|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2005 : 20:42:06 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: God wants men to look at women and get sexually arroused, this is how men were created. Women are very beautiful. But he did not make them for everyone to look at or to lust over.
You don't look at much Greek art, do ya? (men were the ideal then and so men were usually portrayed nude while women were portrayed wearing bulky robes.)
But to be more serious... what the holy hell are you talking about? God doesn't make men in OUR SOCIETY lust over any old hint of female nudity. Culture does that. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/11/2005 20:45:57 |
 |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 21:11:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
... lust over any old hint of female nudity. Culture does that.
Your premise is at best overgeneralization, and definitely highly speculative. Conclusion is pure speculation. But his stuff is, too. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 07:37:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
We [Men Against Pornography (MAP), an organization that believes that pornography is an ill and that it should be banned] estimate that there's a 70% addiction rate of pornography in America.
If 70% of all people do something, wouldn't that be evidence that the behavior is "normal?"
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/039172.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177355,00.html
Would you conclude that belief in god is normal from these statistics?
I would say that it would be normal, but I'm not assigning it as a societal ill, either.
Some here do.
Since they are in the extreme minority, are you at all in danger of being oppressed or forcibly prevented from practicing your faith by them?
I guess I'm not quite seeing what the significance of some people here being actively anti-theistic is.
Extreme minority is not quite accurate. I have read here that religion is everything from a mental problem to being harmful to society. I was once told that I was abusing my kids by teaching them about Jesus. And no it does not affect my faith or practicing of my faith. I was only pointing out that some here do feel that religion is bad for society.
I've seen three folks here being anti-theistic. Three. They sometimes get on a roll and make multiple posts on the subject. But they are still in the extreme minority.
And I have to ask, were you told here that you were abusing your kids by teaching them about Jesus or was it another forum? When I was on the Augusta Chronicle Message Board system, I was called a Communist and a Devil worshiper. It has no bearing on the discussions I have here.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 07:42:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Robb:
What I have a problem with the billboards, suggestive ads of TV during Charlie Brown etc., is that they portray women as nothing more than eye candy. The women in these ads are made to look better than they really are. They effectivly say that showing your body is the only way to be sexy and desirable. Girls can never look like these models because the models do not even look like themselves. And boys get a very wrong attitude toward women at an early age.
I pretty much agree with the above paragraph…
So do I. It's just not classified as porn. It's classified as suggestive or sensual, but not porn. The odd thing is that porn changes definition from state to state. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 13:08:55 [Permalink]
|
ronnywhite wrote: Your premise is at best overgeneralization, and definitely highly speculative. Conclusion is pure speculation. But his stuff is, too.
True enough. Thanks for calling me on it. In my defense, I really couldn't get into specifics because Robb's statement was so vague. I probably shouldn't have responded at all, but I coulnd't help it because his statement seemed so ludicrous. For what it's worth, I've studied anthropology for years and so I actually do have examples in mind that are contrary to Robb's claim (or what Robb's claim seems to be - like I said, it was vague). I just didn't want to get that deep into it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/13/2005 13:10:00 |
|
|
|
spacecadet
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 20:14:01 [Permalink]
|
ronny white quote:
A vast majority of those most certain that it is a problem appear to base their assessment on religious dogma... and considering the track record of people basing assessments on things like that, the more stone-cold absolutely iron-clad dead-sure they are of something, the more nervous I get, and more I think "Hey, wait, let's just put the brakes on, and carefully (re)consider all of this."
Ronny made and interesting point here.
Here's an interesting thought with a theological point to it.
God Himself (not disciples, not the Law of Moses, but God Himself)
only called raw carnal sexuality and "abomination" (please see the abomination section of the Bible)when humans were having sex with Stock. Livestock, animals.
If you read your old testament men had 3 wives to 100 wives.
They had concubines too. And you were allowed to let other men use your concubine if you so desired as well. Throughout the history of the bible women had to dance and strip for crowds of men as well.
The only difference that I see between the good 'ol ancient days and now is the invention of the camera.
Instead of men sitting around in hot tents smoking opium and eating and drinking and watching some goat herders daughters dance and strip in from of you, ya got magazines to drool over and no hope of even pawing on her or even getting one of her 7 see-through veils.
If you do some research in the Book, rape, gang bangs, swapping, all of it abounds - be glad to give you the verses you skeptics- and the only place where God himself gets irritated and calls it an Abomination is when the women are having sex with the goats, sheep and cattle.
I think you may want to re-read the Book if you think that the Bible is against sexuality. It's literally loaded with it.
****to quote others is simple, to think for ones self is often quite painful*** spacecadet
|
Clevetta |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2005 : 22:35:05 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox- The post is OK reconsidering, I get the idea. I guess I maybe woulda' said "slightly exaggerated" er somthin', that's all. Sometimes I'm too tired to elaborate. I fergot about somethin' and made a stupid post in the Surface/Sun bit in the same half-awake 15 minutes online
quote:
Originally posted by spacecadet
... and the only place where God himself gets irritated and calls it an Abomination is when the women are having sex with the goats, sheep and cattle...
Wow, check that out. So all the rest is in our heads? Wholly crap. I take it you've read the Bible a little. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
spacecadet
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 18:43:46 [Permalink]
|
Think about it Ron. The biggest & first Gangbang in recorded history is when Moses goes up to the mountain (in Exodus if you guys need some help) to get the Ten Commandments. When Moses comes down from the mountain there's a party going on. Half the camp has made a Golden Calf and they are getting drunk and having a huge orgy.
....God doesn't get mad over the orgy.
He gets mad over them making a false god (the calf) and worshipping it.
Hmmmmmmmmm
anyone seeh this one but me?
He kills them off for worshipping the false God! |
Clevetta |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 22:24:08 [Permalink]
|
spacecadet
Well, among other things, I've always sorta' wondered why a message to Man from a God would be so thoroughly woven with so much material that would seem linguistically/culturally translatable to something appropriate for maybe Penthouse or Hustler magazines, when it seems logical that sexual issues- in any senses which might apply to morality or ethics- are straightforward enough as to be addressable in a clear-enough way, with a few pages at most, perhaps. I mean, gosh darn... Kant and other mere humans have made some pretty decent and imminently understandable attempts at addressing ethical issues without finding it necessary to bring up beastiality, whereas God seems to have an awful tough time, even aside from finding the need to inexplicably convolute things with all kinds of bizarre sexual details of dubious significance. I mean, seems ta' me there are plenty of more complex ethical dilemmas, conundrums etc. of far graver consequence that have always faced Man (and still do) that would be a much better and more utilitarian way for God to use His ink than all of that stuff. Implies to me the Bible might likely be more consistent with an outpouring of miscellaneous Freudian-like dung from some very human... and probably somewhat psychosexually confused sources... than a diety. I'd be curious as to how Robb might explain these things. I guess maybe dummasses like me just don't get it sometimes. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
spacecadet
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2005 : 19:48:27 [Permalink]
|
I'm getting tired of waiting for ROB to respond to your comments, so here's one of mine:
Ronny White wrote:
God seems to have an awful tough time, even aside from finding the need to inexplicably convolute things with all kinds of bizarre sexual details of dubious significance. I mean, seems ta' me there are plenty of more complex ethical dilemmas, conundrums etc. of far graver consequence that have always faced Man (and still do) that would be a much better and more utilitarian way for God to use His ink than all of that stuff. Implies to me the Bible might likely be more consistent with an outpouring of miscellaneous Freudian-like dung from some very human... and probably somewhat psychosexually confused sources... than a diety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Okay ron, let's give you some basic`Torah 101 that any Kosher Jew knows but the average Bible beatin' Christian doesnt know.
The Torah (Bible) was written without any spaces or any punctuation between any of the words. Itwaswrittenlikethistherewasnocapitilizationandno
indicationofthe beginningortheendofparagraphsjust
onebiglongsentenceonscrollafterscroll
The point of wrting something like this you say??
Simple. Obviously it confused the scholars Jew and Christians alike so they only did like you and millions of others are doing. They only read the words of the book and looked no further.
Then of course ol King James came along, got it translated, put in punctuation and verse numbers and capitolized the beginning of sentences and the rest of masses could finally figure out what it said.
You say Why doesnt god have a more utilitarian way to use his ink?
God says "Why should I toss pearls before swine?"
God only wanted the ones that hungered and thirsted for his word the most to figure out the secrets underneath the writing.
So he buried the secrets in the original Torah (Bible) in a type of Word Search for those who read the scriptures and diligently studied them.
It looks like this, go to this page as an example:
http://exodus2006.com/darkstar.htm
No, I cant make links, so type and paste this to get to a page (that I was studying) that is an example of what I am talking about.
As you can see, there are predictions and all kinds of information wrapped throughout the original scrolls.
That is why the Bible warns that the words not be changed in the Book of Life. If you change one word, move one sentence over, add a letter to a word when you are copying it, then it changes all of the spacings and moves everything over by one space, which changes all of the "Word Search" and nothing matches on that page anymore.
So he didnt write basic blatherings about wars and dancers and feasts and apostles. Underneath it all he cleverly disguised predictions of events to come, names of great people and what they would do, events that would change the future of humanity.
You can use that link to do your own research and see what neat things there there my be.
|
Clevetta |
|
|
|
spacecadet
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2005 : 19:59:17 [Permalink]
|
| By the Way, I picked the Dark Star Topic, because it just happens to fit into the Astroid discussion (topic is currently going on in another SFN Topic) that is heading our way in 2026 or so. If you read what the link actually says criss crossed in the Bible, one just may come to the conclusion that something is going to hit Earth. |
Clevetta |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2005 : 23:35:55 [Permalink]
|
Rob did respond... I suggested "I just don't get it" and no response means he concurs, I assume. I can't say that shocks me.
RE alleged Bible Codes and the like, it's best to have a feel for statistics and what these supposedly significant "patterns" really mean (as in being alternately explainable by the very worldly and common aspects of language, how we create it, interpret it, and can analyze it) before buying into that stuff. Of course, if people really want to believe something badly enough for whatever their reasons might be, there's no argument either I or anyone else could possibly present to them that's going to make them see it otherwise. I've seen this apply more than often enough to religion, politics, and a lot of other things to know that it commonly happens.
RE hidden messages etc. I don't think a lack of spaces, or any other idiosyncracy of puntuation, syntax, element of a text-encoding scheme, etc. make it any more or less convincing... to me, it's just a bunch of vague passages that could mean almost anything. Some might consider it "artistically" written as compared to other literary endeavors, some wouldn't (that's subjective.) It could just as well have been expressed as 1's and 0's in the form of ribs broken off lines of herring bones to say the same thing in ASCII, EBCDIC, Hollarith, or something... I see no reason why such should change my opinion... that goes for the Bible, Koran, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and all the rest. Same ole, same ole.
RE asteroids and comets, unless one can convincingly demonstrate... with enough specificity (that means exactly where and when) such a prediction from this source has proved accurate, it could have been referring to a coconut falling out of a tree for all I know. Things hit the Earth all of the time.
|
Ron White |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
