text:
The basic strategy in poker is to fold and bluff when your hand is weak and check when your hand is strong. You can win a poker game with bad hands if you are good at bluffing and have luck on your side. In most cases, it is best to fold your hand if it is weak, and to check when your hand is strong. You should not keep betting if you do not have a good hand. If your opponent has a high card, bet. It is better to call than to raise if you don't have a good card.
The game of poker has many variants, and all of them feature betting intervals. In each game, a player has the right to make the first bet, but is not obliged to do so. Each player then must place a number of chips into the pot, equal to the contribution of the players who came before him. If a player makes the first bet, he is said to be an active player.
The object of the game is to win the pot, which is the sum of bets made by the players in a single hand. A player wagers on a pair of cards or a combination of two or more cards in order to have the best hand or to persuade their opponents to fold. Knowing when to release a hand is as important as knowing when to bet. The best https://sugarsistersco.com/ hand is a combination of five cards, which is known as the best hand.
Almost every poker game uses poker chips. When there are seven or more players, the game will require poker chips to be supplied. The white chip, which represents the lowest value, is worth one-hundred pips. The red chip is worth ten or twenty or more whites. The blue chip is worth two, four, or five reds. A player must "buy in" by buying chips. In most games, a player must purchase a certain number of chips in order to play.
While the game of poker is based on earlier games, it's still a popular sport in many countries. In fact, the word "poke" is derived from a word used by card hustlers. In this context, a card game is a cheating activity. Regardless of how it originated, the objective of the game is to win money and not to lose. However, if you're a cheater, the rules are clear-cut.
The game of poker was invented in France by a man named Poque. It was named after the French poet Jean-Jacques Gouya. The game evolved from this game and was originally known as "poque" in French. The word poker was then used to refer to the game of cards. In the eighteenth century, poque was played by card hustlers. This variant was later translated to German, which became the basis of the English language's name.
In modern-day poker, a player with a high-ranking hand wins the pot. While the game has an intriguing history, the name of the game is actually a misnomer. It's simply a combination of several earlier games. It's possible to make money with this game if you are willing to cheat. And because the stakes are relatively low, it's easy to see how the game is such a popular one.
The name "poker" is a modern variation of several games from earlier in history. It was first referred to as "poker" when it was first discovered by a man named Jonathan H. Green on a Mississippi riverboat in the early eighteenth century. The name he gave the game was a derivative of other earlier games that were similar to them. It is believed that the term "poke" was originally derived from a French slang term for "chess" that a card hustler used.
There are several variants of poker. The rules of the game depend on the number of players. The game requires one player to bet the first bet. The remaining players must place the same amount of chips into the pot. The winner is the player who wins. The players in a round are called "active" if they have placed their chips into the pot. If the winner of the game is in the pot, he wins. Then, the players in the next round are dealt with the same cards.


text:
mtv Sept. 9, 2010
MTV Targets After-School Crowd With a New Video-Countdown Show
By Mike Vilensky
Kids coming home from school at 5 p.m. will be greeted with screaming crowds in a Times Square studio once more on MTV's upcoming The Seven, a one-hour countdown of "the top videos of the day" beginning September 27. Steve Tseckares, executive producer, stressed that this will not be "a music show," in case you were concerned. (He added that the old TRL studio is now a clothing store, anyway!) The Seven will be hosted by Julie Alexandria, and it sounds like a bid to compete with the growing list of pop-culture countdown shows, including E!'s The Ten or The Soup, targeting the lethargic after-school crowd who will watch, half tuned-out, while standing in front of the TV eating every snack in the house.
OK, what sounds like 'TRL' but isn't? [NYP]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The typical Follett Account Executive salary is $45,375. Account Executive salaries at Follett can range from $24,000 - $86,927. This estimate is based upon 8 Follett Account Executive salary report(s) provided by employees or estimated based upon statistical methods. When factoring in bonuses and additional compensation, a Account Executive at Follett can expect to make an average total pay of $78,010 . See all Account Executive salaries to learn how this stacks up in the market.


Rehearsal Dinner Invitations | Invitations By Dawn Within Elegant Western Rehearsal Dinner Invitations Uploaded by myoret on Tuesday, March 5th, 2019 in category Invitations.
See also Authentic Old Western Party Invitation | Cowboy Party | Pinterest Throughout Western Rehearsal Dinner Invitations from Invitations Topic.
Here we have another image Country Western Rehearsal Dinner Invitation – My Lady Dye Within Elegant Western Rehearsal Dinner Invitations featured under Rehearsal Dinner Invitations | Invitations By Dawn Within Elegant Western Rehearsal Dinner Invitations. We hope you enjoyed it and if you want to download the pictures in high quality, simply right click the image and choose "Save As". Thanks for reading Rehearsal Dinner Invitations | Invitations By Dawn Within Elegant Western Rehearsal Dinner Invitations.


text:
Thoughts on life from Peter Kirk
We British need not have bad teeth: The American way
What "qaya" means
Follow Jesus: The Basics
Why should I follow Jesus?
How can I become a follower of Jesus?
I have started to follow Jesus. What next?
Life Today
About Gentle Wisdom
Welcome to qaya.org!
A Response to the Global Warming Threat
Some Facts on Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
Air Quality Action For Army & Navy?
Free Weddings at Holy Trinity
About Peter Kirk
Store (UK)
Store (US)
Contact Gentle Wisdom
Is there a moral difference between homosexual practice and remarriage after divorce?
Posted on April 29, 2008 by Peter Kirk
John Meunier is, with good reason, Frustrated by gay debate within his own United Methodist denomination, which mirrors that within the Anglican Communion. John's frustration is firstly that those "On the pro-inclusion side" are arguing from experience, not from proper biblical principles, and secondly that there is a mismatch between attitudes to remarriage after divorce and to homosexual practice. In a comment I pointed John to an older post of mine which suggests a way of treating these last two matters consistently.
Craig L. Adams left a comment on John's post linking to an interesting post of his own, on a blog which I have not seen before, in which he takes up the same issue. He writes:
Yes, the relationship of the issues of homosexuality and divorce is interesting — and raises troubling issues and (at the very least) apparent inconsistencies for those of us on SideB. If the church prohibits same-gender sex — even between committed partners — why are Christians so permissive about divorce and re-marriage?
… And, given human "hardness of heart" and the circumstances of violent abuse, unfaithfulness and alcoholism, etc. I can see why — for the physical and emotional health of both partners — [some] marriages must sometimes end.
But, in these instances, divorce is "accepted" (so to speak) not as a positive good, but on the basis of an Exception Argument. Yes, marriage should be forever. But, there are circumstances where divorce is preferable to the alternative. As they say, it's "the lesser of two evils."
From this grows the commonly-permissive attitude toward remarriage, as well.
But, when we get to same-gender relationships, conservatively-inclined Christians run into a wall. Here deploying an Exception Argument would justify the very thing that is prohibited: same-gender sex!
Thus, the strange inconsistency.
Yes, there is a strange inconsistency. But it seems to me that the inconsistency is not in the argument but in the conclusions which those arguing wish to draw from it.
Divorce and remarriage has become generally acceptable even in socially conservative circles in western countries. So, to meet their congregations' expectations, the leaders even of conservative churches have often stretched Craig's "Exception Argument" to the extent that divorced people are remarried almost as a matter of course, and continue to play a full part in church life.
However, homosexual behaviour is still looked down on as unacceptable deviance by socially conservative people in the West, often for reasons not really connected to any religious beliefs. So their church leaders tend to meet the culturally based expectations of their congregations by taking a hard line against homosexuality, not allowing any kind of "Exception Argument" in this case, with the result that homosexuals are alienated from the church.
As Craig suggests, a consistent approach here requires both a less permissive attitude to remarriage and a more permissive one to homosexuality. But of course the analogy with remarriage must be to a long-term committed and formalised "monogamous" homosexual relationship. Unconstrained homosexual practise must be treated like heterosexual promiscuity: the church should declare consistently that both are unacceptable.
I suspect that here in the Church of England the rules on remarriage after divorce are less permissive than they are in some American denominations. At least in my own diocese remarriage requires a bishop's special permission, and the bishop needs to be satisfied that the relationship between the prospective couple did not cause the breakup of a previous marriage. This is a proper application of the "Exception Argument". Stricter rules apply to clergy, and rightly so. There are I think no bishops in the Church of England who are remarried after divorce; there is one in the Church of Wales, but another Church of Wales bishop has just been forced to resign over allegations, which he has denied, linking the breakdown of his marriage with a rumoured relationship between him and his (female) chaplain.
I would not be unhappy if the Anglican Communion were to move, with general agreement, to a situation where (at least in some provinces) formalised homosexual partnerships (civil partnerships and gay "marriages") were treated in the same way as remarriage after divorce, "not as a positive good, but on the basis of an Exception Argument". Thus clergy might be allowed to perform or bless gay weddings under certain carefully defined circumstances.
But individual provinces or dioceses should not go it alone in such matters. And there should be proper safeguards for clergy and congregations who do not accept these practices.
We should also remember that the Bible expects higher standards of those in church leadership. Thus it might well be right to restrict people both in homosexual partnerships and in remarriages from some areas of Christian ministry, such as being bishops. The details of course need further consideration – and will doubtless cause huge controversy if any proposal like this is ever put forward within the Anglican Communion.
To quote Craig again (his emphasis) with my complete agreement:
To me the teaching of Jesus is a radical call to repentance and commitment and faithfulness. The making and keeping of commitments is a part of our spiritual formation. Accepting ourselves as beings created in the image of God entails a desire to seek God's will and purpose in all things — including the expressions of my sexuality.
This is not so much a Natural Law / common-sense good as a call to commitment and obedience and discipleship. We are called to seek God's will in all things.
This entry was posted in Anglican Churches, Bishops, Sexuality and Marriage by Peter Kirk. Bookmark the permalink.
52 thoughts on "Is there a moral difference between homosexual practice and remarriage after divorce?"
Glenn on April 29, 2008 at 1:11 pm said:
The main error here is the assumption that heterosexual marriage and gay partnerships are comparable; they are not. Nor will they ever be.
Pingback: Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Tuesday Highlights
Pingback: Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: edition 15v2
Peter Kirk on April 29, 2008 at 3:30 pm said:
Glenn, I make no such assumption. Jesus says that remarriage after divorce is not "heterosexual marriage" but adultery. So I am equating two things which are both morally wrong, but one of which Jesus explicitly allowed "because of your hardness of heart".
Simon Boyle on April 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm said:
Having read the above, I feel the views made are very liberal, I make this statement with the utmost respect. I have always understood that homosexuality was not exceptable under any circumstance, Romans 1 verses 26-32.
But that re-marriage was? Am I being to hard line, I have a few non-christian friends who are homosexual, so please do not take this as homopobia.
I have always based this belief on the quoted verse, have I taken it out of context. Please advise.
Simon, I quite understand your position, and indeed I am very close to it myself. I want to clarify that I am calling committed homosexual partnerships "the lesser of two evils", just as divorce and remarriage is. They are "the lesser of two evils" precisely because unconstrained homosexual promiscuity is very evil, as Paul writes to the Romans, just as is unconstrained heterosexual promiscuity.
Tim on April 29, 2008 at 5:39 pm said:
Peter, as the parent of a lovely lesbian daughter I want to thank you for raising this issue.
I find myself in a cleft stick on this matter. On the one hand, I have done a lot of study of the relevant biblical texts and I have not been able to shake the conclusion that the traditional interpretation of them is still the right one. Arguments from natural law also seem to point to the conclusion that homosexuality is a deviation and not part of God's creation intent.
However, what do we say to people who testify that (a) they have never felt anything other than same-sex attraction, (b) they have struggled with this, perhaps keeping it secret for years, praying desperately to be released from it, and, in some cases, gone for counselling with the hope of being 'delivered', but have gotten nowhere, and (c) have now found someone of their own gender who they love and are ready to commit themselves to in a permanent, monogamous union?
What's the gospel for people like that? And I don't want any easy answers like 'pray and you will be delivered'. Sorry, but I know far too many gay people who've prayed for decades and haven't been delivered.
For myself, I continue to believe that same-sex attraction is part of the brokenness of a fallen world, and that some things won't be healed until the world is remade. But I find this precious little comfort when I am trying to counsel people like my daughter.
Doug Chaplin on April 29, 2008 at 8:38 pm said:
Peter, thank you for returning to this topic in a way that tries to get out of the normal knee-jerk arguments.
Rhea on April 29, 2008 at 10:16 pm said:
I find this post interesting….I had never really thought of "homosexual marriage" as a sort of "lesser of two evils"…and I'm still not 100% sure I agree with your thinking, but it's definitely interesting, and a new way to look at the issue…one that I don't think has been raised before.
I've been pondering myself, and also reading on other blogs recently about the issue of divorce and remarriage after divorce. I certainly see this as a huge problem within the church…for whatever reason, the church universal has, for the most part, decided that divorce and remarriage among Christians is okay. We have permitted now for so long, I question how we can ever stop it.
Do you have any personal thoughts/views on how and why the western church has allowed divorce and remarriage to be acceptable?
Peter Kirk on April 30, 2008 at 12:38 am said:
Good question, Rhea. I don't think I have an answer. But I think we should bear in mind that we have gone back to the situation which God allowed through Moses, if only because of human hardness of heart – see Mark 10:1-12. Human hearts are mostly as hard now as they were in Moses' and Jesus' time, so the same special measures or Exception Arguments are needed. So I don't actually support any attempts to stop divorce and remarriage, either by legislation or by church discipline.
Ellen on April 30, 2008 at 3:34 am said:
There is one huge difference. God gave Israel a writ of divorce and sent her away (God is divorced). On the other hand, we have no Biblical evidence that God is gay.
John Meunier on April 30, 2008 at 5:24 am said:
Peter, a thoughtful post.
Craig's blog is very interesting. It's worth spending time checking out some of the other things he has written.
Sue on April 30, 2008 at 6:25 am said:
So God is remarried – to the church.
But God is also gay. After all, the relationship between God and Christ is parallel to the relationship between man and wife.
I am privileged to live beside a wonderful Lesbian couple who have been good friends and an encouragement to me this year. They are simply kind and loving people. One of them is the sister of Catriona LeMay Doan. What a wonderful person she is with the same ready humour as her sister.
Sue, either God is gay or she is female! But then wouldn't that make her and the church a lesbian couple? 😉
But, seriously, there is no sex in heaven, Matthew 22:30, and probably no gender with any significance. Talk of God being divorced and remarried is only a limited metaphor for a truth beyond our full comprehension.
I think we can safely say God is a man, but then if God is a man he cant be (a) God. hummmm. If there is no sex in heaven (Matthew 22:30) that would mean that gender was pointless. But that is a different subject. Gods marriage to the church does not involve sex, therefore gender is again not an issue.
If you are married to your work there is again no sex, so marriage is a word used to discribe a bond of trust and commitment between two parties, with the marriage of a man and women, or same gender there is sex involved. Reference to Peter's subject matter, I feel the issue is not the bond between two people which takes the form of a marriage, it is the sex within that partnership that is the issue. Remarriage therefore (not taking into account,adultery) is a sin from one teaching, whilst same gender sex is a different sin from a different teaching. So for me they are two different subjects and should be looked upon as non-comparable. Would you agree or disagree with my simification?
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » I do NOT applaud divorce and remarriage
Simon, I don't quite get your point. Are you alluding to the two natures of Christ in the first part? But I agree that the marriage of Christ and the church is metaphorical like that of a man to his work.
To me as to Jesus and Paul, sexual activity outside a monogamous heterosexual marriage (not remarriage) is a sin, and it is the same sin whether homosexual or heterosexual. There is perhaps an additional sin in remarriage in that it is a breach of the original marriage vows.
But God has grace to cover situations where there is no alternative to these sins. Paul teaches that it is better to marry than to burn with passion (1 Corinthians 7:9). Now it would be too much to apply that verse to remarriage or to homosexual "marriage", but the principle remains that human attempts to remain pure often lead to uncontrollable burning passion, which is a worse sin than a less than ideal marriage.
Ellen on April 30, 2008 at 8:13 pm said:
Sue, you're the one on record as saying that 1) God is gay.
Craig L. Adams on April 30, 2008 at 9:00 pm said:
Thanks for mentioning me, Peter. There's a link from the post you cite at my blog to this post now.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Remarriage, homosexual "marriage", and burning passion
Craig, thanks for the link.
Sue on April 30, 2008 at 11:29 pm said:
Yes, that was me. Poor sense of humour, right?
I prefer to think of God as my Shepherd. "He shall gather the lambs in his arms and gently lead the nursing ewes," was my first memorized scripture verse. I also learned about God as L'Eternel and le Bon Berger so I have a particularly ungendered notion of God. I think we really don't know when to let metaphor be metaphor. Baaaaaaaaaa.
Simon Boyle on May 1, 2008 at 12:19 am said:
As a personal preference when I refer to a sexual relationship outside of marriage, be it through remarriage or adultary (one and the same really), I think of a heterosexual relationship, to include a homosexual relationship in to the equation distracts from the main issue. To use an example to explain what I mean, it would be the same as discussing killing. If a man is a murderer he has commited a sin, in this discussion it as if we are discussing two different murderers, but one of them committed thief before hand. Homosexual remarriage or adultery is a non issue to me personally, as the initial sin of homsexuality has taken place. If you do not commit the sin of homosexuality, then there is no possibility of commiting adultery through remarriage of having another relationship outside of the marriage. By including homosexuality in the remarriage debate, it is as if it is being condoned.
I understand your main point is the way remarriage after divorce is looked upon in a very relaxed manner, unlike same gender relationships which are still viewed as a definate no go. But I think the two subjects should be kept seperate for fear blurring the lines of definition and compounding the complexity of the remarriage issue, which you and others have outlined with the "exceptional circumstances" which allow for divorce and remarriage. Where as there is no "Exceptional circumstances" for same gender relationships.
I am in total agreement with everything you have said, I think the main difference is the subject, i.e. comparing the morality of same gender relationships and marriage after divorce, to me they are two very seperate issues and therefore non-comparable due to one having to take place (same gender) before the issue of remarriage comes into the picture.
I am waffling now so I will shut up, but hopefully I have comminicated what I mean.
P.s great blog site, love the topics for discussion and the thoughts offered, makes me consider my own opinion on the subjects in question, which is probably apparent by what I write LOL
Tim on May 1, 2008 at 11:08 am said:
Simon, please note that 'homosexuality' is not a sin. That would be like saying that 'alcoholism' is a sin. It isn't; drunkenness is. The traditional position is that homosexual behaviour is a sin; homosexual orientation in and of itself is a very complex matter and even now, after years of research, we still don't really know what causes it. But whatever your views on the morality of homosexual activity, homosexual orientation is simply part of the raw material of life for some people; it's what they do with it that counts.
And of course Christians currently disagree with each other about that!
Peter Kirk on May 1, 2008 at 11:17 am said:
Simon, if you hold that remarriage and homosexual activity are "two very seperate issues and therefore non-comparable", you are not "in total agreement with everything [I] have said". For the main point of my post is to link and compare these two issues. You are entitled to your views, but they are quite different from mine.
Simon Boyle on May 1, 2008 at 8:47 pm said:
In Response to Tim. Hi Tim.
To be an alcholic, you must have been drunk.
To be homosexual you must have had homosexual sex, How do I know I like chocolate , easy I ate chocolate and liked it. There must be millions of people who have had homosexual thoughts and wondered "Am I homosexual" no is the answer, or at least not until you have had a homosexual or heterosexual relationship and then you will know what your orientation is.
While this is a very simple black and white view point and I have taken a very complex issue and compressed it into a couple of lines. The difference between Same gender sex and alcoholism is that Alcholism is an addiction , the same as smoking, cocaine etc. And I have experenced the issues of drink earlier in my life and understand the need for alchol and cigarettes, they are not a disease, just an addiction something we become dependant on to make it through the day.
Homosexuality is something I have a little experience of, and I offer the following with great humility as I am not a scholar. We are the result of our experiences and chooses and how we react to both. As a very young child something of a sexual nature accurred between myself and an older boy, I was probably about five years old at the time, I know this happened on a more than one occasion. So thinking logically my first encounter with sex, was of a homosexual nature, but I am not homosexual or homophobic. The memory is shoved to the back of my mind and never recalled in any detail, I understand it was not my fault and I was to young to understand or comprehend what was happening. But I could have accepted this as the norm, taken the memories and run with them, putting myself in a homosexual mind set. Now not everyone who is homosexual has experienced the same as I did, but I believe that something, no matter how small creates a mind set at a very early age leading to homosexualism (is it ism).
Please feel free to rip these comments to sheds if you disagree, as it is only by hearing the thoughts of others that we can question our our preceptions.
P.s this is the first time I ever mentioned this, so ssssshhhh dont tell anyone, but also don't pussy foot around just because I have put something personal.
pps Sorry my posts are always so long Peter
Peter Kirk on May 1, 2008 at 10:46 pm said:
Simon, thanks for continuing to comment. But surely someone can know they are heterosexual by orientation without having heterosexual intercourse. Normal heterosexual men are sexually aroused by women in certain circumstances, but never by men – and I know this is true even of men who have never had any kind of sex. I presume that men with a homosexual orientation are similarly sometimes sexually aroused by men, but not by women. So the heterosexual can know that he is that, and the homosexual that he has that orientation, without actually having a relationship or any kind of sexual activity with another person. Presumably the same is true of women.
Yes, I guess that is different from an addiction.
I think you are right that homosexual orientation is often a result of childhood experiences. But that doesn't make it any less real. Just because your experience didn't make you gay, it doesn't mean that other people's different experiences didn't genuinely affect their sexual orientation.
The experiences are what I believe can turn someone away from a heterosexual orientation, be it a bad experience with a girl, lack of females influence when a child, or lack of male influence. It certainly does make it any less real. As childen I feel we are a blank canvass and every word or act has an affect on the orientation and outlook of that child as they develop. Not having been around fifty years ago, I an presuming homosexuality was no where near as prevalent as it is today. I know it was illegal then, but nowadays, Gays rights and sit coms with gay charactors etc are awash in society. Everywhere you look, gay culture is openly flaunted. and childhood experience is a possible basis for the development of same gender feelings, surely this will only escalate the issue.
Reference to Tim's point that that homosexuality is not a sin, but the practice of it is. Is there not reference to the thought being the same as the act. not knowing the verse I will refer to the commandment, thou hall not covert thy neighbours wife, to offer example of what i am refering to.
Tim on May 3, 2008 at 6:39 am said:
I don't understand the complex psychological factors that lead to a person having a homosexual orientation. I certainly don't think they can be summed up in two paragraphs. And I'd be interested to hear from gay and lesbian people about this. To me there's something a little patronising about heterosexuals discussing the causes of homosexuality ad infinitum.
The point I was making by saying that 'homosexuality' in and of itself is not a sin is simply this. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you are forced to conclude that a person with a homosexual orientation is living in a constant state of sin. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that.
you wrote" a person with a homosexual orientation is living in a constant state of sin. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that"
That is a fair point and one I need to contemplate. It would help to have the views of someone with same gender orientation to see their understanding and their experiences and thoughts.
Tim, I agree with you. But I wish that the lesbian and gay community would not live in denial of the evidence that sexual orientation is largely a matter of environmental factors. Of course I can understand their caution about suggestions that homosexuality is a kind of mental illness. Nevertheless it is clearly a matter for investigation by psychologists – if not by psychiatrists who might claim to offer a "cure" for something which is not recognised as an illness.
Tim on May 3, 2008 at 4:46 pm said:
evidence that sexual orientation is largely a matter of environmental factors
I'd be very interested to see such purported evidence. I don't deny that environmental factors sometimes play a role. But if they were 'largely' responsible, then surely I would have four gay children, not just one, since we brought them all up in the same way.
Interestingly, my friends in the gay and lesbian community charge the evangelical world with the opposite offence – living in denial of what they see as the overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is coded into us at birth.
These opposing 'certainties' would seem to be evidence that the great prophet Paul Simon was right – 'A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'!
Peter Kirk on May 3, 2008 at 5:48 pm said:
Tim, thanks for asking. I know Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source on such matters, but surprisingly there is no dispute about its article on homosexuality, which includes the following:
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."[81] The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". It also stated that for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[82] The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."[83]
The degree to which sexual orientation is determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises fears about genetic profiling and prenatal testing.[84] …
Researchers have found childhood gender nonconformity to be the largest predictor of homosexuality in adulthood.[125] Daryl Bem's Exotic Becomes Erotic theory theorizes that some children will prefer activities that are typical of the other sex and that this will make a gender-conforming child feel different from opposite-sex children, while gender-nonconforming children will feel different from children of their own sex, which may evoke physiological arousal when the child is near members of the sex which it considers as being "different", which will later be transformed into sexual arousal. Researchers have suggested that this nonconformity may be a result of genetics, prenatal hormones, personality, parental care or other environmental factors[citation needed]. Peter Bearman showed that males with a female twin are twice as likely to report same-sex attractions. He theorizes that parents of opposite-sex twins are more likely to give them unisex treatment, leading to less masculine influence on the males. Having an older brother decreases the rate of homosexuality. Bearman explains that an older brother establishes gendersocializing mechanisms for the younger brother to follow, which allows him to compensate for unisex treatment.[123]
From their research on 275 men in the Taiwanese military, Shu and Lung concluded that "paternal protection and maternal care were determined to be the main vulnerability factors in the development of homosexual males." Key factors in the development of homosexuals were "paternal attachment, introversion, and neurotic characteristics."[126] Other researchers have also provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men.[127] Whether this phenomenon is a cause of homosexuality, or whether parents behave this way in response to gender-variant traits in a child, is unclear.[128][129] …
Malleability of homosexuality
The American Psychiatric Association has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime."
In other words, there are good reasons to think that environment and upbringing is a significant factor, but there is not enough evidence to be dogmatic either way. It would of course be wrong to suggest that any particular person became homosexual because of some fault in their upbringing.
~J on May 12, 2008 at 10:18 pm said:
Interesting post, brother.
I though that I would share my own thoughts and convictions about these matters.
I believe that it is all a matter of the heart.
One thing that I have continued to learn from Jesus is that, if we are not careful, we can easily become like the Pharisees who would judge everything not only by the letter of the law (with an absence of the Spirit of the law), but also develop our own applications of the law which were never intended by God.
The old testament law worked to point out 'sins', which were merely manifestations of 'sinfulness'.
Trying to fix 'sins' does not work. They can only be piled up and lived with (and died with) or washed away by faith in the person and saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Divorce is always the result of some kind of sinful activity. It is always a matter of someone, somehow 'missing the mark'.
Remarriage after divorce is also a matter and result of missing the mark.
However, the bill of divorcement was designed, because of hard hardheartedness, to allow re-marriage. It was basically a document stating that a woman had been released from her former marriage (because of 'uncleanness') and now was allowed to re-marry someone else.
Jesus said that from the beginning it was not so, that a man and a wife, joined together by God should not be divided by man (not "could not"), and that whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. He also said that whoever marries a woman who is put away causes her to commit adultery.
Does this mean that God allowed adultery under the law of moses?
I don't believe so.
I think what Jesus is saying in these texts is this:
"Many of you people are putting away your wives so that you can marry someone else. You have already committed adultery in your own hearts. You are already guilty.
Furthermore, you make her to look like a fornicator, and she will be called one. Not only that, but when another man takes your former wife to marry her, He will be known as an adulterer as well because he will be married to a woman whose spouse still lives".
I believe he was pointing out the sinful condition of their hearts, a condition which leads to a multiplication of painful repercussions.
Jesus, Himself, does not directly address the issue of homosexuality in any of the four gospels, but there is enough written in the old and new testaments that it is not something which was "in the beginning".
I believe that it is also a heart matter, an 'inordinate affection', or a 'lust of the flesh' which is brought about by temptation from the evil one.
What many of us miss is that the cross of Jesus Christ was not only the marking point of transition from old covenant to new, but it is also the power of God unto salvation (or deliverance).
We can be cleansed from the 'acts' of sins by the power which is in the blood of Christ, but our sinful 'selves' is dealt with by the application of the cross in our lives.
It is the sinful 'self' which causes one to divorce in order to re-marry, just as it is the sinful 'self' which causes one to engage in any form of sexual perversion.
Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds, however, we do not sin so that grace might abound. God forbid!
We cannot 'hustle' God.
However,the blood of Christ deals with the divorce and even the remarriage, just as it deals with all of the former sins of homosexuality, but it is as we continue to draw near to the cross of Christ and to apprehend, by His faith, that we, also, were crucified with Christ, we also discover deliverance from our 'old man', and the lusts thereof and begin to live in New Life as a new,redeemed,creation.
Please know that I submit this in a spirit of kindness and humility.
Grace to you all.
Jeremy Pierce on May 13, 2008 at 10:08 pm said:
This wasn't really addressed in the comments, but there is one thing that many people find different about adulterous remarriage a gay marriage. The sexual relationship in the first case is morally wrong, but it's not intrinsically immoral. It's immoral because of a prior commitment to another living person, one that has been immorally broken in engaging in this new relationship. But most people who think homosexual relationships are bad do not think it's so for such external reasons. It's intrinsically wrong to be in such a relationship. So it doesn't automatically follow that everything you say about one has to be said about the other. It's possible that there are many analogous points, but I wouldn't assume everything is parallel.
Peter Kirk on May 13, 2008 at 10:28 pm said:
Jeremy, I understand your point. But I am not in fact convinced that in God's eyes there is such a difference, between two things which are both wrong. God is not bound by the categories of our theories of ethics.
I note also that heterosexual relationships are considered wrong outside marriage even if there is no prior commitment to another living person. So, I would suggest, the consistent way of looking at the situation is that all sexual activity is wrong except within a marriage as appointed by God – which implies monogamous and heterosexual. This gives a consistent ethical framework within which adultery, fornication and homosexual activity have the same status, extra-marital sex. I realise however that this begs questions about what defines a marriage.
~J on May 14, 2008 at 9:32 pm said:
"What defines a marriage?"
Although I don't claim to fully understand it,I believe that a true marriage is a:
1)spiritual reality
A joining together of the masculine and feminine (male and female), the positive and negative…, a picture of Christ and the Church.
which is also…
2)legally stated.
In vows and promise, both spoken and written before God and family/community.
..and…
3)expressed and celebrated in a physical way.
Consummated in love making, and lived out in commitment.
Essentially, it is a covenant which involves the whole both persons involved; spirit, soul and body.
Peter Kirk on May 14, 2008 at 9:50 pm said:
~J, thanks for the summary. But issues arise of course when some but not all of these factors are present. And these offer real dilemmas. For example, I know of a couple whose marriage was registered by the state but they never went through with the church ceremony and never consummated it. Were they married in the sight of God? Were their subsequent marriages adulterous? Or what about couples who live together without any formal ceremony, who are accepted as married by English common law? If one becomes a Christian and leaves the partner, can they marry someone else? There are minefields here which have to be crossed by couples and their pastors considering what might be remarriages. I'm glad I'm not in that minefield.
You raise significant points, ones which have been considered for many, many years.
Over all, I believe that God looks upon the heart, and not the 'legality' of the matter.
I believe that He is that way with everything.
Adultery is far more than having sex with someone else's spouse, or marrying more than once.
Adultery, like any other sin, is a heart issue.
If we even lust after a married woman, it proves that something is wrong with our hearts. It proves that, indeed, the love of God is not truly shed abroad in our hearts by the holy ghost.
Some would try to say that 'lusting' in our hearts is merely "temptation", but that is not true. It starts as a temptation, but we entertain it and it becomes lust.
The penalty for it (adultery), according to the law of Moses, was death,not separation from the 'illegitimate' spouse(which is what some church groups would have people to believe).
Jesus said that it was grounds for divorce.
In other words, adultery has the potential to 'put asunder' what God has joined, and this is fleshed out with a divorce certificate and words spoken in the community.
Whatever the case, the law has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
On the cross, a death has occurred on the behalf of all mankind which replaces the death which we, all of us, ourselves, deserve.
Our righteousness and justification is not determined by our 'legal position', but rather it is determined by our faith in Christ which dictates, in Spirit and Truth, the condition of our hearts.
It is through the person of Jesus Christ, and His faithfulness, and by His Spirit, which causes our hearts to change.
The heart leads to the deeds.
Genuine heart repentance is what is needed for all of us, and this leads into transformation, causing us to, by His Spirit, fulfill what the law has always pointed to:
True love.
True love is not sexually perverted, and neither is it anxiously ill content.
Love works no ill towards it's neighbor, etc….
Christ in US, the hope of glory.
Sorry for the lengthy ramble, but it is what is on my heart.
Thank you for your virtual hospitality.
Peace be with you in Christ Jesus our Lord.
~J
Good thoughts, ~J. Thanks.
PamBG on May 17, 2008 at 4:58 pm said:
I think that a married person having a sexual/emotional relationship with someone other than their spouse is responsible for a great deal of unhappiness and hurt for a number of people. Same goes for their adulterous partner.
Jesus' injunction about 'lusting in one's heart' was meant to emphasise the seriousness of a wayward heart. But I think it often gets used to cheapen the seriousness of marital infidelity. Morally and ethically speaking, I still maintain that it's an outrageous insult to betrayed spouses and children everywhere to compare homosexual lifetime fidelity with marital infidelity.
Pam, I take your point that there is great hurt involved in many adulterous relationships. But by biblical standards a relationship can still be adulterous even when the previous marriage has come to an effective end years before and the (former) spouse is not hurt by it at all. But it is still wrong, at least less than ideal, in God's sight. It would be a situation like that which is most comparable with a homosexual relationship.
cadz on June 13, 2008 at 10:25 pm said:
A good study about repenting from adulterous remarriages can be found here.
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html
http://www.marriagdivorce.com
~J on June 20, 2008 at 2:23 am said:
Here is a better study:
http://divorcehope.com/godhatesdivorce.htm
cindy on June 20, 2008 at 4:54 am said:
Excellent, biblically based websites!
~J on June 20, 2008 at 2:13 pm said:
Can anyone show me one new testament verse of scripture which commands any "adulterous" marriage to be broken in the name of "repentance"?
Peter Kirk on June 20, 2008 at 6:48 pm said:
Please, I don't want to turn this into a forum for discussion of "adulterous" marriages, which is off the main topic of this post.
~J on June 21, 2008 at 12:05 am said:
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Gene Robinson's Gay Rite
Jonell on July 10, 2012 at 8:36 pm said:
I think to debate that commited homosexual relationships is the lesser of two evils when comparing against homosexual prominscuity is a waste of time. Sin is sin. I think Homsexuality is actually more obvious and less convoluded then the debate in the churches regarding treachourous divorces/remarriages~ but it is still sin. Jesus did not come to call the righteous or to bend to evil hearts, but to call sinners to repentance and to eternity in Heaven with the Father. Our Heavenly Father never changes. We do not get to Heaven by works or being a good person, we get to Heaven by turning our hearts to Christ and following his commands. I think it sad the church isn't lovingly pointing how nothing on this earth is worth missing out on Heaven! Christ died for us while we are still sinners; why can't we die to ourselves and live fully for Him in holiness!
Peter Kirk on July 10, 2012 at 10:06 pm said:
Jonell, thank you for your comment. At the moment I do not want to reopen debate on this old post.
Christmas Village For Sale
@JohnPiper, your hope is God, not the Bible
The Evangelical Alliance rejects Oasis, and me?
RIP John Richardson, The Ugley Vicar
How Jesus Destroyed the Devil's Work
Peter Kirk on Augustine's mistake about original sin
Peter Kirk on Is the Smith Wigglesworth revival prophecy genuine?
Peter Kirk on "Children of wrath" and a puzzle over Calvinism
FrB on Augustine's mistake about original sin
Randy Churchill on "Children of wrath" and a puzzle over Calvinism
"Dominionism"
Anglican Churches
Christology and the Trinity
Eschatology and Afterlife
Evolution and Creation
Gender and Leadership
Rowan Williams (Canterbury)
Science and Philosophy
Sexuality and Marriage
Steve Chalke
Theological Issues


Address: The Mall, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 1710011 India.
Address: Chaura Maidan Road, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171004 India.
Address: Shimla Kufri Highway, Chharabra, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171012 India.
Address: Raj Bhawan Road, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171002 India.
Address: Near Bishop Cotton School Khallini, Shimla 171002, India.
Address: Village Sadhora Mashobra-Naldera Road P.O. Baldian, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171001 India.
Address: Near Tourism Lift, The Mall, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171001 India.
Address: Nahan Road, Gandhigram, Solan, Himachal Pradesh 173229 India.
Address: Kufri Hills, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171012 India.
Address: Post Office Munda Ghat, Via Kanda Ghat, Kufri Chail Road, Shilon Bagh, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171012 India.
Address: Sadhora, Baldeyan, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171012 India.
Address: Shimla Reserve Forest Sanctuary, National Highway 22, Kufri, Himachal Pradesh 171012 India.
Address: Elysium Hill, Near Longwood, Longwood, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171001 India.
Address: Naldehra, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171007 India.
During your stay in Shimla , Swan Tours could assist you with choosing the right hotels in Shimla , Shimla offers variety of accommodation for all budget groups, We have negotiated discounted rates for Luxury hotels and resorts in Shimla , Budget hotels in Shimla , Cottages and Chalets .
MASHOBRA: (2,149 m) the destination is famous for the most luxurious Oberoi Wildflower Resort, The apple orchards and thick oak and pine forests.
CRAIGNANO: (3 km) this spot has delightful flower-filled garden.
KUFRI: (16 km) Situated at an altitude of 2,622 meters, it is a noted venue for summer and winter sports. A sparkling winter sports festival is held here each year in February.
FAGU: (22 km) Situated at an altitude of 2,509 meters, it is a vantage point with panoramic views of the ranges and valleys. Fagu has a rest house and a tourist bungalow overlooking the Gir Valley.
NALDEIIRA:(23 km) Site for scenic beauty, nine hole golf ground - with its springy turf crown of Deodar it was laid out at the instance of the Viceroy, Lord Curzon.
SOLAN: (48 km) it is located in an agricultural area where a variety of vegetables and mashrooms are grown. Solan has a number or picturesque spots ideal for walks and picnics. Solan is also known for its famous brewery which was set up in 1835. KAROL TIBBA and METEOL are pretty spots while KOTLA NALLAH with its stream, the SAPROON SPRING and the HAPPY VALLEY are delightful locations for rambles. MAREOG, GAURA and KARKANU on the Giri River, all within a 20 km radius are excellent for a spot of angling. BAROG, 5 km from Solan, was an important stop on the railway line in the early part of the century. The hill train halted for an hour here, while the travelers indulged in a lavish lunch. HPTDC runs a Tourist Bungalow at Solan and Hotel Pinewood at Barog.
TATTAPANI: (52 km) a place of hot sulphur springs, it is noted for their invigorating and curative effects.
NARKANDA: (64 km) Situated at an altitude of 2,707 meters, this place is a famous skiing resort. It has a choice of slopes ranging from a beginner run and slalom slop, to sharper descents for the experience skiers.
KASAULI: (73 km) located 1927 m above sea level-forest of pines, oak and the crisp mountain air are incentives for picnics here. Monkey point, the highest point offers a panorama of green hills, the distant plains and the Sutlej river tracing a silvery trail through the scene. SANWAR - 5.6 km is famous for its public school. SABATHO 28 km from Kasauli is situated at an altitude of an 1,437 meters. It has an old Gurkha fort built in the early 19th century.
HATKOI: (104 km) Situated at an altitude of 1,100 meters, this place is noted for its historic temple dedicated to Goddess Durga. About 11 km beyond hatkoi is ROHRU on the Pabbar River, an excellent spot for angling and fishing pools. Enroute to Hatkoi — KOTKHAI is a village located among apple orchards and fine traditional architecture. JUBBAL, once the capital of a princely State has a impressive palace.
RAMPUR: (140 km) Rampur was once the capital of the princely State of Bushair and a major centre on the old trade route into Tibet. The scenic village of Saharan with its fascinating Bhimkali temple is on this road beyond Rampur.
NAHAN: (142 km) a historic town pleasantly located on a ridge of the Shivalik hills, has an outlook ever green forests and valleys with the Churdhat Peak. This little town with a salubrious climate has gardens, temples and three popular walking circuits—the Villa round, Military round and the Hospital round. Nahan's royal affiliation and the remains of old capital, Sirmuri Tal, are to be seen in the sculptures that have been preserved at Circuit House.
SAKETI: 14 km from Nahan is Shivalik Fossil Park, a site where huge 85 million years old fiberglass models of prehistoric animals are placed.
RENUKA: 45 km from Nahan has a temple dedicated to the immortal Renuka and her son Parsurama and a tiny wildlife sanctuary. According to the legend, sage Jamadagni, incensed with his wife Renuka for her wrong demeanor, had ordered his son Parsurama to cut off her head. The obedient son obeyed his father and the sage, pleased with his son's compliance, grated him a boon. Parsurama requested his father to use his spiritual powers and restore life to his slain mother and also to ensure her immortality. Around the lake is a wildlife sanctuary, home of a variety of birds, deer, jungle fowl and black peasants. Facilities are available for boating at the lake.
PAONTA SAHIB: (142 km) A town where Guru Gohind Singh wrote a major part of the DassamGranth. The story goes that the place acquired its name after the Guru had lost an ornament known as Paonta worn on the foot and thus came into existence an important place of pilgrimage for the Sikhs. It is said that the Yamuna flows without a ripple here because the guru calmed its turbulent water. There are also temples dedicated to Lord Rama and Lord Krishna.
CHAIL: (170 km) Chail was once the summer resort of the Maharaja of Patiala. Located on a wooded spur, Chail (2150 m) overlooks the Sutlej Valley. The palace of Maharaja built in the late 19th century is now a holiday resort. Chail has fine tennis and squash courts. There are excellent sports along the Gaura River with opportunities for anglers to tangle with Himalayan mahaseer. Chail has also the highest cricket ground in the world — 2250 m. above sea level.
KUFRI: A long and enjoyable drive through lush forests and quaint villages takes one to small but thoroughly popular hill station of Kufri. Its main attractions are the nature park and the exciting trek that leads to the divine Mahasu peak. Several trek routes lead out of Chail up to the Choor peak to Shimla. During winters, skiing is possible at Narkanda. The Giri River at Gaura, 29 km away, is ideal for fishing — buffs.
KINNUR: (200 km) District of Kinnaur, where the icy waters of the Sutlej river and its tributaries have carved deep gorges through the high ranges, the landscape varies from the lush green orchards of picturesque Sangla Valley to the stark magnificence of the Hangrang valley. Kinnur Kailash peak — revered by the Kinnauris as the abode of Lord Shiva is located within massive snow-clad mountain ranges. Kinnur is linked by road to Shimla. Buses, jeeps and taxis are available from Shimla and Rampur.
If traveling during the high season, it is advisable to reserve hotels in Shimla in advance. The luxury hotels and resorts in Shimla include The Wildflower Hall, The Cecil Oberoi, Radisson, and The Chalets Naldehra. For more information contact Swan Tours – one of the leading travel agents in Delhi, India.
Amongst the hill stations in north India, Shimla is the most popular. Shimla is the capital city and the nerve centre of Himachal Pradesh. The city attracts a vast number of tourists every year owing to its moderate climate in the summers and cold snowy weather in the winters, The Himalayan ranges overlooking the city add to its breathtaking beauty.
Shimla is a large city set in the hills and has a number of places of tourist interest. The tourism activity in the state revolves around this city and Shimla is a part of every itinerary in the Himachal tourist circuit. This magnificent city of Shimla has several buildings from the British colonial era, Shimla is well connected by road and rail and has a airport with good connectivity from Chandigarh, Delhi and Mumbai .The most popular choice of travel is whereby guest reaches early morning using the Kalka Mail or a little late by Shatabdi till Kalka and continues the journey on meter gauge toy train till Shimla.
The main sightseeing spots in Shimla are:- Jakhoo Hill, The Ridge, Shimla State Museum, Summer Hill, Drangapati Sanctuar, Indian Institute of Advanced studies, Annadale, Naldhera Golf Course, Chandwick falls and excursions to Chail, Kufri and Tattapani.
There are more than 100 classified or approved hotels in Shimla and can be categorized as budget, deluxe, luxury and heritage hotels. WoodVille Palace is one of the finest heritage hotels in Shimla to stay during your visit and offers luxurious rooms and suites set in an old colonial splendour. The Oberoi Cecil Shimla, one of the 5 star hotels in Shimla, offers the best in luxury accommodation with a choice of different categories along with great indoor and outdoor activities that could be organized by the activity manager of the resort. Radisson Jass Shimla is one of finest Shimla hotels with excellent modern facilities and great valley views from the hotel premises. Wildflower Hall, Mashobra offers a unique spa experience; the resort is 45 minutes away from Shimla and is the most luxurious hotel in Himachal. If your location choice in Shimla is Mall Road then there is no match to The Clarks Hotel, Shimla which is managed by the Oberoi Hotels and Resorts, offers all modern luxuries, yet maintaining its heritage structure. Swan Tours has been promoting Hotels in Shimla and around for the last 2 decades and has a preferred list of Shimla Hotels available on discounted rates.


text:
Q: Create a flow vector NetCDF from X and Y velocity components I want to create a flow vector NetCDF data from two .tif raster, one representing X-velocity and another representing Y-velocity component. Both raster groups have identical spatial extent. I have converted each raster to NetCDF in ArcGIS and then merged it using NCO tool (ncecat). I had hoped I can symbolize the resulting NetCDF data as a vector, using arrows in QGIS but it is not recognized as a vector layer.
So, my question is how can I create a flow vector NetCDF data from two velocity components rasters (or from velocity magnitude and flow direction rasters) using NCO tools or Python? Is there any other way to do it beside these two?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Iraqi-Kurdish artist's work documents the legacy of conflict in his homeland
Ihave the great responsibility of representing a whole country with only two artworks," said Iraqi-Kurdish artist Serwan Baran about his exhibition Fatherland, currently running at the Venice Biennale. "But I trust that I am able to represent everyone who lives in Iraq, and I know I can touch every individual, from the youngest to the oldest, and describe the interior of each house that has suffered a loss."
Born in Baghdad in 1968, much of Baran's life has been stained by war and conflict. Having served as a soldier in the Iran-Iraq War and a war artist in the First Gulf War, his work has long expressed the horrors of conflict and the lasting impact it has on the soldiers that fight them. For Fatherland, commissioned by the Ruya Foundation, Baran created two artworks: The Last Meal, a large-scale acrylic painting, and a clay sculpture entitled The Last General.
Serwan Baran
The Last Meal depicts soldiers who are killed while having a meal. The painting's aerial perspective allows the viewer to absorb the entire scene at once, as if they're flying above it. Curled in foetal position, the soldiers look like silkworms, Baran said, labouring away to produce silk for their masters. For him, the painting is a reflection of the sectarian violence that has swept across much of the Middle East since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"When Ruya Foundation chose me to represent Iraq, I began looking for a subject that would top everything," he said. "I was very interested in doing work on the war, but through something that carries ideological and religious aspects with it, in addition to the traditional wars that we've experienced."
Placed on the ground in front of The Last Meal is The Last General, a clay sculpture that features a general's corpse in a boat. Inspired by the ancient Sumerian civilisation that buried their deceased by sending them out to sea on a reed boat, the piece tells the story of a high-ranking army general who drowns while trying to escape. The body appears partially decomposed, while his army decorations remain visible.
The Last Meal
Fatherland is an extension of Baran's past work, although it tackles the subject of war in Iraq and the Middle East differently. At the beginning of his career, Baran, who studied under the Syrian-German painter Marwan, used to paint victories on the frontline and the heroes that fought them. His portraits of Saddam Hussein and army generals emphasised their strength – exposing their insecurity would have ended Baran's career and perhaps more. "It was propaganda," he said. "I painted in a realistic way that did not match our reality as soldiers."
After 2003, the tone in his artwork changed. He began expressing his own military experience through grotesque, figural abstractions. Considered a member of the new generation of Iraqi painters, preceded by Iraq's revered artists such as Jawad Saleem, Faiq Hassan and Ismail Fatah Al Turk, Baran's artwork now sheds light on defeat and the psychological consequences of fighting in battle.
"The Middle East has not had peace for a long time," he said. "I decided to work with themes of war and setbacks, prisoners and the dead, red rooms of torture and death sentences. I know very well that these subjects are difficult to market and that they are not for decorative art collections, living rooms or palaces, because they carry too much drama, but I couldn't let this dictate my approach."
A common figure in Baran's artwork, in addition to the disfigured soldier, is the canine – together, they are the linchpins of his creations, or the "vocabulary of his work". Used to intimidate detainees in Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison after 2003, dogs became a symbol of cruelty and the power of the US forces for the artist.
In Baran's paintings, the animal is often illustrated mid-aggression, with its ribs highlighted and its teeth showing. There are a few instances though, where the dog appears softer, even lifeless. Though a direct reference to 2003, the canine, like most of the images in Baran's work, reflects multiple meanings.
"At times I propose the hero as the victim, and at other times, I introduce the victim as the hero," he said. "I researched the mythology of the dog, and found that it was once the keeper of graves and the carrier of souls into the afterlife. At different times, it was a dog with two heads that carried bodies into the other world. The dog took over a large space in my mind and work, as a new element of war."
For Baran, concept always comes before technique and composition. While at times his work can be simplified and reduced, it can also be dense with details.
"Researching the concept is the most important element for me and it has to lead to satisfactory results," he said. "The harshness in my work satisfies my desire as an artist before all."
This was originally published in Architectural Digest Middle East in October 2019.
Gender discrimination prevalent in Middle East architecture firms, study finds
Casablanca's Villa Z reflects Morocco's changing social and cultural identity


text:
Tag: Christian-Muslim dialogue
New philosophical and theological foundations for Christian-Muslim dialogue
June 11, 2019, Report on 2019 May 27-29 »New philosophical and theological foundations for Christian-Muslim dialogue«
Dear esteemed memebers of our class world religions!
As report from our symposium in Portoroz »New philosophical and theological foundations for Christian-Muslim dialogue« I send to you some notes form me and a wonderful summary of our new member Lenart Skof who organized this meeting together with me. Thanks to him for the wonderful cooperation.
It was a great meeting with quite different approaches to the theme. I believe it's a cornerstone meeting for building up a common home for all of us. Especially I was glad to see so concrete the two different and complementary vision for a cooperation of the religions for peace and development: The comparative and systematic (dogmatic) doorway and the more practical approach of fundamental theology with the theology of the people (teologia del pueblo) and political theology (teologia de la liberacion) which is direct connected to the social society level.
Both together – as mentioned in the lecture of comparative political theology – could be able to change the social societies an to strengthen the international peace building process against hate speech and terrorism. As I hope this cooperation will go on and bring as together as friends.
Yours Elmar Kuhn
Here´s the report of Lenart Škof
Between May 27-29 Hotels Bernardin in Portorož (Slovenia) have hosted an international conference titled »New philosophical and theological foundations for Christian-Muslim dialogue«. The conference has been jointly coorganized by Science and Research Centre Koper (Slovenia – as a main organizer), Iranian Association for Philosophy of Religion (Iran), Centre for Comparative Theology and Cultural Studies, University of Paderborn (Germany), European Academy of Sciences and Arts – World Religions Class, and Society for Comparative Religion (Slovenia), with the special financial support of Slovenian Research Agency and The Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The conference was held under the honorary patronage of the president of the Republic of Slovenia Borut Pahor. At the conference opening special addresses were given by H.E. the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Slovenia Kazem Shafei, Msgr Dr Jurij Bizjak (Bishop of Koper), Mag. Nevzet Porić (Secretary General of the Islamic Community in Slovenia), and Dr Gregor Lesjak, Director of the Office for Religious Communities of the Ministry of Culture of Republic of Slovenia.
The special importance of this conference is in close cooperation between Christian philosophers of religion and theologicans (Catholic and Protestant) and Iranian Shi'a philosophers and theologians. At this event, we wanted to explore new ways in which philosophical and comparative theological theories can foster Christian-Muslim understanding. Among the main questions, addressed at the confernece, were the following: Can Christian and Muslim theologies as equal partners in conversaton, and as comparative theologies, help us foster better intercultural and interreligious understanding? What are best philosophical models and theories of dialogue for framing the theological conversation between European Christians on one hand and Iranian and other Middle Eastern Muslims on the other? How can contemporary theories from both Christian and Muslim background help us shaping new paths of a »friendly co-traveling« in our paths, as one of the conference participans beautifully emphasized.
Prof Dr Lenart Škof, conference director
EASA Class World Religions
hp | 2019
Mostly Unseen Problems in the Christian-Muslim Interreligious Dialogue
Psychotherapy has been deeply influenced by the ideal of dialogue outlined by the physicist David Bohm. The aim: to overcome prejudices and destructive misinformation. By freeing the mind from socio-cultural accretions, a free space can be created in which something new can happen.
This ideal can, however, be hard to live up to since intercultural dialogue has throughout history always been characterized by the dominant power structures of that time.
Even as late as 2002, when the famous interreligious Alexandria Declaration was formulated one of the Egyptian participants did not dare to sign. If I sign this today, I will be a dead man tomorrow. This the son of one of the other participants told me only last week.
Dialogue naturally creates a bond between two parties. When they are talking about a third party, they will tend to create a distance in relation to that missing party.
Thus, Christians and Muslims in dialogue naturally tend see the Jews in antagonistic terms.
Dialogue between Christians and Jews tends to isolate and scapegoat the Muslims in like manner.
And dialogue between Jews and Muslims tends to scapegoat Christians.
My research into the history of the Middle East has shown up this tendency up again and again.
All too often the dialogue partners are barely aware of this automatism.
Thus, there is a risk of them agreeing that they have a problem with the missing third party.
Because of the natural tendency of dialogue partners to develop loyalty to one another, there are not so many people keeping up contacts with both sides of a crucial issue.
Mostly we find persons who are well known for their contribution to Christian-Muslim dialogue or Christian-Jewish dialogue or Muslim-Jewish dialogue.
At the time of Reconquista when the Jews were driven out of Spain along with Muslims, they were welcomed by Muslims in Egypt and in the area of today's Turkey. The Christians were the enemy.
When the new State of Israel was founded there were rather close relations between Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. Israel was the enemy.
And in today's West there is all too often a Jewish-Christian bond in which the Muslims are the enemies.
One famous example of the exclusion of one partner from dialogue is the letter "One Common Word", written by the Jordanian Prince Ghazi about the most important word in the Bible: love. The letter was adressed to the Pope and high Christian leaders. It completely excluded the Jewish Rabbis, even though the one common word originates in the Jewish Bible.
But let me go back to my first statement:
Throughout history any interreligious dialogue has always been characterized by the dominant power structures of the time.
As long as the Jews were dominant in the first and second century CE, Jews would occasionally complain to the Roman authorities about Christians. As a result, Christians were in danger of persecution – a very early cause for antisemitism.
When the Christians became dominant during the rule of the Emperor Constantine, the Christians not only removed the traditional Roman temples in Jerusalem, they also showed their dominance over Judaism by demonstratively leaving the area of the former Temple of the Jews in ruins – they even used it as a garbage dump. Had Constantine's mother Helena cherished the Temple as the Apostles had, she would have built a memorial there – and that would have made a considerable difference for the Caliph Omar, when he conquered Jerusalem, and for the entire Muslim world up until today.
In 614 CE, when Persian troops under Jewish influence conquered the Holy Land and took it from the Byzantines, they removed Christians from all positions of power and destroyed many churches. After a couple of years, the Persians became aware of the problem and reinstated the Christians in their former roles.
Another feature of dialogue came into play when the Muslims became the dominant power. They had a famous rule of tolerance: indigenous non-Muslim populations had to submit to Muslim dominance. They had to sign a treaty, the so-called "dhimma". Once subdued, they had a right to be protected by Sharia-law. And then there was no problem in dialogue.
As long as they respected their subordinate role as dhimmis they could live in peace and thus there was [mostly] interreligious peace throughout the time and the area of Muslim rule.
Jews and Christians could live in peace with each other and with the Muslims. They could even take very high positions in the state.
The end of the Ottoman empire after WWI brought about fundamental changes in the power structure. That change was aggravated with the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. As soon as the Jews had their own state, they naturally refused to be regarded as dhimmis – while the Christians in their minority position in the Middle East tended to continue to live as they were accustomed to: as dhimmis.
But the Jews refused and from that moment on they were regarded as enemies of Islam.
Today this is hardly ever talked about anywhere.
Today, in any talk about politics a strict dogma must be upheld: religion has no role in politics. This is the effect of today's power structure.
Thus, the Middle East conflict is seen as a purely political conflict. Consequently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen in purely territorial terms.
The rationale behind this is the idea that, as soon as the factor of religion is included, the conflict becomes insoluble.
This rule has its merits, because religion has indeed caused much trouble in politics.
Yet, some features of the conflict will remain inexplicable and inextricable as long as religious motives are tabooed.
As long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is explained as a purely territorial conflict the question remains, why then has it not been solved long ago – like all of the major territorial changes following WWI and WWII.
Today, nobody is talking seriously about foreign colonization of German territories in the East or colonization of Greek territories in today's Turkey or of the German speaking region of South Tyrol. So, why are people speaking of Israel colonizing Palestinian territory?
In my view, the Muslim complaint against the Jews is not so much related to the fact that the Jews have taken territory from the Palestinians (as I just said, after WWI and WWII much territory has been taken from other people with little complaint), it is related far more to the fact that the Jews refused to subordinate themselves under the rule of the leading culture of the Middle East, and were thus regarded as an enemy of its people – by the people of Gaza, for instance, even after the Israelis had ended their occupation.
The Christians on the other hand are in many ways still acting as dhimmis and thus are forming an alliance with the Muslims – against the State of Israel – because the Jews are refusing to subordinate themselves.
Christians did not protest when in 1949 Jerusalem came to be a part of the Kingdom of Jordan. They rather protested when Israel conquered Jerusalem in 1967 – even though the Israeli government actively guaranteed freedom of access to all religious sanctuaries – which the Jordanian government had not guaranteed before.
So, in Christian-Muslim dialogue the old dhimmi rule still matters, and it is creating alliances and declaring the third party to be the enemy. That I have felt over and over again in my talks with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land.
Since dialogue is the subject of this conference, I chose these special aspects to be my subject.
But now, please see this new book of mine:
"100 Years of Middle East Conflict – Honorable Peace. How Can Lasting peace be Secured between the Muslim World and Israel"
The entire book is a book about interreligious dialogue, laid out in its consequences for the reality of the life of people in Israel and Palestine – always keeping in mind that there are three parties to what is a trialogue.
If people want their lives to be normal, they will need an Honorable Peace! They will need what you will find in this book.


text:
Q: Evento onBlur con Jquery no funciona correctamente Buenas noches amigos vengo a ustedes con una pregunta tal vez un poco extraña.
Tengo un formulario Ajax.BeginForm con dos campos, un campo de correo electrónico y uno de password. Con un script manejo los eventos de esos campos y del form. Tengo el evento onBlur del campo de email pero no funciona correctamente ya que el campo debe tener el foco dos veces para poder ejecutar el evento onBlur. Revise mi codigo y aun no encuentro el error. Agradeceria sus comentarios amigos y gracias.
@using (Ajax.BeginForm("Login", "Account", OpcionesAjax, new { @class = "login-form", role = "form" }))
{
    @Html.AntiForgeryToken()
    @Html.Hidden("returnUrl", (string)ViewBag.returnUrl)
    @*@Html.TextBox("direccion", (string)ViewBag.returnUrl , htmlAttributes: new { id = "UrlReturn", @class = "hidden"})*@
    @Html.ValidationSummary(true, "", new { @class = "text-danger" })

        <button class="close" data-close="alert" type="button"></button>
        Introduzca un Usuario y Password.

            @Html.ValidationMessageFor(m => m.Email, "", new { @class = "text-danger" })

                    @Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.Email, new { id = "Email", @class = "form-control", required = true, autocomplete = "off" })
                    Usuario

            @Html.ValidationMessageFor(m => m.Password, "", new { @class = "text-danger" })

                    @Html.PasswordFor(m => m.Password, new { id="Password", @class = "form-control", required = true, autocomplete = "off" })
                    Password

            @Html.ValidationMessageFor(m => m.RolesUser, "", new { @class = "text-danger" })

                    @Html.DropDownList("RoleId", null, htmlAttributes: new { id = "UserRol", @class = "form-control btn btn-default dropdown-toggle", required = true, autocomplete = "off" })
                    Elija su Rol

            <button type="submit" class="btn green btn-signin pull-right" id="btnLogin" value="Account" name="toolbox" disabled>Entrar</button>

 }

Este es mi script
$("#Email").blur(function () {

    var usuario = $('#Email').val();
    var password = $('#Password').val();
    var returnUrl = $('#UrlReturn').val();

    if (usuario != null) {
        $('#divContainerRoles').addClass("hidden");

        var Persona = {
            Email: usuario,
            Password: password,
            ListaRoles: "",
            RememberMe: false,
            RolesUser: [],
            RoleId: ""
        };

        var dataRoles = [];
        var succes = false;
        //var urlbaselog = "~/Account/";

        $.ajax({
            type: "POST",
            url: urlbaselog + "ListRolesForUser/",
            data: { Email: usuario, Password: password, returnUrl: returnUrl },
            datatype: "json",
            async: false,
            success: function (data) {
                dataRoles = data;
            }
        });

        var listRoles = document.getElementById("UserRol");

        if (dataRoles.length == 0 || dataRoles.length == null) {
            App.unblockUI(".login-transition");
            alertToastr('danger', 'El Usuario ingresado no esta registrado en el Sistema', '');
            return;

        } else if (dataRoles.length == 1) {
            for (i = (listRoles.length - 1) ; i >= 0; i--) {
                aBorrar = listRoles.options[i];
                aBorrar.parentNode.removeChild(aBorrar);
            }

            for (var x = 0; x < dataRoles.length; x++) {
                var option = document.createElement("option");
                option.value = dataRoles[x].Id;
                option.text = dataRoles[x].RoleName;
                listRoles.add(option);
            }
            App.unblockUI(".login-transition");
            $("#btnLogin").removeAttr("disabled");

        } else if (dataRoles.length >= 2) {

            for (i = (listRoles.length - 1) ; i >= 0; i--) {
                aBorrar = listRoles.options[i];
                aBorrar.parentNode.removeChild(aBorrar);
            }

            for (var x = 0; x < dataRoles.length; x++) {
                var option = document.createElement("option");
                option.value = dataRoles[x].Id;
                option.text = dataRoles[x].RoleName;
                listRoles.add(option);
            }

            App.unblockUI(".login-transition");
            $('#btnLogin').removeAttr("disabled");
            $('#divContainerRoles').removeClass("hidden");
            alertToastr('success', 'Seleccione el Usuario para Iniciar Sesión', '', 10000);
        }
    } else {
        return;
    }
});

Solo por aclarar, el problema esta con el evento onBlur, el elemento Mail debe tener el foco dos veces para ejecutarse, lo cual es incorrecto.


Celtic 3-0 Heart of Midlothian.
Steven, thank you. A routine win for Celtic, another pitiful defeat for Rangers.
HEARTS fans have been caught on camera attacking a Celtic supporters bus, throwing missiles and generally acting like idiots.
OLIVIER NTCHAM had to go off at halftime in the Celtic versus Hearts game on Sunday due to injury.
The SPFL have provided this map below to help fans get to Murrayfield tomorrow.
Full-time reaction from Murrayfield where Celtic secured our place in a 5th domestic cup final in a row with a resounding 0-3 victory over Aberdeen.
Celtic's two wins in four days over Hearts and Dundee have put them both in the League Cup semi-final and within touching distance of the league leaders.
Twitter reaction from Murrayfield where Celtic secured our place in a 5th domestic cup final in a row with a resounding 0-3 victory over Aberdeen.
CHRIS SUTTON has given his prediction for the Bet Fred League Cup Semi-Final and the BT Sports pundit believes Celtic will just edge it in extra time.
DEDRYCK BOYATA has seen the funny side of an incident involving Celtic teammate Eboue Kouassi during Celtic's 3-0 win over Hearts on Sunday.
Reaction from tonight's emphatic 0-5 victory for Celtic at Dens Park.


text:
Gus est un film américain réalisé par Vincent McEveety en 1976 sur un scénario d'Arthur Alsberg, produit par Walt Disney Productions. Basé sur un concept comique du dessinateur humoristique Ted Key, il met en scène un mulet dans une équipe de la National Football League.

Synopsis

La piètre équipe de football américain de la California Atoms, membre de la National Football League, recrute un nouveau coéquipier bien peu ordinaire, en la personne de Gus, un mulet capable d'envoyer le ballon, d'un bout à l'autre du terrain...

Fiche technique
 Titre original et français : Gus
 Réalisation : Vincent McEveety, Arthur J. Vitarelli (seconde équipe)
 Assistant second réalisateur : Pat Kehoe, Bud Grace
 Scénario : Arthur Alsberg, Don Nelson d'après une histoire de Ted Key
 Direction artistique : John B. Mansbridge, Al Roelofs
 Décorateur : Frank R. McKelvy
 Matte painting : Peter S. Ellenshaw
 Image : Frank Phillips
 Musique : Robert F. Brunner, Walter Sheets (orchestration)
 Son : Herb Taylor (supervision), Frank Regula (mixage)
 Effets spéciaux : Eustace Lycett, Art Cruickshank, Danny Lee, Hans Metz
 Costumes : Chuck Keehne, Emily Sundby
 Maquillage : Robert J. Schiffer,
 Coiffure : La Rue Matheron
 Dresseur animalier : Robert Davenport
 Cascade : Buddy Joe Hooker (coordination), Denny Arnold, May Boss, KenDel Conte, Allan Graf
 Montage : Robert Stafford (image), Evelyn Kennedy (musique), George Fredrick (son)
 Conseiller technique : Les Josephson
Électricité : Carl Boles (chef électricien),
 Producteur : Ron Miller, Ronald R. Grow (assistant), Christopher Hibler (associé)
 Société de production : Walt Disney Productions
 Pays d'origine :
 Langue : Anglais
 Genre : Comédie
 Durée : 97 minutes  ()
 Dates de sortie :
  :
  :
Sauf mention contraire, les informations proviennent des sources concordantes suivantes : Leonard Maltin, Mark Arnold et IMDb

Distribution

 Edward Asner : Hank Cooper
 Don Knotts : Coach Venner
 Gary Grimes : Andy Petrovic
 Tim Conway : Crankcase
 Liberty Williams : Debbie Kovac
 Dick Van Patten : Cal Wilson
 Ronnie Schell : Joe Barnsdale
 Bob Crane : Pepper
 Johnny Unitas : Lui-même
 Dick Butkus : Rob Cargil
 Harold Gould : Charles Gwynn
 Tom Bosley : Spinner
 Títos Vandís : Papa Petrovic
 Hanna Hertelendy : Mama Petrovic
 Liam Dunn :  Morgan
 Virginia O'Brien : Reporter
 Kenneth Tobey : assistant directeur
 Irwin Charone : maître d'hôtel
 Timothy Brown : Calvin Barnes
 Jackson Bostwick : Stjepan Petrovic
 John Orchard : Capitaine de Pemberton
 Richard Kiel : l'homme grand
 Larry Slate : fan au LAX
 Larry McCormick : journaliste à New York
 Larry Burrell : annonceur des vestiaires
 Danny Wells : arbitre
 James Almanzar : entraîneur Garcia
 Milton Frome : Lukom
 Iris Adrian : femme du fan
 Bryan O'Byrne : responsable de l'épicerie
 Jack Manning : maire
 James Brown : entraîneur des mammouths
 Warde Donovan : boucher
 Jeanne Bates : infirmière
 Dick Enberg : annonceur des Atoms
 George Putnam : journaliste télé intervieweur
 Stu Nahan : journaliste de Los Angeles
 Ken Del Conte : kicker Kick O'brien
 Fred Dryer : joueur des Atoms
 Peter Paul Eastman : homme à l'aéroport
 Bowman Upchurch : homme aux jumelles dans la tribune de presse

Sauf mention contraire, les informations proviennent des sources concordantes suivantes : Leonard Maltin, Mark Arnold et IMDb

Voix québécoises
 Vincent Davy : Hank Cooper
 Marcel Cabay : Spinner
 Luc Durand : Crankcase
 Jean-Louis Roux : Charles Gwynn
 André Montmorency : Andy Petrovic
 Patrick Peuvion : Cal Wilson
 Jean-Marie Moncelet : Lui-même
 Jean Fontaine : Pepper
 Ronald France : Joe Barnsdale
 Jean-Louis Millette : Coach Venner
 Victor Désy : Rob Cargil

Sorties cinéma
Sauf mention contraire, les informations suivantes sont issues de l'Internet Movie Database.
 États-Unis :
 France :
 Allemagne de l'Ouest :
 Japon :
 Finlande :
 Autriche :
 Brésil : 1977
 Australie :
 Uruguay :  (Montevideo)

Origine et Production

Le concept du scénario a été fourni par le dessinateur humoristique Ted Key, crédité de deux autres films Disney,  La Cane aux œufs d'or (1971) et Le Chat qui vient de l'espace (1978), apparaissant même dans le premier. La réalisation du film a été confiée à Vincent McEveety, l'un des réalisateurs de comédies Disney après le départ à la retraite de Robert Stevenson. McEveety retrouve avec ce film un style similaire à L'Homme le plus fort du monde (1975).

Le film a été réalisé en association avec la National Football League et certaines actions sur le terrain sont issues de vidéos d'archives des Green Bay Packers et autres équipes, parfois de nouvelles prises de vues. Une partie de ses séquences de jeux ont été tournées au Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum et au Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena (détruit en 2016 et remplacé par le Banc of California Stadium). D'autres scènes ont été tournée sur un terrain provisoire installé sur le parking des Walt Disney Studios Burbank. De vrais joueurs de football américain et journalistes sportifs ont participé au film comme Johnny Unitas, Dick Enberg, Stu Nahan, Dick Butkus et George Putnam. Le producteur (et gendre de Walt Disney) Ron Miller avait fait partie de l'équipe des Rams de Los Angeles. Les pulls de l'équipe ont été réutilisés dans le film Une nuit folle, folle (1979).

C'est la seconde apparition du tandem Tim Conway et Don Knotts, cette fois-ci dans le même camp.

C'est l'une des dernières appariations cinématographiques de l'acteur Bob Crane, célèbre pour son rôle dans la série Papa Schultz (1965-1971) avant son assassinat en 1978.

Sortie et accueil

Le film réalisé un résultat honorable au box-office avec 22 millions d'USD de recettes.

L'acteur Tim Conway est critique vis-à-vis du film et a dit . Pour Mark Arnold, le film est réjouissant mais typique des comédies Disney du milieu des années 1970.

Le film a été diffusée à plusieurs reprises dans les émissions d'anthologie Disney The Wonderful World of Disney en septembre 1977, 1979 et 1982.

Notes et références

Liens externes

Film américain sorti en 1976
Comédie américaine
Film de Walt Disney Pictures
Film sur le football américain

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Nathalie Makoma (Kinshasa, 24 de fevereiro de 1982) é uma cantora neerlando-congolesa. Antigamente ela fazia parte de um grupo musical familiar chamado Makoma. Ela iniciou carreira solo em 2003.

Discografia

Álbuns
2003: On Faith
Faixas:
Time Is a Healer
Rhythm of Your Love
On Faith
Fools Dust
Talk With God
Listen to Your Heart
You
Rolling to the Top
Out of the Darkness
Time Has Come
My Love Is True
I Can See The Light
Wanna Let You Know (faixa bônus)

2004: On Faith (versão Faixa Bônus)
Faixas:
Time is a Healer
Rhythm of Your Love
On Faith
Fools Dust
Talk With God
Listen to Your Heart
You
Rolling to the Top
Out of the Darkness
Time Has Come
My Love is True
I Can See the Light
Wanna Let You Know
Tala Ndenge (The Prayer)
Talk With God (ao vivo - versão gospel)
Talk With God (ao vivo - reprise da versão gospel)

2004: I'm Glad I'm Alive (CD - Ao Vivo)
Faixas:
I'm Glad I'm Alive
I'm Glad I'm Alive (Versão A)
To Be the One

2005: I Saw the Light
Faixas:
I'm Glad I'm Alive
You've Got A Friend
Looking At Myself
My Way
Lover Be Thy Name
There Will Be A Light
I Understand
Stay
Love You In My Life
To Be The One
I'll Be There
I Will Bless You
Amazing Grace

2005: My Sweet Lord (creditado como Makoma feat. Nathalie Makoma)
Faixas:
Baby Come
My Sweet Lord
My Love Is True
I'm So Excited
Sweeter (remix)
Let Me Be Your Sunshine
All I Need Is Your Love
Someday I Know
Promise You Made
Yo Zali
When the Angels Come
Bana
Baby Come
Gospel Medley

Singles
2009: "I Won't Forget" (alcançou a 12ª posição no Dutch Top 40)
2010: "I Just Wanna Dance"

Ligações externas

Cantores da República Democrática do Congo
Cantores dos Países Baixos
Naturais de Quinxassa