Leonardo da Vinci

[Pjdriver]

10 hours ago, Thesauron said:

It is true that none who knowingly does things that God disapproves of will inherit the Kingdom, gay or straight. That’s a different matter altogether.

 

I think most gays are familiar with or have heard that homosexuality is condemned by God. Just like immoral heterosexuals, they tell themselves it's not wrong. Nobody wants to be wrong. Just disagreeing with Jehovah does not make a person ignorant or not accountable. How can that be a totally different subject. They are intrinsically related. It's immoral behavior and the scripture says they will not inherit Gods kingdom. 

 

You seem to be a staunch supporter of homosexuality. I'm sorry if you have gay friends and relatives. I had 3 gay cousins that died from AIDS. I do have some sympathy for what they have to deal with. I also have sympathy for straight people caught up in this system, but at some point we have to draw the line. The line I think is Jehovah's laws.

My worldly son told me one of the main reasons he was stumbled out of the truth was his sympathy for gay friends. Please be careful. 

 

[Thesauron]

 
I think most gays are familiar with or have heard that homosexuality is condemned by God. Just like immoral heterosexuals, they tell themselves it's not wrong. Nobody wants to be wrong. Just disagreeing with Jehovah does not make a person ignorant or not accountable. How can that be a totally different subject. They are intrinsically related. It's immoral behavior and the scripture says they will not inherit Gods kingdom. 
 
You seem to be a staunch supporter of homosexuality. I'm sorry if you have gay friends and relatives. I had 3 gay cousins that died from AIDS. I do have some sympathy for what they have to deal with. I also have sympathy for straight people caught up in this system, but at some point we have to draw the line. The line I think is Jehovah's laws.
My worldly son told me one of the main reasons he was stumbled out of the truth was his sympathy for gay friends. Please be careful. 
 

To say I’m a supporter of homosexuality would be like saying I’m a supporter of cancer. I know it’s a reality in these days.

By your reasoning none who did anything’s no contrary to divine will and standards I’ll be resurrected, because you seem to be arguing that they should be treated as if they had accurate knowledge of the truth and willingly, without pressure, chose to disobey. I think that is a faulty reasoning. I can hate if someone, although he knows the truth, chose to do what is contrary to it. And I can really hate what is wrong in God’s eyes without hating poor ignorant people living in sin, whatever it may be. I’m certain they will be resurrected, just like it was said. They deserve to be treated with the same mercy we’d like to have stretched out to ourselves.

I can feel sympathy for a smoker who constantly falls for the cigarette while he tries his best to live up to divine standards. As long as he gets up again. And I feel sympathy for the smokers who still smoke because they do not know Jehovah. But I hate smoking. I do not support smoking.


Any day now...

[Pjdriver]

40 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

By your reasoning none who did anything’s no contrary to divine will and standards I’ll be resurrected, because you seem to be arguing that they should be treated as if they had accurate knowledge of the truth and willingly, without pressure, chose to disobey. I think that is a faulty reasoning

So do you think that those executed at Armageddon will only be those who have an accurate knowledge of the truth and disobey? What about those who refuse to even listen to the message. Do you think they will be executed then resurrected? 

If that’s what Jehovah feels is best,  then I’m all for it. We’ll get to see all those sodomites along with Lots wife in the resurrection too. Maybe you’re right. 

[Thesauron]

So do you think that those executed at Armageddon will only be those who have an accurate knowledge of the truth and disobey? What about those who refuse to even listen to the message. Do you think they will be executed then resurrected? 
If that’s what Jehovah feels is best,  then I’m all for it. We’ll get to see all those sodomites along with Lots wife in the resurrection too. Maybe you’re right. 

What does the Bible say? How do you read it?

It’s not our decision to say who will go in Armageddon and who will not. Jehovah takes every aspect into account. Even so, we do not hate these people. We might hate what they do, and long for them to change their ways.


Any day now...

[Pjdriver]

26 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

Even so, we do not hate these people. We might hate what they do, and long for them to change their ways.

I think you’re used to defending gays against people who hate them. Let me just say...that’s not me. 

 

All I know is that the scriptures put men who lie withe men in a very bad light. The law did not allow for being born that way. If there were Jews back then who had those desires they had to refrain because there were no excuses. Same if someone craved another mans wife...or had an attraction to children or even animals. Being born with that desire did not Matter. We all have stuff to deal with. 

if Jehovah decides that their action and and the wrong cravings of anyone else is now excusable then he will resurrect them.

He does not desire any to be destroyed but he will not hold back from punishing those deserving of it. Only he can judge that.

 

Just curious. Do you view being/acting gay as a sickness or a sin?

Edited November 8, 2017 by Pjdriver

[Thesauron]

I think you’re used to defending gays against people who hate them. Let me just say...that’s not me. 
 
All I know is that the scriptures put men who lie withe men in a very bad light. The law did not allow for being born that way. If there were Jews back then who had those desires they had to refrain because there were no excuses. Same if someone craved another mans wife...or had an attraction to children or even animals. Being born with that desire did not Matter. We all have stuff to deal with. 
if Jehovah decides that their action and and the wrong cravings of anyone else is now excusable then he will resurrect them.
He does not desire any to be destroyed but he will not hold back from punishing those deserving of it. Only he can judge that.
 
Just curious. Do you view being/acting gay as a sickness or a sin?

Being gay is certainly a sickness, in a way, even though most medical professionals wouldn’t call it that these days. So perhaps let’s just say it’s a deviation when it comes to brain function. But acting upon it is a sin, and thankfully we all have ability to chose.

However, it’s no worse than living together outside of marriage. Or getting drunk. The Bible clearly speaks against getting drunk. But I am certain many alcoholics will either be resurrected or survive Armageddon. And some won’t.


Any day now...

[ChocoBro]

On 8.11.2017 at 6:00 PM, Thesauron said:

However, it’s no worse than living together outside of marriage. Or getting drunk.

 

Oh wow. I just only noticed this comment. Seriously? Going out to a gay club and having sex with a guy isn't worse than an unfortunate "having one too many"?

 

I must have gotten some info wrong at some course during my bible study, but as far as I remember, there was no death penalty for a man caught drunk but there sure was for a man who got caught lying with another man.

 

And another issue I already commented on in another thread is that being in a gay relationship certainly is not the same as living together outside of a marriage, since a relationship between a man and woman can be cleared up through a marriage and between two men simply can not.

 

I'm so tired of constantly hearing this "Jehovah views all sin in the same light" mantra, it is simply not true. Lying is also a sin, but it is not "the same" as bestiality. The mosaic law clearly implies this, as does all logic deducted from the scripture.

 

It's also so weird how you pretend to know all these details about when a person is born gay / sick / with a mental illness and when it's something completely different entirely. "Ah, she's bisexual, that's something different entirely."... but seriously, is it?

 

My great aunt was married to a man for a long time, and when he was through treating her like dirt and went off with another woman and divorced her, she gave up men and lived content in a lesbian relationship until the end of her days. Was she born gay? Or "bisexual, something different entirely", because she sure didn't care for men at all when she died.

 

I also know a guy who says never hit it off with girls when he hit late puberty, was constantly friend-zoned and became suicidal until the point where he decided "hey, maybe I'm gay" and went that route. When he had his first homosexual encounter, he was pretty certain that he was interested in men. Later, he got together with a female friend that he later married and now he's a brother. He still has issues with his previous sexual urges and gets cravings for sex with men. Would he have this issue if he never "experimented" in his "bi-curious" phase or whatever you want to call it? Would he be "bisexual" if he never met his female friend that he later married?

 

These are all stupid name-tags the world gives something that the bible simply implies to be "sin", not "mental illnesses" or "deviation". If you feed the sin, the craving grows. Pedophiles are a prime example of this, since they tend to spiral ever deeper into their depravity (you can still call pedophilia that despite modern libertarianism, right? these things go so fast I can't catch up) the more they push the boundaries.

 

Still it's just silly to play down some sins as "not worse than others" just to seem nice to the world. Especially when this is completely off from the biblical message.

 

So I've pretty much had it with all the gay discussions lately. Can we just agree to stop talking about it for a while? I think our organization and Jehovah have a pretty clear stance on the matter.

[Thesauron]

16 minutes ago, ChocoBro said:

h wow. I just only noticed this comment. Seriously? Going out to a gay club and having sex with a guy isn't worse than an unfortunate "having one too many"?

 

I must have gotten some info wrong at some course during my bible study, but as far as I remember, there was no death penalty for a man caught drunk but there sure was for a man who got caught lying with another man.

 

And another issue I already commented on in another thread is that being in a gay relationship certainly is not the same as living together outside of a marriage, since a relationship between a man and woman can be cleared up through a marriage and between two men simply can not.

 

I'm so tired of constantly hearing this "Jehovah views all sin in the same light" mantra, it is simply not true. Lying is also a sin, but it is not "the same" as bestiality. The mosaic law clearly implies this, as does all logic deducted from the scripture.

It is true, though. Are they not all covered by the ransom sacrifice in the very same way? Wouldn’t all of them lead to death without the ransom sacrifice?

Edited November 11, 2017 by Thesauron

[Thesauron]

11 minutes ago, ChocoBro said:

Still it's just silly to play down some sins as "not worse than others" just to seem nice to the world. Especially when this is completely off from the biblical message.

 

So I've pretty much had it with all the gay discussions lately. Can we just agree to stop talking about it for a while? I think our organization and Jehovah have a pretty clear stance on the matter.

Well, the stance is that they are all sins from which we need redemption. Having a certain urge might be biological and is not a sin, but a result of the fault in our flesh. Acting according to the desires of the flesh, though, is a sin. Do you see the difference? Also, people in the past, who because of whatever reason lived according to their fleshly desires can benefit from the ransom sacrifice and be resurrected. Do you agree?

[ChocoBro]

1 minute ago, Thesauron said:

It is true, though. Are they not all covered by the ransom sacrifice in the vary same way? Wouldn’t all of them lead to death without the ransom sacrifice?

 

No. They are not covered "in the same way". I will be imperfect and full of sin when Jehovah's great and fear-inspiring day comes. I will probably even have done something in the past few days that ought to be considered "sin" in the sense of "missing the mark" and merits and apology. But  not "gross sin". That is very much something different. Should I be having an affair when Armageddon comes, I don't expect a quick prayer of repentance would do the trick.

 

[Thesauron]

1 minute ago, ChocoBro said:

 

No. They are not covered "in the same way". I will be imperfect and full of sin when Jehovah's great and fear-inspiring day comes. I will probably even have done something in the past few days that ought to be considered "sin" in the sense of "missing the mark" and merits and apology. But  not "gross sin". That is very much something different. Should I be having an affair when Armageddon comes, I don't expect a quick prayer of repentance would do the trick.

 

No, you need repentance at that time, but death pays for all our sins. There are very few sins from which there will be no resurrection. Agree?

[ChocoBro]

Just now, Thesauron said:

No, you need repentance at that time, but death pays for all our sins. There are very few sins from which there will be no resurrection. Agree?

 

Though this may be true, the Bible also implies that those that lived moral lives will have it easier in the New World.

 

Quote

Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.

John 5:28, 29

But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. The dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds

Revelation 20.12

 

Jehovah wouldn't resurrect a sinner only to subsequently throw him in the lake of fire, so we know for a fact that the thousand year reign will be there to give people one last chance to do the right thing. Sadly, too many will make the wrong choice at the end.

[dove]

If an (inactive) person is sinning, nothing considered criminal by this world, and they are unable to stop practicing that sin and die before A., will they be included in the resurrection under the premise that if they had lived longer, had more time before the end,  be given the benefit of the doubt they may have overcome the practice and given a R.?

[ChocoBro]

Just now, Dove said:

If an (inactive) person is sinning, nothing considered criminal by this world, and they are unable to stop practicing that sin and die before A., will they be included in the resurrection under the premise that if they had lived longer, had more time before the end,  be given the benefit of the doubt they may have overcome the practice and given a R.?

 

You and I both know there's only one person who can answer that question.

 

But now we have gone off-topic double time.

 

To get back on topic, I never liked any of Leonardo Da Vinci's stuff. Especially not his creepy robot boy

 

 

[Thesauron]

If an (inactive) person is sinning, nothing considered criminal by this world, and they are unable to stop practicing that sin and die before A., will they be included in the resurrection under the premise that if they had lived longer, had more time before the end,  be given the benefit of the doubt they may have overcome the practice and given a R.?

Only Jehovah sees their struggles and knows their hearts. So only he can say, but he is known to very merciful if it is at all possible. Then again, what would be the end result if Jehovah chose to judge us all on what might happen in the future if this system were to go on a little longer? (Rhetorical question.)


Any day now...

[Thesauron]

3 hours ago, ChocoBro said:

I never liked any of Leonardo Da Vinci's stuff.

Have you seen his drawings or paintings?

[Old]

1 hour ago, Thesauron said:

Have you seen his drawings or paintings?

 

 

I had the same question. 

[dove]

3 hours ago, Thesauron said:

Only Jehovah sees their struggles and knows their hearts. So only he can say, but he is known to very merciful if it is at all possible. Then again, what would be the end result if Jehovah chose to judge us all on what might happen in the future if this system were to go on a little longer? (Rhetorical question.)


Any day now...

 

Thank you, and that is a good rhetorical question..

[carlos]

22 hours ago, ChocoBro said:

To get back on topic, I never liked any of Leonardo Da Vinci's stuff. Especially not his creepy robot boy

 

We visited an exhibition in Florence with mockups of some of his less known inventions. There was a ship with a mechanism that replaced oarsmen. And there was a huge UFO-like war-machine that went on wheels and had cannons all around. That guy designed hundreds of inventions and some of them were astonishing.

 

You can have a look at some of Leonardo's designs here:

http://www.leonardo3.net/en/l3-works/machines/

[ChocoBro]

21 hours ago, Thesauron said:

Have you seen his drawings or paintings?

 

19 hours ago, Old said:

I had the same question. 

 

Of course I have, otherwise I wouldn't have said I don't like his art. To be fair, though, I really don't like Renaissance art at all, I think it's horribly bland. I think the Mona Lisa is the most overhyped portrait in the history of human paintings, I think it's terribly boring. I've seen paintings by "no-name" artists with more expression. I value later works of art far more, like impressionism (particularly Renoir) and realism (John William Waterhouse from the classic artists, even modern realism in my opinion is far better than anything from the Renaissance). There were better Renaissance artists even in Da Vinci's day, like Michelangelo, Tizian, I even think Raffaelo's stuff is equally as interesting. Only a few decades later, Caravaggio showed the world what true art is and made Da Vinci's works look like those of a schoolboy.

 

1 hour ago, carlos said:

 

We visited an exhibition in Florence with mockups of some of his less known inventions. There was a ship with a mechanism that replaced oarsmen. And there was a huge UFO-like war-machine that went on wheels and had cannons all around. That guy designed hundreds of inventions and some of them were astonishing.

 

You can have a look at some of Leonardo's designs here:

http://www.leonardo3.net/en/l3-works/machines/

 

Well, when it comes to Leonardo's inventions, let's be honest. Most of them didn't really work though some may have been great concepts. None of his great "planes" and "helicopters" were in any way airworthy and hence no better than the legend of Icaros. He seems a bit like he might have been an ADHD type of guy. Starting of on one great brainfart project and sometimes even developing the first prototype, but then never improving on it until it became fully functional because he already had the next brilliant idea in mind. Which eventually led to him being a relatively unimportant engineer of his time. He was too interested in everything to actually excel at anything, anatomy, armaments, automatons, art, avionics, to name only the subjects beginning with "a". Which is why he never really left much of a heritage in his own age (i.e. none of his inventions actually mattered), apart from the "great art" that we're all supposed to find so amazingly great because... umm.. err... it's Da Vinci, right? He was the greatest Renaissance artist of all time, everyone on the bandwagon knows that!! And anybody who says the emperor has no clothes is an idiot!

 

So, yeah. Just to elaborate on why I think Da Vinci is pretty forgettable, but that's just my personal taste.

[Qapla]

I rather like the artwork of Bob Ross

 

 

 

Even though he was NOT gay

 

[Thesauron]

6 minutes ago, ChocoBro said:

Of course I have, otherwise I wouldn't have said I don't like his art. To be fair, though, I really don't like Renaissance art at all, I think it's horribly bland. I think the Mona Lisa is the most overhyped portrait in the history of human paintings, I think it's terribly boring. I've seen paintings by "no-name" artists with more expression. I value later works of art far more, like impressionism (particularly Renoir) and realism (John William Waterhouse from the classic artists, even modern realism in my opinion is far better than anything from the Renaissance). There were better Renaissance artists even in Da Vinci's day, like Michelangelo, Tizian, I even think Raffaelo's stuff is equally as interesting. Only a few decades later, Caravaggio showed the world what true art is and made Da Vinci's works look like those of a schoolboy.

Of course, Mona Lisa has a history that makes it a bit hyped. Without it, it probably wouldn’t be the source of pilgrimage that it is these days. But still, it baffles art students to this day. The more you study it, the more you see. Perhaps it’s like a mirror where people in the end see what they want to see. Michelangelo’s work was different. Equally good, or perhaps even a better sculptor and painter, but didn’t encompass so many areas. Still, when you see his statue of David, you smile at his play with proportions, and how he plays tricks with the viewer, in just the same way as he does also with his paintings in the Sistine Chapel. He hated da Vinci, some say, and was very jealous of the man. The crowds, these days, love both equally, it seems.

[ChocoBro]

48 minutes ago, Qapla said:

I rather like the artwork of Bob Ross

 

 

Who doesn't love Bob Ross.

 

 

I love the story of him as a Drill Sergeant. He is said to have yelled at so many people during his time at the Air Force that he never wanted to yell at anybody ever again.

 

I hope he has many happy accidents in the New World.

[Qapla]

I would probably used a more recognizable picture of Bob

 

 

He lived less than an hour and a half from me

[dove]

It was nice to see him in his youth too..