With so many different paintings of Jesus christ, is it true to conclude that most are False representations?

if not all? !!!With so many different paintings of Jesus christ, is it true to conclude that most are False representations?
Yes most are falseWith so many different paintings of Jesus christ, is it true to conclude that most are False representations?
They are all the result of ';artistic license'; which gives a artist the license to present the subject (of the work) within the scope of their interpretation and/or imagination.





To say they are false representations is to deny the scope and intent of artist license.
You could conclude such. Yet everything's in argument. Who are we to say that we really know what Jesus Looks like? We're conditioned to believe that Jesus was a tall white man with long curly brown hair. The truth is that none of us truly know what he looked like. We know that he was Jewish, lived in what is now Isreal, or near there and the only thing we can conclude about what he looked like is what people of that area look like now and most of all, our Imagination.
Does Jesus have to be one color in particular. I would like to think the ';Advocate';, The lamb of GOD, The resurrection and the life,the shepard of Souls, The Judge, and many more names is what you see him as. He is GOD by any other name, by the way. The trinity of three can come in any form.


The essential thing is to believe in whom JESUS Christ is, was, and always will be.
If Jesus actually did exist (no physical records of his birth, life, imprisonment, or death but there are of Barabas and John the Baptist out side the Bible) his depiction is more likely like this one.....


http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image…





There are so many depictions of what he may of looked like but knowing his origin of birth, ancient skulls with forensic studies, and current humans of his similar ancestory he would have probably looked more like the above picture.





What the other iconic paintings do to help spread the belief was to influence those of other cultures and give them a depiction that they themselves could relate to.......


http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image…


The ';romantic'; versions with his facial expressions stern and eyelids half closed and a softness added to his eyes or stature makes him, as a deity, approachable.


Have you ever thought why most icons of ancient deities, mostly of the Gods and Goddesses seem to be expresionless? It is for the follower or believer to decide. It was how they saw their deity at that moment, happy, sad, compassionate, concerned, angered, or uninterested in our lives. Many of the early depictions of Jesus were done in the same form, emotionless. The difference with him was that they painted his eyes differently. Looking directly not lowered or raised and were positioned in such a way they would follow you, but he was in a relaxed and serene state with the lids lowered unlike other paintings of the 3 or 4th centuries.


So, what you invisioned may not have been a ';divine'; being as you would like to believe but maybe a messanger or spirit sent to you to give you strength or a message about your life.


Blessings
Jesus adapts Himself to who we are. And paintings are a way of saying that. You talk like a baby to a baby. You play differently with a cat than a dog, and at different statges in life you want the same person to be different things for you.





It is normal and natural. I used to carry around a younger picture of my mother than her actual age was. Is this 'wrong' ? [ no ]
One can assume that Christ cannot look like EVERY painting - this s only each culture's vision of Him that fits their standards. Actually, most of our assumptions are wrong.





Most archaeologists say that the average Semite man of the time was 5'1';, and weighed 110 lbs. Since He worked as a carpenter, he would have been more muscular than pictures suggest.





Since Judas had to identify Jesus, it's logical to assume that He looked like any other Jew.





And since Paul said that men could have short hair, it's safe to assume that Jesus had short hair.
Well yeah... they hadn't even started painting things like that when Jesus was around, so it had to be something someone made up.





-Edit- Have you SEEN paintings from that time period? I never said they didn't paint, I said they don't paint things ';like that';. Granted, I could have been more specific, but I meant it was pretty primitive... it's not as though you would have been able to recognize anyone in one. They all had the same color skin, very little shading, and almond-shaped eyes. You wouldn't have been able to tell what someone looked like from looking at a painting from that time period.
People who love Jesus have an image of what He may have looked like in their mind and so too had the early artists who depicted Him as mostly caucasian according to their own colour and with long hair and a beard as pertaining to Jewish men of that era.


I seriously doubt if this is a problem whenever it recalls the Lord so much more clearly to mind.


Regarding pictures of Jesus being adolatry I think those who suggest such a stupid thing really need to understand the commandment better instead of a knee jerking self proclaimed puritism, for if they go this far then it would be logical to assume that they do not picture Jesus in their mind either?
I would conclude most are factual; also it is important to remember that Jesus was from Jersualem, so it is unlikely He would be black, Asian or hispanic...you have to think about where He was born and where He lived.
yes that is true if you read isaiah53- 1-12 this describes jesus christ and in one verse it says he didn't have any beauty or majesty that made us notice him there wasn't anything special about the way he looked that drew us to him. men looked down on him he knew all about sorrow and suffering he was like someone people turn their faces away from.although i like the paintings of christ i know that the paintings are not him. because of what isaiah tells me other wise i hope this answers your question
Art is just that, a representation of one person's imagination. Artist's see things in their own way and interpret it.


EDIT just because someone painted Jesus does not mean they have seem Him. I painted pictures of Him before I was a believer. I can assure you of one thing, you are right...my son has seen Jesus and it is nothing like the pictures according to his description. Yet it does fit in with yours.
They all are, no one knows what jesus looked like we have no reliable records of his appearance





edit: If you already knew the answer, why did you ask us?
For those of us who are Not knowledgeable and uninformed please provide a verified representational image from the first century of Jesus or any Jew.
All we know is He was Jewish, and wore a beard which was plucked out when He was tortured before His crucifixion.





I believe God wants us to believe, sight unseen, strictly by faith.





http://www.armageddonangelsufos.com
Well, we can't really say that these are real depictions or not. BUT I can say that the most reliable ones are the earliest depictions of Christ (during or a few years after his life on earth).
Of course not. We created god in our own image. Thus, all the jesus' that look like us


Black jesus looks really hot, by the way.
He probably looks a lot more Jewish then most paintings.
They all spring from the imaginations of men.
Well, no one knows what jesus looked liked. There is or was no recorded paintings that was taken during his life on earth.
who cares? i know who he is and what he stands for and i love him b/c he loves me
All are false representations. No one knows what Jesus looked like.
They are all false.
i beleive Jesus would have looked Middle Eastern..seeing as that is the area where he was from.
All are false images. There were no cameras in the day when Jesus was on earth. He did not pose for an artist.
All.
yes they are because he wasn't even white !
they all are...
We do not know really what Jesus looked like other than he was an olive skinned Jew.





All the paintings of Jesus are making an image or likeness of the things in heaven... It would be considered breaking the 2nd commandment.
well. considering the fact he is imaginary...





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
He never existed so they all are.

good myspace

Why do false representations of Catholic doctrine tend to come from Christians not Atheists?

It seems to me that the daily barrage of ';Why do Catholics believe... '; questions tend to come from the reformed Christian adherents. I rarely see an Atheist present a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. They may not agree with it, but they rarely misrepresent it. In fact, it seems common for at least one or two to chime in on these questions and say ';that's not what they believe';





It seems that most atheists can understand that Catholics are required to accept the teachings contained in their Catechism and are apparently better informed on what those teaching are, while most Christian reformers seem to be misinformed regarding Catholic doctrine. IMO.Why do false representations of Catholic doctrine tend to come from Christians not Atheists?
Because most atheists have at least a grasp of the way a system of belief works, and attempt to view the beliefs of another as valid to that person.





Many vocal Christians, on the other hand, demonstrate a disturbingly intense inability to view another person's mental state as valid in even that person's own mind. They totally and utterly lack empathy.





As far as why you'll occasionally find atheists answering in defense of Catholics, I think you'll find that on the whole, atheists are genuinely interested in the truth. If someone parrots a falsehood, even about a belief system we do not believe ourselves, we seem prompted to correct the falsehood, either to teach or at least prevent it being said again. I've become fairly knowledgable of Judaism over the past few years, so I try to answer questions about Judaism as well -- fairly, accurately, sincerely, even though I'm an atheist.





Belief systems posit certain logical axioms. From these you can draw conclusions, even if you don't accept the initial axioms as true.Why do false representations of Catholic doctrine tend to come from Christians not Atheists?
I believe that most Catholic-bashers are other Christians because they don't understand the RCC or don't want to. Most evangelical protestant groups are in competition with the RCC to ';save'; as many people as they can, so they have to come up with nonsense against the Catholics in order to persuade. So many of these Christians are so busy worshipping the Bible they don't try to understand how 2,000 years of history has shaped an institution that has withstood just about everything that can be experienced by humanity.


I no longer practice Catholicism, but to all you non-Catholic Christians who insisit on spreading lies and half-truths, give it a rest already!


All religious institutions are run by humans and are therefore subject to imperfection, including your own Bible church or wherever you go. Deal with it and move on.
I am not surprised


the basis of what you are asking is why some christians lie about you yet atheists present accurate facts.


I've seen loads of similar questions about catholics that are asked by christians and have all of the catholics point out the the question is wrong, maybe they should be in the drinking game?


I think it's easy for some christian fundies and loons to lie about others even though it's a 'sin' by their own rules
Because atheists have sufficient arguments to reject all versions of Christianity based on logic, historical evidence and general Christian dogma. They have no need to misrepresent any of the particular Christian cults or make one sound better than the others.





Protestants however are in the 'my version of our imaginary friend is better than your version of our imaginary friend' game. So making Catholic dogma looks stupid does two things:





It might make a catholic going their belief system, and they get vindication through numbers.





It makes them feel better in believing their dogma over the doma of other cults, again giving them vindication of their beliefs.








It does not matter if they are distorting Catholic dogma, they are just lookig for vindication that they are right and others are wrong. That their vindication is a shallow shadow of a thing does not matter, as long as it exists in their minds.





Face it, if any religious person was after the real truth they would have found the historical evidence that disproves their beliefs ages ago.
When I attended catechism class in an Evangelically oriented Presbyterian church as a teenager we spent almost as much time being taught negative ';facts'; about Catholic practices and teaching as we did studying the dogma and polity of our own denomination.


Sadly most of those ';facts'; were either obsolete or never true to begin with.
Ignorance! I asked that question a few days ago. There are so many misconceptions: like Catholics aren't Christians, Catholics are Pagan, Catholics are idol-worshippers, Catholics haven't been saved.... I believe it mostly comes from fear, or maybe their Protestant, Pentecostal, etc. Gives false information about Catholics in their sermons. Since Atheists aren't exposed to such things, they probably have a better idea of the whole thing :/ however, im Catholic, so i will never know.
Virtually all of the poisonous things said here about Catholicism come from uneducated fundamentalist Christians. They're railing not against Catholicism at all, but what they've been TOLD is Catholicism. You're just not going to get anything factual out of Jack Chick's website, it's really as simple as that.
Well of course most misrepresentations come from other Christians. Christians who are not Catholic or Orthodox are, by definition, Protestants. The purpose of Protestantism is to protest against the Catholic Church. Many of them will find something to protest about even if they have to make it up.
Bing, hit the nail on the head. As said so many times before, most atheists have studied religion to such an extent that they were able to make an informed decision, whereas most religious people take the entire doctrine for granted, because someone else said it is so.
Sadly, this answer is going to sound really harsh. I'm not normally so blunt. But we (Catholics) have all seen this repeatedly.





Because so many of them prefer to shut their brains off and believe what ever lies they are spoon fed. Such as the earth is really only 5000 years old and Catholics are Pagan idol worshipers.





If they'd just pick up a book and read, things would be very different.





Then there is the petty highschoolish need to be better than us. They feel they must talk smack about is to feel better about themselves.
atheists know both sides are screwy, and will judge people for who they are, not what they claim to believe, since an atheist believes that doesn't matter





a ';christian'; (notice the quotes) will judge someone based on what they have been taught about their beliefs
Atheists rely on reason.





Protestants rely on faith.





Neither position is superior to the Catholic position of relying on both faith and reason ... as illuminated by the grace and truth of Jesus Christ, and his authentic Church.
Atheist tend to at least attempt to reason logically and hopefully get their facts straight.





Where as religious types take a more emotional approach.
Atheists tend to get their facts from studying, not from blindly believing and parroting whatever the preacher says.
Because believe it or not - even though we don't believe, the majority of atheist know a thing or two about religion.





Diggin' your avatar.
Perhaps because the majority of Protestants get their information from their own faith whereas atheists are more likely to look it up in unbiased areas.
Atheists while they may not believe do study facts and understand our faith better than other christians. They actually read about it. IMHO they are often more respectful.
the daily athiest like me, dont see any point in trying to present our information logically to an illogical group of people.
Christians who focus on a splinter in someone else's eye do so because of the great big log in their own eye.
Because why pull the no true scotsman stunt when you believe there are no true scotsmen in the first place....
because they are the ones trying to sell their snake oil to the masses. not atheists.
I don't know
Most of the atheists I know are well-informed people who don't accept anything on blind faith and who check their facts before presenting them. They aren't content to swallow someone else's version of the truth without verifying the details.





The same thing can't be said of many fundamentalists and evangelicals who mindlessly accept whatever their pastor tells them about Catholicism or what they've read in Jack Chick tracts. If Pastor So-and-so said it or they saw it on a website, it has to be true.





Just take a look at some of the anti-Catholic responses you've already gotten. The writers are presenting their information as ';facts,'; but not one of their accusations is true. An atheist would be much more likely to check his sources and reject poorly documented information.





It's the difference between being well-read and informed about a subject and being one of the sheeple who trot along meekly after someone they think they can trust.
There are no errors in Catholic Dogma.





The Catholic Church is founded by God, is Indefectible, one of its divine marks, and cannot have errors. It is the Perfect Society, with Christ as its Head, therefore it is Holy. It is One, because all members believe exactly the same doctrines. The Church speaks those Words of Christ give us by the Apostles, it is therefore, Apostolic. The Four Marks define the True Church: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. There is no dissent among its members, therefore it is Catholic, as the Greek word from the First Century, ';kathol,'; defines. The Church of Christ exists in all eternity, indefectible and holy.





There are only errors in the Vatican II Roman Protestant Church, which never existed before 1965. Its ';proposals'; and heresies. Yes heresies. When Paul 6 violated the sacraments he touched on divine law, the words of the sacraments, and that is what the other Protestants are referring to. The violated new Words of the sacraments is full-out sacrilege for any valid priest who uses them. The Protestants think that the Catholic Church ';changed,'; when all it did was go underground, takings its faithful and its holy sacraments and priests with it. It left the Newchurch behind.





The Impostor Church has taken over the offices and attempts the mutilation of the doctrines. It is not the Catholic Church, headed by the Invisible Vicar that would allow changes or errors! It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, except to change and mimic the True Church. Vatican II was a council that took place from 1962-1965. Vatican II was a false council that constituted a revolution against 2000 years of Catholic teaching and Tradition. Vatican II contains many heresies that were directly condemned by past popes and infallible councils. Vatican II attempted to give Catholics a new religion. But Catholics knew their doctrine, and they knew it was a false council. In the period following Vatican II, massive changes in the dogmatic reservoir of Catholicism was abused, including the implementation of a New Mass, violating Quo Primum and the Council of Trent, a Dogmatic Council with de fide dogmas on the Mass. I can, today and since 1967, no longer be seen as Catholicism.





Vatican II also came out with new practices and views toward other religions, leading the Protestants to think that they were not heretics without requiring any Abjurations Against Heresy or The Profession of the Catholic Faith. Well, how could it when it had conformed its Mass to the Protestant ';mass';? The Catholic Church cannot change its teaching on other religions and how it views the members of other religions, since these are truths of Faith delivered by Jesus Christ. Vatican II attempted to do that. The Catholics then left to retain their Mass and their doctrine of the faith underground.





The Heresies in Vatican II:





Vatican II was called by Freemason Roncalli, and it was solemnly promulgated and confirmed by Montini on Dec. 8, 1965. Vatican II was not a true general or ecumenical council of the Catholic Church because it was called and confirmed by manifest heretics (John 23 and Paul 6) who were not eligible for the papal election (see Paul 6's Apostolic Constitution). The fruits of Vatican II are plain for all to see. Any honest Catholic who lived before the council and compares it with the religion in the dioceses today can attest to the fact that Vatican II inaugurated a new religion. Maybe the honest ex-Catholic likes the new religion, but, nevertheless, because he wasn't watchful, or because of choice, he has taken himself out of Catholicism and entered the Church of Vatican II.





It also took until the internet for a wider reach to the world in order to correct and explain the Errors of Vatican II. Today there is no excuse any longer. Savvy?
Why would atheists care about the doctrine of the Catholic Church?





We aren't misinformed. Catholics are. They follow a pseudo-pagan-Christian doctrine that is nothing at all what Christ taught. I don't care what the Catholic catechism teaches. It is NOT what the real teacher taught. The real teacher is/was Christ.





Kevin- I am not an uneducated fundamentalist, nor did I get my info from Jack Chick. Your problem is that you don't want to actually take the time to learn the real origins of many things the Catholic church teaches, or has done to the teachings of Christ. So much of it comes from pagan worship it isn't funny. Plenty of atheists know that Easter and Christmas come from pagan holidays. How come Catholics don't?
It is the truth that Catholic church is anti Christ.





Christ is the Word. Catholics changed the words and doctrines of the bible.
Because the Christians can see that the emperor has no clothes....








We know the Bible and what they teach and speak is the traditions and laws of men and contrary to the word of God...
Yes they are to accept those teachings, but even a lot don't if you are really honest and still attend the Catholic church.
Both atheists and Catholics are non Christians so I suppose there is a compatibility of sorts there.
Catholics are really crazy
Perhaps the reason that it is Christians who most frequently point out errors of faith in the Catholic doctrines is because it is Christians who study the scripture which is the place where those errors are most visible.





It was all started in 1520 by Martin Luther who was a priest and bible teacher at Wittenburg university in Germany. During a solitude study in his tower retreat, he discovered the promise of the gospels that states without a doubt that all of us are capable of praying to God (directly) and that through our faithful acceptance of the sacrifice that God made through Christ Jesus, we are all absolved of our sinful indiscretions.





Although there is no harm in discussing those sins with your pastor, it is not required to perform sacraments for absolution. Also, the whole scenario that followed the debates that began with Luther's 95 thesis only made this divide (and distinction) between Catholic and protestant beliefs stronger.





If you truly want to see the history of the protestant reform that has lead to your perception that Christians seem to question Catholic doctrine, it is all here in the book of Concord, the very doctrine that is the Lutheran Church.





Here. you can read Luther's life works along with the Popes response and Luther's apologetics





You might find a better understanding of you query there as well

What's up with all the false genre representations?

I know some people just aren't good at that, but some people are way off. Opinions?What's up with all the false genre representations?
I know, I know. Look at this question, some of the ignorance there disgusts me.





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?鈥?/a>





I answered a Q the other day that asked for metal recommendations. They edited and said that they didn't like female voices but that they were sure that there were talented bands out there like Paramore and Evanescence. WTF?





I think people are too close minded to want to listen to something they're not used to.





Lol no kidding. Like the person below me though, sometimes the genre thing confuses me. I love genres, but when I asked for doom metal recommendations, the person said ';Well what kind do you want? Funeral? Epic? Drone? Stoner?'; Like, huh? How am I supposed to know the difference between them if I haven't listened to much?





Ah well.What's up with all the false genre representations?
some of these teenie boppers hear a guitar in a song and right away think they're cool because they're listening to rock music. i dont understand how you can ask a question about paramore being a goth band? WTF?! it doesnt even make sense. mainstream sucks. and i agree, how much talent does it really take to be mainstream and entertain 13 year olds. but when i say that i get criticized.





it also sucks that people come on here and say that classic rock is not good and its boring and that we should all listen to whats going on now. if it wasnt for the classics, there would be no music today.
You mean like KISS and Alice Cooper are metal?


These are the ones I see most often...





Bullet for My Valentine, MCR are metal and Motley Crue is classic rock..








KISS, Alice Cooper- Classic Rock


Bullet- Post-Hardcore


MCR- Pop Punk, Alternative


Motley Crue- Hard Rock





Haha I'm just saying, some ignorant people call MCR metal, when they are just about the farthest thing I can think of.
Josh Y, you need to learn more about your Genres





KISS, Alice Cooper - They're GLAM ROCK, not Classic Rock


Bullet For My Valentine - They're METALCORE, not Post-Hardcore


MCR- Pop Punk


Motley Crue - Newer are Hard Rock, Pre. SOLA is Heavy Metal. Throughout their whole career, they're Glam Metal.
One time, I found a book called the Encyclopedia of Metal. So many things were wrong with it:





Nirvana was in it.


The Insane Clown Possie was in it.


My Chemical Romance was in it.


Dream Theater WASN'T in it.





I mean, WTF dude?
Yeah, it gets annoying. I'm starting to ignore it more and more.





Oh yeah, the Yahoo thing, I voted for it and I lol'd to this...


';Yahoo! Answers Suggestion Board We are listening - we want to hear from you!';
It really pisses me off. I usually bash out the people who mistake a genre, but only if it is totally obvious that the band is not that genre.
i think there are too many genres ,i know what i like but dont necessarily know what genre a band a like falls under all the time.
Yes like Dragonforce they're not powermetal they're Nintendocore!
Opeth is sooooo emo!!!


lol j/k





People are stupid, that's the only answer.

I was told that a person can not have legal representation in court for a stop sign violation..True or false?

my brother went to court and tried to defend himself with evidence that would have cleared him but when asked if you could obtain an attorney the judge said no--but is it ok fro a prosecutor being there against him --i always thought that's why lawyers make money defens=ding someone...I was told that a person can not have legal representation in court for a stop sign violation..True or false?
My understanding is that anyone can have legal representation if they so choose.





The only way I could see the judge saying no is that he thought your brother meant that he wanted a public defender. But I could be wrong. It has happened once or twice.I was told that a person can not have legal representation in court for a stop sign violation..True or false?
This doesn't pass the smell test.





1) Everyone has the right to be represented by an attorney in any court proceeding, in the US. Not everyone has the right to be represented for free.





2) $2,000 is an incredibly high attorney fee to take a stop sign violation to trial. I can see an attorney charging a couple of hours of time, but charging more than that is ridiculous. I suggest that if your brother wants to fight this further, he call several different traffic attorneys and ask them what they would charge. Either (a) the charges aren't what you've told us or (b) the attorneys didn't want the case or (c) your brother and/or the attorney misunderstood the case.





For a referral, contact your local or state bar association.
He has the right to legal representation in any legal proceeding. But dont forget that the lawyer is an officer of the court and that is where his loyalty lies.
He has a right to a lawyer.
False,every one has the right to an attorney no matter the violation.
Now..if the judge denied a continuence to get an attorney that is valid if the judge feels it was only done to delay the trial...otherwise your brother has a right to obtain one...but if he has exculpatory evidence why does he need to pay an attorney?
Everyone has the right to legal representation in any court. That being said, it is usually a waste of your time and money to hire a lawyer for traffic court. A lawyer is going to charge as much, and probably more, for an hour in court, as just paying the fine would cost. He had the opportunity to hire legal representation BEFORE going to court. No judge is going to give a continuance in a traffic case on the day your brother appears in court, because he should have had his lawyer all lined up before his court date.
You don't necessarily need an attorney for a stop sign violation, however, if you have the opportunity to get an attorney then you have that right.

Do you think that the False Prophet of Revalations could have been a metaphoric representation.....?

Do you think that the False Prophet of Revalations could have been a metaphoric representation of Misunderstandings, Misinterpretationsand Misrepresentation of GOD and his Bible?





If no, do you at least thing that this Jerk has clearly done the same thing that the damned False Prophet is supposed to do? People that claim to be Christians that don't really understand what it is that they're saying claim to be the recipients of miricals daily. What makes this worse is that no real miracle has been worked. They simpy stopped focusing on the original cause of their woe and started focusing on this eternal reward that they may never get.





It has always been my contention that no congregation of hundereds can be filled with poor and suffering people and still claim to be a mass of Christians.





What do you think?Do you think that the False Prophet of Revalations could have been a metaphoric representation.....?
It's possible. We may never know for sure. If they were using symbolism and metaphor for all of the things you suggest, it sure would have been nice if they'd told some body!Do you think that the False Prophet of Revalations could have been a metaphoric representation.....?
let me correct you on one thing the word is . revelation read the book of[ jude] on this matter on false peophets ...
Lazarus sat by the gate daily.Job bore punishment though he had no sins.
what is your fascination with the word ';metaphor?';
I think that the False Prophet will be a man supernaturally charged by the Antichrist during the Tribulation period in Revelation with maintaining the one world religion that the Antichrist will employ. The reason we don't see as many miracles working in our midst is that it was said that in the last days, ';evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse'; meaning that God would begin to turn a deaf ear to those who would no longer diligently seek His face, that evil would become so strong that it would jade men's hearts against the possibility of miracles being performed. As far as being poor and suffering, the Scripture teaches that we are not to ';lay up your treasures where rust doth corrupt and thieves break in and steal.'; It doesn't mean we have to be broke all the time, it's just a reminder that there are more important things in life than money and that if we're so dead set on attaining them, we still have to earn them by ';the sweat of your face.';
I take the false prophet literally.
While I don't know about the majority of your question, I will respond to the last paragraph. There is nothing that I know of that limits belief in Christ to the non-poor and non-suffering.
.you dont know anything...now you can see thru the broadband ? You proly molested girls urself and are into porn.......who told you girls dont come on yahoo...nobodys that F***** up ? Yes they are...you are !!! you nasty mean old man......I forgive you for the hurtful things you said to me on my question...u hurt my feelings and I forgive u........

A physical representation of a database is called a data model...True or False?

Typically, for a given data base, there is a structural description of the type of facts held in that database: this description is known as a schema. The schema describes the objects that are represented in the database, and the relationships among them. There are a number of different ways of organizing a schema, that is, of modeling the database structure: these are known as database models (or data models). The model in most common use today is the relational model.

What false representations of transition did you find in Trans America?

Its been about year since I saw that movie and I am not that familiar with a transition, but since your asking I'll mention a scene that bothered me (if I am even recalling it correctly): The scene (I believe it was towards the end of the movie) where she met with her therapist and the words she had to speak to finalize (the justification of) getting SRS didn't seem right to me.What false representations of transition did you find in Trans America?
I was afraid of them so I haven't seen it.





The best(and most honest)fictional representations of Trans Life I've seen have been:


1) Different for Girls


2)Ma Vie En Rose(the old one)


3) A character in ';World's Fastest Indian';


4) Boys Don't Cry (hard to watch, though)


5) Breakfast on Pluto


6) and yes....The Crying GameWhat false representations of transition did you find in Trans America?
The whole transition process is kinda glanced over in the movie really... I mean, for a depiction in a film, I think it was pretty good at showing one fictional person's journey. I've still never had a sweet old lady in the deep south give me a free electro touch-up will offering a sassy brand of homespun wisdom, but everyone follows their own path, right?

good myspace