Is Being a Nude Art Model Dirty?
Anna
examples of "innocent" public nudity.
Not so according to this Nude Art model who wrote a book about her
experiences.
http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-et-book20-2009feb20,0,6140809.story
She argues for modeling's legitimacy over lunch with her Catholic
mother, trying to explain "that, despite the popular past association
of art models with depravity, in the twentieth century, it actually
became kind of glamorous." (Her mother's response? "It doesn't sound
glamorous, Kathy, it sounds dirty.")
Her mother is right. Despite its pretensions, it is kind of dirty, and
Rooney is frank about the psychosexual kicks. "There is," she notes,
"a subtle perversion at work -- this combination of my naked
vulnerability with the impossibility of my actually being touched --
that makes me love modeling so much."
Neosapienis
heaps of examples of artistic nudity in the Sistine Chapel which Pope John
Paul II allowed the public to see.
Sad that so many Catholics are still hung up about the nude body. :-(
--
Best wishes,
Dario Western
Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859
Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anna" <annal...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:948d1962-62f7-4dab...@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
"Anna" <annal...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:948d1962-62f7-4dab...@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Not unless you pose in a puddle of mud.
Zee
wrote:
> Maybe she should take a trip with her mum to the Vatican where there are
> heaps of examples of artistic nudity in the Sistine Chapel which Pope John
> Paul II allowed the public to see.
>
> Sad that so many Catholics are still hung up about the nude body. :-(
>
> --
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dario Western
>
> Home: (07) 3267-0099
> Mobile: (0437) 428-859
>
> Web Page:http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
>
> news:948d1962-62f7-4dab...@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >I have always thought of nude art modeling as being one of the
> > examples of "innocent" public nudity.
>
> > Not so according to this Nude Art model who wrote a book about her
> > experiences.
>
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/dzfmm2
>
> > She argues for modeling's legitimacy over lunch with her Catholic
> > mother, trying to explain "that, despite the popular past association
> > of art models with depravity, in the twentieth century, it actually
> > became kind of glamorous." (Her mother's response? "It doesn't sound
> > glamorous, Kathy, it sounds dirty.")
>
> > Her mother is right. Despite its pretensions, it is kind of dirty, and
> > Rooney is frank about the psychosexual kicks. "There is," she notes,
> > "a subtle perversion at work -- this combination of my naked
> > vulnerability with the impossibility of my actually being touched --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dario...i think the point of her thesis is to show the depravity side
of the naked side of art...she is probably aware that all of europe
has many works of art in the public places and of course the vatican
is no exception and would not be of any value to her.....even india is
one of the places that censors nudity...yet has graphic displays of
pornography.....in public....jz
FREECOSPIRIT
artists to learn to draw or paint nudes. There are a number of angles
to be considered.
The Models Perspective.
Many models simply regard it as a job for which they get paid, some
regard it as an art in itself with pose and expression being a part of
the finished picture. This is especially so from those model who do
photographic work as well as posing for artists and get know exactly
what is required of them.
The psycho-sexual aspect must be considered by almost all nude
models. Some will be uncomfortable with it and do their best to
suppress it but for others it may be the main reason why they are life
models.
Artists / Photogrpaher's Perspective
The artist especially has to capture the image and is probably the
most detached sexually from the model concentrating on the picture,
interpretation of the model. The photographer is out to emphasise
different aspects depending on the audience for the picture.
The public seeing the picture
There are blatantly sexual images made purely for purposes of sexual
gratification, both the models and the artists / photographers intend
these to be for that purpose.
Then there are nude pictures which tyr to show the human body in all
its natural beauty. These can be interpreted as such but some will
choose to find them sexual depsite the model's and the artist's
intentions.
Conculsion.
Painitng, sculptures and photographs of nudes can be what you want
them to be. The artist and model cannot be blamed for the unintended
interpretations of their work.
If a life model gets a high of being naked for an artist or
photographer then who are we to judge them. Sexually exploiting a
model who is not comfortable with the poses, or not aware of their
true purpose, she or he is asked to make is wrong but if a model, who
is mature and fully aware, wants to exploit themselves that is their
choice even if we don't approve; just don't buy or view the pictures.
Zee
wrote:
there is no value associated with drawing or painting a naked nude
unclothed human..social or otherwise ....same as porn..the sexual
content would be considered perverted....jz
David Looser
news:c86304ad-41ad-4a4d...@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> there is no value associated with drawing or painting a naked nude
> unclothed human..
I realise that you prefer ignorance to knowledge, prejudice and bigotry to
facts, you've made that clear time and time again in your posts. But I keep
wondering why you insist on using rec.nude to display your woeful ignorance
about almost every subject under the sun.
So you know absolutely nothing about art?, Well that's no surprise as you
know nothing about anything else.
David.
Zee
wrote:
> "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
David...i use rec nude because it is the world headquarters for
absolute total ignor ramisez of the worst kind....like you...you think
you know something about what...but are totally off the radaar
screen....culture and culture enfluence has never been able to
infiltrate your conscience or otherwise brain....so everything a
genius might say goes without an intelligent response.....it dont get
no better than rec nude.....jz
David Looser
> David...i use rec nude because it is the world headquarters for
> absolute total ignor ramisez of the worst kind....like you...you think
> you know something about what...but are totally off the radaar
> screen....culture and culture enfluence has never been able to
> infiltrate your conscience or otherwise brain....so everything a
> genius might say goes without an intelligent response.....it dont get
> no better than rec nude.....jz
I wasn't really asking why you use *rec.nude*, I was asking why you want to
advertise your ignorance to the world at all. You see you are probably THE
most ignorant and stupid person I have ever come across, anywhere.
You keep on posting, but all of your posts are just Zee ignorance, endlessly
repeated (but often incomprehensible due to inability, or refusal, to write
in anything approaching English).
David.
Zee
wrote:
> "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
David....your indifference to the non depraved society has been your
reason for living...you abused your kids with depraved nudity and now
you try to tell the world that naked human art has a social
value....life could exist for eons without social nakedness or
pictoral/artist displays of such depravity.....jz
Anna
wrote:
> Without Nude Models it would be impossible for art students and
> artists to learn to draw or paint nudes. There are a number of angles
> to be considered.
>
> The Models Perspective.
>
> Many models simply regard it as a job for which they get paid, some
> regard it as an art in itself with pose and expression being a part of
> the finished picture. This is especially so from those model who do
> photographic work as well as posing for artists and get know exactly
> what is required of them.
Yeah, that is what I though the model's perception always was. It's
art. It isn't dirty.
But this person who wrote a book about her experience of being a nude
art model claims differently.
And she was only a model for art classes or such. It wasn't like she
was posing for "shady" stuff.
> The psycho-sexual aspect must be considered by almost all nude
> models. Some will be uncomfortable with it and do their best to
> suppress it but for others it may be the main reason why they are life
> models.
But all she is doing is simple nudity. So if there is a psycho-sexual
aspect to that then there is a psycho-sexual aspect to all simple
nudity.
>
> Artists / Photogrpaher's Perspective
>
> The artist especially has to capture the image and is probably the
> most detached sexually from the model concentrating on the picture,
> interpretation of the model. The photographer is out to emphasise
> different aspects depending on the audience for the picture.
But the model isn't being sexual. At least she isn't supposed to be.
She is just standing nude in front of a bunch of people.
I guess the difference between what she does and what nudists do
(besides the fact that she has to stand still and she is paid for
being nude) is that she is nude in front of a bunch of people with
clothes on. I guess one could argue that nudists on the other hand are
nude among likeminded nude people. So, they don't have the experience
of being the center of attention with their nudity being the focus.
So, for the nude art model it can't help but being exhibitionism on
their part whereas for the nudist it isn't exhibitionism because they
aren't the focus of attention, their nudity doesn't make them stand
out attract attention upon them. In fact more attention would be
directed at them at a nudist venue if they were clothed.
I guess that would be a significant difference. Still I had always
thought of nude art modeling as one of the few cases of nonsexualized
nudity along with nudism.
> There are blatantly sexual images made purely for purposes of sexual
> gratification, both the models and the artists / photographers intend
> these to be for that purpose.
From my understanding she was simply a model for live drawing classes.
> Then there are nude pictures which try to show the human body in all
> its natural beauty. These can be interpreted as such but some will
> choose to find them sexual despite the model's and the artist's
> intentions.
A "good" article can through subtle techniques sexify a picture. That
is why one has to be so careful of art photographs of children
(clothed or nude). The way the child (usually a girl) glances, her
facial gestures, or how she holds her posture can turn a "simple
nudity" photograph quickly into something so wrong. Some pervert
artists love to ever so slightly cross the line and plays upon the
uncomfortable uncertainty that such photos project to the audience.
> Conculsion.
>
> Painitng, sculptures and photographs of nudes can be what you want
> them to be. The artist and model cannot be blamed for the unintended
> interpretations of their work.
But what if by the way they create the work by adding ever so subtle
elements, they want such interpretations.
> If a life model gets a high of being naked for an artist or
> photographer then who are we to judge them.
We are talking about a women who does nude modeling for a group of art
students .
>Sexually exploiting a
> model who is not comfortable with the poses, or not aware of their
> true purpose, she or he is asked to make is wrong but if a model, who
> is mature and fully aware, wants to exploit themselves that is their
> choice even if we don't approve; just don't buy or view the pictures.
We are talking nude live art modeling which I always saw as
nonsexualized nudity. But I have never done such work. She has. So
whereas I might have had that impression, she has been there and done
that and she says that indeed what she does is not nonsexualized but
should be considered "dirty".
Anna
<noem...@here.invalidd> wrote:
> "Anna" <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:948d1962-62f7-4dab...@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Not unless you pose in a puddle of mud.
The writer of the body has modeled nude in front of Art Students and
she says it is dirty. She has actually experienced being a nude art
model.
Anna
wrote:
> "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
The writer of the book is a nude art model herself. Models nude in
front of art classes. Something I have always seen as one of the few
incidents like nudism (well at least how nudism claims to be) where
someone can be nude and the nudity is nonsexualized. Not so, she says
and she has actually been nude in front of art classes. She has had
the experience so she should know what she is talking about.
Anna
> > The psycho-sexual aspect must be considered by almost all nude
> > models. Some will be uncomfortable with it and do their best to
> > suppress it but for others it may be the main reason why they are life
> > models.
>
> But all she is doing is simple nudity. So if there is a psycho-sexual
> aspect to that then there is a psycho-sexual aspect to all simple
> nudity.
I guess after thinking about it I want to take that statement back.
Just because in case of nude art modeling although people think it's
possible for it to be nonsexual it isn't (well at least this author
who has been a nude art model claims) it doesn't necessary follows
that it isn't possible for nudism to be nonsexual because a key
difference between nude art modeling and nudism is that the nude art
model is the only one nude. Many nudists who might feel very
comfortable being nude among a likeminded group of nude people would
be very uncomfortable being the only one naked as is the case with
nude art modeling.
> A "good" article can through subtle techniques sexify a picture. That
> is why one has to be so careful of art photographs of children
> (clothed or nude). The way the child (usually a girl) glances, her
> facial gestures, or how she holds her posture can turn a "simple
> nudity" photograph quickly into something so wrong. Some pervert
> artists love to ever so slightly cross the line and plays upon the
> uncomfortable uncertainty that such photos project to the audience.
I guess I should say skilled. That is why I really don't care if an
Artist is "skilled'. Skilled porn is still porn and the fact that the
person is skilled means that the artist is better able to turn
something into something that is sexualized. So the fact that the
person is a good artist gives weight to the claim that the work is
intentionally sexualized.
David Looser
>
> The writer of the book is a nude art model herself. Models nude in
> front of art classes. Something I have always seen as one of the few
> incidents like nudism (well at least how nudism claims to be) where
> someone can be nude and the nudity is nonsexualized. Not so, she says
> and she has actually been nude in front of art classes. She has had
> the experience so she should know what she is talking about.
In case you hadn't noticed I was replying to Zee, in particular his comment:
"there is no value associated with drawing or painting a naked nude
unclothed human". Actually there is plenty of value associated with drawing
or painting the nude. Zee doesn't know what that is, of course, because he's
entirely ignorant about art, but that doesn't stop him pontificating about
it.
As for your "she has actually been nude in front of art classes", well big
deal, so have I. I've been a life model for over a decade now so I think my
experience is at least as valid as her. In my experience there is absolutely
nothing seedy about it. Nor, frankly, do I see how it can be sexual, unless
you find sitting rigidly and uncomfortably still for half-an-hour "sexy". I
guess she just wanted to write something that would attract the interest of
the prurient people of this world, such as you.
David.
Trucker_18a
> I have always thought of nude art modeling as being one of the
> examples of "innocent" public nudity.
>
> Not so according to this Nude Art model who wrote a book about her
> experiences.
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dzfmm2
>
> She argues for modeling's legitimacy over lunch with her Catholic
> mother, trying to explain "that, despite the popular past association
> of art models with depravity, in the twentieth century, it actually
> became kind of glamorous." (Her mother's response? "It doesn't sound
> glamorous, Kathy, it sounds dirty.")
>
> Her mother is right. Despite its pretensions, it is kind of dirty, and
> Rooney is frank about the psychosexual kicks. "There is," she notes,
> "a subtle perversion at work -- this combination of my naked
> vulnerability with the impossibility of my actually being touched --
> that makes me love modeling so much."
Take it I was shocked when I found out that Nevada has an "Erotic
Model law", that requires a License, but has no age restriction. I
now look on websites in a different eye.
Zee
wrote:
> "Anna" <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote in message
you have a reason to lie about your modeling...but it takes a real
honest person to say what she said about it being dirty as i relate to
her in my statements about social nudity...you are in denial...i have
also posed for females and it was sexual....so deal with it...jz
Terry J. Wood
> You see you are probably THE
> most ignorant and stupid person I have ever come across, anywhere.
Hey, Z, YOU'RE NUMBER ONE, YOU'RE NUMBER ONE!
Stuffed Tiger
<dariow...@nospambigpond.com> wrote:
>Maybe she should take a trip with her mum to the Vatican where there are
>heaps of examples of artistic nudity in the Sistine Chapel which Pope John
>Paul II allowed the public to see.
>
>Sad that so many Catholics are still hung up about the nude body. :-(
The fact is that being a nude model does not make one stop hating
one's own body. That is why nudism is primarily a social activity that
must involve all ages. We need to see other humans as we really are,
not as in some fantasy, if we are ever going to see ourselves as we
really are, and be happy with what God has given us.
Neosapienis
caveman etched a drawing of nude women on the cave walls, and it will
continue to play a part in humanity long after you and I are both gone.
--
Best wishes,
Dario Western
Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859
Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zee" <jon...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5dfef9df-d735-440f...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Neosapienis
It depends on where the nude art modelling is taking place. There are
nudist clubs and places that have nude art classes where both the model as
well as the painters are nude, as well as venues where the model is the only
one nude.
I have also done some life drawing of models who are also nudists and have
no problems being nude in environments where everyone else is dressed.
However, you have made an interesting point about the comfort levels with
nudity. I have heard of nudist clubs and groups breaking up after the
'clothing optional' policy came in, and some point to that as being the
reason why nudism is starting to die off in Australia. I don't know how
true that is though because one of the most successful and oldest running
nudist resorts in my area (Pacific Sun Friends) has been C/O ever since it
started in the late 1970's.
--
Best wishes,
Dario Western
Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859
Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anna" <annal...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:16031bbc-b8c1-4e73...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Neosapienis
photo shoots and has also been nude at Alex Bay in Noosa with her friends,
and she still wants to get her breasts re-done in spite of my advising her
that most reputable model agencies will not sign girls up with enhancement
surgery.
Going from my experience in this industry, the models who did not heed this
advice and went ahead and did it had their careers curtailed within a couple
of months of getting them done.
--
Best wishes,
Dario Western
Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859
Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Stuffed Tiger" <No...@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message
news:7pglq4tc0h18ua1ls...@4ax.com...
maryan...@gmail.com
huge falling out with a friend of mine. We are both devout Catholics
but he believes what I am doing is a sin. Since it is in the realm of
academia (life drawing classes) I feel I am doing nothing wrong. He
essentially wrote me out of his life last night because of this and
offered to pay me not to do it anymore. I really don't understand why
this upsets him so much. I don't think it is dirty or a sin.
Anna
I don't see it as dirty either. In the right context as I see the
academic context you are in, it is perfectly fine.
That is why I was so shocked that a life model would write a book
saying that it is indeed dirty.
Zee
bawahahahehe....i am shocked at you being shocked....have you never
heard of the Christian Bible.....oh so you forgot about that...and
have you ever heard of Catholicism religion ..or protestant...or islam
or Jewish religion....these folks believe that Genesis teaches not to
expose ones genitals to others of the oposite sex....so now are you
wondering why you were shocked at what the friend told her.....or had
you just woke from a nap....still in shock....jz
Terry J. Wood
8a88ab...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> I am a nude model for the art department at my school. I just had a
> huge falling out with a friend of mine. We are both devout Catholics
> but he believes what I am doing is a sin.
Given the IP you posted from, I'm guessing you attend a Catholic
university. Since the classes are sponsored by the school, how can what
you are doing be a sin? Wouldn't the Pope object and stop the classes
if it were?
Beyond that the Bible has example of good nudity:
Genesis 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it
was very good."
and
Genesis 2:25 "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were
not ashamed."
You might want to check out this web page:
http://www.experiencegrace.com/Good_Nudity.html
Then there's the profit that God instructed to preach naked for 3 YEARS:
http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/20-1.htm
> Since it is in the realm of
> academia (life drawing classes) I feel I am doing nothing wrong. He
> essentially wrote me out of his life last night because of this and
> offered to pay me not to do it anymore. I really don't understand why
> this upsets him so much. I don't think it is dirty or a sin.
Maybe this is more about his CONTROL over you than it is about your
posing for an art class?
As an aside, here's a GOOGLE logo for today:
http://www.google.com/logos/drseuss09.gif
Except for the CAT IN THE HAT, they're all naked! Somehow I don't think
that's a SIN! :-)
Casa Blanca Hot Spring
Dear Maryann,
<maryan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be4fb706-e832-472a...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Your friend sounds like an obsessed gymnophobe. Perhaps you'd be better off without
'friends' like that?
Of course there's nothing immoral or illegal about nude modeling, which has been going on
since the beginning of time.
Naturally Nude,
Bill
Casa Blanca Hot Spring
Hi Again,
> maryan...@gmail.com wrote in news:be4fb706-e832-472a-b5d8-
> 8a88ab...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I am a nude model for the art department at my school. I just had a
>> huge falling out with a friend of mine. We are both devout Catholics
>> but he believes what I am doing is a sin.
Show your 'friend' what Pope John Paul II wrote a while back:
Pope John Paul II in 1981 said, "Because God created it, the human body
can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and
dignity" breaking down the previous religious intolerance in Latin
America and Western Europe and fueling the rapid growth of nudism
there. I am grateful for his blessing of the lifestyle.
Pope John Paul II on explaining why loincloths were removed from statues
such as David.
Pope John Paul II also writes:
"Nakedness Is not Immodest"
by Pope John Paul II [1]
Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use
of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or
partial nakedness. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not
immodest nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical
shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative
role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse
concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of
an object of enjoyment. The human body is not in itself shameful, nor
for the same reasons are sensual reactions, and human sensuality in
general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of
the interior of a person. There is a certain relativism in the
definition of what is shameless. This relativism may be due to
differences in the makeup of particular persons a greater or lesser
sensual excitability, a higher or lower level of moral culture or to
different world views. It may equally be due to differences in external
conditions in climate, for instance and also in prevailing customs,
social habits, etc. Dress is always a social question, a function
of social customs. In this matter there is no exact similarity in the
behavior of particular people, even if they live in the same age and the
same society. The principle of what is truly immodest is simple and
obvious, but its application in specific cases depends upon the
individual, the milieu, the society. There are circumstances in which
nakedness is not immodest. If someone takes advantage of such an
occasion to treat the person as an object of enjoyment (even if his
action is purely internal) it is only he who is guilty of shamelessness,
not the other.
[1] Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, trans. H.T. Willetts (New
York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1981), pp. 176-192.
Zee
<CasaBlancaHotSpr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Hi Again,
>
> > maryannar...@gmail.com wrote in news:be4fb706-e832-472a-b5d8-
> > 8a88ab969...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
you frikin pervert....here we go again trying to leave the impression
that the Pope sanctioned social nakedness....all men including
preachers would say the body looks good unclothed...this is saying
stop worrying about your body and get on with the Lords work of being
modest and dignified by keeping it covered for your mate.....jz
Anna
> maryannar...@gmail.com wrote in news:be4fb706-e832-472a-b5d8-
> 8a88ab969...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> > huge falling out with a friend of mine. We are both devout Catholics
> > but he believes what I am doing is a sin.
>
> Given the IP you posted from, I'm guessing you attend a Catholic
> university. Since the classes are sponsored by the school, how can what
> you are doing be a sin? Wouldn't the Pope object and stop the classes
> if it were?
>
> Beyond that the Bible has example of good nudity:
>
> Genesis 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it
> was very good."
>
> and
>
> Genesis 2:25 "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were
> not ashamed."
Of course not. They were like children as they had not yet bitten from
the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
> You might want to check out this web page:
>
> http://www.experiencegrace.com/Good_Nudity.html
>
> Then there's the profit that God instructed to preach naked for 3 YEARS:
>
> http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/20-1.htm
Why did God command Isaiah to preach naked for 3 years? There was a
specific reason in that case. Please read it again and then tell us
what it was. It is actually an example of bad nudity.
In most all of the Bible nudity IS seen as a source of shame. That
said, I can't find anywhere in the Bible where simple nudity is
condemned as a SIN. So it is more of a social convention than anything
else.
Given that the Bible doesn't CONDEMN nudity, although it is seen as a
source of shame, I believe it's the context that is important rather
than simply the state of being naked. And I see nothing wrong with the
context of an academic live drawing class.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
thank God for rec nude...where else on the internet could one go and
find soooo much that 99 percent can disagree with...its like like a
smorgasboard of goofy post that is sooo full of hatred for God and
country....and to think that folks do not come here because of feeling
perverted if they did....hey america and the world...you dont know
what you are missing....jz
Anna
agree with him but I thought it might be interesting to throw this
into the general discussion. As it is a blog you can comment there as
well as here.
http://www.ronniewrogers.com/2008/07/29/public-nudity-innocent-or-sin/
Recently, I was asked what the Bible says about public nudity. As you
well know, many believe that the taboo of public nudity is merely
social, and that apart from societal mores, there is nothing immoral
about public nudity. What does the Bible say?
First let me be clear. I draw a distinction between task nudity and
social or sexual nudity. Task nudity refers to a person being nude for
such things as taking a shower at the gym. Therefore, this article
does not refer to task nudity but rather whether it is moral to be
nude in public, in mixed company other than with one’s spouse, and/or
for the purpose of being nude, disrobed etc., for either sexual or
social nudity.
Nudity is beautiful prior to the fall: There is nothing inherently
evil about nudity. For example, Genesis 2:25 says concerning man and
woman before the fall, “And the man and his wife were both naked and
were not ashamed.“ Further, God declared all that He created to be
“very good” (Genesis 1:31). Consequently, the naked body as created by
God is beautiful; however, this was before the fall of mankind. Before
the fall, the nudity of man and woman did not provoke temptation, but
sin introduced distortion into the created order that did not
previously exist. This distortion can be seen by comparing Genesis
2:25, which says prior to the fall that Adam and Eve were naked and
“were not ashamed to (Genesis 3:7) whereas immediately after the
introduction of sin into the world Scripture describes their attempt
to hide their nakedness with clothing. More importantly, God clothed
their nakedness: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his
wife, and clothed them.“(Genesis 3:21)
One commentator lucidly notes the change, “Their bodies were
sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first
with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the
body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and
turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust
of the flesh.”1
Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
as “very good” and clothing was not necessary or even suggested in the
Garden prior to the fall. We should be equally clear that immediately
after the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve. God is the one who started
the clothing of the human body; therefore, in our present fallen
state, clothing is not an option, a mere status symbol to be discarded
in one’s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
blessing and provision of God.
The origin of dress is associated with a changed state brought about
by sin, resulting in nakedness being seductive, provocative, and
potentiating shame and further allurement away from God and His plan
for humans.
Therefore, prior to the fall of man into sin, Adam and Eve were naked
without shame. Immediately after the fall, they were ashamed and
sought to cover themselves, which God did as well. Today those who
express their shamelessness about public nudity fail to realize that
shamelessness in the garden was because of the purity of the creation
whereas after the fall any sense of shamelessness is due to the
hardness of the heart from sin “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah
3:5).
Nudity is beautiful between a husband and wife: Contrary to social
Darwinism, which sees man as an animal, different only from all other
animals in degree rather than kind, man is created in the image of
God, and is therefore categorically different than animals. Thus, the
argument that animals do not wear clothing is no argument or
determiner of what humans should or should not do. Biblically, the
body and marriage are sacred and marriage is the proper context for
sex, and social or sexual nudity. The beliver’s body is not only
sacred because it was created by God but also because it is a temple
of the Holy Spirit, (1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, public nudity is
wrong because it desacralizes marriage, sex, and the temple of the
Holy Spirit.
Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.
That some are not ashamed reveals more about their spiritual
deprivation than about whether public nudity is sin or not. Zephaniah
said, “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity is
humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God’s way and
elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentiates adultery,
fornication…..
Gen 19:22-25 associates shame with exposure of the nakedness of Noah.
Leviticus 18 prescribed several specifics about regulating nudity and
appears to use nudity as a euphemism for sex as well. We live in a
very sensual culture, and the further we move from being a culture
influenced by biblical principles, the more public nudity and scanty
dressing will become tokens of liberation from so-called cultural
taboos.
Christians do see nudity and sex as beautiful gifts from God, and
they, like every other blessing of life, are to be used according to
God’s plan. “Christians hold that worldly gifts are subordinate to the
gifts of grace and that the new spirit of divine life consecrates
these goods from selfish to pious uses…early Christians conformed
their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
vain spirit.”2
The Scriptures remind us, “For those who are according to the flesh
set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit“(Romans 8:5).
Therefore, we are commanded, “Set your mind on the things above, not
on the things that are on earth“(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
in light of the warning “Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
earthly things“(Philippians 3:19).
Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
who promote public nudity as “innocent” or “social and not sexual”
seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity. Those who
support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc. say that
walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the
opposite sex has nothing to do with sex. In other words, there is no
organic relationship between nudity and sex or nudity and sin.
First, as already shown, non-task nudity outside the confines of
marriage is sin in this fallen world. Second, while nudity is not
sufficient for sex, it is necessary. Their attempt to totally
disassociate sex from nudity is laughable. First, the Scripture makes
the clear connection between sex and nudity with all of the
regulations regarding nudity, as well as using nudity as a euphemism
for sex. Also, it seems that the pornographers understand the
connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or
photos that cause lust that can only be satiated by sex.
It seems that men understand the connection since they are by every
known rational mind to be visual. Lastly, it seems that if honesty
prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable
connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more
intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing
with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be
multilayer thick burlap.
Christians should show forth the glory of God by covering what He
intended to be covered recognizing the insatiable appetite of fallen
man to desacralize everything, including himself, and live at the
basest level of human existence; thereby allowing sensory pleasure to
reign supreme with no shame.
Zee
Anna...exactly what i have been saying and this is the first eloquent
portrayal i have read or heard of explaining my position....i wish i
had said it that way.....the unjust knows no shame.....perfect for rec
nude....jz
FLTom
Ronnie W Rogers typifies a certain view associated with Protestant
Fundamentalism, and drives away reasonable and thoughtful people in
the process. Rogers rejects Darwinism when he thinks it helps his
argument, and then himself employs a Darwinian fact (i.e., the visual
emphasis in male sexuality) to strike what he thinks is the final blow
against the position that "public nudism" may be moral. One sees this
type of confusion more and more in public discourse, as Darwinian
theory, more accurately referred to as theories of evolutionary
biology and evolutionary psychology, overtake and replace inadequate
and flawed theories of human behavior based on Biblical authority. It
appears that even a fundamentalist preacher knows he can't win over a
modern audience with arguments from Biblical authority alone.
An early Catholic saint, St Anthony, preached in the desert for
decades. He never wore a stitch of clothing. The body wasn't assigned
its degraded status in Christian thought until the fifth century, when
the formerly promiscuous and libidinous, and very brilliant, St
Augustine decided to atone for his sins by inventing mind-body
dualism, a philosophy that harshly rejects the flesh, especially the
flesh below the waist. Most philosophers today agree that Augustine
was wrong about the mind's independence of the body. His manichean
error resulted largely from the fact that his understanding of biology
was absurd. He can be forgiven, somewhat, since he lived in antiquity
without access to modern science. Those living today have no such
excuse.
Augustine remains highly revered in the Catholic Church, which goes a
long way to explaining why so many Catholics, and many other
Christians who, knowingly or not, belong to denominations which have
absorbed Augustinian teaching, regard their own bodies with fear and
shame. It's sad. John Paul II was the first pope in over 15 centuries
to comment on the human body in an enlightened and loving way, much to
his great credit.
Rogers does what many fire and brimstone preachers do so well. He lays
an excellent guilt trip on those who buy into his spiel. But many
modern audiences have decided that the guilt trippers have little
credibility. The human body is just too natural, too normal, and too
innocent to be the object of so much fear and shame.
Zee
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
you seem to be confused about Christianity..most.all Christians
believe man and woman was created by intelligent design...and reject
human evolution from primates....so to say that the preacher uses
evolution periodicly to pitch his story is erroneous...if you are not
Christian why dont you tell us what you believe rather than try to
trash a person that eloquently tells us what he believes....are you
just a simple run of the mill hate freak....rec nude is full of
em.....jz
David Looser
> you seem to be confused about Christianity..most.all Christians
> believe man and woman was created by intelligent design...and reject
> human evolution from primates....
Not the Christians I know. Perhaps you missed out that important adjective
"American".
David.
Lane
news:715meoF...@mid.individual.net:
> "Zee" <jon...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:98364e82-a146-4e68-9429-56200ff11400
@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>
>> you seem to be confused about Christianity..most.all Christians
>> believe man and woman was created by intelligent design...and reject
>> human evolution from primates....
>
> Not the Christians I know. Perhaps you missed out that important
> adjective "American".
I am not a Christian, but I doubt most American Christians believe in
the intelligent design hokum.
Anyone have any actual data?
Lane
Zee
> "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
David....you been doing pretty good lately...but dont start this
malarkey....have you ever been in a church in your whole life and what
Christian would associate with a guy that has abused his children with
allowing them to expose their genitals to strangers....most Christians
are looking for a wholesome place to take their children where it is
non stop wholesome or as non sexual as possible at all times...not
some place that has on and off sexual activities...rec nude and bill
morton and netnude christians dont count....jz
BeoWolf
used to wear flour sacks (no flour!). When the sack cloth ran out
Isaiah preached naked. They were really genuinely starving.
BeoWolf
Anna
Cite where you read that. I read where he preached nude for three
years and that wasn't the reason.
David Looser
> David....you been doing pretty good lately...but dont start this
> malarkey....have you ever been in a church in your whole life
Of course I have, indeed I'm on the committee of my local "Church Heritage"
(we raise funds to support the maintenance of the church building). But what
would one learn about Christian beliefs by going inside a church? - nothing.
The way to learn that is to talk to them. I have had many interesting
conversations with my Christian friends about theology, which demonstrates,
if nothing else, that there are as many views on Christian theology as there
are Christians.
> and what Christian would associate with a guy that has abused
> his children with allowing them to expose their genitals to strangers....
All of them (except for a tiny minority of bigots like yourself).
> most Christians are looking for a wholesome place to take their
> children
As indeed was I.
> where it is non stop wholesome or as non sexual as possible at all times..
Exactly.
> not some place that has on and off sexual activities...
You are getting confused again. It's those strip joints you ran that had "on
and off sexual activities". There was never any public sexual activity *of
any sort* at any naturist place I ever went to.
David.
Zee
> "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
an so you leave it to your kids to tell their friends in life the same
thing an they say but what about that club so and so that was busted
for promoting a sexual performance of a child...and what about those
nudist in the news that are busted for child porn here in great
britain...see you are not really that responsible or use the short
future plan....naw thats the reason the kids are not plentiful
anymore...the parents read the news also when they found out they
couldnt depend on the nudist news..jz
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
there you go agin...flour sacks were made out of beautiful desined
material in the the thirties because there was not money for store
bought or ready mades....and you had to buy flour to make bread and
the sack came with the flour....and that has never been an excuse for
nakedness as there is always a way to cover up....an you say your
writing a book...you gonna need help....jz
Stuffed Tiger
The male psyche is a bit complicated. It isn't integrated like yours.
It is in little boxes that we open and close at will. What keeps the
lid on our anxiety box is our magic protection blanket. The typical
script (although no two are alike) goes something like this:
He doesn't really believe what you are doing is a sin. To him, being a
Catholic is part of his magic protection blanket, a fantasy blanket
that we weave as children in order to believe we won't have bad things
happen to us. He has transferred the power behind his magic protection
blanket from his parents to the Catholic Church, who control THE GOD.
In effect, he is being superstitious, and that really is a sin, a bad
one, known as idolatry. You might remind him that Jesus gave us only
two commandments: Love God above all, and Love our Neighbor as
ourselves. In that Jesus said was the Whole Law. It's right there in
the New Testament and in the Mass. Beyond that, every parable makes it
clear we are to think our way through things, not blindly judge.
When he met you, he wove your magical presence into his magic
protection blanket. It removed the pain he felt from the loss of his
mother's protection. He did this because he still sees himself as a
needy little boy, and he wants to relate to you like he did his
mother, as someone to be there for him. He does not empathize with
your feelings the way he wants you to empathize with his feelings.
The net is that he feels it is your duty to protect him. He is afraid
that if you do something his mother wouldn't do, he will feel pain and
his magic blanket will disintegrate. That is the little boy in him.
The man in him knows it is truly his duty to protect you, even against
the Catholic Church, the Pope or any other Earthly force. He may
fantasize about protecting you, and believe he would, but in fact the
little boy is only interested in protecting his own fragile ego.
MRI brain scans show that most boys do not finish brain growth until
age 25, and then they are still only beginners on the road to being
what every real man craves to be ... responsible. It is a real
struggle for us men to learn to be responsible enablers rather than
simply running an authoritarian protection racket.
Unfortunately, you will probably have to pick a mate before he is
fully ready to be responsible for supporting your needs and those of
any children you might need to be devoted to for a while. If you think
you might be able to get this one over himself, tell him you won't be
saddled with any man, not a priest, not the Pope, not even him,
telling you what God thinks. Not ever. See what he says.
Stuffed Tiger
In the United States, in the heart of the Bible Belt, in a small town,
a School Board tried to incorporate Intelligent Design. That School
Board was voted out. A Board that promoted true Science was voted in.
The mandates passed by the former School Board to insure the teaching
of Intelligent Design were overturned in court. There was shown to be
no science behind Intelligent Design, but rather it was another word
for "Creationism" that was edited in the texts they wanted to teach
from in place of Creationism, that everybody knew to be religion.
The US is not hostile to religion. We just keep the government out of
it as much as possible. Religions can use public spaces like any other
group. Many religious groups get government money to support the good
works that they do in feeding the poor.
It is the government, such as schools, that is restricted from
promoting one set of beliefs over another, a fact nudists need to use.
Most citizens in the USA are a member of one religion or another. None
is dominate except locally, so these all end up as local battles.
Terry J. Wood
news:Xns9BC3AA379F3B5ab...@85.214.105.209:
> I am not a Christian, but I doubt most American Christians believe in
> the intelligent design hokum.
> Anyone have any actual data?
You could ask at the CREATIONISM MUSEUM. I bet they have "data".
Fridthjof Andersen
they belive in that, people watch porn, BUT if they see a naked person in
public, then the world stop. Did all the people in the world have a bag over
the head when their parents made them og was it OK to see the other one
naked??. I don´t belive in religion, I do not care if all people are naked,
some might not be pretty to watch but they are like all others, we all have
feelings and are all the same inside. So long live nakedness.
"Stuffed Tiger" <No...@NotAnAddress.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:r05sq41k7cjlsn2n2...@4ax.com...
Neosapienis
http://www.ronniewrogers.com/2008/07/29/public-nudity-innocent-or-sin/
Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing fig
leaves together. God did not shame their nakedness nor condemn them to
their state of shame. Shame is a man made think that does not occur with
any other species in the world be they animal or sentient. Added to that,
there were also other religions and cultures prior to Judaism where some of
its adherents wore clothes and others went naked.
"One commentator lucidly notes the change, “Their bodies were
sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first
with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the
body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and
turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust
of the flesh.”1"
That "lust of the flesh" was created by God in the first place, as one of
God's first commandments to Adam & Eve was to 'go forth and multiply'.
Without those lusts and attractions they would not have been able to
reproduce.
"Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
as “very good” and clothing was not necessary or even suggested in the
Garden prior to the fall. We should be equally clear that immediately
after the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve. God is the one who started
the clothing of the human body; therefore, in our present fallen
state, clothing is not an option, a mere status symbol to be discarded
in one’s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
blessing and provision of God."
That's bullshit. See my point above as to A&E being the first to clothe
themselves, which the author has clearly missed.
"The origin of dress is associated with a changed state brought about
by sin, resulting in nakedness being seductive, provocative, and
potentiating shame and further allurement away from God and His plan
for humans."
This is more a cultural thing than a biological issue. Many Europeans both
Christian and non-Christian understand that mixed nakedness can be non
seductive and non-provocative.
"Therefore, prior to the fall of man into sin, Adam and Eve were naked
without shame. Immediately after the fall, they were ashamed and
sought to cover themselves, which God did as well. Today those who
express their shamelessness about public nudity fail to realize that
shamelessness in the garden was because of the purity of the creation
whereas after the fall any sense of shamelessness is due to the
hardness of the heart from sin “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah
3:5)."
Unjustness does not come from being socially naked with others. There are
as many just and honest people involved with nudism as much as there are
some unjust and dishonest types.
"Nudity is beautiful between a husband and wife: Contrary to social
Darwinism, which sees man as an animal, different only from all other
animals in degree rather than kind, man is created in the image of
God, and is therefore categorically different than animals. Thus, the
argument that animals do not wear clothing is no argument or
determiner of what humans should or should not do. Biblically, the
body and marriage are sacred and marriage is the proper context for
sex, and social or sexual nudity. The beliver’s body is not only
sacred because it was created by God but also because it is a temple
of the Holy Spirit, (1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, public nudity is
wrong because it desacralizes marriage, sex, and the temple of the
Holy Spirit."
There is nowhere in the Bible which enforces this. He has overlooked Isaiah
20:2 in which the prophet was commanded to minister naked and barefoot for
three years to people other than his family. He has also overlooked the
mulititudes of people who took their clothes off and spread them on the road
when Jesus rode into Jerusalem.
"Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.
That some are not ashamed reveals more about their spiritual
deprivation than about whether public nudity is sin or not. Zephaniah
said, “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity is
humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God’s way and
elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentiates adultery,
fornication….."
Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for me,
hey? I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex God
with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).
"Gen 19:22-25 associates shame with exposure of the nakedness of Noah.
Leviticus 18 prescribed several specifics about regulating nudity and
appears to use nudity as a euphemism for sex as well. We live in a
very sensual culture, and the further we move from being a culture
influenced by biblical principles, the more public nudity and scanty
dressing will become tokens of liberation from so-called cultural
taboos."
The problem was not with Noah being naked, but being drunk and Ham taking
advantage of his father's situation to make fun of him in a sexual manner.
Note that God does not condemn Noah for being naked.
"Christians do see nudity and sex as beautiful gifts from God, and
they, like every other blessing of life, are to be used according to
God’s plan. “Christians hold that worldly gifts are subordinate to the
gifts of grace and that the new spirit of divine life consecrates
these goods from selfish to pious uses…early Christians conformed
their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
vain spirit.”2"
The early Christians had no problem with nudity until the reign of
Augustine. Jesus never spoke against nudism or nudity because it was a lot
more prevalent in his culture than in the world today.
"The Scriptures remind us, “For those who are according to the flesh
set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit“(Romans 8:5).
Therefore, we are commanded, “Set your mind on the things above, not
on the things that are on earth“(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
in light of the warning “Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
earthly things“(Philippians 3:19)."
Flesh in this context is not to with the skin or body parts, but rather
'selfishness'.
"Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
who promote public nudity as “innocent” or “social and not sexual”
seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity. Those who
support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc. say that
walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the
opposite sex has nothing to do with sex. In other words, there is no
organic relationship between nudity and sex or nudity and sin."
Some nudists do, which is the politically correct position. This is just as
wrong and extreme as those who refer to nudity as being a prelude to sex
orgies. We need some kind of middle ground here. Being naked with others
CAN be sexual and arousing in certain places and times but it is not
necessary to go from simple nudity to full on sexual activity.
"First, as already shown, non-task nudity outside the confines of
marriage is sin in this fallen world. Second, while nudity is not
sufficient for sex, it is necessary. Their attempt to totally
disassociate sex from nudity is laughable. First, the Scripture makes
the clear connection between sex and nudity with all of the
regulations regarding nudity, as well as using nudity as a euphemism
for sex. Also, it seems that the pornographers understand the
connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or
photos that cause lust that can only be satiated by sex."
Obvioulsy he hasn't heard of 'dry humping'. Added to that, pornographers
actually tend to make more money out of selling photos of women in skimpy
clothing than ones who are merely naked. The reason: it is far more
alluring to create images that leave something to the imagination.
"It seems that men understand the connection since they are by every
known rational mind to be visual. Lastly, it seems that if honesty
prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable
connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more
intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing
with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be
multilayer thick burlap."
This is a strawman's argument. Women are just as visual, maybe even more
so, than men by what attracts them to men. There are strip shows for
females, maley magazines like "Playgirl", as well as semi-nude men plastered
on virtually every advertising billboard, magazine and newspaper cover you
can find. I don't tend to find multilayered clothing to be particularly
sexy any more than nakedness.
"Christians should show forth the glory of God by covering what He
intended to be covered recognizing the insatiable appetite of fallen
man to desacralize everything, including himself, and live at the
basest level of human existence; thereby allowing sensory pleasure to
reign supreme with no shame."
What rot! Jesus never taught this. This self made fascist authoritarian is
making up his own rules.
--
Best wishes,
Dario Western
Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859
Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zee
wrote:
Dario....why do you and other nudist become so filled with contempt
when a person reads his Bible and naturally forms an opinion and yet
you call him a fascist.....am i a fascist because i read the Bible and
conclude killing of other humans.is wrong and sinful...i notice you do
not attempt to explain your thoughts on how you feel about the
scriptures...why is that....it does seem that folks agree with this
preacher but hate him because he said it....wow....jz
Neosapienis
false conclusions and then purporting them to be true.
Anyone who is opposed to human nudity in my book is either a fascist or a
Nazi.
--
Best wishes,
Dario Western
Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859
Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zee" <jon...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:80de75b9-e43e-43f1...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
Zee
wrote:
> I am not condemning him for reading the Bible as much as I am for coming to
> false conclusions and then purporting them to be true.
>
> Anyone who is opposed to human nudity in my book is either a fascist or a
> Nazi.
>
> --
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dario Western
>
> Home: (07) 3267-0099
> Mobile: (0437) 428-859
>
> Web Page:http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
well Dario...thats the stuff wars are made of....all opinions result
in a conclusion ....this is called standing up for what you
believe....you feel he arrived at the wrong conclusion after reading
the Bible....but many folks believe you are wrong with your conclusion
after reading the Bible....Anna states she is not sure and that is
good and you have concluded he is wrong but i fail to see how he is a
fascist with malice or intent to harm.....regards...jz
Anna
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:40:36 -0000, "David Looser"
>
> >"Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
Is it really that important, at a High School level at least, to teach
something that is so controversial?
Let people learn about it in a college class, or perhaps they will see
it in a documentary.
Nether evolution nor intelligent design is that important to everyday
life to be forced down people's throat.
But of course the Left have to control everything don't they. And
yeah, this is the fault of the Left as promotion of "intelligent
design" was just a reaction to them forcing down evolution in a public
school setting.
By they way, I do tend to believe in evolution, but that doesn't
negate the possibility of a "designer". And I don't believe evolution,
at least as currently understood provides a complete answer. I see
don't get how the intermediate steps in the transformation of species
from one species to another happens just through the process of
"survival of the fittest. Sure a finger would be useful in survival
but would the intermediate steps that would be needed to get finally
to the finger be? There is something missing in the evolution theory.
Perhaps someday someone would figure that part of it out.
Lane
news:ebbd2b84-c8d5-48a5...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>> It is the government, such as schools, that is restricted from
>> promoting one set of beliefs over another, a fact nudists need to
>> use. Most citizens in the USA are a member of one religion or
>> another. None is dominate except locally, so these all end up as
>> local battles.
>
> Is it really that important, at a High School level at least, to teach
> something that is so controversial?
That some people might fervently believe that 2+2=5 does not make
arithmetic controversial.
Evolution is science. Creation, and its deriviatives are religion. We
teach science in public schools and not religion. This is not
complicated.
>
> Let people learn about it in a college class, or perhaps they will see
> it in a documentary.
>
> Nether evolution nor intelligent design is that important to everyday
> life to be forced down people's throat.
But critical thinking skills are.
Teaching science means teaching what we have learned from it. Science
does not claim to offer absolute truth (that's religion's job).
Information gleaned from science is just that, the information we have
gleaned to date, subject to refinement as we learn more.
Understanding evolution and understanding how we came to know what we
know about it is important to understanding science and the world around
us in general.
>
> But of course the Left have to control everything don't they. And
> yeah, this is the fault of the Left as promotion of "intelligent
> design" was just a reaction to them forcing down evolution in a public
> school setting.
Nobody is forcing anything. Science is being taught. That's it.
Lane
Anna
>
> Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing fig
> leaves together. God did not shame their nakedness nor condemn them to
> their state of shame. Shame is a man made think that does not occur with
> any other species in the world be they animal or sentient.
That is because animals have no knowledge of good and evil
> "One commentator lucidly notes the change, �Their bodies were
> sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first
> with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the
> body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and
> turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust
> of the flesh.�1"
>
> That "lust of the flesh" was created by God in the first place, as one of
> God's first commandments to Adam & Eve was to 'go forth and multiply'.
> Without those lusts and attractions they would not have been able to
> reproduce.
That is not relevant to the question of whether it is appropriate to
be naked in a mixed gender situation. It just says that husband and
wife should have sex and it is good for society when they have
children (although that was more important in earlier times than now
as there are now 5-6 billion people in the world).
> "Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
> as �very good� and clothing was not necessary or even suggested in the
> Garden prior to the fall. We should be equally clear that immediately
> after the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve. God is the one who started
> the clothing of the human body; therefore, in our present fallen
> state, clothing is not an option, a mere status symbol to be discarded
> in one�s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
> blessing and provision of God."
>
> That's bullshit. See my point above as to A&E being the first to clothe
> themselves, which the author has clearly missed.
They did so after eating from the fruit of the knowledge of good and
evil. They had gained knowledge of the sexual implications that can
arise from nudity.
> "The origin of dress is associated with a changed state brought about
> by sin, resulting in nakedness being seductive, provocative, and
> potentiating shame and further allurement away from God and His plan
> for humans."
> This is more a cultural thing than a biological issue. Many Europeans both
> Christian and non-Christian understand that mixed nakedness can be non
> seductive and non-provocative.
I believe that. But I don't think everyone can be naked without being
seductive and non-provocative. Now it might be by choice or people who
study human behavior always debate how much is behavior is influenced
by people's genes. Some people may just be genetically hardwired to
be more "horny" than others. It could be something in their background
that developed that tendency in them (the whole nature vs nurture
thing) or it could be a combination of both. Still as humans I like to
think we ultimately have free will over such matters. Even if a person
is "hard wired" for something or even if they are "conditioned" for
something it doesn't mean that they ultimately can't use their free
will to control their actions. At least I hope that's the case because
even if it wasn't we need to hold them accountable for the protection
of others.
> "Therefore, prior to the fall of man into sin, Adam and Eve were naked
> without shame. Immediately after the fall, they were ashamed and
> sought to cover themselves, which God did as well. Today those who
> express their shamelessness about public nudity fail to realize that
> shamelessness in the garden was because of the purity of the creation
> whereas after the fall any sense of shamelessness is due to the
> hardness of the heart from sin ��the unjust knows no shame� (Zephaniah
> 3:5)."
>
> Unjustness does not come from being socially naked with others. There are
> as many just and honest people involved with nudism as much as there are
> some unjust and dishonest types.
There needs to be more just and honest people involved with nudism.
Actually everyone needs to behave and think as saints, as angels, at
least while they are at the nudist venue. Nudism depends as Wiccans
say in their creed "Perfect Love and Perfect Trust".
> "Nudity is beautiful between a husband and wife: Contrary to social
> Darwinism, which sees man as an animal, different only from all other
> animals in degree rather than kind, man is created in the image of
> God, and is therefore categorically different than animals. Thus, the
> argument that animals do not wear clothing is no argument or
> determiner of what humans should or should not do. Biblically, the
> body and marriage are sacred and marriage is the proper context for
> sex, and social or sexual nudity. The beliver�s body is not only
> sacred because it was created by God but also because it is a temple
> of the Holy Spirit, (1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, public nudity is
> wrong because it desacralizes marriage, sex, and the temple of the
> Holy Spirit."
>
> There is nowhere in the Bible which enforces this. He has overlooked Isaiah
> 20:2 in which the prophet was commanded to minister naked and barefoot for
> three years to people other than his family.
Again, I ask, please look at WHY he was commanded to do that. When you
find out let me know and tell me why as it is really an example of
"bad nudity". There was a specific reason commanded to do so given a
specific situation that was going on. Please tell me what it was.
But it does show that mixed gender public nudity doesn't rise to being
an actual "sin".
> He has also overlooked the
> mulititudes of people who took their clothes off and spread them on the road
> when Jesus rode into Jerusalem.
All their clothes? Or just some of their garments. I will have to
look that up.
> "Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.
I disagree with half of that. At least I disagree with the Bible
indicating that public nudity rises to the level of a "sin".
> That some are not ashamed reveals more about their spiritual
> deprivation than about whether public nudity is sin or not. Zephaniah
> said, ��the unjust knows no shame� (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity is
> humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God�s way and
> elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentates adultery,
> fornication�.."
>
> Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for me,
> hey? I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex God
> with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).
Perhaps he overstated that. Yeah, I disagree that it always has to be
the case. But it isn't good of you to wish him death for making such
as statement as wrong as it may be.
> "Gen 19:22-25 associates shame with exposure of the nakedness of Noah.
> Leviticus 18 prescribed several specifics about regulating nudity and
> appears to use nudity as a euphemism for sex as well. "
That's the key part about those specifics. It would be interesting to
see what Hebrew words were actually used. The passages there were
obviously about sex and not simple nudity.
>We live in a
> very sensual culture, and the further we move from being a culture
> influenced by biblical principles, the more public nudity and scanty
> dressing will become tokens of liberation from so-called cultural
> taboos."
Agree there, but that statement has to do with people who are scantly
clad and wear provocative clothes instead of about social nudity as
practiced (or should say claimed to be practiced) by nudists.
> The problem was not with Noah being naked, but being drunk and Ham taking
> advantage of his father's situation to make fun of him in a sexual manner.
True.
> Note that God does not condemn Noah for being naked.
I have heard somewhere (I need to find the quote) that Jewish culture
found "Seeing naked People" as worse than being naked yourself.
> "Christians do see nudity and sex as beautiful gifts from God, and
> they, like every other blessing of life, are to be used according to
> God�s plan. �Christians hold that worldly gifts are subordinate to the
> gifts of grace and that the new spirit of divine life consecrates
> these goods from selfish to pious uses�early Christians conformed
> their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
> vain spirit.�2"
>
> The early Christians had no problem with nudity until the reign of
> Augustine. Jesus never spoke against nudism or nudity because it was a lot
> more prevalent in his culture than in the world today.
He didn't speak against nudism because nudism didn't exist in his
culture. Now you are right nudity was more prevalent in his culture
but it seems that was for the most part single gender nudity and
perhaps young children.
> "The Scriptures remind us, �For those who are according to the flesh
> set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
> according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit�(Romans 8:5).
> Therefore, we are commanded, �Set your mind on the things above, not
> on the things that are on earth�(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
> in light of the warning �Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
> appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
> earthly things�(Philippians 3:19)."
>
> Flesh in this context is not to with the skin or body parts, but rather
> 'selfishness'.
Flesh has to do with the body, which means don't set ones mind on
physical pleasures like eating and having sex and stuff like that. Not
saying one shouldn't eat or have sex. Just saying that shouldn't be
the focus of their mind. It is kind of like saying don't focus on
"earthly treasures".
> "Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
> who promote public nudity as �innocent� or �social and not sexual�
> seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity. Those who
> support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc. say that
> walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the
> opposite sex has nothing to do with sex. In other words, there is no
> organic relationship between nudity and sex or nudity and sin."
That's the nudist line and I believe there is a great percentage of
people who participate in nude recreation that can do that. But the
problem is with those who are unwilling or unable to do that.
> Some nudists do, which is the politically correct position. This is just as
> wrong and extreme as those who refer to nudity as being a prelude to sex
> orgies. We need some kind of middle ground here. Being naked with others
> CAN be sexual and arousing in certain places and times but it is not
> necessary to go from simple nudity to full on sexual activity.
We aren't talking about only full on sexual activity. We are talking
about anything that sexualized the environment including dirty talk.
There can be no middle ground for nudism to work.
> "First, as already shown, non-task nudity outside the confines of
> marriage is sin in this fallen world. Second, while nudity is not
> sufficient for sex, it is necessary. Their attempt to totally
> disassociate sex from nudity is laughable. First, the Scripture makes
> the clear connection between sex and nudity with all of the
> regulations regarding nudity, as well as using nudity as a euphemism
> for sex. Also, it seems that the pornographers understand the
> connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or
> photos that cause lust that can only be satiated by sex."
>
> Obvioulsy he hasn't heard of 'dry humping'. Added to that, pornographers
> actually tend to make more money out of selling photos of women in skimpy
> clothing than ones who are merely naked. The reason: it is far more
> alluring to create images that leave something to the imagination.
Yeah, I don't totally agree with him on that statement. Although
regarding your statement it is all about how one defines sex, isn't
it? If sex is only the insertion of a male penis into a woman's
vagina, then he is right, that can only be done with at least both
people's bottom clothing down. But commonly when we define sex we
include more activities than that, as we should. That is why when you
say that as long as there is no "full on sexual activity" at a nudist
venue then it's okay. Any activity that sexifies the environment
including dirty talk, feeling of breasts, etc is inappropriate at a
nudist venue.
> "It seems that men understand the connection since they are by every
> known rational mind to be visual. Lastly, it seems that if honesty
> prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable
> connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more
> intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing
> with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be
> multilayer thick burlap."
That is kind of a lame example. After all it is the mystery that makes
it exciting in a sexual sense. It is in the "unwrapping of the
present". What would make more since in this example would be for
when a couple first meet they should wear a multilayer thick burlap,
because then there would be more to unwrap as they become more
intimate.
> This is a strawman's argument. Women are just as visual, maybe even more
> so, than men by what attracts them to men.
Actually I think studies show that men are more visual when it comes
to sex.
>There are strip shows for
> females, maley magazines like "Playgirl", as well as semi-nude men plastered
> on virtually every advertising billboard, magazine and newspaper cover you
> can find.
Well first one could say that this is an attempt for females to be
more "male" in their sexuality. Kind of a feminist reaction saying if
males can do it we can too. But also I didn't say that women aren't
visual at all when it comes to sex, just that men are far more so.
> I don't tend to find multilayered clothing to be particularly
> sexy any more than nakedness.
His point was that if there were no connection between nudity and sex
then people would find it more sexy to take on clothes than to take
them off, but since they find it more sexy to take off clothes than to
put them on that proves there's a connection between sex and nudity.
I find it a faulty argument but that is the one he was making.
> "Christians should show forth the glory of God by covering what He
> intended to be covered recognizing the insatiable appetite of fallen
> man to desacralize everything, including himself, and live at the
> basest level of human existence; thereby allowing sensory pleasure to
> reign supreme with no shame."
>
> What rot! Jesus never taught this. This self made fascist authoritarian is
> making up his own rules.
I didn't see Jesus teaching one way or the other on public nudity.
Lane
news:371e2bb3-a8bd-4253...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com:
> Neosapienis wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing
>> fig leaves together. God did not shame their nakedness nor condemn
>> them to their state of shame. Shame is a man made think that does
>> not occur with any other species in the world be they animal or
>> sentient.
>
> That is because animals have no knowledge of good and evil
>
>
That could be because "good" and "evil" are concepts invented by humans.
Just saying.
Lane
Anna
> Dario....why do you and other nudist become so filled with contempt
> when a person reads his Bible and naturally forms an opinion and yet
> you call him a fascist.....am i a fascist because i read the Bible and
> conclude killing of other humans.is wrong and sinful...i notice you do
> not attempt to explain your thoughts on how you feel about the
> scriptures...why is that....it does seem that folks agree with this
> preacher but hate him because he said it....wow....jz
Don't forget he said he wanted someone to put a bullet in the guy's
head.
Anna
wrote:
> I am not condemning him for reading the Bible as much as I am for coming to
> false conclusions and then purporting them to be true.
>
> Anyone who is opposed to human nudity in my book is either a fascist or a
> Nazi.
>
> --
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dario Western
And should be killed, right? That's what you said. You want someone
to put a bullet in that guy's head.
Anna
> On Mar 4, 7:38 am, "Neosapienis" <dariowest...@nospambigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am not condemning him for reading the Bible as much as I am for coming to
> > false conclusions and then purporting them to be true.
>
> > Anyone who is opposed to human nudity in my book is either a fascist or a
> > Nazi.
> well Dario...thats the stuff wars are made of....all opinions result
> in a conclusion ....this is called standing up for what you
> believe....you feel he arrived at the wrong conclusion after reading
> the Bible....but many folks believe you are wrong with your conclusion
> after reading the Bible....Anna states she is not sure and that is
> good and you have concluded he is wrong but i fail to see how he is a
> fascist with malice or intent to harm.....regards...jz
That is just like the Left. I don't agree with all his statements
regarding nudity and the Bible. But surely I don't want him killed for
his beliefs.
This proves yet again, Liberals (Leftists) are not merely wrong. They
are indeed evil.
Anna
> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote innews:ebbd2b84-c8d5-48a5...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> It is the government, such as schools, that is restricted from
> >> promoting one set of beliefs over another, a fact nudists need to
> >> use. Most citizens in the USA are a member of one religion or
> >> another. None is dominate except locally, so these all end up as
> >> local battles.
>
> > Is it really that important, at a High School level at least, to teach
> > something that is so controversial?
>
> That some people might fervently believe that 2+2=5 does not make
> arithmetic controversial.
Show me these people.
> Evolution is science. Creation, and its deriviatives are religion. We
> teach science in public schools and not religion. This is not
> complicated.
Don't teach either. Then no controversy. Let the student decide
whether he or she wants to learn about evolution when he or she goes
to college.
Oh, free choice. Can't have that now.
Anna
> Nobody is forcing anything. Science is being taught. That's it.
>
> Lane
You are forcing down your beliefs regarding the origin of our species
down people's throats.
Since it is so controversial let it be taught elsewhere as opposed to
public government schools.
Lane
8955b7...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>> Evolution is science. Creation, and its deriviatives are religion. We
>> teach science in public schools and not religion. This is not
>> complicated.
>
> Don't teach either. Then no controversy. Let the student decide
> whether he or she wants to learn about evolution when he or she goes
> to college.
>
Don't teach any science? Yeah that will be good for our place in the world
economy.
Lane
Lane
cfcc0d...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 4, 8:58 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Nobody is forcing anything. Science is being taught. That's it.
>>
>
> You are forcing down your beliefs regarding the origin of our species
> down people's throats.
I have no such beliefs. There is physical evidence and a very good
theory that interprest that evidence. I don't believe anything beyond
that.
A belief about the origin of our species would be something without
evidence like, oh, some deity created the universe and everything in it
in 6 days.
See the difference?
>
> Since it is so controversial let it be taught elsewhere as opposed to
> public government schools.
>
It is not controversial. That a minority of people deny reality does not
make reality controversial.
Lane
Anna
No, you are right, Good and evil are concepts invented by humans.
Animals know not of such things. They just act on instincts.
So, are you saying the concepts of good and evil are bad things. If
so, I guess it is okay for example rape a lady (or in your case a man)
because, after all there's no good and evil in the world. They are
just man made. So rape isn't good or bad because good or bad doesn't
exist?
Is that what you are saying?
Just because the concepts of good and evil are man made doesn't make
them any less real or important. It is what separates us from animals.
Zee
i have also wondered why it is necessary to teach that humans evolve
from primates....the plant life is all that is necessary to the
advancement of technology...and when the students say well do humans
evolve... the instructor can say that is a question left to religion
and culture and humans to debate as nothing is scientificly conclusive
at this point as there is question about the missing link..and of
course explanation of a hymen in human females need to be totally
answered.....it may be that will be offered to you in college...but if
liberal left anarchist and homosexuals and even nudist and
prostitution promoters are to florish then limiting the nay sayers is
at the top of their agenda....as morals ...as we know them could all
be deregulated once the nay sayers are censored....jz
Lane
news:68c9766d-3aa5-4e36...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 4, 9:48 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote
>> innews:371e2bb3-a8bd-4253-8878-
6a11d6...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > Neosapienis wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing
>> >> fig leaves together. God did not shame their nakedness nor
>> >> condemn them to their state of shame. Shame is a man made think
>> >> that does not occur with any other species in the world be they
>> >> animal or sentient.
>>
>> > That is because animals have no knowledge of good and evil
>>
>> That could be because "good" and "evil" are concepts invented by
>> humans.
>>
>> Just saying.
>>
>
> No, you are right, Good and evil are concepts invented by humans.
> Animals know not of such things. They just act on instincts.
Good. We agree then.
>
> So, are you saying the concepts of good and evil are bad things. If
> so, I guess it is okay for example rape a lady (or in your case a man)
> because, after all there's no good and evil in the world. They are
> just man made. So rape isn't good or bad because good or bad doesn't
> exist?
Show me where I said any such things.
I accept things as they are and leave them there. You take things as
they are and invent universes of ideas and beliefs based on those things
that have no basis in reality. Example 1: My understanding that humans
invented the concept of good and evil means that I think it is okay to
do evil things. Example 2: My belief that evolution, like all science,
should be taught in schools means that I believe that evolution is a
perfect description of the origin of species.
It good not to ascribe to someone's words more meaning than is there.
Now, my point in making that observation is that you throw the words
"good" and "evil" around very liberally and in such a way as to suggest
that you are, somehow, the arbiter of what is good and what is evil.
Example: "Liberals are not only wrong, they are pure evil."
Since you are not omniscient, I choose not to grant you the authority to
decide what is good and what is evil.
Lane
Anna
You remind me of remind me of the story of the undergraduate who wrote
a paper defending the thesis that there were no objective values, just
subjective preferences, and that nobody could criticize Hitler for
what he did, because that is what he wanted to do. When he got the
paper back -- which was well-researched and brilliantly argued -- he
got an F. The student went to the teacher and said, "Sir, didn't you
think this was a good paper" The teacher replied, "I thought it an
excellent paper." The student pressed on, "So why didn't I get an A."
To which the teacher replied, "I was so impressed by the thesis of the
paper, that I gave it an F." The student complained, "But that's not
fair."
You can imagine what the teacher's reply was.
Anna
> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote in news:b92429e4-83c1-4ae0-87b4-
> cfcc0db3c...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 4, 8:58 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Nobody is forcing anything. Science is being taught. That's it.
>
> > You are forcing down your beliefs regarding the origin of our species
> > down people's throats.
>
> I have no such beliefs. There is physical evidence and a very good
> theory that interprest that evidence. I don't believe anything beyond
> that.
Well many people don't believe that. So you are forcing that belief
down people's throats instead of allowing people the choice of
learning about it.
> > Since it is so controversial let it be taught elsewhere as opposed to
> > public government schools.
>
> It is not controversial. That a minority of people deny reality does not
> make reality controversial.
It is far from a small minority. Look if there is no one in the
school district with a problem with it then yeah go ahead teach it.
Otherwise they can wait until they get to college if they want to
learn about it.
Anna
> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote innews:68c9766d-3aa5-4e36...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 4, 9:48 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote
> >> innews:371e2bb3-a8bd-4253-8878-
>
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > Neosapienis wrote:
>
> >> >> Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing
> >> >> fig leaves together. God did not shame their nakedness nor
> >> >> condemn them to their state of shame. Shame is a man made think
> >> >> that does not occur with any other species in the world be they
> >> >> animal or sentient.
>
> >> > That is because animals have no knowledge of good and evil
>
> >> That could be because "good" and "evil" are concepts invented by
> >> humans.
>
> >> Just saying.
>
> > No, you are right, Good and evil are concepts invented by humans.
> > Animals know not of such things. They just act on instincts.
>
> Good. We agree then.
>
>
>
> > So, are you saying the concepts of good and evil are bad things. If
> > so, I guess it is okay for example rape a lady (or in your case a man)
> > because, after all there's no good and evil in the world. They are
> > just man made. So rape isn't good or bad because good or bad doesn't
> > exist?
>
> Show me where I said any such things.
>
> I accept things as they are and leave them there. You take things as
> they are and invent universes of ideas and beliefs based on those things
> invented the concept of good and evil means that I think it is okay to
> do evil things.
It's neither "okay" or "not okay" as "okay"and "not okay" doesn't
exist. So the concept of "okay" doesn't even come into it.
According to you at least.
Zee
just today on the news..the school books...history of the usa has been
found to be full of erroneous teachings and so i guess maybe things
might change a bit....if this issue gets a lot of attention....jz
Anna
> Now, my point in making that observation is that you throw the words
> "good" and "evil" around very liberally and in such a way as to suggest
> that you are, somehow, the arbiter of what is good and what is evil.
> Example: "Liberals are not only wrong, they are pure evil."
I constantly give you examples of why I make such a statement. For
example a guy who wants someone to put a bullet into someone's head
(Dario) simply because he has a disagreement with him on how he
interprets nudity in the Bible.
Anna
I wonder if anything is ever going to change. Except to get worse.
Best bet right now is things are going to just continue to get worse
and worse and worse until everything just falls apart.
David Looser
> as there is question about the missing link..
What "missing link"? there is no "missing link".
> and of course explanation of a hymen in human females need to be totally
answered.....
Does it?, why?
David.
Bert Clanton
I wouldn't want my kids to have a choice as to whether they're taught
in a science class that the universe is 6000-odd years old, or that it
is 13.7 billion years old. If they're taught the former in a religion
class in a church, I'm willing to say, "Oh. Ok."; but not if it's in a
science class in a public school. "Creation science" and "Intelligent
design science" are not science, and I don't want them taught in
science classes. So sue me.
Anna
If one is taught the other should be taught.
It doesn't have to be taught as being "correct". It can be taught as
there are two theories and here is what both sides give for their
reasons they believe their theories.
Wow, let people hear both sides and come to their own decision. Can't
have that.
Lane
news:2a6b89da-dd8f-47d3...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
And you infer from that that all liberals are evil?
You do know what a generalization is, no?
Lane
Bert Clanton
I have just as much right to try to control what is taught in public
schools as Anna does. The almost total consensus about evolution among
biological scientists convinces me that evolution is probably a fact--
just as the almost total consensus among historians that the Holocaust
actually occurred convinces me that the Holocaust actually occurred.
So I don't want the content of teaching in biology or in history to be
decided by popular vote. Frankly, I want such questions of
curriculum decided by the consensus of people whose profession is to
investigate such questions, rather than by people who are completely
ignorant about biological science or history.
If I'm going to have brain surgery, I don't want it done by a plumber.
Anna
That is just one of thousands and thousands of examples. If you want I
will try to answer this question more fully later because it is
something I have thought about for a long time. I know the harshness
of the term evil and it's implications.
Lane
news:2960a51b-30c5-4553...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
No, it can't. There are not two theories. There is one theory and one made
up story that some religious people believe and go through a lot of futile
intellectual gymnastics to justify.
>
> Wow, let people hear both sides and come to their own decision. Can't
> have that.
>
I never minded my kids learning that people believed in creation. I
honestly wouldnt' have minded if they believed it themself. But I would
insist that they understand that their belief was not justified by any
evidence or rational thought process.
As it happens, my youngest is an even more ardent and vocal atheist than I
am. I didn't teach him that. He came to his conclusions all on his own.
I'm proud of him for that.
Lane
Zee
and your willing to overlook the unanswered questions about evolution
of man....that figures...jz
Anna
See, that's the difference. I don't want control. Just want balance.
Lane
news:020c9e98-d6e8-4c4e...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 4, 10:48 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote
>> innews:2a6b89da-dd8f-47d3-9799-
f32d1c...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > On Mar 4, 10:19 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Now, my point in making that observation is that you throw the
>> >> words "good" and "evil" around very liberally and in such a way as
>> >> to suggest that you are, somehow, the arbiter of what is good and
>> >> what is evil. Example: "Liberals are not only wrong, they are pure
>> >> evil."
>>
>> > I constantly give you examples of why I make such a statement. For
>> > example a guy who wants someone to put a bullet into someone's head
>> > (Dario) simply because he has a disagreement with him on how he
>> > interprets nudity in the Bible.
>>
>> And you infer from that that all liberals are evil?
>>
>> You do know what a generalization is, no?
>>
>> Lane
>
> That is just one of thousands and thousands of examples. If you want I
> will try to answer this question more fully later because it is
> something I have thought about for a long time. I know the harshness
> of the term evil and it's implications.
>
You know it would take only one non-evil liberal to disprove your
thesis. The burden on you is to prove that every liberal is evil.
Best get busy.
Lane
Lane
news:8aad2cc0-832c-4de4...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
Well put.
Lane
Anna
> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote innews:020c9e98-d6e8-4c4e...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote
> >> innews:2a6b89da-dd8f-47d3-9799-
>
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Mar 4, 10:19 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Now, my point in making that observation is that you throw the
> >> >> words "good" and "evil" around very liberally and in such a way as
> >> >> to suggest that you are, somehow, the arbiter of what is good and
> >> >> what is evil. Example: "Liberals are not only wrong, they are pure
> >> >> evil."
>
> >> > I constantly give you examples of why I make such a statement. For
> >> > example a guy who wants someone to put a bullet into someone's head
> >> > (Dario) simply because he has a disagreement with him on how he
> >> > interprets nudity in the Bible.
>
> >> And you infer from that that all liberals are evil?
>
> >> You do know what a generalization is, no?
>
> >> Lane
>
> > That is just one of thousands and thousands of examples. If you want I
> > will try to answer this question more fully later because it is
> > something I have thought about for a long time. I know the harshness
> > of the term evil and it's implications.
>
> You know it would take only one non-evil liberal to disprove your
> thesis. The burden on you is to prove that every liberal is evil.
>
> Best get busy.
>
> Lane
Yeah, that is why I want to wait to give you a complete answer. I
have often thought about that as well. Part of that answer has to do
with the kinds of evil. But yeah, it might be too general of a
statement and that is something I have often thought about. At the
very least though the Leftist leaders are all evil.
David Looser
> and your willing to overlook the unanswered questions about evolution
> of man....that figures...jz
WHAT "unawered questions"?
David.
David Looser
news:ebbd2b84-c8d5-48a5...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> By they way, I do tend to believe in evolution, but that doesn't
> negate the possibility of a "designer". And I don't believe evolution,
> at least as currently understood provides a complete answer.
Of course it isn't a "complete answer". We don't have "complete answers" to
anything.
> I see
> don't get how the intermediate steps in the transformation of species
> from one species to another happens just through the process of
> "survival of the fittest. Sure a finger would be useful in survival
> but would the intermediate steps that would be needed to get finally
> to the finger be? There is something missing in the evolution theory.
> Perhaps someday someone would figure that part of it out.
You have just provided the best reason yet why evolution should be taught in
schools. You don't understand modern evolutionary theory, so you are
doubting evolution based on your own ignorance of what evolutionary theory
actually tells us.
David.
Lane
news:2c6aa714-b26c-4e49...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 4, 10:55 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote
>> innews:020c9e98-d6e8-4c4e-9807-cc72efb77b58
@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.c
You really are too much. I should have killfiled you a long time ago,
but you're just too entertaining. Worse than crack.
Lane
BeoWolf
> That is just like the Left. I don't agree with all his statements
> regarding nudity and the Bible. But surely I don't want him killed for
> his beliefs.
>
> This proves yet again, Liberals (Leftists) are not merely wrong. They
> are indeed evil.
Mahatma Gandhi has said that no two people agree completely on
religion.
The second stage of nonviolence includes ending trying to impose your
viewpoints on others using a degree of force, which includes excessive
repetition. Socialism to exist requires force, and the level of force
needed to maintain it rises over time.
Truth is lacking on both the right and the left. Admit your sins, ask
forgiveness, and seek truth, then seek humility starting with all men
are created equal.
BeoWolf
BeoWolf
the earth. The Moon rotates, Venus rotates, the Sun rotates, and the
Milky Way Galaxy rotates, each with a different day. Once the
stumbling block of the exact length of a day is removed, the story of
creation in Genesis agrees perfectly with evolution, and it becomes a
miracle that god's word was thousands of years ahead of science. Then
those seeking magic in the last days through the conjuring up of the
earth by a magician will then stop seeing God as a personal slave that
will provide themselves with magic and instead will serve God by
submitting to His will.
BeoWolf
On Mar 4, 1:06 pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:58 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote innews:ebbd2b84-c8d5-48a5...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> It is the government, such as schools, that is restricted from
> > >> promoting one set of beliefs over another, a fact nudists need to
> > >> use. Most citizens in the USA are a member of one religion or
> > >> another. None is dominate except locally, so these all end up as
> > >> local battles.
>
> > > Is it really that important, at a High School level at least, to teach
> > > something that is so controversial?
>
> > That some people might fervently believe that 2+2=5 does not make
> > arithmetic controversial.
>
> Show me these people.
>
Dan Abel
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Zee" <jon...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:737ff909-0d06-420c...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > as there is question about the missing link..
>
> What "missing link"? there is no "missing link".
Don't be silly. Of course there is. You just responded to him in this
thread.
:-)
> > and of course explanation of a hymen in human females need to be totally
> answered.....
>
> Does it?, why?
That one is easily explained, also. It was an attempt to keep Zee from
reproducing.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Terry J. Wood
news:Xns9BC479E32F902ab...@85.214.105.209:
>> Nether evolution nor intelligent design is that important to everyday
>> life to be forced down people's throat.
> But critical thinking skills are.
Evolution is not a conjecture. It's a THEORY. There is strong evidence to
support it, that's why it's a THEORY and not a conjecture.
People who say it is "ONLY A THEORY" are in need of a basic SCIENCE class
(or should have been held back a grade in school) so they can learn the
difference between conjecture and THEORY. They are uneducated people.
"Intelligent Design" is B.S. pure and simple. The Flintstones is a cartoon
intended to entertain. It is NOT a documentary on the Stone Age. Humans
did NOT exist during the age of the dinosaurs, Jesus did NOT ride a
dinosaur and the fossil record proves this.
I suspect that the only people who think the teaching of evolution is not
important enough to concern high school students are the same people who
tune into Rush Limbaugh each day. :-P
Zee
> In article <718018Fjvm4...@mid.individual.net>,
> "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >news:737ff909-0d06-420c...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > as there is question about the missing link..
>
> > What "missing link"? there is no "missing link".
>
> Don't be silly. Of course there is. You just responded to him in this
> thread.
>
> :-)
>
> > > and of course explanation of a hymen in human females need to be totally
> > answered.....
>
> > Does it?, why?
>
> That one is easily explained, also. It was an attempt to keep Zee from
> reproducing.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
> da...@sonic.net
well there you have it....so it was by design...what a bunch of
idiots...jz
Terry J. Wood
news:Xns9BC485E1DD6D1ab...@85.214.105.209:
> Don't teach any science? Yeah that will be good for our place in the
> world economy.
Don't teach anything controversial, like math, reading or even civics.
Oh wait, we DON'T teach these as can be evidenced by the 8 years "W" was in
office!
Never mind! :-)
Zee
> Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:Xns9BC485E1DD6D1ab...@85.214.105.209:
>
> > Don't teach any science? Yeah that will be good for our place in the
> > world economy.
>
> Don't teach anything controversial, like math, reading or even civics.
>
> Oh wait, we DON'T teach these as can be evidenced by the 8 years "W" was in
> office!
>
> Never mind! :-)
so in about 20 years do not forget when visiting baghdad to walk over
at the big intersection and note ...the statue of the father of their
country....yep there it will be george w. bush.....wear some flowers
in your hair....jz
Terry J. Wood
news:Xns9BC48659DDDF3ab...@85.214.105.209:
> It is not controversial. That a minority of people deny reality does not
> make reality controversial.
I have an idea. Let's PROVE what is written in the Bible is ABSOLUTE TRUTH
by testing it. Let's start by building an arc, put 2 of every type of
animal aboard it (along with the food and water for them) and have 8 people
attempt to live on Lake Michigan for 40 days and 40 nights. If all the
animals and people survive, you can conclude that it might just have
happened. Even if you can fit 2 of every known animal aboard the arc it
would go a long way to saying that it was at least possible.
(Of course I have no idea where you will get 2 of every type of dinosaur.
Maybe 2 of every type of bird would do as a substitute.)
If this can't be done, then just maybe the story is a fable of a king who
rode a barge down a river during a flood.
More Fun reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Terry J. Wood
@mid.individual.net:
> What "missing link"? there is no "missing link".
I thought Z was the missing link!
Lane
news:Xns9BC4A2AC1D8...@216.168.3.30:
> Lane <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9BC479E32F902ab...@85.214.105.209:
>
>>> Nether evolution nor intelligent design is that important to
>>> everyday life to be forced down people's throat.
>
>> But critical thinking skills are.
>
> Evolution is not a conjecture. It's a THEORY. There is strong
> evidence to support it, that's why it's a THEORY and not a conjecture.
It's also not an assertion of absolute truth. Neither is the theory of
gravity. It, too, is just a theory that is the (almost) best one we have
to describe why we stick to our planet and the universe dances in pretty
round paths.
>
> People who say it is "ONLY A THEORY" are in need of a basic SCIENCE
> class (or should have been held back a grade in school) so they can
> learn the difference between conjecture and THEORY. They are
> uneducated people.
Sadly, science pundits are somewhat guilty of this problem, as they
don't do a good enough job of illustrating that almost all of human
knowledge is merely theory. I can only theorize that I'm in my living
room typing this. It's a compelling one, but I have no absolute proof
that I was secretly taken to another house during the night that looks
exactly like mine, including the views out the window.
Lane (who has a sudden urge to take a walk around the block.)
Lane
> Lane <absolu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9BC48659DDDF3ab...@85.214.105.209:
>
>> It is not controversial. That a minority of people deny reality does
>> not make reality controversial.
>
> I have an idea. Let's PROVE what is written in the Bible is ABSOLUTE
> TRUTH by testing it. Let's start by building an arc, put 2 of every
> type of animal aboard it (along with the food and water for them) and
> have 8 people attempt to live on Lake Michigan for 40 days and 40
> nights. If all the animals and people survive, you can conclude that
> it might just have happened. Even if you can fit 2 of every known
> animal aboard the arc it would go a long way to saying that it was at
> least possible.
>
> (Of course I have no idea where you will get 2 of every type of
> dinosaur. Maybe 2 of every type of bird would do as a substitute.)
Well, dinosaurs never actually existed you know, since the fossil record
says that they existed before the earth was actually created. I always
wondered why God put those there. Probably some sort of test of our
faith.
Lane
Terry J. Wood
b1d7-de5...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> So I don't want the content of teaching in biology or in history to be
> decided by popular vote.
I have an idea. If both "theories" are to be taught (regardless of the
fact that "creation science" is neither a science nor a theory) then let's
teach both "theories" about EVERYTHING!!!!
That is, in addition to teaching that babies are born let's also teach that
babes are brought by the stork!
Let's teach that thunder is caused by the super heating of the air by
lighting and also that it is caused by God bowling!
Let's be sure to teach that Santa Claus is real as well as a myth.
Let's teach that the Earth is round and that the Earth is FLAT!
Let's teach that up is down and right is left!
PROBLEM SOLVED!!!! :-)
Terry J. Wood
b1d7-de5...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> If I'm going to have brain surgery, I don't want it done by a plumber.
At least a plumber had SOME training!
Zee
i would say that gandhi was full of shit....the most agreeable thing
that man has ever experienced is the overwhelming power of some folks
to captivate an audience into believing exactly what he or she is
saying...though i know of no women that has been notable at
this ....no other subject has been more agreeable....they will even
drink poisen if he say to and die.....so hey guy....you need to go to
Peter Ridens place and kick back awhile....jz