Culture & Education | Homepage Signs Of Heaven » Blog Archive » Woman of Revelation 12 & The Narrow Way Stars “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matthew 7:13-14 That world -shaking allegory, Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan, picked up th e theme of the Narrow Gate. The hero of the story was Christian, a man who was warned to flee from the City of Destruction (the world), and to embark on a journey to the Heavenly City. But God has also given this same Narrow Way parable in the night heavens! So please come along on this journey and find out just why this pathway graces the night heavens, and perhaps you might find yourself embarking on your own pilgrimage up that very same Narrow pathway. Pilgrim’s Progress Enters The Wicket Gate-Wikipedia public domain This most amazing phenomenon is seen throughout the winter. the width of the Wide Gate (see sketch below left). human. Isaiah 35:8
The Birth of a Nation The Birth of a Nation (originally called The Clansman) is a 1915 American silent drama film directed by D. W. Griffith and based on the novel and play The Clansman, both by Thomas Dixon, Jr. Griffith co-wrote the screenplay (with Frank E. Woods), and co-produced the film (with Harry Aitken). It was released on February 8, 1915. Despite the film's controversial content, Griffith's innovative film techniques make it one of the most important and influential films in the commercial film industry. Plot Part 1: Civil War America The film follows two juxtaposed families: the Northern Stonemans, consisting of the abolitionist Congressman Austin Stoneman, based on the Reconstruction-era Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, his two sons, and his daughter Elsie; and the Southern Camerons, a family including two daughters, Margaret and Flora, and three sons, most notably Ben. The Stoneman brothers visit the Camerons at their South Carolina estate, representing the Old South. Cast
Figure of speech A figure of speech is the use of a word or a phrase, which transcends its literal interpretation. It can be a special repetition, arrangement or omission of words with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it, as in idiom, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, personification, or synecdoche. Figures of speech often provide emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer from their use, as any figure of speech introduces an ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation. A figure of speech is sometimes called a rhetorical figure or a locution. Rhetoric originated as the study of the ways in which a source text can be transformed to suit the goals of the person reusing the material. The four fundamental operations The four fundamental operations, or categories of change, governing the formation of all figures of speech are: Examples Figures of speech come in many varieties.
Mithraism: Zoroastrian Gnosticism | The Dying God The theory, originally proposed by Franz Cumont, that Mithraism evolved from Persian Zoroastrianism, is now generally dismissed. However, the theory has not been carefully examined. A primitive version of the Mithraic mysteries certainly existed among them, as can be determined from circumstantial evidence, where they contributed heavily to the Greek traditions of Orphism, which not only later emerged as prominent themes in Mithraism, but of Hellenistic mysticism in general. While based on these earlier tradition, Mithraism nevertheless, modified during these times, to conform to these same Gnostic tendencies. The Magussaeans On all sides, the Persians were surrounded by nations that celebrated mysteries, by Egyptians to Isis and Osiris, the Syrians to Bel and Astarte, the Phrygians to Attis and Cybele, and the Greeks to Dionysus and Persephone. Daeva-Worship Essentially, the Magussaeans were daeva worshipping Magi who practiced mystery rites dedicated to Mithras. Mithras-Hercules Endnotes
Gossip Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about personal or private affairs of others. In British dialect, the word refers to a godparent. Among girls, the majority of gossip is not malicious, and it can serve as an important means of creating a sense of intimacy and learning about group norms. However, gossip can also hurt reputations and become a form of relational bullying. With the advent of the internet gossip is now widespread on an instant basis, from one place in the world to another what used to take a long time to filter through is now instant. The term is sometimes used to specifically refer to the spreading of dirt and misinformation, as (for example) through excited discussion of scandals. Some newspapers carry "gossip columns" which detail the social and personal lives of celebrities or of élite members of certain communities. Etymology The term originates from the bedroom at the time of childbirth. Functions Gossip can: Workplace gossip
Sophisme Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Un sophisme est une argumentation à la logique fallacieuse. C'est un raisonnement qui cherche à paraître rigoureux mais qui n'est en réalité pas valide au sens de la logique (quand bien même sa conclusion serait pourtant la « vraie »). À l'inverse du paralogisme, qui est une erreur dans un raisonnement, le sophisme est fallacieux : il est prononcé avec l'intention de tromper l'auditoire afin, par exemple, de prendre l'avantage dans une discussion. Souvent, les sophismes prennent l'apparence d'un syllogisme (qui repose sur des prémisses insuffisantes ou non-pertinentes ou qui procède par enthymème, etc.). Origines du mot[modifier | modifier le code] Le mot sophisme dérive du latin sŏphisma, lui-même issu du grec σόφισμα (sóphisma) : « habileté », « invention ingénieuse », « raisonnement trompeur ». Exemples[modifier | modifier le code] Dans l'emmental, il y a des trous. Plus il y a d'emmental, plus il y a de trous. Tout ce qui est rare est cher,
Myth, Legend, Folklore, Ghosts Apollo and the Greek Muses Updated July 2010 COMPREHENSIVE SITES ON MYTHOLOGY ***** The Encyclopedia Mythica - SEARCH - Areas - Image Gallery - Genealogy tables - Mythic Heroes Probert Encyclopaedia - Mythology Gods, Heroes, and MythDictionary of Mythology What is Myth? MESOPOTAMIAN MYTHOLOGYThe Assyro-Babylonian Mythology FAQ Sumerian Mythology FAQ Sumerian Mythology Sumerian Gods and Goddesses Sumerian Myths SUMERIAN RELIGION Mythology's Mythinglinks: the Tigris-Euphrates Region of the Ancient Near East Gods, Goddesses, Demons and Monsters of Mesopotamia The Assyro-Babylonian Mythology FAQ More info on Ancient Mesopotamia can be found on my Ancient River Valley Civilizations page. GREEK MYTHOLOGYOrigins of Greek MythologyGreek Mythology - MythWeb Greek-Gods.info (plus a fun QUIZ)Ancient Greek Religion Family Tree of Greek Mythology Greek Names vs. VARIOUS FAIRIES, ELVES, UNICORNS, MERMAIDS, & OTHER MYTHICAL TOPICS HERE BE DRAGONS!
A Bestiary of Future Literatures « Three Pound Brain With the collapse of mainstream literary fiction as a commercially viable genre in 2036 and its subsequent replacement with Algorithmic Sentimentalism, so-called ‘human literature’ became an entirely state and corporate funded activity. Freed from market considerations, writers could concentrate on accumulating the ingroup prestige required to secure so-called ‘non-reciprocal’ sponsors. In the wake of the new sciences, this precipitated an explosion of ‘genres,’ some self-consciously consolatory, others bent on exploring life in the wake of the so-called ‘Semantic Apocalypse,’ the scientific discrediting of meaning and morality that remains the most troubling consequence of the ongoing (and potentially never-ending) Information Enlightenment. Amar Stevens, in his seminal Muse: The Exorcism of the Human, famously declared this the age of ‘Post-semanticism,’ where, as he puts it, “writers write with the knowledge that they write nothing” (7). Like this: Like Loading...
Fallacy A fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". Formal fallacy Main article: Formal fallacy A formal fallacy is a common error of thinking that can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic. An argument that is formally fallacious is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure. The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Common examples Aristotle's Fallacies Aristotle was the first to systematize logical errors into a list. Whately's grouping of fallacies Intentional fallacies Deductive fallacy
Avesta The Avesta /əˈvɛstə/ is the primary collection of sacred texts of Zoroastrianism, and is composed in the Avestan language. History Early transmission The texts of the Avesta, also known as the Zend Avesta, — which are all in the Avestan language — were composed over the course of several hundred years. Young Avesta's area of composition comprised - at least - Sīstān/Arachosia, Herat, Merv and Bactria. It went through the following stages: The original language of the composers of grammatically correct YAv. texts; perhaps in Merv or Herat;Dialect influences as a result of the transfer of the Av. texts to Southeast Iran (Arachosia?) The various texts are thought to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form in the 3rd century[ambiguous]. Later redaction All texts known today derive from a single master copy, now lost but known as the "Sassanian archetype", most likely a product of the 3rd or 4th century. European scholarship
The Last Magic Show: A Blind Brain Theory of the Appearance of Consciousness « Three Pound Brain I may have misunderstood some things so please correct me where appropriate, but I’ll try to point out the problems I have with your theory (which is similar to problems I have with many other theories, including popular ones like Dennett’s and Hofstadter’s). First, I don’t think you’ve carefully disentangled the suitcase word of consciousness by at least distinguishing between awareness, self-awareness, and metacognition. From my reading you’ve lumped it all into a definition of consciousness that seems to equate only with some merged amalgamation of both self-awareness and metacognition, ignoring the fact that conscious awareness can occur without any self-reflection at all. This, I think, is a crucial issue because a lot of your theory rests on the fact that you frame consciousness to be the self-reflecting product of a recursive structure that has evolved only relatively recently through kludgy adaptive heuristics. Third, you write,