exposing oneself
The human body is beautiful and sacred. Since genesis 3 when God made animal skins to cover the nakedness of our first parents after the entrance of sin, he left us a bit of His garden paradise in the marriage bed alone where nakedness is still intimate and holy.
To expose oneself elsewhere is shameful and makes yourself common instead of precious and special, reserved only for one’s spouse. To partake of a lady’s intimacy is a privilege reserved only for her husband and vice versa. (Tiribulus)
This comment was inspired by a picture of a woman in a tank top and shorts. A woman who I believe lives in Hawaii. Let me take the time to explain a few things about the world to anyone who thinks any of the above quote makes sense.
1. There is extreme climate variation in the world. In some places it is so hot that it would be cruel to expect any person to cover themselves from head to toe, or even from shoulder to knee. Not everyone has air conditioning, and most of us want to be comfortable.
2. What we wear varies from culture to culture, often, but not always, based on the general temperature and living conditions. When I’m in Scotland, I feel exposed in shorts. When I’m on the beach in Brazil I feel foolish and uncomfortable in jeans.
3. There are women who get turned on by hairy hands, women who get turned on by bulging biceps, women who get turned on by tight asses. There are men who get turned on by ankles, men who get turned on by hair, men who get turned on by knees. Even if we wanted to, we couldn’t possibly hide all our sexy bits from every person we pass.
4. There are tribes in the world where breasts and penises are constantly on display, and no-one cares. There are some subcultures in the western world where people spend time together naked, and no-one cares. Any problem you have with any bits of flesh is purely cultural programming.
5. If you feel hot under the collar when you see clothed, partially clothed or naked bodies you are probably a human with a full or partial reproductive system that responds to visual stimuli. If you think this is ‘bad’, and people should pile on more clothes so you can stop thinking about sex, you need to get some perspective on the world and read 1-4 again.
6. STOP stealing ancient myths from other cultures and pretending that they were real events! It’s so seriously embarrassing I’m going to scream. The god God didn’t cover anyone in bloody animal skin, you big silly lump of stupid.
I wonder how many times I can get a headline from you Violet.
Heathen cultures, your comfort and what pagans care about is entirely irrelevant. For the record I have never seen a picture of Michelle in a shorts and a tank top. I have never seen any pix of her I’m sorry I saw. Not the point at all, but point missing is your specialty. You also left off part of what I said.
LikeLike
I doubt you’ll beat Insanity on the inspiration front. Sorry you find relevant points to be irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“….precious and special, reserved only for one’s spouse. To partake of a lady’s intimacy is a privilege reserved only for her husband and vice versa…”
Sounds like a rather a sweet and honorable comment that shows some genuine love and respect for women, Violet. How in the world could you manage to take offense?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can answer that one.
To expose oneself elsewhere is shameful and makes yourself common instead of precious and special, It depends what he imagines consists in “exposing”, but if he judges women for how they dress, that is not love or respect.
LikeLike
Women judge their own selves by how we dress. If one feels like a commodity having no value or worth beyond our sexuality, we’ll dress the part.
It is neither love or respect to promote the perception of women as cheap sexual commodities. The shame to be found there is not imposed on women by those they perceive as “judging them,” it is internalized shame from being forced to walk in a world that has cheapened women’s value.
LikeLiked by 2 people
IB says: “Women judge their own selves by how we dress. If one feels like a commodity having no value or worth beyond our sexuality, we’ll dress the part.
It is neither love or respect to promote the perception of women as cheap sexual commodities. The shame to be found there is not imposed on women by those they perceive as “judging them,” it is internalized shame from being forced to walk in a world that has cheapened women’s value.”
AMEN!! 🙂 That’s what I’m talkin about.
Invariably, I value a woman far more than she values herself when she’s growling at me about “judging” her. “Male and female created He them and He called THEIR name Adam [man]”. (Genesis 5:2)
As I’ve made abundantly clear. To me every woman is a lady, no matter what they are to themselves. Cleaning up your life, including how you dress, won’t make somebody right with God anyway. Getting right with God will take care of the rest as one grows in their walk with Jesus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can be naked, dressed in a burka or a bikini and I am a woman. I deserve the same respect no matter how I choose to dress or undress. Nudity it seems is a religious thing and not a social thing. I have been nude at the beach and not been a commodity. Only when we hide our bodies does it become something taboo.
So you believe one way and I don’t share your belief so that means YOU MUST BE RIGHT… WRONG!!!
Sorry to say but I give a rats ass what YOUR bible says or YOUR morals say. My personal dress does NOT affect you in the least and if it does then YOU have the problem. If nudity makes me a commodity then again the problem is from the person seeing a piece of meat and not a person.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, indeed. It is not love or respect to promote the perception of women as cheap sexual commodities. Of course. But that is not what I am saying.
Look at TB’s comment again. Simply on the basis of what a woman was wearing, he comments To expose oneself elsewhere is shameful and makes yourself common instead of precious and special. Shameful and common for dressing as you please? He knows nothing of this woman’s sexual activity.
The alternative to “promoting women as commodities” is respecting women as people- which includes respecting our choices of dress.
He complains this is out of context. Has anyone a link?
LikeLike
By “exposure” I mean nudity and I was explaining why I would not dishonor Michelle. God”s standards are my standards. Individual choices conflicting with those standards are wrong. Exposing one’s self publicly is shameful because God has declared it as such.
I wonder if before I possibly assume in error, annj49 would clarify her position a bit please. Is your first paragraph or your second what you believe. They contradict one another.
LikeLike
Could you give a link to your original comment? And confirm what we are talking about?
Violet says a tank top and shorts.
That is not nudity.
LikeLike
Oh good grief. The young lady had seemed to indicate to Arch a week or so ago that she has nude shots of herself at her blog.
I asked for her story but told her I would not dishonor her by viewing her nakedness. HERE
If you read down, she responds by saying that Shorts and tank tops are what is there. I go on to say that shorts and tank tops were not what I was really concerned about unless they were very short and very revealing.
My family is the standard. If I would not want my wife or daughter to be seen in____________, I don’t intentionally see other women that way either.
Are there any further questions?
LikeLike
It continues HERE
When Violet first invited me here. (don’t forget. yes she did) She very decently asked if she could quote me and I could come and discuss it. I told her to quote me any time she wanted to. My only requirement was that my thought be left intact (cue Arch?) That I not be made to appear to say something I was not.
For these articles she likes to star me in, she has been good about that. This one is pushing it. Violet, feel free to quote me at will, but please take care not to change my meaning. With these freekin nested quotes it can get confusing. Maybe it was just a mistake. I’ll believe you if you say it was.
LikeLike
“I wouldn’t like my wife or daughter online in very short shorts or a skimpy revealing tank top.”
I’m not clear why you think you’ve been misrepresented.
LikeLike
So here is context: A tank top and shorts wasn’t my concern and please understand. In my mind, this is not about me. It’s about you. I do my very utmost to view and treat all women with the same respect I do my own family…
I wouldn’t like my wife or daughter online in very short shorts or a skimpy revealing tank top.
It seems that you are judging women by what we wear. I wear what I like. If you have naughty thoughts looking at a woman, it is not up to her to prevent that- even the total covering in Afghanistan does not prevent that, which is the end of your sort of religious extremism; normal men can deal with sexual feelings.
I have just been out in shorts, because it is too hot to cycle in long trousers, and a skirt might blow up in the breeze.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And- don’t project the naughty thoughts onto her. If you feel lust, don’t imagine that this is the only way she wishes to be viewed. You know nothing about whether she is a lady or not. You say you want to treat her like a lady, but then announce (without any idea of the reality) that she is something else to herself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually, Clare, if anyone bothered to check out the reason for her nudity, it was a very strong, very bold statement. At 15, she had been raped by 5 men, and in her blogpost, she was debunking the old rape excuse: “Look how she’s dressed, she was asking for it!” She posed nude, and said, essentially – “Look how I’m dressed now – and it’s STILL not OK!” There was nothing sexual about it, she used her body to illustrate a very valid point for women everywhere, such courage should be applauded.
LikeLike
You are incapable of grasping the still eminently valid point I was making Arch. I understand I. really do. I once was you.
LikeLike
So what happened, brain damage?
LikeLike
“Exposing one’s self publicly is shameful because God has declared it as such.”
You have no idea what your god has declared, if anything – you know only what a bunch of ancient, largely anonymous, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant, Middle-Eastern, Bronze and Iron Age men said he declared.
LikeLike
The only problem with this sentence “God”s standards are my standards” is there were gods before yours and gods after yours. Just because YOU personally found a faith that you believe in does not mean it is the ONLY faith nor the RIGHT faith. Mine has a single god and is older than the Hebrews. So they weren’t the first to know the heavenly father as god nor the last.
So in reality your morals are based on your own personal view of religion and not any basis of fact. Religion and god is a highly personal thing and EVERYONE thinks they and THEY ALONE are right and everyone else is wrong. See the flaw here? Older faiths even the one Christians are based off are wrong but Christianity is right? Which version of Christianity is right? There are only about 10,000 sects of Christianity. So we make it simpler which bible is “THE” bible? There are 12 in common circulation and about three dozen lesser known bibles so only 48, much simpler to agree on than 10,000 sects.
There in lay the meat of the problem so to speak.
If you see a woman naked, in a bikini or in a burka and see her as a commodity the problem is not in the woman but in the person viewing her. It’s honestly that simple and always will be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is one and only one true and living God. All others being idols of men. His standards are right. Everyone else’s are wrong.
I see every woman, regardless of how dressed, or not, as my sister in father Adam. A fellow bearer of the image and likeness of our creator. To be honored and respected as such, no matter whether she she so honors and respects herself or not.
Unnecessary (medical for instance) nudity outside the covenant of the marriage of one man and one woman (yes, I know ALLLLL about the old testament) is always wrong. A sinful perversion of the precepts of this one true and living God.
He does not care what the Lakota think any more than He cares what I think, which I assure you He does not care about either. He cares about what HE thinks. When one is born again from Adam into Christ and becomes a Christian, they now care what He thinks too. That’s how you can tell who they are.
No, I am getting into all this because nobody here will care. However, since you addressed me directly and I am committed to being the best friend I can over the internet, I felt I should respond and give the only actually Christian view Michelle.
Once I leave here in a minute, the wailing banshees will be along shortly to reassure you of what a dumb@ss I am and how everything you do and say is wonderful. They and you are wrong and THE alone one true and living God is right.
This will make you furious with me. I don’t like it, but I can live with that. What I can’t live with is being unfaithful to our God. Do know that you (and Sarah and your boy) are regularly in my prayers. You know where to find me. Never hesitate.
LikeLike
“There is one and only one true and living God.”
You are right so when are you going to worship him because MINE is the only true, living god.
LikeLike
I would respond, but I shan’t, for fear of offending an invited Christian – that’s a dassen’t do —
LikeLike
You are such a good boy! 😀
LikeLike
“Once I leave here in a minute, the wailing banshees will be along shortly to reassure you of what a dumb@ss I am” – Besides, some things go without saying.
LikeLike
An honest teleological study of this world reveals a malevolent designer.
That’s just a simple truth.
LikeLike
“indeed. It is not love or respect to promote the perception of women as cheap sexual commodities.”
let’s extend that to see ANYONE man or woman as a commodity and anyone who does has a problem. The fault is not in how one dresses. The fault is in how one thinks and to think nudity cheapens my value as a person is the problem. The fault is faulty thinking from some pretend moralistic view.
Rape was virtually unknown among my people and we wandered naked in the hot summer months. Never were women seen then as cattle or meat that could be taken or sold. No and why? Because my people respect people and not the clothes they wear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In this post, I find Tiribulus fair game. He has said something silly, and can be mocked for it. I have just read your posts “inside me deeply part 5”. I have gained from them. I hope you have too. I am sorry that it was Tiribulus’s comment to you that we are discussing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michelle, I’m sorry if this post has upset you in any. It was thoughtless of me not to check with you first, I was thinking of his words in isolation and didn’t consider how it could have affected you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was ok with the post it is more the ignorant self absorbed comments about morals
As if theirs are the only morals that matter. It’s that moral superiority that lead to the genocide of my people. So honestly if genocide, murder, rape and all kinds of evil is moral then fine I will take Satan over those same self imposed, self righteous, self important morals.
It certainly irks me to see that kind of stupidity. My morals are perfect and everyone else is a heath, savage. Irrelevant piss ant. Get off the high horse your own morals have root destruction on 100 of millions. How moral is that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I once asked a self proclaimed Christian conservative (not Tiribulus, though) who is the pervert: the designer of Japanese school dress, the Japanese shcool girls who wear them, or the dude who percieves such attire to be sexually arousing? Guess what, he never answered. But he was adamant, that women should wear less sexy clothing at work or in public. To whose benefit, I wonder and by sexy by whose standards? The standards of the god that tells there should not be stairs to the altar of this god, so that the private parts of the worshipper entering the altar would not flash?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think I am going to church in a g string and yank top tomorrow.
LikeLike
They expect women to be covered head to toe so no flashing would occur.
LikeLike
I don’t find a contradiction in what I said, Tribulous. I wrote what I believe.
LikeLike
Yes I’m sure in your submissive position it’s normal for your husband to dictate what he finds appropriate for you to wear, and perhaps by extension you appreciate input from other arrogant and clearly sex-obsessed males. Most of the rest of us enjoy the freedom to wear whatever makes us comfortable.
LikeLike
As usual, you misunderstand Violet, and seek to force an ugly face on all men. It is actually rather sweet when hubby notices what I am wearing and submission is not a response to dictators, it is a response to love.
As to so called “sex obsessed males,” I’ve found the vast majority of men to be far kinder and more appreciative of women than most women are. You should address the nasty viciousness of women with their constant sexual competitiveness and never ending policing of each other’s appearance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On this point we agree. The problem with nudity though is societal. people have value no matter the clothing worn or not worn.
LikeLike
@insanitybytes22 It seems you do this all the time. That is, distort what people say. Why? Is it deliberate, or what? If it is because you have a disability in understanding text, I am sorry to point this out. Otherwise you owe her an apology. Violet did not say all men are sex-obsessed, only the kind that try to impose on women what they should wear. How could you miss this out? Is this sort of misunderstanding representative of your conception of reality?
I have not found, that there is any difference between genders as to who is more or less appreciative of the others. There our experiences differ. How to measure such would be hard in the first place, because people seem to take totally different messages as appreciative. However, if there was some objective standard to it, it would require that appriciation is not connected to a simultaneous need to tell other people how they should dress, wether by men or women. Right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
6 – Tell us how you really feel! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like your common sense list, Violet, though I disagree with #6, as you would suppose.
Scripture tells us God did cover the pair in the garden with animal skins. Their disobedience had caused them to become embarrassed by their formerly acceptable and uninhibited nakedness, as one result of eating the forbidden fruit, and they were hiding, or trying to hide, their shame (the very first shame) from God. In love, He provided a covering, as He has done with us ever since. That covering came at the expense of a life (the very first physical death) which was another result of eating the forbidden fruit.
As you made clear, exposure today is relevant to location and culture. I believe our feelings about it today are governed by our own inhibitions. God made the human body to be pure and beautiful and to be enjoyed, unsullied by sin, but sin exists and we are imperfect people.
I think there is something to be said, however, for modesty and decency, especially where it’s appropriate.
LikeLike
Thanks for your input Ann. I’m glad you see the list is common sense, although you’ll not be surprised I disagree with most of the rest of your comment. Is there no way you could still accept Christianity and consider the creation story to be allegorical? I struggle to comprehend how anyone could possibly view it as anything other than a traditional creation myth of one limited society.
LikeLike
We are not going to understand each other, Violet, when we don’t share faith, but we can still accept parts of each other’s statements/views/beliefs….at least I know I can accept some of yours as truth.
I am finding your pages to be an eye opener. Not the kind that would necessarily change my faith in God , but definitely a challenge to my thinking, which is fine by me. I like challenges. I don’t like when people call each other down because of them. I see that here, unfortunately, from both sides of the fence.
I accept Christianity, as you already know, and I accept the creation story rather than say the big bang theory and evolution, though I do find those theories very interesting indeed. Seriously flawed, but interesting.
I like to try to know both sides of an equation, if possible 😉 I also like to try to remain neutral, wherever I can, though that’s not always possible. At least we can be kind to each other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad to hear you’re getting something interesting out of the posts and discussions. They do go off track and unfortunately become personal, but often the conversation goes in useful directions. There’s usually a good mix of input but I can understand why some people would be unwilling to jump in. Thanks for contributing your views.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok for #6 even if we only use your book. God made them perfect and naked and then they sinned and suddly they being humans decided we are naked and this is bad. God did not cloth them they clothed themselves because now they suddenly saw themselves as NOT perfect the way god made them and the way they had been when he made them.
That is if you believe in that man made book. Even then it puts man deciding god wasn’t right making us all naked so we should wear clothes.
LikeLike
“you big silly lump of stupid.” – OK if I borrow that –?
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I will add, if god cared so much about clothes, it would not have created people without clothes.
If we take genesis seriously, they were to remain naked had they not eaten the fruit of knowledge. The people who keep parroting such silly myths must be really stupid
LikeLike
Alan Sherman, in his book, “The Rape of the A.P.E.,” wrote,”God must have a sense of humor, he sends us into the world naked, and we keep shipping ourselves back to him in full dress suits.“
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sherman himself, seems to me, to have been so full of humour
LikeLike
Hey arch-
Some people put clothing on the lifeless out of respect for death and a reverence for the dead.
Others do it to try to remove the sting of death, and deny the inevitable, ahem, that which comes oh, in a few days.
But in your case, neither respect nor the sting is relevant, since you have said humans are of no more value than the common maggot. This thought alone should cripple any man and drive him to sanity.
LikeLike
Just wanted everyone to know, while he’s still in the neighborhood, I posted this on Colorstorm’s blog two days ago, and here it sits (emphasis, mine):
LikeLike
Oh, what a shame. He must not have a reasonable answer so he’s afraid to have your convincing words sitting on his blog. Maybe the Christian God punishes servants who can’t answer critics?
LikeLike
“He must not have a reasonable answer so he’s afraid to have your convincing words sitting on his blog.” – Actually, it would be laughable if it were not so pathetic – my comment and his reply to it will suddenly appear in quick succession. He doesn’t release mine from moderation until he already has a response.
Factual information, such as those originators of the Documentary Hypothesis demonstrating that Moses did not write the Torah, will be redacted – he will pull out any links to evidence of what I say, and often [add his own notation in brackets], informing his audience that he has removed some of my comment. His cult has no idea what he removed and are kept completely in the dark, reading only what he wants them to read. Can’t let ’em get started thinking for themselves, who knows where that could lead –?
Yet, “If something is sure and true, it can withstand the most intense scrutiny” – what hypocrisy!
LikeLike
I have had a quick back-and-forth with a homophobe recently. He deleted all my comments, only his half the conversation remains. I am disappointed: I thought
-You will go to Hell!
-At least I’ll be warm…
was quite a good joke.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And yet, in his “About” page, the egomaniac, in order to make himself look good, makes this seemingly noble statement:
He should have added, “but not on my blog!“
LikeLike
I just started following him today. I’m looking forward to some drastic disagreements. If he moderates me I’ll be drastically disappointed. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Must I repeat:
Vain babblings and scrutiny are hardly twins. The real miracle is how Any of arch’s prolixity and circus antics see the light of day.
LikeLike
“Vain babblings and scrutiny are hardly twins.” – Absolutely correct – that’s once in a row – which is why I scrutinize your vain babblings, and you have a hard time dealing with that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Revere the living, CS – the dead have no need of it.
“But in your case, neither respect nor the sting is relevant, since you have said humans are of no more value than the common maggot.” – Yes, I did, CS – a maggot has found a niche in life, it consumes dead flesh, breaks down the protein, then poops it out for smaller organisms to consume. Ultimately, the maggot fertilizes the soil with the fruits of its labor, making the earth more capable of supporting new life. Humans have the capacity to give back to the planet as well, though for the most part, they seem to be takers, rather than givers.
When I said that, you were trying to demonstrate that humans are more important, as they were your god’s favorites – I simply pointed out that on the grand scale of things, humans are no more important than any other lifeform. WE HUMANS, however, assign greater importance to our fellow humans, but Nature plays no favorites.
“This thought alone should cripple any man and drive him to sanity.” – In your case, sadly, that ship has sailed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So true. I discussed with John on an earlier post about the possibility of a god so concerned about nakedness incorporating pop-out genitalia into her design. A full body of long fur would have been efficient too.
LikeLike
I found his comments about women covering themselves up blah blah extremely sexist and worrying. They reminded me of the ‘she was asking for it because of her lack of clothing’ sort of comments ie it’s the women’s fault that some men don’t think with their brain. Michelle’s comment about not wearing a burqa is very relevant. Women have to be covered up because their bodies are shameful because they incite lustful thoughts from men. Bad women for doing so huh? Especially when they are someone else’s property.
On a separate note, it is extremely nice to visit a nudist beach where hundreds of people can lie around in the sun, swim in the sea, without jumping on each other in some crazed orgy. Yes, we can all view someone else’s spouse/partner without anyone caring too hoots about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t say any of that and you, like is usually the case on this site, missed all the points entirely. Your degenerate Anglican church is just the place for you.
LikeLike
Is there a place where you have told your story Michelle where I won’t be forced to view dishonoring pictures of you? You’re a beautiful woman, but your nakedness does not belong to me. Whether you like to give it away or not, it’s not mine to take.
That would imply you think she should be covered up, would it not? Or are you going to tell me I misinterpreted it?
Church? Why on earth would I want a church? I have no need of an emotional mental crutch. A literal one for my broken ankle possibly, but I can still think for myself without needing a book of rules and a belief in outlandish deities.
LikeLike
I’d be interested to see a list of all the denominations you consider ‘degenerate’ and ‘satanic’. We could do a bit of statistical analysis and see just how popular your corner of Christianity is. You must consider your god God to be incredibly inefficient in his dissemination of The Truth.
LikeLike
Oh no! Right on schedule. Always a remnant Violet. NO loners, but always a faithful remnant. From Gen to Rev.
LikeLike
Here, T and IB – feel free to past this over any image that offends you —
LikeLike
Idiot, you left those oh so sexy eyes open to view. Cover those shameful organs immediately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, I was a little surprised that she was wearing mascara.
LikeLike
And kohl/eyeliner? You do know you are truly the evil twin don’t you?
LikeLike
Nope, I’m the good one!
LikeLike
You think?
LikeLike
Chialphagirl said so as she banned us.
LikeLike
Yeah yeah, heard it all before, move on evil twin.
LikeLike
Then why did you ask?
LikeLike
Those eyes are … seriously hot.
LikeLike
It’s actually me in that picture 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, “paste” —
LikeLike
I don’t think that the person this references feels any shame about “exposing” herself. I’ve read a good bit of her story and it seems to me that she chose it for various reasons. She seemed rather logical about it. So if anyone feel shame for her…well…that’s really a shame.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, it is a kind and healing thing for a man to say, I would not dishonor her (by viewing her naked or exposed.) That denotes respect and the ability to perceive a woman a having worth and value beyond their sexuality. Some women have been so exploited and abused, they really need to hear those words more often. That is sweet and gentle leadership, not shame and exploitation.
The alternative that you seem to be advocating is to take wounded and broken girls and cheer them on, encourage them to be as immodest as they want, pose nude, heck, empowerfulize yourself with prostitution and promiscuity. A man exploited you once, now take charge and exploit your own self, that will teach them all!
For some reason you fail to see the pain there, the desperation and sexual confusion being expressed. So many who go down that path seek drugs to try and self medicate because their very spirits cry out to them. It is not shame from the outside world that takes them down, it is their own internalized shame trying to reconcile who they know themselves to be and who the world has made them become.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I explained what I took exception with clearly. As for being broken yes I am badly. Naked Jihad helped my find my voice and a purpose. I am not ashamed of my body nor nudity. Our bodies are tools given us by our creator.
I choose to use mine how I choose to use it. My problem was with certain words. I explained those words have meaning and were exactly the words and idea used to slaughter 100 million innocent men, women and children including infants.
I took exception with the idea that because I don’t believe exactly as he does that I am neither heathen nor irrelevant. The moment my relevance is allowed to be denied by others I cease being human and that is unacceptable.
Did he mean it that way? perhaps not. But that is what is meant and what was used to kill 100 million people, fellow humans by otherwise “good” Christians and their morals and the false sense of superiority they felt using said words.
Nudity existed in my culture for 1000s of years before Europeans arrived and rape was virtually unheard of. So nudity is not sexual unless there is something broken in the person believing it is.
Thanks, now worries Michelle
LikeLike
IB gets it and Ruth (and everybody else) does not.
I’m coming to the end of my patience for repeating myself on this site over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
The human body is beautiful. Not shameful. What is shameful is using it in ways that violate God’s prescription in a fallen sinful world. Exactly the same for sex. It is a wonderful gift designed by our creator for our good and His glory. Even AFTER sin He allows us the joy of covenant companionship, the marriage bed and the new life (unless we kill it first) that it is meant to produce. Left to myself, I am just like you folks here. I fancy myself no better or morally superior.
roughseasinthemed, I thought you said once that you were an Anglican. If not then my mistake. I apologize.
LikeLike
“IB gets it” – Now THERE’s a ringing endorsement!
LikeLike
The day anybody lumps me with IB in a praising phrase I would be seriously depressed. Unlikely to happen though 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
The human body is neither shameful nor beautiful. They’re just bodies with lumps, bumps, hairs, scars, spots, grease etc. We can make art and celebrate the form for what it brings us, but let’s not go overboard imagining it’s a great design. Even a mediocre designer could have done better in terms of beauty and functionality.
Your god allowed you the joy of the marriage bed? I’m still waiting for you to back that up with a quote from the Bible that doesn’t come from an alleged womaniser who was cursed by your god. If St Augustine and Martin Luther both interpreted the Bible to say that sex shouldn’t be enjoyed even within marriage, then I think that’s all we need to know. I notice you didn’t comment on that post, even though I explicitly asked you to. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t see it Violet. Where? You do realize that I get blitzed by guys here pretty often (cue Arch). I miss some sometimes.
LikeLike
LikeLike
That’s a whole article. Can’t do it. Sorry. It would take a small book and there’s no way. Your entire premise, all your myriad of text mutilations, out of context quotes from guys like Augustine and preposterous assertions such as Jesus being “one of their gods” show me that I’m wasting time on you outright now Violet.
Yours is one little drop in an ocean of internet. I like you and have been flattered by your regard to be honest, but there’s no way I have the time to properly correct that grotesque mangling of Biblical truth.
Do you have one specific question that would be helpful for me to answer? I’ll try that.
LikeLike
It’s a tiny post! The fact that you wrote this long comment about how you don’t have time to respond tells me everything. The Bible does not approve of enjoying sex, and you Christians are in complete denial. St Augustine knew it, Luther knew it, and modern day Christians flaunt these rulings so they can indulge in lust within their marriages.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It took me 2 minutes to write that comment. One sentence can require a 2 hour response. You have a deluge of gibberish there. I’m not the only only person on earth who has taken the time to learn to study the bible or church history.
Ask a question or find somebody else.
Better yet., Try peeking at something other than friendly materials that tell you what you already wanna here and selectively cites their sources.
LikeLike
I did. The Bible and two church fathers. It was accepted theology for your founding fathers, why do think that has changed?
LikeLike
Song of Songs is quite pro sex, and human beauty. The Catholics try to “spiritualise” it away into the love of Christ for the Church, but it is too physical for that.
LikeLike
Yes, and we already noted that it is written by a womaniser who was cursed by god. Nowhere is it stated that sex is to be enjoyed, and yet lust (separate to fornication and adultery) is condemned.
LikeLike
“…let’s not go overboard imagining it’s a great design. Even a mediocre designer could have done better in terms of beauty and functionality.
Neill Tyson once said, “No intelligent designer would ever put an entertainment center that close to a garbage disposal.“
LikeLike
Scroll down. Victoria got there before you 🙂
LikeLike
It isn’t that I don’t get it. I get what the Christian view of this is. What we are are saying is that not everybody is a Christian. Those rules do not apply to unbelievers. So while you may view looking at a naked body other than your wife’s is sin, this is simply not the view of an unbeliever. And it is not shameful for a woman to display her body. You are absolutely right that you do not have to, nor should you, look. It would violate your conscience to do so.
LikeLike
And yet john, you travel far and wide, yea even to the ends of the earth, to gain ‘insights’ from so called revered legends who support your sparkling unbelief in the God of all creation who has fashioned the glorious human body and even placed within it a conscience to know its obvious maker.
Yea, like one of your friends has agreed: man is of no more relevance than your ‘appliance,’ put to the curb after it has outlived its ability to make toast.
For poetry your score is good; for substance and truth, ahh…. not so much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The human body is beautiful.
I like it, but its nothing to be proud of. It’s an atrocious design! What is to be admired in such a frighteningly fragile machine—a perilously needy contraption laced with kilometres of liquid and electrical conduits prone to leaks, rot, clogs, and short-circuits? What is there to be proud of in a machine that has an eight hour battery life and is predetermined to spend half its existence in a defenceless, catatonic coma ? What is to be revered in a mechanism let loose in a sealed off room where almost everything—including its single source of light and warmth—makes it sick, but whose immune system functions by late entry crisis-response imitation? Where is the awe in a contrivance that freezes and dies if placed a little over here, or overheats and dies if placed a little over there? Where is the wonder in an instrument that is crushed to a pulp if dropped a little down there, or boiled away to nothing if lifted a little up there? Where is the marvel in an appliance where three-quarters of the planet’s surface will drown it, and three-quarters of the atmosphere will asphyxiate it? What is there to be cherished in a machine born innately greedy and so utterly useless that it has to wait three years for its neural networks to hook-up and come online before it even begins to get a hint of who or even what it is , and only then can it start to relearn absolutely everything its forebears had already bothered to learn? Where is the artistry in a thinking engine whose sweetest fuel can only be embezzled from other thinking engines?
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m pretty sure this was intended for you, jz:
ColorStorm on May 15, 2015 at 4:24 pm said:
And yet john, you travel far and wide, yea even to the ends of the earth, to gain ‘insights’ from so called revered legends who support your sparkling unbelief in the God of all creation who has fashioned the glorious human body and even placed within it a conscience to know its obvious maker.
Yea, like one of your friends has agreed: man is of no more relevance than your ‘appliance,’ put to the curb after it has outlived its ability to make toast.
For poetry your score is good; for substance and truth, ahh…. not so much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yikes, tkx ruth for the correction.
LikeLike
Thanks, CS. Out of interest, are you in a position to actually deny a single line I wrote, or, as usual, are you just squirting air out through your meat to make sounds which you think are intelligent?
LikeLike
hey jz
I’m pretty sure animals grunt, whereas you can actually speak words. How novel. Sound familiar…… As in the Word of God………….?
But then again as I mentioned recently, there was this speaking parrot, I’m sorry, donkey.
Deny what you wrote? Only your interpretation seen through a lens of caustic fog.
Don’t want to freeze to death? Use your God given brain and cover your nakedness with a coat.
LikeLike
Yet another beauty! Are you a poet in real life?
LikeLike
Poems are made by fools like me. But only God can make a tree. -Joyce Kilmer
LikeLike
Call it simple curiosity, but if you have no intelligible counterargument to offer, nothing to actually challenge what is written, why bother commenting? It just makes you look rather pathetic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He likes being noticed, John – it validates his pathetic existence. It’s the main reason he writes his blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…and performs censorship that would make the Chinese blush 😉
LikeLike
Isn’t he a curious little lion? I love his empty, vapid soundbites. Words, poetry at times, and simply no meaning.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You seem to never tire of being wrong, CS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, your comment was brilliant. I was reminded of Stupid Design. The last part is my favorite: “What’s this going on between our legs? It’s like an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system. No engineer would design that at all.” lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brilliant! It does expose Creationist’s arguments as being so very, very, very stupid.
LikeLike
A pretty decent exposition of the corrupting results of sin JZ. Well done. God did and does restrain sin for his own purposes. It still retains a good deal of it’s original beauty.
LikeLike
Terrific! Could you please furnish me with the evidence you must surely have which proves this was never the cold hard reality. Obviously, you wouldn’t make sake a wild and outwardly ignorant statement without having something (hard evidence of a human physiology that is paradoxically opposed to our present form) to back-up your claim, would you?
Of course not!
I look forward to reviewing your evidence.
LikeLike
*Such, not sake
LikeLike
Actually, it’s an indictment against the design – who did you say made it again?
As for those “(cue Arch)’s” – obviously you think of me far more often than I do you.
LikeLike
I took that for granted Arch. I’m sure I think of you far more often than you think of me.
LikeLike
I’m English/British. Not quite the same as Anglican. But no worries and no need to apologise. I’ve had worse insults, even if an assumption of religion is slightly belittling.
For once, I agree with you. I think the human body is rather nice. But that’s the extent of my agreement. My body is mine. Not your god’s. I use it however I choose. And that includes having sex with whoever I choose. For pleasure not for childbirth. And if, so your god help me, it would include abortion if necessary. My body. I don’t dress for approval by men or women. I dress to suit myself. I value the opinion of my husband but merely from an aesthetic point of view. In fact neither of us expose much flesh, but that comes of being older (than you) and living in a sunny environment and wanting to avoid wrinkly skin and melanoma.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is shameful is using it in ways that violate God’s prescription in a fallen sinful world.
Please elaborate. Just what is “God’s prescription?”
The only ones I see that are “fallen” are those who tripped on their interpretation of scripture.
Not only that, if we were to do as “God” wanted, we would still be wearing animal skins because that’s what he used for those first naughty humans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Enough overs? /rofl
LikeLike
God made us naked even by “your” bible. We put on clothes only after “sinning” and in the shame of sin decided “god” didn’t make us perfect so we “needed” clothing.
Clothing is mans construct not gods. Our bodies as perfect and imperfect as they are are gods construct. We weren’t born clothed now were we? There in lay the problem. Everyone uses their own set of limited morals from some book, text or belief they determine is right. No one has proven the bible is even true. They can’t even translate Shoel without mistranslating and calling it “hell”. Even when pointed out excuses are made.
You book is no more perfect then the men who wrote it. Which means your morals are no more perfect either. There is not some divine perfection in Christianity. It simply doesn’t exist and if it were divine then I’d take exception with it’s divinity. Christianity has been used to kill more people in this world than every other source/reason combined.
From the Puritans, to Hitler, to this very Christian nation. Christianity and it’s god has exterminated under the name of god 100s of millions. Here in the US alone that number is between 120 and 250 million by the governments own totals.
Think about how morally superior someone has to be to sleep at night knowing their same morals were used to exterminate one quarter of a BILLION people in America alone. Now you want to force those morals on me?
Not happening.
LikeLike
“Clothing is mans construct not gods. “
After the entrance of sin GOD replaced their flimsy plant based coverings with well durable animal skins HIMSELF. Confirming the legitimacy of their newfound shame in public nudity. Nobody knows what it would have been like otherwise, but sin made their “private parts” private.
God in His love and grace has left us a little piece of His garden paradise in the marriage bed alone, where a man and his WIFE can still be naked and not ashamed.
“A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”.
That was before sin. God keeps his word even when we don’t.
LikeLike
Ahh but since I don’t believe in “original sin” nor do I concern myself with the fable of Adam and Eve I do not worry what is thought on the subject. They were made naked and only after sin did THEY decide to cloth themselves because THEY thought god imperfect. I was brought into the world naked, I take nothing when I leave either. I see no need nor moral injustice in nudity. My faith in the one and only heavenly father, the true and living god is 10,000+ years old and 2,000 years ago Christians joined the religious party. They worship different and by a differing name but I still welcome the latecomers to the table of faith. The converse can’t be said Christians to me. Nope I to them am some form of heathen. Nice try but still wrong to assume my faith, my god is irrelevant.
Considering I’ve seen Christians tell atheists how WRONG it is to try and steal their and yet Christians seem to be the first to tell everyone else you are wrong and I am right, repent, change now. Apples and Apples here when we do as I say and not as I do.
Good morning Trib but still the fact remains. Anyone who has impure thoughts about another human being is themselves the problem. what one wears or doesn’t wear is not the problem. If seeing a naked person brings you harm or ill thoughts then you should look inside pretty deeply. The tank top and shorts are still a long way from naked and yet those seem to give you impure thoughts.
LikeLike
Has nothing to do with anybody’s thoughts except God’s.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
😀
LikeLike
You are correct and God (my god) again the one true and living god tells me my body is beautiful and there is no shame in it. If another sees me and chooses to think impure thoughts that is his own thoughts and his own impurity. I am neither responsible for his impurity not liable for it either. I’m only responsible for my own and I’m sure that is plenty enough. So sorry I won’t feel guilty nor feel quilted into following any ones morals but gods and he has no issue with nudity nor has he for over 10,000 years.
Europeans and others seem to have an issue with it. Seems to me they think themselves so awful as people that the sight of a woman scantly clad, clad in sexy clothing, clad in clothing she feels attractive in or naked can provoke the animal in you. Unlike those men Lakota men and many others know they are not animals and that doesn’t define them.
So the issue is someone feeling their morals are absolute. We’ve covered that topic ad nauseam on my site. We can recap where these “morally superior” ideals and morals have brought us should you like.
Let’s see the idea of moral superiority by Christians lead to 250,000,000 people exterminated in America alone. If we look around the world everywhere Christians went with these morals and idea of divine superiority have seen much the same.
That is one quick example I can list many more sins committed in the name of this so called superior god by men who claimed to be right with him.
So based on the track record I’d say an ants morals are superior to those in every way. Are there good Christians? Sure with 2 billion of you guys on the earth there must be good ones.
Are any of them > me or I > them? Nope
Are Christian “divine morals” truly superior? Well they certainly have exterminated more human beings than any divine morals f any faith ever. Aside from that I see no superiority in them.
LikeLike
You’re so embarrassing Greg. Surely, surely, surely you know that any shame about public nudity is cultural? Have you see pictures from around the world ever of tribes of people who wear hardly anything? We just do what everyone else is doing.
LikeLike
http://flourishgirlsministry.com/2015/05/15/to-the-girl-who-wants-to-show-some-skin-this-summer
Some more perspectives on this topic.
LikeLike
Not sure she will allow comments but I left her one:
“If someone has an issue with what I wear the issue is not with me at all. The issue is with the person who sees something other than the person I am. Some men will get turned on by a girl in tight jeans, shall we ban those? How about a girl in a sweater, yup some men get turned on by that too. How about guys who are turned on by her hair, eyes, ankles? yes there are men like that too. So shall we all dress head to toe in Hijab and Burka? I say no and here is why.
If I am in shorts, or a bikini or even naked and you see me as a commodity or a piece of meat or are turned on the fault is not mine but yours. It’s not me with the problem of seeing another human being as an object. Society needs to get off this exact hangup.
As for staying classy that is also a cultural thing. Go to Australia and topless is how most women at the beach are, Brazil they were itty bitty bikinis mostly dental floss for the back side. These are culturally classy there. The idea of thought that ones own morals are superior has lead to million upon millions of murders and other injustices in this world.
The idea of tolerating the beliefs and morals of others has lead only to understanding. So rigid self imposed moralistic views lead to evil but understanding morals are not universal has lead to understanding.
peace 🙂
Michelle”
Thanks for the Aussie and brazil logic I forget which comment I stole err borrowed it from.
LikeLike
Here is my reply to that: https://aghostdancer.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/exposing-of-flesh/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahahahaa-aahhahhaa! This is one of those precisious moments when my wife says I am laughing like a hyena. She gets all embarrassed when I laugh like that in a theater, or a movie theater and usually in the wrong place – that is when other people did not find it funny at all.
“God made animals skins”, that is a classic. How ridiculous one can possibly get?
Nakedness is a cultural issue, that seems to be a mighty taboo to some people. But taboos sometimes cause unhealthy, or even twisted behaviour. The ancient Celts (ancestors of many caucasian people today) sincerely believed they could harness the power of the mother goddess going to battle sky clad. In ancient Semic tales seeing even a glimpse of some mans sexual organs is such a big issue, that even their gods warn people of it, as if it could cause some actual harm. The Greek and Romans thought nothing of it, at least as long it was between boys and despite that they left us the western cultural legacy.
We Finns learn from infancy to go to the sauna with both our parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, our parents friends and their families. Are we a morally depraved nation? If I compare us to most other, it does not seem like that at all. Well, I have my own cultural heritage, perspective and biases that go along. Is there some even remotely objective method to evaluate wether our way causes harm or is actually beneficial? I would like to read a study on this issue, but as long as I have not met any concerning such, I have to rely on my subjective experience and my own ability to evaluate anything as objectively as I can. In that light it seems to me, that our attitudes towards sexuality of other people are healthier and less obsessed…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh you heathen nation going to hell! Imagine exposing your sacred flesh to people other than your spouses. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
No no, he is male and men and women have different rules! Don’t forget that. Men in Sharia countries can dress in nothing but women must be covered head to toe AND be accompanied by a male relative AND have permission from her husband to be out.
Suadi Arabia let dozens of little girls burn alive in a fire at a school because when the school caught fire girls ran out not properly covered so the Sharia police forced them back inside the burning building. I guess murdering little girls is better than covering them with a blanket, no it had to be proper clothes as ordained by GOD ALLAH!
LikeLike
Do you have a link to that Saudi Arabian story Michelle? I’d like to read more about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecca_girls%27_school_fire
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01/18/saudi-journalist-religious-police-made-15-school-girls-burn-to-death-because-they-were-not-wearing-hijabs/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1387874/15-girls-die-as-zealots-drive-them-into-blaze.html
I could link it to thousands of sources but you get the picture.
LikeLike
One more: https://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/mutawsc.htm
LikeLike
That’s horrifying! I have no memory of reading that story. Truly an illustration of religion at its worst ….
Here’s a BBC link too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm
LikeLiked by 1 person
The above was credited to the wrong Imam but it was still a Fatwa..
Warning the below link has nudity! but also links to things that will make your skin crawl…
Want even more?
Again warning NUDITY!
https://shariaexposed.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
And that is where the idea of my morals being > than everyone and anyone and anyone not just like me is irrelevant. That is what that leads to for ALL religions no matter what you think is true, this is absolute truth. Fallow the links, these are all islam, but no faith is immune to this barbarism when they begin to think they are the moral superior and moral police for the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, those are fine, thanks Michelle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In Australia its really, really weird to see a girl on the beach wearing a bikini top. Tities out is just what is done, but in Brazil its a big non-no. HOWEVER, in Brazil the bikini bottoms are so small they’re called “dental floss,” and you get a glorious display of the worlds greatest ass’s. Different cultures, different tastes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why is it that a woman wearing nothing but long stockings is an arousing sight, but a man wearing only socks is just ridiculous? Is it a cultural thing, or is this just my heterosexual male perspective? Often enough what and how people cover themselves is considered more arousing than total nakedness.
Maybe I should have stressed that we Finns all do go but-naked into the sauna and that it is considered very impolite to wear a towel, like I hear is done in some other countries. In public saunas like in “swimming halls” (as we call them – freely translated), or is the English term a public bath, there are signs that remind people that it is forbidden to wear anything in the sauna, because it is considered unhygienic. But I guess yuo guys got the message.
However, a god making animal skins is just an absolutely ludicurous thought. Why did this god not make them fluffy bunny feet and silken bathrobes while “He” was at it? Animal skins, really? Why not linnen loin cloths? Or is it because this particular Middle-Eastern god prefers nomadic herders over farmers, for some unexplained reason? What are we supposed to think, that this god conjured up from thin air these animal skins, or that the said god went out to hunt and taught the first humans how that was done and then showed them how to prepare the skins for them to make them wearable? It is a lengthy process, that requires skill nobody learns in any short while of time, but I guess none of the characters in this story had nothing but time… It also represents a type of mythical thinking in wich a person does actually nothing at all to think about the story, before taking it at face value.
Titilatingly funny.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rautakyy, you’ll probably get a kick out of this. About 2 years ago, some Republicans in North Carolina tried to pass a bill through the Senate (passed the House) to make it a felony for a woman to expose her nipples in public. It was dubbed “The Nipple Law”. Apparently, a man is not considered indecent if he shows his nipples, but a woman is.
I live on the U.S. Gulf Coast and it is not uncommon to see man boobs.
However, if a woman goes topless on the beach (exposing her nipples), she’ll be arrested for indecent exposure with imprisonment up to 6 months. She’d also be classified a slut.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, no nudist beaches there? (Serious question)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope, notta.
LikeLike
Miserable place! No topless sunbathing either then. Doesn’t bear/bare thinking about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s pathetic. Woman can wear a bathing suit top that exposes every part of her breast except her nipple. Oh, and heaven forbid you breast feed in public.
Hehe
LikeLiked by 1 person
Furious mother over here! Seriously? Wow. The cultural things about bodies really hit me with regard to breastfeeding. In Argentina with my first I didn’t give it a second thought in any situation. It’s hot and everyone is in so much less clothing, and women everywhere are breastfeeding. With the second in Scotland I felt and still feel mildly uncomfortable shedding the layers and exposing flesh, in spite of the fact it’s a protected right in any public place.
LikeLike
“Lee, who lives in Atlanta and hosts a blog called Vain Mommy, believes people’s “uneasiness” with breastfeeding in public stems from the perception of women as sexual objects.
“Women buy into that idea,” she said. “If we use our breasts for anything other than ‘play’ it’s not okay.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/29/living/breastfeeding-attitudes-parents/
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is so irritating what sort of laws the political groups spend their valuable time on paid by the taxes. “Nipple law” – really??? Did they not see how ridiculous that makes them look like? Does their society not really have more pressing issues to deal with?
The reason to try to ban brest feeding in public must be because of seeing women as sexual objects like Lee says. What other reason could there even be? It is not even a Biblical nonsense, because otherwise these people would be hard pressed to make a law against eating pork – wich is clearly banned in the Bible, while mothers feeding their infants in public is not once even hinted at in the book. But that just goes to show how often people put their own ridiculous sick twisted biases forward and try to excuse them by the grandest possible authority, in order to awoid to prove their justification in the real world.
People also have faith in the divine authority to back up their agendas, because they have been taught, that having faith is a virtue, when it is exactly the opposite to any virtue of seeking truth. And no gods appearing – in their “hearts” (subconsciousness), or otherwise – to tell them they are wrong, when they go poking in other people’s lives makes these gods inevitably either, evil, absolutely indifferent, or nonexistant – wich is the sane conclusion, given that there exists absolutely none what so ever even remotely objective evidence of any gods or anything at all supernatural to exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s sort of like Spain under Franco 🙂 Religious military dictatorship in the land of opportunity?
LikeLike
So true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw a post a couple of weeks ago that made me laugh out loud. I’ll have to dig it out for you. Even as a Christian, I’m sure I would have come to the conclusion that the creation myth of the Jews is a, em, obvious myth.
LikeLike
LikeLike
That is just so twisted, that I do not know wether to laugh or cry. But Rebecca Luella Miller tells us much about what sort of nonsense people come to believe, because they are coerced to believe a single book written by obviously very ignorant men has to be taken at face value. I mean, who in their right mind would choose to believe all this nonsense, unless they had some other reason, than how convincing the text itself is to believe?
It is too cruel to be a childrens book, but obviously it is not describing reality. Making the claim that because things were different in the past, that somehow makes the book more reliable, is ridiculous as it starts out from assuming the book to be an actual description of actual events. If we applied the same method to Conan the Barbarian, then that would be a description of a different past, but because we know it was written in the 20th century we do not fall for that, then how about the Iliad? It is as old as the Bible, or what about the Gilgamesh Epic that is a lot older? Did Tirant lo Blanc defend the walls of Constantinople from the Turks? How could we research wether this story is a fable or not? After all, it was written by the contemporaries, but who were the contemporaries who wrote down the experiences of Adam and Eve? What if John Carter really went to Mars in the 19th century as Edgar Rice Burroughs claims, the fact that he wrote it does not make it any less reliable, because he claims to have gotten all this information straight from the source? No, the reliability of a book can not just be assumed. Stories are stories.
LikeLike
I thought it might provoke one of your hyena laughs. I found it just so bizarre I can’t tell you. And then scrolling down to the comments of more people who agreed …
LikeLike
Yes, well. It is bizarre and it is exactly this sort of nonsense, that makes me sometimes question the liberal and less mind boggingly mad Christians for not standing up more against such lunacy within the ranks of Christianity. It seems these looneys are put up in absolute silence by the less mad Christians as long as they add up to the numbers of their religion being big, but only after an atheist or a representative of some other religion points out the lunacy, that they are excused by being called exeptional exeptions. But sadly they are not. They may be a minority, but they are not a small minority and they are very devoted to their cause. However, when a less mad Christian stands up against them I do salute that person for doing so, and for challenging their own core beliefs in the process.
When I say “choose to believe”, I mean that it seems some people are actually able to choose what they believe instead of being convinced by the evidence. It is a mind twisting scenario, that reveals the willfull ignorance behind. A person being able to choose between reality and fantasy to treat the fantasy as it was for real, they have to be very ignorant of the reality, but in western world today, that seems to require extra effort and auto-suggestion. Wich is what religious people seem to offer to the atheist as the method of getting closer to their god…
LikeLike
“Or is it because this particular Middle-Eastern god prefers nomadic herders over farmers, for some unexplained reason?” – I thought that was made clear in the Cain and Able story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, what a coincidence that all nomadic cultures have a singular invisible sky god easy to carry around and to talk to in a tent, while the farming communities build temples and inside them hidden, or plain in sight “idols” of their multiple gods, like the crucifixes in Christian churches?
LikeLike
“Even a mediocre designer could have done better in terms of beauty and functionality. ”
How sad, Violet. You’re doomed to a meaningless existence in a body you hate, condemned to perceive yourself as nothing more than a poorly designed lump of flesh, possessing neither beauty, functionality, or purpose.
Listen Violet, I don’t mean this to sound harsh here, I’m genuinely curious. If that is your definition of life, why did you bring children into the world? Under your own definition, it seems as if contributing to the continuation of the human species would be an act of cruelty.
LikeLike
Insanity, nice attempt at a strawman there, but I’m afraid it falls rather flat. Violet mentioned nothing about loathing the design, just that the design is, quite evidently, atrocious. In the end, we all have to make do with what we have, don’t we?
Tell me, do you honestly think your Middle Eastern god designed this body?
Honestly, Yes or No?
LikeLike
To fail to see the beauty and the wonder in the design of the human body is to perceive it with contempt and disrespect. To call it atrocious is to be filled with self loathing.
You John Zande, may well have to just make do with what you have. However, I happen to be wonderfully and fearfully made, so speak for yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m quite happy with what I have. I occasionally turn heads, get that wonderful second-look, which is nice. I’m not complaining. I can, however, view a design and be honest.
Can you?
Now, Insanity, you didn’t answer the question. Why?
Yes or No: do you honestly think the human body was designed by your particular Middle Eastern god?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Insanity, are you going to answer the question?
Yes or No: Do you honestly think your particular Middle Eastern god designed the human body?
LikeLike
In the mood for a giggle?
You’re going to be “stumped” with this one John. /s
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s brilliant! Although she’ll have to wait before I can dive into that one. Have other more pressing things that require this naked apes attention 🙂
LikeLike
Don’t be too late. She posts about three times a day and has a tendency to ignore comments on old posts. I’m sure she’ll be dying for an excuse not to talk this one through, given that she’s willfully misrepresented everything and is babbling total nonsense. We’re packing today, leaving tomorrow so I doubt I’ll get a chance.
LikeLike
John, I laughed at the whole IB’s post but this
caught me by surprise. I think she went bare knuckles on you bro.
LikeLike
I guess I ruffle her feathers 🙂
LikeLike
And CS is in her support squad. What strange bedfellows
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m very attractive in human terms. But like John, I’m able to see the full picture, the lumps and bumps for what they objectively are. But what a ‘design’! Why exactly do you have an appendix, or your coccyx?
You’re right about breeding though and I did post on it:
LikeLike
I never said anything at all about being sexually attractive or turning heads. I said I was “wonderfully and fearfully” made. Both you and Zande immediately equated that with sexual desirability and prowess, as if that is the only kind of worth and value one can ever have.
So I am left to conclude that it is a non believer’s projection of their own lack of worth and value that leads women to conclude that all they have to offer the world is a display of their own sexuality. That is a perverse and demeaning message to force on women and girls. As usual Violet, the amount of repressed misogyny I often encounter on your site sometimes surprises me.
LikeLike
You said, You John Zande, may well have to just make do with what you have. I was simply assuring you I didn’t have any problem with this, to counter your rather ridiculous allusion that being honest about the atrocious human design somehow equated to hating our bodies.
You enjoy making things up, don’t you, Insanity.
Now, are you going to answer my question?
Do you, Insanity, believe your particular Middle Eastern god designed the human body?
Yes, or No?
LikeLike
I am not going to answer you John, but I think I will write a post about you. Have a lovely day.
LikeLike
Why won’t you answer?
Are you embarrassed by your answer?
Do you think your answer can’t be defended in a rational and adult manner?
LikeLike
She didn’t answer my question either John. She’s taking the Blogging 101 course from ColorStorm. Avoid questions and talk nonsense! She’ll be moderating my comments next. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just last year IB described herself on her about page as a research scientist. When I pushed her for details, that line suddenly disappeared. She’s just another Christian scam artist pushing her snake oil in the hope that that reinforces her position within her group of intellectual desperados (I mean that in the chess sense of the word.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
A research scientist, really? LOL!
LikeLike
I kid you not. Ask her to see if she owns up to it.
LikeLike
I still have to answer the post she wrote about me last week.
LikeLike
Lucky you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re funny, I don’t know if you do the twisting on purpose or you really get confused by your own words.
“You’re doomed to a meaningless existence in a body you hate, condemned to perceive yourself as nothing more than a poorly designed lump of flesh, possessing neither beauty, functionality, or purpose.”
I don’t hate my body or think it lacks beauty (not that it would matter). But where did I say I’m sexually desirable? I’m sure you can tell by my terse manner that most men are terrified of me and sex is the furthest thing on their minds when they face me. You’re the one mixing all these things up.
Our bodies aren’t designed, they are cool little packages with amazing perks. They aren’t designed by a perfect designer because they are FULL of messes and mistakes and left over bits from evolution.
LikeLike
“I’m sure you can tell by my terse manner that most men are terrified of me and sex is the furthest thing on their minds when they face me.”
That’s sad, Violet. You know what women fear more than anything else in the world, what causes us the most distress? When men fear us. Seriously, that plays deep and heavy on female psychology and biology. It creates a huge weight on us, even from the perspective of your evolutionary theory, because that is an instinctual and inbred survival skill. Men who fear women tend to be very dangerous for us, so they sexually repel us and create confusion in our minds. When those attraction signals get crossed, you wind up with women who are so sexually confused the only way they know how to relate to men is by trying to make sure we meet them with hostility first and always maintain complete control of the situation.
The very definition of misogyny is to fear and hate women.
That is also what lurks in the heart of feminism and the need for constant female dominance. That is why so many of you advocate that girls overtly display their sexuality…..but strongly condemn any men who look at them sexually. It’s that push pull relationship between innate female desire to attract attention and the inability to confront one’s own vulnerability, one’s own submissive nature.
LikeLike
Oh my, what are you talking about? This is my personality. I’m abrupt and honest and don’t prance around trying to please people for illogical reasons. That doesn’t mean I’m hostile or angry or violent or aggressive towards men, or any people. My natural personality is not the cutesy, agreeing, submissive or flirtatious manner that men generally find attractive. It’s not a feminist ploy or trick, it’s just me. I NEVER advocate that girls ‘overtly display their sexuality’. If they want to, I have no problem with it. I wouldn’t encourage it because there is nothing more irritating than unwanted sexual advances.
Let’s see how you twist that into something completely unrelated … 😉
LikeLike
“That doesn’t mean I’m hostile or angry or violent or aggressive towards men, or any people.” – To be honest, Violet, IMO, you really didn’t make that clear. I too found myself thinking, “Huh? What?” when I read what you said about men being afraid of you. My first thought was, “What could she possibly look like? Two heads?”
LikeLike
Arch, Violet doesn’t like this getting out there, but this is her at play in Pictland… some home video
LikeLike
You’re lucky I’m on my phone and link isn’t clicking….
LikeLike
LOL! I’m lucky you’re a few thousand kilometers south, too 🙂
LikeLike
I found this exchange with you and IB fascinating. It was like reading words written by my mirror image. (You, not IB just for clarity’s sake). However, it should be said that one can’t generalise about men. Some men do find women attractive exactly because they aren’t conventionally submissive and flirtatious. Or maybe they just see us as people?
LikeLike
I suppose ‘fascinating’ rseas as in how you agree that God has neither place nor cause in the design of a fingernail, or a mind which is capable of looking ‘up,’ and knowing that man is unlike any creature on earth, and clearly with a different purpose, as mans ability to create and have dominion is gifted by a Sovereign.
Your agreement as to the scraps of man is embarrassing and no different than a pack of coyotes feeding on their own shame.
‘Fascinating’ in that the cadre of unbelief has once more ruled God out from His own real estate.
Yea, real ‘fascinating’, only if one thinks that pride is the grand tiara to be worn by the elite. Then again, It may be possible you have never ‘looked up,’ and have never thought about the heavens declaring the glory of God………..
By the way rs, in your ‘fascination,’ what do you say the heavens ‘expose?’ Your answer will no doubt be fascinating.
LikeLike
I was referring to the discussion about women’s bodies and sexuality. Are you and I on the same planet?
LikeLike
LOL — Kate, was that a rhetorical question?
LikeLiked by 2 people
‘Design of the human body..?’
Follow the bread crumbs roughseas; my observation is spot on.
LikeLike
No ta. I’ll stick to my vegetarian nuggets and salad rather than accepting any crumbs from you 🙂
LikeLike
That’s fine then; but I was speaking of the connections made from the initial observation about the ‘defects’ of the human body, in which I thought you were referring to.
The nests are hard to follow, but I apologize if my comment was an intrusion.
But what i said was still true……………
LikeLike
Yes, they are hard to follow. So, no it wasn’t about the body. It is what it is. And, literally, we have to live within it. No need to apologise 🙂
What you said was your opinion actually. It may be your truth, or true to you, but not to all of us …
LikeLike
Anyone but me notice how melodramatically this clown writes? I think he thinks he’s Charlton Heston.
LikeLike
And yet Mr Arch, you have front row seats at the ‘circus,’ and faithfully attend daily………………hmmmm.
May I cite the key word in honor of the post here: Expose…..
LikeLike
You forgot to throw in some scripture!
LikeLike
Glad someone gets it. She seems to think the world is limited to three outlooks: hate your appearance and hide; love your appearance and flaunt it with constant sexual intent; be indifferent personally but praise a god for its wonderfulness.
You’re right obviously about men, but I think the majority prefer an easier, softer personality, which is understandable, and perhaps where this notion of submission stems.
LikeLike
Weak men prefer weak women who submit to them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s true. But people in general prefer other people who are easy to get on with. It’s easy to get on with someone who agrees with you, be it because you think alike or because they defer to you in a similar manner to this submission game the Christians claim they play. Obviously the latter would be undesirable for anyone with self-respect or who respects others.
LikeLike
Quite coincidentally, my friend, Kuba, who writes the blog, Knowledge Guild, has a new blogpost entitled, A Contrast Between Greek and Roman Women, which explores the roles that women played in Greek and Roman times.
LikeLike
Naaah —
(KIDDING, RS!)
LikeLike
😛
LikeLike
I believe the human design is flawless. Just not worried about covering up to not offend someone else. I do as I do which is right by my morals. The huge difference in most cases is when one feels their morals are the only right way and force others to subscribe to their morals rather than look at the fact that morals even among Christians are as varied as the number of people who call themselves Christians.
I honestly had no issue with him not wishing to see nudity, nor do I care what he thinks of the fact that I have been nude and have zero problem with nudity. So that is not the thing I personally took exception to.
The human body is beautiful and perfect. But just because I see a naked guy, even an extremely handsome one in great shape and even with a hardon. it isn’t sexual to me because I was taught differently than you I guess. I don’t get wet because of it and I don’t think even for a moment man I’d love to do this or that to him.
With or without clothes I might think wow he’s cute, with or without clothes doesn’t matter to me and anyone it does well honestly maybe that is their hang up. The person who sees a naked girl and thinks i want to rape her or I want to have sex with her. He has the problem not her.
LikeLike
I welcome comments but don’t personally care what YOUR morals say I should or should not do. What I do doesn’t affect YOU in the least so be loving and let me live without your moral bullshit!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Modesty II | Clare Flourish
Just so you know, Vi, and it doesn’t go completely sub rosa, I’ve made 10 comments on IB’s blog, regarding John’s conversation with her here – and none of them were Ark-esque – she has allowed 1 to be published, the rest have been in moderation for two days. She’s worse than Colorstorm!
LikeLike
I approve every comment, not everyone does. But it is her blog so i guess she does what she wants. /shrug
LikeLike
This, from today, in response to Madblogger regarding the purpose of the coccyx:
Not trying to fill your post up with these, just wanted to make my point.
LikeLike
Well, she let the last one through, just so she could say this:
“endless foolishness wrapped in bovine poo“? Now I ask you, does that sound like me?
Let’s check the meter —
Oops —
To which I replied:
LikeLike
No problem, put them all here if you want. Very disappointed with Insanity suppressing the dissemination of information. She obviously assumes her readers are too easily led from her version of the truth…
LikeLike
Oh and she’s probably particularly sensitive about that post because she upset Michelle.
LikeLike
I have to say – and Michelle, not talking about you behind your back, I’d say the same thing to you – I was a bit disappointed yesterday when Ann felt the need to comment on Michelle’s reaction to IB’s comment. She may be Michelle’s wife, but that doesn’t mean she’s her keeper. I feel she discredited Michelle publicly, and that really bothered me. She could have said and done anything she had to say and do, privately to Michelle, without bringing it public. I wouldn’t mind meeting Ann and getting to know her better, but spouses should never berate each other in public, regardless of the circumstances.
LikeLike
Sarah is my spouse. Not sure what she wrote I will have to go read it. She always has my best interest in her heart so I can’t be mad long.
LikeLike
Meh, I wasn’t up for that fight anyway that day. She did me a favor getting me out of it. I’d have ended up upset and saying something stupid. I am surprised even after she posted the one comment that other lady felt the need to “pile on me” maybe I’ll address that or maybe let the sleeping dog lie?
LikeLike
“She did me a favor getting me out of it.” – I’m only saying she could have done the same thing and kept it private. I was embarrassed for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
meh don’t be everyone knows I am crazy. Sane people don’t put kitchen knives into their chest. /nod
LikeLike
“Sane people don’t put kitchen knives into their chest.” – Really? – Where do other people store theirs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am told in kitchen drawers.
Could have fooled me. Well fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sarah not Ann but yeah, I thought that too. Michelle is perfectly articulate. Hate to agree with you too often. Jokey things are OK, others you take to email or whatever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can be articulate. Though honestly I am still hard pressed sometimes with my depression. I shouldn’t engage people on days my head is all foggy. Sarah did her best to bail me out. I love her for that though she could have just left it be and I’d get back to it a few days later or something. Thanks for the kind words though 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
We all answer when we are tired (my downfall) or whatever. And come back to chat another day. As do you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Hate to agree with you too often.” – I’ll try not to let it go to my head.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s one that hasn’t made it so far:
LikeLike
There I answered Violets question. I don’t think questions about the body on a discussion about the body are stupid. Hope I didn’t screw up to badly. /nod
LikeLike