How exquisitely beautiful she looks, not dumb prettiness but
an alert intelligent beauty. The first film had that but subsequent
films have done her no justice. She must have been 14- 15 when you took that photo?
Anonymous wrote: Restless as well. All those lives refusing to let go clinging like cobwebs to everything around. ---------- Anonymous wrote: presiding over the dead the hoary mystic beard flowing eyes drooping biding his time awaits the moment when one by one they are brought in living done, loving gone but for the sticky traces left among those
they leave behind ----------- Hemantha Kumar Pamarthy wrote: Bharosaa kar Na daulat par Na soorat par Na chaahat par Yeh duniyaa hai Sadaa rahti nahin Jo ek haalat par Aaraam ke the saathi kya kya Jab vaqt padaa to koyi nahin Sab dost hain apne matlab ke Duniya main kisi kaa koyi nahin Kal Chalte the jo ishaaron par Ab milti nahin hai unki nazar Kal Chalte the jo ishaaron par Ab milti nahin hai unki nazar Yaa chaahanevaale laakhon the Yaa poochhnevaalaa koyi nahin Aaraam ke the saathi kya kya Jab vaqt pada to koyi nahin (afsos) jab vaqt pada to koyi nahin .........
In the Old Testament, in the Book of Genesis, the apple was forbidden to Adam and Eve as the fruit of the tree of knowledge. How does one interpret this? Should we infer that we would all have been unborn if Eve had not disobeyed God's proscription? Because Eve and then Adam ate the apple, man was born and evolved. So was it God's purpose that no knowledge should dawn? That would have meant great foresight on the part of God, because we would not have evolved and put the rest of his creation, including Him, in fear of mortal danger. But then, the question arises: why the hell (or in heaven) did He create both Adam and Eve, and an object of temptation not to be experienced. In other words, these three objects were created not to unite. What a colossal paradox. Would it not have been wiser if He had not created a man and a woman who were not expected to know that they were man and woman, and potentially sexual beings capable of procreation; and then a fruit which could give them this knowledge, but which was forbidden? His best choice was not to create any of the three; second best, to create, if He had to, a man or a woman, and not the fruit; last, to create the fruit, and no man or woman (and eat the fruit Himself). Isn't something odd about this edict? Was God confused, or am I? How about you?
... the odd thing i realised as i was reading it is, that
while it is 'tempting' to give a tongue in cheek shade to your words, actually
you sound neither blasphemous nor impertinent.
As always, as with everything, your build up of the argument
is impeccable and at the end that inviting question is like a cherry atop an
im unable to visualise a god but i feel that it had to be a
very fine mind that created this myth, essentially to embed in the collective
human consciousness the paradox of conscious life, and for those who
wish to heed, a faint subtext of caution.
Evolve and self destruct
Seek no further and go to seed, in other words desist and
And the colours, so striking, so appropriate, temptation on
a shiny platter with the blackness of sin lurking under.
I am confused too: Adam was a man. Then how by eating an apple, a man was created? What were Adam and Eve, if not man and woman already?
Fourth choice: not give procreational capability in Adam and Eve Also, the first few generations would have been so incestuous
I interpret your caption to mean, you are "forbidden" to question words of bible.
Genesis is about unquestioning faith in creationism, sins, repentance and hell. There is no place for reason, questioning, and evolution (I prefer to use the word evolvement).
Path of faith, I mean "faith", can only be explained with faith. Reason and logic are inoperative faculties here. The twain shall never abut; let alone cross.
I prefer to understand this beautiful picture to say "an age of reason is dawning over the dark ages".
Pravin Gandhi's comment: "Bhaag, Arvind, Bhaag!" My response: He has not run away; he is still here. Whether he himself is effective or in existence, or not, is not material. He has stirred not only the conscience of the world's most corrupt system (excluding small, insignificant countries), but also awakened an IDEA which may spread across the length and breadth of this country, and also across most of the world, where freedom of any sort is wounded or is under siege.