Originally posted by Gondwanaland
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!
Collapse
X
-
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
-
Originally posted by eider View Post
Such news reports are valuable for us here.
These kinds of situation seem to be linked to areas where fundamental religion is more common.
Keep these reports coming, because they might help us here to turn further and further away from such extremes. .
The removal of books by Dr. Seuss. The rewriting of works by Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming's James Bond stories, and now Gone With the Wind will be sold with an attached warning label.
You know, the sort of things where leftism is common.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
It is not "blindingly obvious from the text" at all . Their disobedience in eating the fruit was the sin.
In <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Genesis+2&t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Genesis.2" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Genesis 2</a> the deity gives strict instructions to Adam "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” There is no mention there of loss of innocence, only that the result of eating from the tree will lead to mortality.
That chapter ends with "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." In other words they did not know that nakedness was shameful. They only gained that knowledge after they had eaten the fruit. Yet there is no mention of shame in the deity's reaction to them eating the fruit. In chapter 3 God only asks "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
From your explanation it follows that the deity must have known nakedness was shameful otherwise how could A&E deduce that they needed to cover up? They only made that deduction after they had eaten the fruit [which gave them the same awareness as the deity]. As the serpent tells Eve in Chapter 3 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,[a]knowing good and evil".
You are clearly confusing me with some other contributor[s].
[a] Or Gods
So what changed between them not feeling any shame over nakedness, and later feeling ashamed? Their disobedience and subsequent loss of innocence. Think about it: the tree was called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil". Prior to their disobedience, they knew only good. After disobeying God and eating from the tree, they now had knowledge of evil, too, which is to say, they lost their innocence.
At this point, I'm not sure if your inability to comprehend is genuine, or if you're playing one of your little games where you pretend not to understand something and hope your "interlocutor" will trip himself up with repeated explanations. Either way, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
[sarcasm]
You are now the official spokesperson for every Christian and every Christian church on the planet?
Why should people feel any guilt about their sexuality, and why should adults deny their sexuality?
Practically the same question.
If gay/bi men were at least monogamous, HIV wouldn't be a common concern. Now they get monkeypox when they participate 15+ men orgies.
Monkeypox outbreak likely spread by sex at 2 raves in Europe, says WHO expert
Monkeypox Outbreak Linked to Gay Sauna and Festival
WHO recommends gay and bisexual men limit sexual partners to reduce the spread of monkeypox
This was even known in 1981 when it was identified as a "cancer".
No one medical investigator has yet interviewed all the victims, Dr. Curran said. According to Dr. Friedman-Kien, the reporting doctors said that most cases had involved homosexual men who have had multiple and frequent sexual encounters with different partners, as many as 10 sexual encounters each night up to four times a week.
Many of the patients have also been treated for viral infections such as herpes, cytomegalovirus and hepatitis B as well as parasitic infections such as amebiasis and giardiasis. Many patients also reported that they had used drugs such as amyl nitrite and LSD to heighten sexual pleasure.
...
Dr. Curran said there was no apparent danger to nonhomosexuals from contagion. ''The best evidence against contagion,'' he said, ''is that no cases have been reported to date outside the homosexual community or in women.''
Who suggested the example was from a Christian community?
I am totally bemused by the attitude of some here towards the naked body in its own right. What is shameful, vulgar, or lewd about it? Can you tell me?
As I said, I doubt you're sincere in such questions. Your interest is nudity for the sake a nudity. You are no more sophisticated than the prudery you decry.
I also wonder if those who are so opposed to their eleven year olds seeing naked statuary or who think nudity is lewd are equally censorious when it comes to firearms and children.
If a gun is present in a home, it's important to teach gun safety. That would be no different than teaching safety in regard to any danger present. It also develops motor skills and hitting a target can be a rewarding challenge.
Let them have their guns but heaven forfend that they might see a nipple, a buttock or some genitalia!
I would imagine your goal is to normalise nudity. Why you are obsessed over children seeing nudity is strange.
P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostOn what other issues am I a pervert, a reprobate, etc?
A parent should always provide an honest answer that is age appropriate. The use of "because it is" indicates an excuse premised on the inability to answer the question which suggests poor parenting skills [and/or lack of general knowledge]
Merely noting your peculiar fixation with sex.
Yet many people do not. That is peculiar to you and others who share your [for want of a better phrase] hang-ups about nudity, possibly premised on feelings of guilt and shame that were acquired in youth.
Why should children running about their garden naked be deemed perverted?
Or is what is deemed perverted [like beauty] in the eye of the beholder?
So you think that if a child sees an adult who is a stranger to them naked that child might be damaged in some way? Pending context on what evidence?
Or it merely adult genitalia that are the real issue?
Furthermore, what about children seeing their parents naked? Do you consider that to be perverted?
if your five year old saw you walking naked from the shower to your bedroom would that be a cause for shame and embarrassment?
Would you consider a young child sharing a bath or shower with their parent be an act of perversion?
Or what about young siblings [under 8] of the opposite sex sharing a bath? Is that perverted? Would a four year old seeing a six year old's penis/vagina be traumatised in some way?
Yet you do not appear to have issues with adult strangers viewing one another naked. What is the difference? Genitalia are genitalia albeit at different stages of development and [with age] additional body hair.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostSo what do you think of the efforts to scrub literature of anything that could trigger someone, somewhere at some time?
The removal of books by Dr. Seuss. The rewriting of works by Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming's James Bond stories, and now Gone With the Wind will be sold with an attached warning label.
You know, the sort of things where leftism is common.
You could start a thread about whatever it is you're griping about.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed because nakedness wasn't shameful. If it was shameful, then God could not have called his Creation "very good" based on the simple logic that a holy God can not call something good if it is, in fact, shameful.
So what changed between them not feeling any shame over nakedness, and later feeling ashamed? Their disobedience and subsequent loss of innocence. Think about it: the tree was called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil". Prior to their disobedience, they knew only good. After disobeying God and eating from the tree, they now had knowledge of evil, too, which is to say, they lost their innocence.
I thought that the real question was/is 'God or Mammon'?
Christianity often seems to clutch at Mammon with both hands and yet tries to make a fuss about nudity.....? Hypocrisy much?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
If gay/bi men were at least monogamous, HIV wouldn't be a common concern. Now they get monkeypox when they participate 15+ men orgies.
I would imagine your goal is to normalise nudity. Why you are obsessed over children seeing nudity is strange.
Comment
-
Originally posted by eider View PostWhy are you so concerned about illnesses common to some gay groups?
Diseases spill out to the broader population. It's interesting that it's an easy utilitarian calculus to say that people prone to a disease due specific activity should stop such activity. Imagine the negative utility of lives lost and money spent on HIV in contrast to the small amount of positive utility of, in the least, the indulgence of sexual desire of a minority. At the very least, gays being monogamous would have been an improvement.
Sharing needles is another issue but of course, the liberal "solution" is to just have "safe" injection sites.
Are you obsessed with keeping children from seeing nudity?
Why are people obsessed with showing children nudity?Last edited by Diogenes; 04-04-2023, 05:03 AM.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostOr that the kid is just asking "why" because they are frustrated with the initial answer. Sometimes, "because I said so" is all the answer that is necessary. That isn't poor parenting. That is a proper parent/child responsibility hierarchy.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
It's not a fixation.
You requested that any visits to historic sites and museums be vetted so that your child did not glimpse any naked human form statuary. That is is a fixation [i.e. preoccupation with one subject or issue] in your case nudity.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Postin you have to It's a clear boundary of a moral stand I chose to take for my children.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostThat your line is different than mine does not make yours any more or less correct . I'd never dictate to you how to raise your kids when it came to age-appropriateness. You, on the other hand, seem to relish the opportunity to tell other parents what is appropriate and not for their kids.
Nor can you present a cogent and rational explanation. You cite a verse from Genesis chapter nine [for which there are different interpretations] rather than merely seeing a naked drunk.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
Because I think it's inappropriate to be nude in a public place where by-passers can see.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostYES!! You finally get it.
You see innocence demonstrated by young children in a garden] as in "appropriate" simply because passers-by might see them.
Suggesting that [a] passers by might get some sort of weird thrill or [b] that passers-by might be offended by seeing very young children playing on private property in the state in which [your god] created them.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostI taught my kids what I consider propriety and appropriate behavior.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostOh no. pre-adult genitalia should not be paraded around either.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
The scriptures surely say that.
Yes. Very much so. See Genesis 9:22 for example
Yes. Genesis 9:22 again.
Nor, I'll wager do you follow all the prohibitions and moral codes laid down in the Torah.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostIt's inappropriate.
Would you not let your five year old see their 15 month old sibling's diaper being changed for fear they might see another young child's genitalia?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNowhere did I claim everything inappropriate would cause trauma. That's your fish..
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed because nakedness wasn't shameful. If it was shameful, then God could not have called his Creation "very good" based on the simple logic that a holy God can not call something good if it is, in fact, shameful.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostSo what changed between them not feeling any shame over nakedness, and later feeling ashamed? Their disobedience and subsequent loss of innocence. Think about it: the tree was called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil".
So they gained the same knowledge as the deity.
It therefore follows [according to what you are contending] that the deity knew nakedness was shameful Otherwise how could A&E know? Nor does Genesis 3 tell us that A&E have lost any innocence [which does not automatically mean what you might infer it to mean].
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
What wrong with not exposing children to nudity?
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Ronson, Today, 08:45 AM
|
5 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 03:01 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 01:19 PM
|
26 responses
205 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:06 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-03-2024, 12:23 PM
|
100 responses
422 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 07:45 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 11:46 AM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 06:52 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-03-2024, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-03-2024, 02:49 PM
|
Comment