.

The other reason for rejecting the Gnostic writings is because they are inconsistent in their portrayal of Jesus and His teachings. They don't line up with anything in the New Testament scriptures. That's the main reason why they were not accepted.

In determining which books were included in the New Testament, the process relied on many factors:

1. existence of the original letters written by the Apostles and their students
2. consistency among the writings concerning the teachings of Jesus
3. multiple copies of the letters to verify authenticity of the message
4. language of the documents - almost all were written in Koine Greek, a language which died about AD 100, thus preserving the original meaning of the words

The Gnostics have all failed those tests.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Empathy perhaps? Why does it have to be God?

Empathy depends on your own point of view, which could differ greatly from mine or anyone else's.
For example, I COULD empathize with Saddam Hussein. I could empathize with the bad guys in Darfur. I could empathize with child molesters, rapists, and serial killers.

Doesn't make it right.

So, I put it to you again: where is the source for understanding right and wrong?

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
You're going to make my head explode...lol...I willingly admit I don't have the mental capacity to understand this stuff...but then...I've never found anyone who could say what the universe was expanding into...so maybe I'm not the only one.

The universe isn't expanding into anything.  "Expanding into something" would be the equivalent of saying "the stuff in the universe is going to where it wasn't before".  That's not what "the universe is expanding" means.

I don't pretend to fully understand this stuff myself (not my specialty), but I've been reading Scientific American long enough that I am seeing articles in the "50 Years Ago" section that I recall reading when they were first published.  So I have some sense of what I do and don't understand.

Maybe this will help you to understand the concept (or make your head hurt worse):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Jason P Hunt wrote:

Vance, if there is no God, where does your "moral judgment" come from? There has to be a source for our understanding of right and wrong.

Morality and religion are not the same thing.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Morality and religion are not the same thing.

Arguably they are. Ethics and religion, however, are clearly not the same thing.

Jason P Hunt wrote:

Empathy depends on your own point of view, which could differ greatly from mine or anyone else's.
For example, I COULD empathize with Saddam Hussein. I could empathize with the bad guys in Darfur. I could empathize with child molesters, rapists, and serial killers.

Doesn't make it right.

So, I put it to you again: where is the source for understanding right and wrong?

And I put it to you again...why does it have to be God? Just because that's the easiest answer doesn't necessarily make it correct. I'm not saying I have the answer...I'm just saying I don't believe you do either.

TXPhotog wrote:

The universe isn't expanding into anything.  "Expanding into something" would be the equivalent of saying "the stuff in the universe is going to where it wasn't before".  That's not what "the universe is expanding" means.

I don't pretend to fully understand this stuff myself (not my specialty), but I've been reading Scientific American long enough that I am seeing articles in the "50 Years Ago" section that I recall reading when they were first published.  So I have some sense of what I do and don't understand.

Maybe this will help you to understand the concept (or make your head hurt worse):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

I'm afraid to read...lol...I just got done finals week and I am totally not all here mentally.

Jason P Hunt wrote:
if there is no God, where does your "moral judgment" come from? There has to be a source for our understanding of right and wrong.

You can very easily build a complete moral system based on self-interest, group-interest and the desire to live. What's really interesting, to me, is that a moral system built out of such practical building blocks is nearly the same as the moral systems based on divine imperative, but without all the weird baggage.

For example:
- You get about 30,000 days of life. Do you enjoy them? Would it upset you if someone shortened your life?
- If you answered "yes" to the previous question, can we agree that one moral value you'd like to hold is that murdering you is wrong?
- Do you recognize that I exist and that I'm a human pretty much like you? Do you recognize that animals exist and that they can enjoy life and are upset if someone shortens their lives or causes them pain?
- If you answered "yes" to the previous question, can we agree that - since we've granted that murdering you is wrong, that others would feel that murdering them or being cruel is wrong, too?
- Do you want to feel that some things in the world are "yours" to control? Would it upset you if someone took, broke, damaged, or otherwise interfered with the things that are "yours"?
- If you answered "yes" to the previous question, can we agree that it's appropriate to establish rules governing how we determine what things "belong" to whom and how they are transferred, so that you don't get upset if "your" things are taken, broken, damaged, or interfered with?
- Since you've acknowledged that there are other people on earth who feel as you do, can we agree that they might feel the way you do about "their" things and extend our rules to govern all people's possessions equally?

See, it turns out that - even without religion - people understand concepts like "equality" and "reciprocity" and so on. In fact, dogs appear to understand "equality" and "fairness." My dogs demand equal face-rubbing and are quite satisfied if they get it. If a dog can understand equality, we should consider that most of the more-organized animals on earth might, too.

If you take basic properties like "equality" and "reciprocity" and throw in the notion that living things want to stay alive, you can come up with a set of rules that make much more sense than the 10 Commandments because you can leave out all that weird nonsense about god not liking people to worship other gods and that god wants you to not work on sundays, etc, etc.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

You can very easily build a complete moral system based on self-interest, group-interest and the desire to live. What's really interesting, to me, is that a moral system built out of such practical building blocks is nearly the same as the moral systems based on divine imperative, but without all the weird baggage.

For example:
- You get about 30,000 days of life. Do you enjoy them? Would it upset you if someone shortened your life?
- If you answered "yes" to the previous question, can we agree that one moral value you'd like to hold is that murdering you is wrong?
- Do you recognize that I exist and that I'm a human pretty much like you? Do you recognize that animals exist and that they can enjoy life and are upset if someone shortens their lives or causes them pain?
- If you answered "yes" to the previous question, can we agree that - since we've granted that murdering you is wrong, that others would feel that murdering them or being cruel is wrong, too?
- Do you want to feel that some things in the world are "yours" to control? Would it upset you if someone took, broke, damaged, or otherwise interfered with the things that are "yours"?
- If you answered "yes" to the previous question, can we agree that it's appropriate to establish rules governing how we determine what things "belong" to whom and how they are transferred, so that you don't get upset if "your" things are taken, broken, damaged, or interfered with?
- Since you've acknowledged that there are other people on earth who feel as you do, can we agree that they might feel the way you do about "their" things and extend our rules to govern all people's possessions equally?

See, it turns out that - even without religion - people understand concepts like "equality" and "reciprocity" and so on. In fact, dogs appear to understand "equality" and "fairness." My dogs demand equal face-rubbing and are quite satisfied if they get it. If a dog can understand equality, we should consider that most of the more-organized animals on earth might, too.

If you take basic properties like "equality" and "reciprocity" and throw in the notion that living things want to stay alive, you can come up with a set of rules that make much more sense than the 10 Commandments because you can leave out all that weird nonsense about god not liking people to worship other gods and that god wants you to not work on sundays, etc, etc.

mjr.

I concur.

Jason P Hunt wrote:
That's not the purpose of Job. There are several lessons to be learned from this book:

There are a lot of other things one can get out of that book as well, Jason.  For example, most of the popular English versions mis-translate a key portion of the text at the end, and have Job saying, "Therefore I repent in dust and ashes."  But that's not what the Hebrew actually says.  It actually says, "Therefore I have compassion for dust and ashes."

Job never recants his words, and God is okay with that.

Based on the Hebrew, one can also argue that "the adversary" presented in the book isn't Satan as we think of him today, but instead an angel assigned a legal style role of being, basically, what we'd call the devil's advocate.  Which opens up all kinds of other questions about the purpose of the book and of the test.

Anyway.  Sorry for the hijack.  I wrote my thesis on this book, and I still find it fascinating.

Shyly wrote:
I wrote my thesis on this book, and I still find it fascinating.

I love expertise!

So, I have to ask:  let's assume that some good message was intended from the Book of Job, and thus from the trials Job was put to.  We can argue later about what that message was.

Would this be a case of "the ends justify the means"?  That putting Job (or anyone else, including those killed in the process) through such a test is justified by the purpose of sending that message?

Allen Coefield wrote:
...My spouse...

Allen Coefield wrote:
...it is possible to shoot and display images containing nudity without going against my fundimental beliefs. ...

Dude, you're married and you're shooting nudes? Get a fork. Remember: right eye, then cast it aside when you're done if you don't pass out from the pain first.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Dude, you're married and you're shooting nudes? Get a fork. Remember: right eye, then cast it aside when you're done if you don't pass out from the pain first.

I wasn't even going to touch that one because it was just too easy. Ain't no way you can argue that none of the stuff in there has sexual undertones.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Allen Coefield wrote:
...My spouse...

Dude, you're married and you're shooting nudes? Get a fork. Remember: right eye, then cast it aside when you're done if you don't pass out from the pain first.

you can save your eyes, just point the fork south, and take the eunuch path

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
I wasn't even going to touch that one because it was just too easy. Ain't no way you can argue that none of the stuff in there has sexual undertones.

I wonder if it's time for the "why aren't there more one-eyed photographers?" thread?

mjr.

TXPhotog wrote:
Would this be a case of "the ends justify the means"?  That putting Job (or anyone else, including those killed in the process) through such a test is justified by the purpose of sending that message?

I think you can make a strong case from the text for that point of view, yes.  However, that’s not how I personally read the book’s message.

If Job doesn’t recant (and many scholars disagree with me on that claim, so it’s only a “given” to me and people who agree with me), then there are three results of this event that are worth noting:

1.    God reprimands Job’s friends for not speaking rightly of God, and quoting tradition blindly without thought.  Since they are the ones attempting to defend God and cast blame on Job, this vindication of Job’s righteousness is pretty unexpected;
2.    God heaps blessings on Job, giving him new children, new wealth, etc., as though to “make up” for having killed the first lot;
3.    On a more macro level, taking the rest of the Torah into account, this event effectively silences God.  This is the last book in the Jewish Bible in which God interacts so intimately with man.  (I should note that this isn’t the case in all the versions of the Hebrew Bible; some order the books differently.)

Why are these three points important?  Because it can be argued that God regrets what he’s done, and that his behavior in the future alters because of this encounter with one perfectly righteous man.  If that is the case, then not only didn’t the end justify the means, but the end turned out to be quite a twist indeed.

Speaking more generally, I think it’s amazing and fantastic that this book made it into the collection when so many others fell by the wayside, considering just how revolutionary it is.  Look at the radical message that comes out of this book:  Tradition doesn’t have the answers.  Look for them yourself.  Ask your own questions.  Create a personal relationship with God.

Anyway, we’re totally jacking the thread.  We should probably be polite take this to PM. 

Jlandin wrote:
you can save your eyes, just point the fork south, and take the eunuch path

Jesus specifically said "Right Eye" though. If I actually believed in all that stuff, I wouldn't be inclined to mess with a divine decree like that. I mean, what if you stuck the fork in your balls and then God said, "NO YOU RETARD. I SAID 'RIGHT EYE'!"  Then you'd be out your balls AND your right eye.

Better to stick with what Jesus said. You don't want to mess with a guy like that.

Milli wrote:
Well...yes God created everything.  He also created Satan.  God even created murderers too.  So would you also say that you do not see why murdering is sinful since God created murderers as well?

God didn't create murderers!  God created mankind and gave mankind the gift of freewill.  Some use their gift wisely... some don't.

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
God created mankind and gave mankind the gift of freewill.  Some use their gift wisely... some don't.

Hmmmm... That doesn't work, though.

If you're accepting the view that God created the universe and its physical laws, then God defined causality (i.e.: every thing that happens has a cause). If Causality is true (indeed, a theologian would say God was the "first cause") then all subsequent things that happen are caused completely by the things that have gone before. There is no room for free will in a completely causal universe since the notion of "free will" is contradicted as soon as cause moves off off the individual. After all, if I can cause you to jump, by poking you with a cattle prod, you're not choosing to jump and therefore have no "free will" in that matter. By creating the universe as he did, God removed "free will" from the equation, and substituted it with a "divine plan."

So the notion that "God gave man free will" is completely contradicted by the notion that God created the universe with its set of physical laws.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Jesus specifically said "Right Eye" though. If I actually believed in all that stuff, I wouldn't be inclined to mess with a divine decree like that. I mean, what if you stuck the fork in your balls and then God said, "NO YOU RETARD. I SAID 'RIGHT EYE'!"  Then you'd be out your balls AND your right eye.

Better to stick with what Jesus said. You don't want to mess with a guy like that.

maybe you can threaten your right eye with a fork, then soot with your eyes closed, and never look at the pictures. might be safe then

Milli wrote:
Well...yes God created everything.  He also created Satan.  God even created murderers too.  So would you also say that you do not see why murdering is sinful since God created murderers as well?

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
God didn't create murderers!

Not what His autobiography says:

"I am the Lord; there is none else. I form light and create darkness, I make good and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things."

(Isaiah 45:6-7)

M

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Me too

Nice boots.

 

StMarc wrote:

I'm sure that knowing God fixed Job up with new shorties and a crib twice as bling was a great condolence to the dozens of people who were killed during this little drama. "Never mind what happens to everybody else, *I* will be okay if I just believe," that's a fine, fine lesson for a Father to teach His children.

M

I have to wonder how many children you raised?  As I posted earlier.  My position is not open for debate.  I meant it.

In every board meeting, every professional debate in the decades of my professional career, I have found that professionals stick to the subject at hand. The subject at hand here is a gentleman who is facing a career/life decision.  Tangents and bickering are not going to help him find a solution or a peace with his solution.  His belief's are uniquely and privately his as guaranteed by the first Amendment, and uniquely between him and his God.  They are not subject to anyone elses opinion, judgment, belief's, rants, raves, logics, etc.

Can we please, all of us who say, "I am a professional", dig down deep and try to post something relevant to the issue and help this individual.  It is obviously a mammoth issue for him, and we all have an obligation to offer logic, faith, how we dealt with the same issue in order to help him.  Perhaps with these examples of how we all dealt with the same issue, he can find a solution.

This is the only industry that I have ever worked in where people say "I am a Professional", and they can't stick specifically to the matter at hand. I find that "unenlightened", "blue collar", "uneducated", and "unprofessional". And I find it odd as ART is supposed to be about enlightenment through our work, showing different views through our work, offerring different logics through our work, making a statement with our work, etc.

This is why I post no more on this thread.  On my initial post, I offerred some things to study that helped me with the same issue.  If they help him great, if not, perhaps someone else will have and share how they dealt with it so he can find a solution to his dilema.

We have an obligation to help each other, not to dictate to each other.  And those who want to turn debate into "fighting", miss the basic rules of debate. Debate is about the stated issue, it is free from personal attacks, it is to address the stated issue, and it is to help find a solution to the problem which was put forth in the stated issue. 

Those who view helping someone find a solution as "fighting" pretty much emulate the wars in Iraq.  "We have to force them to change their belief's and their thinking, to win their hearts and minds" (Little Bush).  That is what causes the fights and all wars in the first place.  Trying to force the solution we want, instead of offering what we know and applied to help us with the issue, is only going to make his finding a solution more difficult.

Share your experience and let him use what works for him, as he is not you/we/us. As he is seeking, he will find a solution that suits him individually. Hopefully he will find it more rapidly as we all shared with him how we dealt with the issue.

God Bless,
Outlaw

Milli wrote:

Well...yes God created everything.  He also created Satan.  God even created murderers too.  So would you also say that you do not see why murdering is sinful since God created murderers as well?

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the nude body in photography.  But I think erotica is different, like stuff that should be shared in private with your husband and wife....but thats just my opinion.

GOd didn't create murderers etc. He created people. He gave us free-will. then we became those things. please, dont twist things around. it's sorta common sense.

Robert Helm wrote:
To get back to the OP's question,faith is a personal thing and what is sinfull is also personal. If YOU think it is wrong  and you willfully do it then it is wrong, and sinfull for YOU. This is a question that only you can answer.
I do not think nudes, in any art form are in themselves immoral or inconstant with Judeo- Christian teachings. I also do not thinnk the Bible is to be interperted literally. It is literature that was writtne to be understood by the people of its time and much has been lot in translation and the changing meanings over time.

sighs* the BIble is our guide to life. It IS the BOOK OF LIFE! you can't say for us not to interpret the Bible literally. that's just saying that you only want to do what you want. so, if someone wanted to kill somebody and thought it wasn't a bad thing, then would it NOT be a sin???? The Bible NEVER EVER CHANGES MEANINGS! what Bible are YOU looking at?! GOd is the same today tomorrow and ALWAYS!  that offends me.. sighs*

Aong Vang wrote:

sighs* the BIble is our guide to life. It IS the BOOK OF LIFE! you can't say for us not to interpret the Bible literally. that's just saying that you only want to do what you want. so, if someone wanted to kill somebody and thought it wasn't a bad thing, then would it NOT be a sin???? The Bible NEVER EVER CHANGES MEANINGS! what Bible are YOU looking at?! GOd is the same today tomorrow and ALWAYS!  that offends me.. sighs*

"Unique characteristics such as idioms and colloquialisms make it impossible for an accurate translation of the meaning of the original Language. Therefore, the translations should be used for, the spiritual guidance of the believers, but not for the formulation of dogmatical teaching of the Church. This is why it cannot be said that the translations are "the inspired word of God". Only the original language is "the inspired word of God."

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/artic … le7068.asp

if it cannot be translated exactly into the language it is read in from the original language then it changes meaning and becomes an interpretation.

Outlaw Photography wrote:
Can we please, all of us who say, "I am a professional", dig down deep and try to post something relevant to the issue and help this individual.  It is obviously a mammoth issue for him, and we all have an obligation to offer logic, faith, how we dealt with the same issue in order to help him.

OK- how's this?:

"Dear Jay-Dub2,
      I understand that this is an important issue for you, since you take your belief seriously, and you appear to be at an emotional and moral crossroads. This, then, is my advice to you: don't take advice about something so important from complete strangers on an internet message forum. Complete strangers on an internet message forum are just as likely to be laughing about you behind your back as they are to be offering sincere advice. This is sincere advice, and I think it's the best advice that you're likely to get via this thread.
      If you believe in an all-powerful being - one that cares about you and what you do, then it seems ill-advised to ask us, here. After all, if you think this is a topic your God cares about, then your God ought to care enough to help you out if you ask him directly. Don't take advice from us mere mortal middlemen - go straight to the top. Ask the boss. Don't take the chance that you'll make a mistake because someone on an internet message forum was just clowning around and thought it'd be funny to get you to doom your immortal soul. Or be a man and make your own decisions, if you feel this topic is so important.

With all sincerity,
Marcus J. Ranum"

Aong Vang wrote:
the BIble is our guide to life. It IS the BOOK OF LIFE! you can't say for us not to interpret the Bible literally.

So you also think he should rip his eye out?  Matthew 5:28 - 5:29
I think we've almost got enough of a quorum to vote. Can we get a show of hands?