A Fabulous DIY Kitchen Project And Redesigning Plan, On A Shoestring Budget!
February 15, 2010 by Tucker
A DIY kitchen design and redecorating project might be ideal answer. You don’t need to be a highly trained carpenter or interior designer to try and do a kitchen makeover which is nothing short of striking. As soon as you properly set up your DIY kitchen layout and remodeling project, it is possible to break your kitchen makeover into a few chunks, done over a period of time. You won’t even have to take out a loan. Finally we’re talking.
It can be difficult to envision the look you desire. You’ve spent years in this kitchen and have absolutely grown accustomed to the usual look. A great starting point planning your kitchen remodeling and design is at the library. Page through the home decorating magazines. Look for issues that concentrate on kitchen designs. Additionally, there are magazines dedicated to the kitchen. Notice different arrangements, colour schemes and features, for example pantrys, islands, breakfast bars and lighting which you find alluring. Of course, you may not manage fit everything you want or like into your kitchen design, but these journals will provide all the food for contemplation you’ll need.
Pay a visit to your local Do it yourself center. These stores always have literature for any number of projects, such as creating special effects with paint or building a kitchen island, that are free. Check especially in the kitchen display section for a lot ideas. Carry a notebook in which you can write down the name or model number of items such as floor tiles, cabinet facings, appliance covers, flooring, lamps, sinks or faucets that strike your fancy. Go online also. With this preparatory work out of the way, you should contain a large portfolio of impressive plans. Take a peek at wallpaper choices.
I would reccommend an oil base paint, not latex. Latex chips easily, oil base is more durable.
I want a donut now.
RT Leftover soul food seems to always taste better second time around.
Get in that kitchen Trini!
RT I need some food.
Hey great stuff here. But i saw some awesome ideas on this other website called Platinodesign(Dot)Com. They have like loads of photographs and stuff
With the caveat that I don't know the details, this seems like a reasonable claim to me. Get a written statement from the other designer as evidence. If you have a written contract (and you should) make sure any of her responsibilities for delivery are spelled out as well.
It will probably be a partial refund, btw, as she did provide some services, just not results.
Chris,
Thanks for the nice comment about the Buffalo City Hall picture. I have received several requests to print posters. A local interior designer offered to take the jpg to his photographer buddy in California this week. He is going to produce some sample posters.
I will put up a post when they are available. Proceeds from the poster will go to a Buffalo not-for-profit organization that I will be promoting in the near future.
A self-trained carpenter renovates his 700-square-foot studio into the residence-cum-studio he always imagined.
Greetings,
Firstly, I would like to thank you Cowofdoom for your thoughts. I've been waiting for your reply for quite sometime. I am glad that you have finally kept your word in wanting to rebut my articles. Let us not delay further with formalities and get straight to the points made in your comment.
You said,
“To begin, you assert total monotheism, a belief I am not surprised you hold because of how it permeates Islamic belief. Allah is only god, no other god, etc. Christians do not differ with Muslims on this point. I believe God is one, but in three persons, which I will address after I comment on your article.”
Yes, I do assert absolute and total numerical monotheism or God's oneness(unitarian monotheism if you like). I do not believe CHristians agree with Muslims on this point. It is quite evident that Christians have an image of three distinct individuals that are called “persons” in the “Godhead”. Neither Muslim nor Jew blieve in any such concept. The Hindus also believe in One God. Learned Hindus will identify themselves as monotheists instead of polytheists as is the common perception. Their stance is basically that God is one namely, Brahma. However, this one God manifests Himself in numerous different forms. Nevertheless, it is still one God according to them. Basically, their ideology have much similarity with the CHristians'. The only real difference is that the Trinitarian Christian limits it to three whilst the Hindus provides no limit. Jews and Muslims are the only ancient movements that succinctly and strictly declare God's absolute oneness without any kind of plurality. This in a nutshell was the whole point of the article which you seem to have missed. Was Jesus a Jew? The answer to that question ought to be a yes according to your ow tradition. What is the common and everlasting concept of God Jews have had since the time of Moses? The answer was already discussed at length in the article. I feel disappointed that you conveniently ignored that when that is precisely th whole point.
You then said,
“There is a big problem with your article and how it is written. When debating topics like this you have to pick a point of authority and in this passage you picked the scribe. Jesus, the Son of God (or a prophet in your view), is not the authority based on how you’ve written this article. That is foolish. Jesus’ words are the authority here, not the words of the scribe. What Jesus says counts and the agreement of the scribe reflects on himself, not on Christ. The scribe answered wisely on Jesus’ terms, not the other way around.”
I do not think I favoured either scribe or teacher who was Jesus in the article. The purpose of the article was not to show who's superior or who's lesser in any shape or form. It was to show a common denominator between the two individuals, both scribe and teacher in their belief concerning God. The similitude cannot be missed or denied by any reasonable person. Nonetheless, I believe I did in a way show the authority of Jesus. The fact that I mentioned and placed emphasis on Jesus being addressed as teacher by the scribe totally refutes your claim that I had it the other way around. I spoke on how Jesus approved what the scribe said and substantiated it further with the Christian commentary at the end. At this point in time I must ask if you have actually truly read the article? It would seem as if you hav not.
You then said,
“Just to be a little nitpicky, but giving Jesus the title of “Rabbi” by translating the Greek to English and then equating the English with Hebrew is poor form. Proper translations start with the most relevant version closest to the time of occurrence. My Qur’an in English on my dresser is not the source I would start with if I wanted to translate the Qur’an into Spanish or Chinese. I would start with the Arabic version. Same here. Start with the Greek and then translate it into Hebrew. The meaning may be the same, but the point needs to be made, in part because Jesus was raised in Nazareth. John 1:46: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Hardly the reputation a rabbi would wish to pick up from one of his students. Jesus was trained as a carpenter, not as a rabbi.”
I will wager that you have no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew as languages. The word in question which I mentioned in the article is didaskalos which is spelled with delta iota delta alpha sigma kappa lambda and epsilon which is fully equivalent to the Hebrew resh bet yud(RBY) or RABBI which means teacher or master. In the Latin vulgate the word is maestro which also means RABBI. In fact, the Hebrew New Testament reads
ויענו מן הסופרים והפרושים ויאמרו רבי חפצנו לראות אות מידך
The word is רבי(Resh Bet Yud) which is properly pronounced as RABBI.
We read in 'Is the Title 'Rabbi' Anachronistic in the Gospels?' by Hershel Shanks published in the Jewish Quarterly Review that, “The title 'Rabbi' is used frequently in the Gospels, especially as a form of address for Jesus.”
We read in Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary the following:
“38. Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master-”Teacher,” equivalent to “Rabbi.”
Here's a little suggestion, sir. Do some homework before you plan to debate Unveiling Christianity.
You said,
“You also mention John 8:54 where Jesus says “Father” glorifies him. But did you look at John 8:55 and 56? Jesus claims much more.
Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
Thanks, but I am more than familiar with that text which is one of many used by Trinitarians to prove Jesus' deity. The reason why I quoted John 8:54 should be clear to anyone who has really read the article. It was to show that Jesus recognised and knew very well the concept of God the Jews had i.e. the Father is God(and no one else). It was mentioned in case some jokers comes along the way and say Jesus neither recognised nor knew any such concept. In any case, the passage is quite an interesting one, but,in no way does it promote Jesus to godhood.
You then said,
“Same with quoting John 17:2. Check out John 17:1-5.
When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
What's the point of all that? To show the divinity of Jesus because he had glory with God before the world existed? How does that make him God? What exactly did he mean by glory? The fact that John 17:3 is emphatic in God being singled out as the only true God or in the Greek ho monos aleithenos theos verse 5 should not have any interpretation that does not correlate with that verse. Glory does not make someone God. If it did, then the disciples must be God too because the same Glory is given to them later in the same passage. So, do you have 15 persons in the “Godhead” now?
You said,
“The justification for the trinity is found throughout the Bible. I’ll just give you a couple:
Matthew 28:18-20, the Great Commission.
Luke 1:35, where the Father (Most High) and Holy Spirit are mentioned distinctly.
John 14:16, where another “counselor” will be given, the Spirit of Truth.
Acts 2:1-5; 2:33, the list goes on.”
Matthew 28:18-20 is already discussed here
Luke 1:35 says,”The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”
Notice, that it says kai dunamis hupsistos which means “and the power of the supreme” or “most high” as it is usually renedered after “The Holy Spirit will come upon you”. Clearly, there are two involved here. If the Holy Spirit is God who according to Trinitarians empower believers with miracles and great feats of wonder surely the verse should have mentioned in the second part that “his power shall overshadow you”. However, it carefully identifies two beings. Could it be that they're two separate entities? It is the Muslim point of view that that Holy Spirit was actually the Angel Gabriel, the same being who gave Mary the glad tidings of an upcoming baby prior to this incident. Angels speak and act on behalf of God. As such they convey the message and power of God. But, they themselves do not have their own power without God's specific discretion, hence “and the power of the Most High”. The verse is hardly clear in proving any trinitarian concept. Even if your interpretation on it is true i.e. that the Holy Spirit is really God according to the verse then like John 1:1, John 10:30 we have what I would call a “duinity” and not a Trinity. I do not say this as a concession, but rather as an argument based on the principle of “for the sake of argument”.
The same is true with the other two verses you mentioned. Neither teach the Trinity as you hold it. Over 12 000 times the word elohim and adonai occur in the Old Testament. About 1325 times the word theos occurs in the New Testament. Thus, there are thousands of opportunities for one to say God and impart the concept of God. Yet, out of all those thousands of times, there is not a single that learly teach the Trinity. And the one and only that happens to be clear and explicit i.e. 1 John 5:7 is found to be nothing more than an interpolation which is a very beautiful and scholastic word for corruption lol.
You've raised some interesting points, but as I mentioned earlier you have totally missed the entire purpose and point of the article. You left out the crucial discussion on the context of Mark 12:29-34 and the arguments put forth to say that Jesus consented the understanding that the scribe had of God. In short, you have failed to disprove anything I argued for and have allowed me to provide further refutations to strengthen ou case that the Trinity is a heresy and is not in line with the teachings of Jesus. And Allah knows best.
http://www.costaricarealest CostaRica_condo: On Location: In Israel, From Storage Unit to Loft: A self-trained carpenter re…
Flat pack party at my place, who’s keen?….come on I know you want to
//I’m a trained carpenter & have trouble with those!