| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Dr Tam" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2005 10:02:18 PM |
| Object: |
Creation |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4408187.stm
A European team claims to have obtained the first direct image of a planet
beyond our own Solar System.
The "extrasolar planet" is said to orbit a star called GQ Lup - thought to
be like a young version of our Sun.
Similar claims have been made in the past, but sceptical scientists believe
the pictures merely show objects that share the same view in the sky.
The GQ Lup object is far more certain claims Ralph Neuhaeuser's team in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
GQ Lup and its companion are located in a star-forming region about 400
light-years away.
Dr Tam
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 01:57:31 PM |
|
|
"Ned Kelly" <republican@email.com> wrote in message
news:uqa5619iiv0rue3e670hvjri261l5gjb40@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:18:01 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uf24619irs2jrm2fqgbml8l2r3ltsgph50@4ax.com...
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
Follow the pronouns:
Genesis 1:27-29 KJV
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
BB
Many seem to be unclear on God creating man in his own image. Does it
mean that our body looks like God.
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body? It must be an insult to God to be offended by Gods creation.
I'd be interested in your (or other peoples) comments on this.
Don't believe in god(s) as there's no evidence he/she/it exists.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
What are you doing denying the existence of "Gods" if you're a
"witchypoo"?
First of all, I'm not denying anything. See my sentence above. Do you deny
the existence of Santa Claus?
Witchypoo is just a nickname.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "åNGEL" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
28 Jan 2008 09:22:03 PM |
|
|
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
Follow the pronouns:
Genesis 1:27-29 KJV
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
BB
Many seem to be unclear on God creating man in his own image. Does it
mean that our body looks like God.
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body? It must be an insult to God to be offended by Gods creation.
Why would God create Muslims to kill Jews and christians?
I'd be interested in your (or other peoples) comments on this.
Bible Studier
You need to study much harder boy...
--
*IF*, and that's *IF* Jesus was, he was MOST CERTAINLY a Liberal...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nebulous" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
29 Jan 2008 01:26:25 AM |
|
|
"åNGEL" <captmicro@msn.com> wrote in message
The Troubles of Matthew Mahoney
In a little town in Devonshire, in the mellow September moonlight,
A gentleman passing along a street saw a pitiful sight,
A man bending over the form of a woman on the pavement.
He was uttering plaintive words and seemingly discontent.
"What's the matter with the woman?" asked the gentleman,
As the poor, fallen woman he did narrowly scan.
"There's something the matter, as yer honour can see,
But it's not right to prate about my wife, blame me."
"Is that really your wife?" said the gentleman.
"Yes, sor, but she looks very pale and wan."
"But surely she is much younger than you?"
"Only fourteen years, sor, that is thrue."
"It's myself that looks a deal oulder nor I really am,
Throuble have whitened my heir, my good gintleman,
Which was once as black as the wings of a crow,
And it's throuble as is dyed it as white as the snow.
Come, my dear sowl, Bridget, it's past nine o'clock,
And to see yez lying there it gives my heart a shock."
And he smoothed away the raven hair from her forehead,
And her hands hung heavily as if she had been dead.
The gentleman saw what was the matter and he sighed again,
And he said, "It's a great trial and must give you pain,
But I see you are willing to help her all you can."
But the encouraging words was not lost upon the Irishman.
"Thrial!" he echoed, "Don't mintion it, yer honour,
But the blessing of God rest upon her.
Poor crathur, she's good barrin' this one fault,
And by any one I don't like to hear her miscault."
"What was the reason of her taking to drink?"
"Bless yer honour, that's jest what I oftentimes think,
Some things is done without any rason at all,
And, sure, this one to me is a great downfall.
'Ah, Bridget, my darlin', I never dreamt ye'd come to this,"
And stooping down, her cheek he did kiss.
While a glittering tear flashed in the moonlight to the ground,
For the poor husband's grief was really profound.
"Have you any children?" asked the gentleman.
"No, yer honour, bless the Lord, contented I am,
I wouldn't have the lambs know any harm o' their mother,
Besides, sor, to me they would be a great bother."
"What is your trade, my good man?"
"Gardening, sor, and mighty fond of it I am.
Kind sor, I am out of a job and I am dying with sorrow."
"Well, you can call at my house by ten o'clock to-morrow.
"And I'll see what I can do for you.
Now, hasten home with your wife, and I bid you adieu.
But stay, my good man, I did not ask your name."
"My name is Matthew Mahoney, after Father Matthew of great fame,"
Then Mahoney stooped and lifted Bridget tenderly,
And carried her home in his arms cheerfully,
And put her to bed while he felt quite content,
Still hoping Bridget would see the folly of drinking and repent.
And at ten o'clock next morning Matthew was at Blandford Hall,
And politely for Mr Gillespie he did call,
But he was told Mrs Gillespie he would see,
And was invited into the parlour cheerfully.
And when Mrs Gillespie entered the room
She said, "Matthew Mahoney, I suppose you want to know your doom.
Well, Matthew, tell your wife to call here to-morrow."
"I'll ax her, my lady, for my heart's full of sorrow."
So Matthew got his wife to make her appearance at Blandford Hall,
And, trembling, upon Mrs Gillespie poor Bridget did call,
And had a pleasant interview with Mrs Gillespie,
And was told she was wanted for a new lodge-keeper immediately.
"But, Bridget, my dear woman, you mustn't drink any more,
For you have got a good husband you ought to adore,
And Mr Gillespie will help you, I'm sure,
Because he is very kind to deserving poor."
And Bridget's repentance was hearty and sincere,
And by the grace of God she never drank whisky, rum, or beer,
And good thoughts come into her mind of Heaven above,
And Matthew Mahoney dearly does her love.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 09:35:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:07:22 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
Follow the pronouns:
Genesis 1:27-29 KJV
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
BB
Many seem to be unclear on God creating man in his own image. Does it
mean that our body looks like God.
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body? It must be an insult to God to be offended by Gods creation.
I'd be interested in your (or other peoples) comments on this.
Bible Studier
God is Spirit. God is not a white haired old man sitting on a gold
throne behind gates gaurded by Peter. God is an invisible power or
force and has no shape as we think of shapes and forms. We are not
gods, but children of God. God created the spirit part of us so that
we are three part beings consisting of a body, soul, and a spirit.
The spirit part of us is not visible and is not corruptible which is
why it is eternal. Nothing we can do can cause the spirit part of us
to sin because it is holy spirit.
Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness in Gen 2:25 because
they had no sin consciousness because they had not sinned. After sin,
they began hiding themselves.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 10:27:02 AM |
|
|
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:07:22 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
Follow the pronouns:
Genesis 1:27-29 KJV
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
BB
Many seem to be unclear on God creating man in his own image. Does it
mean that our body looks like God.
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body? It must be an insult to God to be offended by Gods creation.
I'd be interested in your (or other peoples) comments on this.
Bible Studier
God is Spirit. God is not a white haired old man sitting on a gold
throne behind gates gaurded by Peter. God is an invisible power or
force and has no shape as we think of shapes and forms. We are not
gods, but children of God. God created the spirit part of us so that
we are three part beings consisting of a body, soul, and a spirit.
The spirit part of us is not visible and is not corruptible which is
why it is eternal. Nothing we can do can cause the spirit part of us
to sin because it is holy spirit.
Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness in Gen 2:25 because
they had no sin consciousness because they had not sinned. After sin,
they began hiding themselves.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
Thanks Bob, but this word "image" to me is seeing something that has a
shape, maybe it was in the translation to English and might have a
different meaning. I was also lead to believe that Eve ate from a
apple, but there is no reference in the bible as to what type of fruit
she ate.
I believe that Adam and Eve had the pure mind of a child as a child is
born into the world not knowing good from evil.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 11:15:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:35:04 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:07:22 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
Follow the pronouns:
Genesis 1:27-29 KJV
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
BB
Many seem to be unclear on God creating man in his own image. Does it
mean that our body looks like God.
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body? It must be an insult to God to be offended by Gods creation.
I'd be interested in your (or other peoples) comments on this.
Bible Studier
God is Spirit. God is not a white haired old man sitting on a gold
throne behind gates gaurded by Peter. God is an invisible power or
force and has no shape as we think of shapes and forms. We are not
gods, but children of God.
We are gods, or as close as it is possible to get to being a god. The
mythical gods have no measurable impact on the world, while our impact
is huge. We collectively decide whether millions of people live or
die, we start and end wars, and we even control the climate. If any
gods existed, they would presumably have some sort of impact. It would
be very strange if they contacted humans regularly (as the bible
suggests) and then suddenly stopped when the bible was finished. Maybe
god died, or maybe he/she/it never existed in the first place.
Whatever, it seems clear that man has considerably more power and
influence now and that these gods are conspicuous by their absence.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 01:30:21 PM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:9k2561dnf41le7iq9lum1jtgsdqiatv786@4ax.com...
....
We are gods, or as close as it is possible to get to being a god. The
mythical gods have no measurable impact on the world, while our impact
is huge.
So that if we are all wiped out tomorrow, it will take a geological instant
for every trace of us to vanish, beyond a few fossils.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 02:02:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:30:21 +0100, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:9k2561dnf41le7iq9lum1jtgsdqiatv786@4ax.com...
...
We are gods, or as close as it is possible to get to being a god. The
mythical gods have no measurable impact on the world, while our impact
is huge.
So that if we are all wiped out tomorrow, it will take a geological instant
for every trace of us to vanish, beyond a few fossils.
So? I didn't say we were going to be in this position forever - just
that we are now.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 07:22:49 PM |
|
|
Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:35:04 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:07:22 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
Follow the pronouns:
Genesis 1:27-29 KJV
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
BB
Many seem to be unclear on God creating man in his own image. Does it
mean that our body looks like God.
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body? It must be an insult to God to be offended by Gods creation.
I'd be interested in your (or other peoples) comments on this.
Bible Studier
God is Spirit. God is not a white haired old man sitting on a gold
throne behind gates gaurded by Peter. God is an invisible power or
force and has no shape as we think of shapes and forms. We are not
gods, but children of God.
We are gods, or as close as it is possible to get to being a god. The
mythical gods have no measurable impact on the world, while our impact
is huge. We collectively decide whether millions of people live or
die, we start and end wars, and we even control the climate. If any
gods existed, they would presumably have some sort of impact. It would
be very strange if they contacted humans regularly (as the bible
suggests) and then suddenly stopped when the bible was finished. Maybe
god died, or maybe he/she/it never existed in the first place.
Whatever, it seems clear that man has considerably more power and
influence now and that these gods are conspicuous by their absence.
Mephisto
We have no control on storms hurricanes, floods, earthquakes etc
We depend on water, food, air and shelter to survive.
We are human and not a God like creature.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liquid Grace" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 05:45:24 AM |
|
|
In article <98v561t1npv8i892fhukol4pids9dr4knt@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com leapt about on one foot, screaching...
Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:35:04 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:07:22 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
<snip>
We are gods, or as close as it is possible to get to being a god. The
mythical gods have no measurable impact on the world, while our impact
is huge. We collectively decide whether millions of people live or
die, we start and end wars, and we even control the climate. If any
gods existed, they would presumably have some sort of impact. It would
be very strange if they contacted humans regularly (as the bible
suggests) and then suddenly stopped when the bible was finished. Maybe
god died, or maybe he/she/it never existed in the first place.
Whatever, it seems clear that man has considerably more power and
influence now and that these gods are conspicuous by their absence.
Mephisto
We have no control on storms hurricanes, floods, earthquakes etc
We depend on water, food, air and shelter to survive.
We are human and not a God like creature.
Err....as opposed to what, there are god-like creatures?
Me, I'm a goddess. Really! Don't believe it? Have faith, it's true!
Grace
--
EAC Vile Harridan and Deranged Harpy
a.a. #1752, BAAWA Knight who Demands Shrubbery!
Lost In Oz....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 04:25:05 PM |
|
|
In article <98v561t1npv8i892fhukol4pids9dr4knt@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
We have no control on storms hurricanes, floods, earthquakes etc
We depend on water, food, air and shelter to survive.
Give us a hundred years.
We are human and not a God like creature.
Haven't read Hamlet, have you?
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 02:03:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:22:49 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:35:04 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:07:22 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
Follow the pronouns:
Genesis 1:27-29 KJV
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
BB
Many seem to be unclear on God creating man in his own image. Does it
mean that our body looks like God.
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body? It must be an insult to God to be offended by Gods creation.
I'd be interested in your (or other peoples) comments on this.
Bible Studier
God is Spirit. God is not a white haired old man sitting on a gold
throne behind gates gaurded by Peter. God is an invisible power or
force and has no shape as we think of shapes and forms. We are not
gods, but children of God.
We are gods, or as close as it is possible to get to being a god. The
mythical gods have no measurable impact on the world, while our impact
is huge. We collectively decide whether millions of people live or
die, we start and end wars, and we even control the climate. If any
gods existed, they would presumably have some sort of impact. It would
be very strange if they contacted humans regularly (as the bible
suggests) and then suddenly stopped when the bible was finished. Maybe
god died, or maybe he/she/it never existed in the first place.
Whatever, it seems clear that man has considerably more power and
influence now and that these gods are conspicuous by their absence.
Mephisto
We have no control on storms hurricanes, floods, earthquakes etc
Of course we do. We can start all of these things artificially if we
choose to. Our actions cause massive natural disasters - many of the
devastating floods in the far east are a direct result of human
agricultural practices. Underground nuclear testing has caused
earthquakes. We can not always control the outcome of storms, but my
point is that nothing else can either.
We depend on water, food, air and shelter to survive.
We are human and not a God like creature.
We are the most powerful force in the world today. The fact that we
have to stop and have a glass of wine and a steak every once in a
while doesn't detract from that. There is no more powerful force, so
if you define 'god' as being the most powerful force in the world,
then we are god.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Knightz Templiar" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? Over 300 threads finally Pasture Dive steps up -lol |
29 Jan 2008 09:57:31 AM |
|
|
This thread was getting so lonely. 270 replies to go - stay pruned for the
"best of"...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:07:22 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
Follow the pronouns:
Genesis 1:27-29 KJV
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
BB
Many seem to be unclear on God creating man in his own image. Does it
mean that our body looks like God.
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body? It must be an insult to God to be offended by Gods creation.
I'd be interested in your (or other peoples) comments on this.
Bible Studier
God is Spirit. God is not a white haired old man sitting on a gold
throne behind gates gaurded by Peter. God is an invisible power or
force and has no shape as we think of shapes and forms. We are not
gods, but children of God. God created the spirit part of us so that
we are three part beings consisting of a body, soul, and a spirit.
The spirit part of us is not visible and is not corruptible which is
why it is eternal. Nothing we can do can cause the spirit part of us
to sin because it is holy spirit.
What you fucking Christ-stain morons fail to realize is "Spirituality"
doesn't need YOU (or ANY religion for that matter) to exist OR survive.
"Spirituality" can stand on it's own.
Asswipes like your ilk try and corner the market on Spirituality then twist
it with fear into your PATHETIC religion(s)
Fuckwits like you' are nothing but a sick fucks selling fear and LIES wrapped
in faith(s), and being paid well from the weak and meek clueless.
You and your sick bretheren needs a ton of serious professional mental help
boy...
Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness in Gen 2:25 because
they had no sin consciousness because they had not sinned. After sin,
they began hiding themselves.
BB
--
Religion NEEDS Spirituality; Spirituality NEEDS NOT ANY religion...=81
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 12:07:27 PM |
|
|
Wonder wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts. The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then, the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at
the sight of one.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 04:03:07 PM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113757647.377456.286760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wonder wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts. The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then, the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at
the sight of one.
And yet nearly all human societies use some form of clothing. There are
societies with a casual attitude to nudity, and we've had societies where
the sight of an ankle or an ear causes an uproar. But there are no societies
where exposure of the genitalia has no significance whatsoever.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 08:47:48 AM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts. The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then, the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at
the sight of one.
And yet nearly all human societies use some form of clothing. There are
societies with a casual attitude to nudity, and we've had societies where
the sight of an ankle or an ear causes an uproar. But there are no societies
where exposure of the genitalia has no significance whatsoever.
Not all ..... most of the many Aboriginal tribes in Australia went
completely naked before Europeans intervened ...... and never batted an
eyelid over it ..... I think you'll find tribes in New Guinea and Africa
where the same thing happened .... it's all in the conditioning ....
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 10:26:36 AM |
|
|
"Masked Avenger" <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4263ba8c$0$12415$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
....
And yet nearly all human societies use some form of clothing. There are
societies with a casual attitude to nudity, and we've had societies
where
the sight of an ankle or an ear causes an uproar. But there are no
societies
where exposure of the genitalia has no significance whatsoever.
Not all ..... most of the many Aboriginal tribes in Australia went
completely naked before Europeans intervened ...... and never batted an
eyelid over it ..... I think you'll find tribes in New Guinea and Africa
where the same thing happened .... it's all in the conditioning ....
Who's to say that who's been conditioned and who's normal? When Cortez
arrived in Mexico he found people wearing clothes.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 09:26:13 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <4263ba8c$0$12415$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Masked Avenger pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
westprog wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts. The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then, the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at the
sight of one.
And yet nearly all human societies use some form of clothing. There are
societies with a casual attitude to nudity, and we've had societies
where the sight of an ankle or an ear causes an uproar. But there are no
societies where exposure of the genitalia has no significance
whatsoever.
Not all ..... most of the many Aboriginal tribes in Australia went
completely naked before Europeans intervened ...... and never batted an
eyelid over it ..... I think you'll find tribes in New Guinea and Africa
where the same thing happened .... it's all in the conditioning ....
I know when Columbus washed up over here, he commented on how the Tianos
didn't bother with clothing...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 07:18:53 PM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
Wonder wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts. The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then, the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at
the sight of one.
:-)
Jenny
Thanks Jenny for your interesting reply.
It's possible that the bodys of early man amd woman were covered in
hair which would hide private parts.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 02:04:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:18:53 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
Wonder wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts. The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then, the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at
the sight of one.
:-)
Jenny
Thanks Jenny for your interesting reply.
It's possible that the bodys of early man amd woman were covered in
hair which would hide private parts.
LOL! You can't bear the idea, can you?
The opposite is actually true. The genitals of primates are often bald
and brightly coloured in order to attract attention. The point of life
is procreation, so the idea that genitalia would be hidden is nothing
more than a result of your conditioned prudishness.
Nicely explained, Jenny :-)
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 04:45:00 PM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:h318615r9r1n2odvupq2qmpvtk8eiblch7@4ax.com...
....
Thanks Jenny for your interesting reply.
It's possible that the bodys of early man amd woman were covered in
hair which would hide private parts.
LOL! You can't bear the idea, can you?
The opposite is actually true. The genitals of primates are often bald
and brightly coloured in order to attract attention. The point of life
is procreation, so the idea that genitalia would be hidden is nothing
more than a result of your conditioned prudishness.
Nicely explained, Jenny :-)
The best way draw attention to something is to cover it up, especially when
it's the only thing covered up.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 10:25:29 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:45:00 +0100, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:h318615r9r1n2odvupq2qmpvtk8eiblch7@4ax.com...
...
Thanks Jenny for your interesting reply.
It's possible that the bodys of early man amd woman were covered in
hair which would hide private parts.
LOL! You can't bear the idea, can you?
The opposite is actually true. The genitals of primates are often bald
and brightly coloured in order to attract attention. The point of life
is procreation, so the idea that genitalia would be hidden is nothing
more than a result of your conditioned prudishness.
Nicely explained, Jenny :-)
The best way draw attention to something is to cover it up, especially when
it's the only thing covered up.
LOL! So despite all of the evidence to the contrary, you are actually
claiming that in order to make something really obvious the best thing
to do is hide it?
It's dishonest people like you, willing to twist the truth and ignore
evidence to justify their own beliefs, who give Christianity a bad
name.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 11:12:46 AM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:12tc615si52167gk49ulmlvkuhgktpgsub@4ax.com...
....
Thanks Jenny for your interesting reply.
It's possible that the bodys of early man amd woman were covered in
hair which would hide private parts.
LOL! You can't bear the idea, can you?
The opposite is actually true. The genitals of primates are often bald
and brightly coloured in order to attract attention. The point of life
is procreation, so the idea that genitalia would be hidden is nothing
more than a result of your conditioned prudishness.
Nicely explained, Jenny :-)
The best way draw attention to something is to cover it up, especially
when
it's the only thing covered up.
LOL! So despite all of the evidence to the contrary, you are actually
claiming that in order to make something really obvious the best thing
to do is hide it?
It's dishonest people like you, willing to twist the truth and ignore
evidence to justify their own beliefs, who give Christianity a bad
name.
What is it with you people? I can debate murder, sectarianism and bigotry on
SCI and remain quite civil, but you lot can't even discuss bikinis without
the "you're a liar" business. Pastor Dave might not have got over his
lunatic beliefs, but he certainly influences the house debating style.
I'll carry on talking to Jenny about it. Come back when you're willing to be
sensible and polite.
J/
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 07:36:36 PM |
|
|
Wonder wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
Wonder wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who
have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly
and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by
nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not
mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts.
The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then,
the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been
for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at
the sight of one.
:-)
Jenny
It's possible that the bodys of early man amd woman were covered in
hair which would hide private parts.
What are "private parts"? Of which "parts" do you speak?
Why must "private parts" be private? What do you mean by "private"?
Private to whom?
Bible Studier
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 03:22:16 AM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
Wonder wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
Wonder wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who
have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly
and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by
nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not
mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts.
The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then,
the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been
for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at
the sight of one.
:-)
Jenny
It's possible that the bodys of early man amd woman were covered in
hair which would hide private parts.
What are "private parts"? Of which "parts" do you speak?
Why must "private parts" be private? What do you mean by "private"?
Private to whom?
Bible Studier
Jenny
The parts that are covered by pubic hair.
Bible Studier.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CONservatyrd" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
29 Jan 2008 10:12:05 AM |
|
|
Wonder wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
Wonder wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who
have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly
and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by
nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not
mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts.
The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then,
the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been
for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at
the sight of one.
-)
Jenny
It's possible that the bodys of early man amd woman were covered in
hair which would hide private parts.
What are "private parts"? Of which "parts" do you speak?
Why must "private parts" be private? What do you mean by "private"?
Private to whom?
rofl...has something to do with one's privates-see maybe?
Bible Studier
Jenny
--
Victory-Victory-Victory says Dumbya, HEY DUMBYA - that's ahhhwhat we
call "stuck on stupid" boy...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Auntie Christstain" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong for Pastor Dave? |
29 Jan 2008 10:06:43 AM |
|
|
Wonder wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts. The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then, the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit at
the sight of one.
lmao...good point especially the "social conditioning" aspect, same goes for
racism, no one is born a racist, they have to be taught to be one. I guess
that's why there has to be "Born-Again Christstains", because they were not
born a 'Stain first time around, they have to be "social conditioned" to be a
fucked-up ***** all their life...what a waste of a *human* life, too bad
they all don't just fucking die off and go meet their maker since they look
forward to it so much...
-)
Jenny
--
"Theocracy Is Dead...Long Live The Sin"=81
-- Auntie Christstain=81
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 07:29:33 PM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113757647.377456.286760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wonder wrote:
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who
have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly
and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by
nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not
mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts.
The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society
to
society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female
chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then,
the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been
for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit
at
the sight of one.
And yet nearly all human societies use some form of clothing.
Yes, for occasional ornamentation, and because it gets cold, and for
protection against this and that. But few societies unaffected by
judeo-christian-muslim influence use clothing compulsively or are
offended by the lack of it.
There are societies with a casual attitude to nudity ...
I'm not sure what you mean by a casual attitude, but you seem to imply
that all societies have an attitude of some sort towards nudity. If
so, I disagree. I'd say that that there are societies in which nudity
has no significance whatever -- in which there is no attitude at all
towards nudity.
... and we've had societies where the sight of an ankle or an ear
causes an uproar.
You're using examples that reflect your societal training, examples
that you've been taught to regard as harmless.
But there are no societies
where exposure of the genitalia has no significance whatsoever.
Uhhh, I live in one. I'm among ten million or so in the United States.
Europe has far more. When it's chilly out, T-shirts or sweatshirts
are far more common than any other form of covering because it's the
trunk that needs warmth.
I see men out jogging in the early morning wearing a stocking cap, a
sweatshirt or jacket, and running shoes. Women, who have more hair,
skip the cap.
I note that you spoke neutrally of "the _sight_ of an ankle or an ear"
but switched to a loaded word in saying "_exposure_ of the genitalia."
Why do you think of the _sight_ of a penis or scrotum as "exposure"?
I'll bet you wouldn't speak of "exposing" your nose. In your view,
you're not "exposing" your nose, yet you aren't "concealing" it either.
It's just there -- not hidden yet not exhibited. Other people think
that way about all body parts.
Moreover, you named specific body parts (ankle, ear) in plain English
in your first example, but switched to a Latin-based, medical
collective when speaking of body parts (LOL) "down there."
You've been trained, well trained. But, as I said before, you could
get over it quickly if you gave yourself the opportunity.
<G>
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 05:53:22 AM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113784173.764254.294630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
....
If we are gods creation then why are people offended by the naked
body?
Bible Studier
The only people who are offended by the naked body are those who
have
been taught to be offended by the naked body. It's 100% social
conditioning (nurture) and 0% genetic (nature).
Moreover, with rare exceptions, the social conditioning is quickly
and
painlessly unlearned. On average, a person who is offended by
nudity
gets over it after 30-60 minutes in an environment where others are
nude. The range is a few minutes to a few hours.
It's also worth noting that, in practice, "naked" (nude) does not
mean
bare. People are trained to be offended by specific body parts.
The
specific body parts that are deemed 'offensive' vary from society
to society and also vary over time in any specific society.
For example, one hundred years ago, uncovered male and female
chests
were deemed offensive in both Europe and the United States. Then,
the
male chest came off the list in both Europe and the United States.
Currently, the female chest is off the list in Europe, and has been
for
35 years now, but Americans are still taught to throw a hissy fit
at the sight of one.
And yet nearly all human societies use some form of clothing.
Yes, for occasional ornamentation, and because it gets cold, and for
protection against this and that. But few societies unaffected by
judeo-christian-muslim influence use clothing compulsively or are
offended by the lack of it.
China?
There are plenty of societies where clothing is no needed to protect against
cold or scratches. If a tribesman wears a penis sheath, it isn't a
coincidence. It's because that is a part of the body that has particular
significance.
There are societies with a casual attitude to nudity ...
I'm not sure what you mean by a casual attitude, but you seem to imply
that all societies have an attitude of some sort towards nudity. If
so, I disagree. I'd say that that there are societies in which nudity
has no significance whatever -- in which there is no attitude at all
towards nudity.
For example?
... and we've had societies where the sight of an ankle or an ear
causes an uproar.
You're using examples that reflect your societal training, examples
that you've been taught to regard as harmless.
But there are no societies
where exposure of the genitalia has no significance whatsoever.
Uhhh, I live in one. I'm among ten million or so in the United States.
No, that isn't a society. That's a group of people who like to go around
with no clothes on. The United States is a classic example of a
genital-obsessed society. The number of people who regard nakedness as
natural and healthy is far outnumbered by the number of people who buy
magazines containing close up pictures of women's reproductive organs.
Europe has far more. When it's chilly out, T-shirts or sweatshirts
are far more common than any other form of covering because it's the
trunk that needs warmth.
I see men out jogging in the early morning wearing a stocking cap, a
sweatshirt or jacket, and running shoes. Women, who have more hair,
skip the cap.
I note that you spoke neutrally of "the _sight_ of an ankle or an ear"
but switched to a loaded word in saying "_exposure_ of the genitalia."
Why do you think of the _sight_ of a penis or scrotum as "exposure"?
I'll bet you wouldn't speak of "exposing" your nose. In your view,
you're not "exposing" your nose, yet you aren't "concealing" it either.
It's just there -- not hidden yet not exhibited. Other people think
that way about all body parts.
Yes, some people do. The vast majority of people on Earth do not.
It's a subject that came to mind following the London marathon yesterday.
What would someone be willing to do in public? Urinate? Defecate? Copulate?
Change a tampon? Would they do it in front of a family member, or a member
of the opposite sex? The same sex?
Moreover, you named specific body parts (ankle, ear) in plain English
in your first example, but switched to a Latin-based, medical
collective when speaking of body parts (LOL) "down there."
Well, I consider myself duly analysed. I don't mind writing "penis" and
"vagina" if I thought it would help.
You've been trained, well trained. But, as I said before, you could
get over it quickly if you gave yourself the opportunity.
If I thought there was something wrong with me, I probably could. The
question becomes, is the peculiar regard given to certain parts of the human
body a problem or something entirely natural?
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 05:08:35 PM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
There are plenty of societies where clothing is no needed to protect
against
cold or scratches. If a tribesman wears a penis sheath, it isn't a
coincidence. It's because that is a part of the body that has
particular
significance.
So, if a tribesman wears head ornamentation of some kind, or puts paint
on his chest, or sticks ornaments through his nose or lips, do you draw
the same conclusion?
You seem to be picking your examples very selectively.
There are societies with a casual attitude to nudity ...
I'm not sure what you mean by a casual attitude, but you seem to
imply
that all societies have an attitude of some sort towards nudity.
If
so, I disagree. I'd say that that there are societies in which
nudity
has no significance whatever -- in which there is no attitude at
all
towards nudity.
For example?
The ones I live in. I'm (legally) nude about 80-85% of the time. Were
it not for the Gestapo, it would be 95%.
You might also do some research on Hawaiian, Caribbean, and South
Pacific societies -- before the Christians with the cannons arrived.
... and we've had societies where the sight of an ankle or an ear
causes an uproar.
You're using examples that reflect your societal training, examples
that you've been taught to regard as harmless.
But there are no societies
where exposure of the genitalia has no significance whatsoever.
Uhhh, I live in one. I'm among ten million or so in the United
States.
No, that isn't a society. That's a group of people who like to go
around
with no clothes on. The United States is a classic example of a
genital-obsessed society. The number of people who regard nakedness
as
natural and healthy is far outnumbered by the number of people who
buy
magazines containing close up pictures of women's reproductive
< | | | |
