Hal.

God the Anarchist ! That may be a little difficult to get the parish priest to agree to .

Can only a wise man recognise the wise or otherwise actions of the man or does any oul fool also possess these qualities ? Edit , slight wording rearrangement .

Slightly higher resolution , direct link , for the previous image . http://upload.wikime...stEnthroned.jpg

Here is a disadvantage to varying timezones that would be solved in the use of one time zone . I lived in a foreign country for a few years and every day while there , I always calculated the time back in my country by applying a small math calculation , every time I read the clock . I was living in two time zones simultaneously , where in one of them I thought it was getting late and in the other I still had an hour to get to that way of thinking . Seven times a week and the cumulative effect was the equivalent of missing a nights sleep .

A person sees a man and woman arguing and from experience has seen some women taking a punch . It's all in a foreign language to him but body language is telling him it is a potentially dangerous situation . Does he step in to try to calm the situation or stay well away ? If he does step in , would his wisdom or lack of it be judged on events yet to happen ? , while , if he doesn't step in , the same question would apply . So , wisdom may sometimes only be decided upon as an afterthought as it's identification with forethought is quite difficult .

The principal that agreement would exist is there in groups . It's trying to merge those groups that is the barrier to my ' one time ' view . It's too early in the thread for me to conclude that it is not a good idea .

So , the way I'm trying to understand this is that the later explanation of the Trinity caused a grammatical paradox or two in the previous wording of the Bible if someone was to look for them .

Ophiolite , I could handle a system like this , in a simple world , doing simple things , living quite simply and without insanity , quite happily progressing along . The time in Paris and Johannesburg is not very different throughout the year , if at all . So , in principal the French and the South Africans would have very few problems agreeing to the same time .

Brainteaserfan , Does your bible ( Acts 7:56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Mark 16:19 etc ) , say , " So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God " , or does it say , " So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God the Father " ? The point I'm making is , Jesus can't sit at the right hand of God if he is God . But he can sit at the right hand of God the Father .

Johannesburg , right now , has the same time as Paris . Johannesburg is in winter and Paris is in summer . The length of day and night varies a lot in these 2 cities but it probably doesn't matter .

Give us all an idea of the budget for this . $ 1 000 000 ?

I just thought this could be how the Greenwich , England clock would be set . All the world would have the same time as this clock . It's the general principle of whether 1 time is a good or bad thing for the world ? So , Would the world be better off with only 1 time on the clock and we could all then just adjust to the circumstances ?

Hopefully we won't have a huge misunderstanding here . When markearthling said , ' he supposedly sits on the right hand of god ' , this reads a bit weird as Jesus Christ is God and also the Holy Ghost is God . That's why I put the wiki link for TRINITY . I'm no theologian , Brainteaserfan , if your bible says what it says , follow it .

There you are , sitting in Greenwich , England , mid summers day , on the zero longitude line , sun appears exactly south , set the clock to read midday .

Well , I suppose , if the worldwide clock had to have a time on it , it could be set at midday when the sun is south on the line of longitude going through Greenwich on mid summers day .

Would the world be better off with only 1 time on the clock and we could all then just adjust to the circumstances ?

I had a look at the old image of Jesus and I think there is no crown . You see his hairstyle with a few Celtic style curls ! I think that the cross above his head is not part of a crown , it is background decoration . Maybe , the people in this image had to be shown to be dressed well because nobody would be converted to any belief that was associated with a bunch of scruffy looking hippies . And if the idea of the Trinity was unknown to any , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity , so saying Jesus sat at the right hand of god is inaccurate . The trinity is that there is God the son , God the father and God the holy ghost , 1 god , 3 parts .

I was quite young in 1984 but did see the olympics then . I thought the actual flying done was a hollywood trick like the A-Team .

Maybe , there were restrictions on information available to the public and as more is made widely available , somebody with enough money to burn will take that idea and make a very modern toy .

800 years is a long time for misinformation to spread. If it's an accurate picture, why does he have a crown when he was poor? Same thing with his clothes, it looks like an expensive robe, not something a carpenter's son would wear. Why were there no images from the time he was alive? If he was a person who walked around and healed cripplings or raising people from the dead, why didn't officials take any note of him whatsoever? The picture is the image that was portrayed of Jesus in writings of 800 A.D. . I agree that it is a lottery as to whether Jesus looked like this or not . This was the then current image that Christians used as an illustration of Jesus in spreading their word . I think that the religious orders who made the image wanted to make an excellent piece of literature for the time and this was only one part to a book of writings . http://en.wikipedia....i/Book_of_Kells Take a piece of paper and draw a picture . Do you think that will last 800 years ? At some time somebody may take the original and make a copy to represent it which is an approximation of the original . Possibly , with the image of Jesus , an approximation of an approximation a few times over and slight changes to a story with exaggerations for effect and there is what you see . I disagree with your conclusion then. If christianity spread all the way to Ireland (which is a LONG way from the Middle East) in 400 years, imagine how much might have happened to it in twice that time. Do you think Christianity was not in Ireland in 430 A.D. because of the distance involved and the time taken to travel it ? Ireland was on the fringes of the Roman empire . They ruled part of Britain and did not come to Ireland in great numbers with only possible minor landings that are still being speculated upon . Romans travelled to Britain and their was knowledge of Ireland's existence . Trade existed between Ireland and the middle east by sea . The actual person who spread christianity into Ireland is a welsh slave .

There are not a lot of extant images of Jesus Christ . The image above is one of the oldest of him in the western world . This image is independent of anything that has followed in 1200 years , meaning it contains no influences after the year of approximately 800 A.D. . It is an independent bridge to the past and a small snippet of evidence . In the history of time 800 years after Christ is not a lot of it . Christianity spread into Ireland in approximately 430 A.D. .

A 1200 year old Irish illustration of Jesus . This image is allowed to be publicly shown .

The following supposed independent links are given so that those who follow may cross reference the meaning of some of the terms mentioned . The human eye , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye The Macula Centre , http://www.maculacen...com/macular.cfm Anatomy of the Eye , http://www.larsoneye...-of-the-eye.htm Optics for beginners , http://thierry.bauda...l/doc/index.htm The human eye as a detector , http://www.astro.vir.../human-eye.html

I could draw a technical drawing by a set of rules which people call a standard and this technical drawing would be interchangeable in all systems that use the same standard . When 2 systems use different standards these drawings are no longer understood by the different systems . Each system can move along perfectly happy at their own thing and using their own meanings for terms that may have the same name . One system is correct in it's use of a term by it's rules whereas another system is correct in it's use of the same term by it's different rules . I have a theory . Don't confuse a theory with a theory or you may theorise inconsistently .

Thanks Bee ! It would be easy if I used social drugs . It could be blamed on that . But , I don't , so I'll see what conclusion myself and the professionals arrive at soon .