I used to seek out National Geographic as a kid to look at the photos.
nice work, maybe a bit too tight in the cropping of some.
Aren't the also bishops' caps?
Maybe i am.thick, what is a Lego camera?
What glass do you own currently? Another alternative are extension tubes. You might not use the macro enough to warranta big investment. I use tubes when I need to.
Beautiful images your model knew how to help you
DirtFarmer wrote:
On my last visit the dr said I was in afib again. At 84 they don't like to do invasive procedures, and he was of the opinion that things like ablation are temporary fixes anyway. So he just said to live with it.
After 50 years in the practice of medicine, and being almost 82 myself, my suggestion, get another opinion!
I mean no offense, but what is a Doctor of Eastern Medicine?
so the comment that the Arch predates the Jewish nation is supported by what?
Timmers wrote:
Here is what my grasp of all this biblical renderings are. That old testament writings can also be found in other cultural writings from the same time frame. Any reference to morality is so far removed from our time frame it has only a legitimate value as a reference to those cultures and should not be taken out of context.
debating these historic facts in our time is so often absurd and of no real value except with in the limits of that historic reference. I find vary little in old testament writings of importance to modern day moral structures.
A classic is the so called Arch of the Covenant. The object in question was originally so termed as a "contract" and existed long before the Hebrew nation absconded it and renamed it. Now in Axon in Ethiopia, it was so poorly understood by most Hebrews that one of their tribes (Levitz) were completely decimated by it. That is what I have found in reading the historic information without all the 'religious take' on the subject.
I also do not subscribe to the rhetoric of terms like 'pornography'. As has been stated over and over, if you don't like viewing something stop looking and move on. And as an important point, child pornography is under some control as is bestiality, by some vary smart individuals, so don't go there, save it for the attic where this nonsense belongs.
Here is what my grasp of all this biblical renderi... (
show quote)
This isn't meant as a religious discussion, but since you raised the issue, I looked up to see if there was a different Archg of the Covenant than the one I learned of. Unless you know of another here is what I discovered:
As a general rule, Judaism rejects physical manifestations of spirituality, preferring instead to focus on actions and beliefs. Indeed, the story of Judaism begins with Abraham who, according to ancient sources, shattered the idols that were the conventional method of religious observance at the time. Worship of graven images is harshly condemned throughout the Torah, and perhaps the greatest sin the Israelites collectively committed was the construction of the Golden Calf (in Ex. 32), intended to serve as a physical intermediary between them and God. Today, Jews do not venerate any holy relics or man-made symbols.
But in the history of the Jewish people, there was one exception to this rule. One man-made object was considered intrinsically holy - the Ark of the Covenant.
"Constructed during the Israelites' wanderings in the desert and used until the destruction of the First Temple, the Ark was the most important symbol of the Jewish faith, and served as the only physical manifestation of God on earth. The legends associated with this object - and the harsh penalties ascribed for anyone who misuses it - confirm the Ark's centrality to the Jewish faith of that period; the fact that Jews and non-Jews alike continue to study and imitate it confirms its centrality even today." If we agree that the "Israelites" are what we now call Jews, then this did not predate Judaism.
I am not stating that the written Bible as we know it, is really history, it is the written down oral history, with all of those flaws. It also does contain some degree of ethical discussions. True, things do change over 3k years, so it should NOT be taken as an unyielding source.
I was banned from posting on another of these posts, allegedly being too political, that said, I wonder if the reactions wo0uld have been different, had you not admitted the model was yourself?
riderxlx wrote:
Fred;
I have never been or had anything wrong with nudity, it is just people being beautiful. I do not know where you got the idea that God taught them shame ? He did not from what I read. The story is written that when their eyes were opened THEY realized they were naked. So when God came to visit, they hid from him because they KNEW they were naked. God asked them, 'who told you that you are naked ? '.
When asked if they ate from the fruit, AH YES, the original blame game began, Adam replied,, the woman whom you gave me offered it to him. Ah yea, the choices we make.
Nudity is beautiful, always has been unless perverted by porn and smut peddlers.
This topic should open to free expression.
Oh well, my thoughts this morning.
bruce.
Fred; br I have never been or had anything wrong w... (
show quote)
I believe there is a portion in which Noah is drunk and sleeps nude and is seen by his sons and from then it is c0nsidered shameful, i think the scholars that say that put both nakedness and drunkenness together as shameful.
I googled that and found:
https://www.bibleref.com/Genesis/9/Genesis-9-23.htmlWhat does Genesis 9:23 mean?
The previous verses describe a scenario involving Noah and his sons without providing more than the barest of details. Even so, this event will have grave implications. Noah got drunk on the wine from his new vineyard (Genesis 9:21). In his drunkenness, he lay naked in his own tent. Noah's son Ham walked in, saw him naked, and went out and told his brothers.
The response of Shem and Japheth reveals how seriously they and their culture took the issue of seeing another's nakedness and honoring one's father. With great care and creativity, they found a way to cover their father without ever looking at him. In this way, they honored Noah greatly.
Did Ham intend to dishonor Noah? The following verse will imply that he did, resulting in Noah's curse on Ham's descendants (Genesis 9:25). Some suggest that Ham's sin was failing to help his father by covering him—instead, Ham went to tell others what he had seen. Others believe that "what He did to [Noah]" (Genesis 9:24) was something more disturbing and personal. The extremely vague nature of the passage, in its own way, supports this idea since ancient literature was famously shy about describing certain shameful acts in any detail. In any case, whatever Ham has done is so offensive, it brings severe consequences.
