Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.nude > #45589 > unrolled thread

Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

Back to article view | Back to rec.nude

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> - 2026-06-14 10:17 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 14:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-15 06:00 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-24 11:08 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-24 09:30 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 13:01 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 20:31 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> - 2026-06-15 06:47 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Richard  C." <post-age@spamcop.net> - 2026-06-14 14:01 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 19:31 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 20:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-24 12:54 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 19:16 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-24 12:11 +0000

#45589 — Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

Hi Anna,

"Here is what  a blogger says on this issue. Not saying I necessarily
agree with him but I thought it might be interesting to throw this
into the general discussion. As it is a blog you can comment there as
well as here.

http://www.ronniewrogers.com/2008/07/29/public-nudity-innocent-or-sin/

http://tinyurl.com/bckash

Recently, I was asked what the Bible says about public nudity. As you
well know, many believe that the taboo of public nudity is merely
social, and that apart from societal mores, there is nothing immoral
about public nudity. What does the Bible say?

First let me be clear. I draw a distinction between task nudity and
social or sexual nudity. Task nudity refers to a person being nude for
such things as taking a shower at the gym. Therefore, this article
does not refer to task nudity but rather whether it is moral to be
nude in public, in mixed company other than with one’s spouse, and/or
for the purpose of being nude, disrobed etc., for either sexual or
social nudity."



"Nudity is beautiful prior to the fall: There is nothing inherently
evil about nudity. For example, Genesis 2:25 says concerning man and
woman before the fall, “And the man and his wife were both naked and
were not ashamed.“ Further, God declared all that He created to be
“very good” (Genesis 1:31). Consequently, the naked body as created by
God is beautiful; however, this was before the fall of mankind. Before
the fall, the nudity of man and woman did not provoke temptation, but
sin introduced distortion into the created order that did not
previously exist. This distortion can be seen by comparing Genesis
2:25, which says prior to the fall that Adam and Eve were naked and
“were not ashamed to (Genesis 3:7) whereas immediately after the
introduction of sin into the world Scripture describes their attempt
to hide their nakedness with clothing. More importantly, God clothed
their nakedness: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his
wife, and clothed them.“(Genesis 3:21)"

Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing fig 
leaves together.  God did not shame their nakedness nor condemn them to 
their state of shame.  Shame is a man made think that does not occur with 
any other species in the world be they animal or sentient.  Added to that, 
there were also other religions and cultures prior to Judaism where some of 
its adherents wore clothes and others went naked.

"One commentator lucidly notes the change, “Their bodies were
sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first
with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the
body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and
turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust
of the flesh.”1"

That "lust of the flesh" was created by God in the first place, as one of 
God's first commandments to Adam & Eve was to 'go forth and multiply'. 
Without those lusts and attractions they would not have been able to 
reproduce.

"Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
as “very good” and clothing was not necessary or even suggested in the
Garden prior to the fall. We should be equally clear that immediately
after the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve. God is the one who started
the clothing of the human body; therefore, in our present fallen
state, clothing is not an option, a mere status symbol to be discarded
in one’s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
blessing and provision of God."

That's bullshit.  See my point above as to A&E being the first to clothe 
themselves, which the author has clearly missed.

"The origin of dress is associated with a changed state brought about
by sin, resulting in nakedness being seductive, provocative, and
potentiating shame and further allurement away from God and His plan
for humans."

This is more a cultural thing than a biological issue.  Many Europeans both 
Christian and non-Christian understand that mixed nakedness can be non 
seductive and non-provocative.

"Therefore, prior to the fall of man into sin, Adam and Eve were naked
without shame. Immediately after the fall, they were ashamed and
sought to cover themselves, which God did as well. Today those who
express their shamelessness about public nudity fail to realize that
shamelessness in the garden was because of the purity of the creation
whereas after the fall any sense of shamelessness is due to the
hardness of the heart from sin “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah
3:5)."

Unjustness does not come from being socially naked with others.  There are 
as many just and honest people involved with nudism as much as there are 
some unjust and dishonest types.

"Nudity is beautiful between a husband and wife: Contrary to social
Darwinism, which sees man as an animal, different only from all other
animals in degree rather than kind, man is created in the image of
God, and is therefore categorically different than animals. Thus, the
argument that animals do not wear clothing is no argument or
determiner of what humans should or should not do. Biblically, the
body and marriage are sacred and marriage is the proper context for
sex, and social or sexual nudity.  The beliver’s body is not only
sacred because it was created by God but also because it is a temple
of the Holy Spirit, (1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, public nudity is
wrong because it desacralizes marriage, sex, and the temple of the
Holy Spirit."

There is nowhere in the Bible which enforces this.  He has overlooked Isaiah 
20:2 in which the prophet was commanded to minister naked and barefoot for 
three years to people other than his family.  He has also overlooked the 
mulititudes of people who took their clothes off and spread them on the road 
when Jesus rode into Jerusalem.

"Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.
That some are not ashamed reveals more about their spiritual
deprivation than about whether public nudity is sin or not. Zephaniah
said, “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity is
humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God’s way and
elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentiates adultery,
fornication….."

Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for me, 
hey?  I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex God 
with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).

"Gen 19:22-25 associates shame with exposure of the nakedness of Noah.
Leviticus 18 prescribed several specifics about regulating nudity and
appears to use nudity as a euphemism for sex as well. We live in a
very sensual culture, and the further we move from being a culture
influenced by biblical principles, the more public nudity and scanty
dressing will become tokens of liberation from so-called cultural
taboos."

The problem was not with Noah being naked, but being drunk and Ham taking 
advantage of his father's situation to make fun of him in a sexual manner. 
Note that God does not condemn Noah for being naked.

"Christians do see nudity and sex as beautiful gifts from God, and
they, like every other blessing of life, are to be used according to
God’s plan. “Christians hold that worldly gifts are subordinate to the
gifts of grace and that the new spirit of divine life consecrates
these goods from selfish to pious uses…early Christians conformed
their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
vain spirit.”2"

The early Christians had no problem with nudity until the reign of 
Augustine.  Jesus never spoke against nudism or nudity because it was a lot 
more prevalent in his culture than in the world today.

"The Scriptures remind us, “For those who are according to the flesh
set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit“(Romans 8:5).
Therefore, we are commanded, “Set your mind on the things above, not
on the things that are on earth“(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
in light of the warning “Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
earthly things“(Philippians 3:19)."

Flesh in this context is not to with the skin or body parts, but rather 
'selfishness'.

"Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
who promote public nudity as “innocent” or “social and not sexual”
seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity. Those who
support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc. say that
walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the
opposite sex has nothing to do with sex. In other words, there is no
organic relationship between nudity and sex or nudity and sin."

Some nudists do, which is the politically correct position.  This is just as 
wrong and extreme as those who refer to nudity as being a prelude to sex 
orgies.  We need some kind of middle ground here.  Being naked with others 
CAN be sexual and arousing in certain places and times but it is not 
necessary to go from simple nudity to full on sexual activity.

"First, as already shown, non-task nudity outside the confines of
marriage is sin in this fallen world. Second, while nudity is not
sufficient for sex, it is necessary. Their attempt to totally
disassociate sex from nudity is laughable. First, the Scripture makes
the clear connection between sex and nudity with all of the
regulations regarding nudity, as well as using nudity as a euphemism
for sex. Also, it seems that the pornographers understand the
connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or
photos that cause lust that can only be satiated by sex."

Obvioulsy he hasn't heard of 'dry humping'.  Added to that, pornographers 
actually tend to make more money out of selling photos of women in skimpy 
clothing than ones who are merely naked.  The reason: it is far more 
alluring to create images that leave something to the imagination.

"It seems that men understand the connection since they are by every
known rational mind to be visual. Lastly, it seems that if honesty
prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable
connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more
intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing
with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be
multilayer thick burlap."

This is a strawman's argument.  Women are just as visual, maybe even more 
so, than men by what attracts them to men.  There are strip shows for 
females, maley magazines like "Playgirl", as well as semi-nude men plastered 
on virtually every advertising billboard, magazine and newspaper cover you 
can find.  I don't tend to find multilayered clothing to be particularly 
sexy any more than nakedness.

"Christians should show forth the glory of God by covering what He
intended to be covered recognizing the insatiable appetite of fallen
man to desacralize everything, including himself, and live at the
basest level of human existence; thereby allowing sensory pleasure to
reign supreme with no shame."

What rot!  Jesus never taught this.  This self made fascist authoritarian is 
making up his own rules.


-- 

Best wishes,

Dario Western

Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859

Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#45609

Hi David,

The ancient Romans used to use the 'vaulted chambers' for their worship of 
sex gods.

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/fornication.html

-- 

Best wishes,

Dario Western

Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859

Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:71nbg2Fm1s09U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message 
> news:Oturl.25000$cu.18744@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for 
>> me, hey?  I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex 
>> God with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).
>>
>
> fornicate
>
>  . verb formal or humorous have sexual intercourse with someone one is not 
> married to.
>
>  - DERIVATIVES fornication noun fornicator noun.
>
>  - ORIGIN Latin, from fornix 'vaulted chamber', later 'brothel'.
>
>
>
> Can't see anything about "pagan sex gods" in there.
>
>
>
> David.
>
>
>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45706

I have provided a very clear statement of religious belief associated
with Natural, Common Law and Constitutional perspectives--Any lack of
understanding is about your paucity not mine.

That the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission appears to
singularly act with dishonesty and perversity of justice in its
deliberations over religious, racial and sexual vilification.

Australia is governed according to the several powers and authorities
granted or appointed (the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor
General) by virtue of 'The Commonweath of Australia Constitution Act,
1900', and of these present Letters Patent (as presents) ... and to such
laws as shall hereafter be in force in Our said Commonwealth:

22/7 as 3W1D ... {Formula of Progression of individual phenomena}

the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of Universal
Law}, which contains the law of that will: 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of
the 'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to the 'constant sequence of
sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days

the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE/MATTER - Formula of Humanity
- HEAD OF STATE}, which contains the command to behave in accordance
with the law, that is, the principle of subsumption under the law: x 49
= 6J or 294 x 364 days or 365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox
Wednesday 20 March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756; and

the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE/OFFSPRING - Formula of Autonomy},
which contains the verdict (sentence), that is laid down as right in the
case at hand: ... 6,000 topical years as Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D)
= Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2] has #369 with Septet #41
centric on 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.

And whereas We did on the 17th day of September, 1900, by and with the
advice of Our Privy Council declare by proclamation that, on and after
the 1st day of January, 1901, the people of New South Wales, Victoria,
South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania and also Western Australia,
should be united in a Federal Commonwealth of Australia: And whereas by
the said recited Act certain powers, functions, and authorities were
declared to be vested in the Governor General: And whereas We are
desirous of making effectual and permanent provision for the office of
Governor General and Commander in chief in and over Our said
Commonwealth of Australia, without making new Letters Patent on each
demise of the said office. Now know ye that We have thought fit to
constitute, order, and declare, and do by these presents constitute
order, and declare, that there shall be a Governor General and Commander
in Chief (hereinafter called the Governor General) in and over Our
Commonwealth of Australia (hereinafter called Our said Commonwealth),
and that the person who shall fill the said office of Governor General
shall be from time to time appointed by Commission under Our Sign Manual
and Signet.

{26 English Letters + #MEM GRAPPLE CONTRAPTION} Hierarchy to
Category of Understanding: #237 - USE OF FORCE
(FEDERAL COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA)

- http://www.grapple.id.au/vCube.html
(see #237 entry for 16 January)

#13 - Nature contains Nature {Mem (Mother - The tongue of decree
deciding between them)}
I - And we do hereby authorize and command Our said Governor General to
do and execute, in due manner, all things that shall belong to his said
command, and to the trust We have reposed in him, according to the
several powers and authorities granted or appointed him by virtue of
'The Commonweath of Australia Constitution Act, 1900', and of these
present Letters Patent and of such Commission as may be issued to him
under Our Sign Manual and Signet, or by Order in Our Privy Council, or
by Us through one of Our Principal Secretaries of State, and to such
laws as shall hereafter be in force in Our said Commonwealth.

#14 - Nature rejoices in its Nature {Nun}
II - There shall be a Great Seal of and for Our said Commonwealth which
Our said Governor General shall keep and use for sealing all things
whatsoever that shall pass the said Great Seal. Provided that until a
Great Seal shall be provided the Private Seal of Our said Governor
General may be used as the Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia.

#15 - Nature surmounts Nature {Samek}
III - The Governor General may constitute and appoint, in Our name and
on Our behalf, all such Judges, Commissioners, Justices of the Peace,
and other necessary officers and Ministers of Our said Commonwealth, as
may be lawfully constituted or appointed by Us.

#16 - Nature amended in its Nature {Ayin}
IV - The Governor General, so far as We Ourselves lawfully may, upon
sufficient cause to him appearing, may remove from his office, or
suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office
of Our said Commonwealth, under or by virtue of any--Commission or
Warrant granted, or which may be granted, by Us in Our name or under Our
authority.

#17 - Act of Nature {Pe (Double - Act of Nature {#8 - Transforming Nature})}
V - The Governor General may on Our behalf exercise all powers under the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, or otherwise in
respect of the summoning, proroguing, or dissolving the Parliament of
Our said Commonwealth.

#18 - Form of Nature {Tsade}
VI - And whereas by 'The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900,' it is amongst other things enacted, that we may authorise the
Governor General to appoint any person or persons, jointly or severally,
to be his Deputy or Deputies within any part of Our Commonwealth, and in
that capacity to exercise, during the pleasure of the Governor General
such powers, and functions of the said Governor General as he thinks fit
to assign to such Deputy or Deputies, subject to any limitations and
directions as aforesaid, to appoint any person or persons, jointly or
severally. To be his Deputy or Deputies within any part of Our said
Commonwealth of Australia, and in that capacity to exercise, during his
pleasure, such of his powers and functions, as he may deem it necessary
or expedient to assign to him or them: Provided always, that the
appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect the exercise
by the Governor General himself of any power or function.

#19 - Engendering Nature {Qoph}
VII - And We do hereby declare Our pleasure to be that, in the event of
death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our said Governor General out
of Our said Commonwealth, and all and every the powers and authorities
herein granted to him shall until Our further pleasure is signified
therein, be vested in such person as may be appointed by Us under Our
Sign Manual and Signet to be Our Lieutenant Governor of Our said
Commonwealth: or if there shall be no such Lieutenant Governor in Our
said Commonwealth, then in such person or persons as may be appointed by
Us under Our Sign Manual and Signet to administer the Government of the
same. No such powers or authorities shall vest in such Lieutenant
Governor, or such other person or persons, until he or they shall have
taken the oaths appointed to be taken by the Governor General of Our
said Commonwealth, and in the manner provided by the Instructions
accompanying these Our Letters Patent.

#20 - Transforming Nature {Resh (Double - Form of Nature {#9 -
Autonomous Nature})}
VIII - And We do hereby require and command all Our Officers and
Ministers, Civil and Military, and all other the inhabitants of Our said
Commonwealth to be obedient, aiding, and assisting unto Our said
Governor General, or, in the event of his death, incapacity, or absence,
to such person or persons as may, from time to time, under the
provisions of these Our Letters Patent, administer the Government of Our
said Commonwealth.

#21 - Autonomous Nature {Shin (Mother - Scales of liability)}
IX - And We do hereby reserve to Ourselves Our heirs and successors,
full power and authority from time to time to revoke, alter, or amend
these Our Letters Patent, as to Us or them shall seem meet.

#22 - Totality of Nature {Tau (Double - Engendering Nature {#10 -
Totality of Nature})}
X - And We do further direct and enjoin that these Our Letters Patent
shall be read and proclaimed at such place or places as Our said
Governor General shall think fit within Our said Commonwealth of
Australia. [In witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be
made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the 29th October, 1900: 64th
year of Our reign--Queen Victoria]

I'll talk about my 21 August 1999 protest only when specific questions
are asked ... the matter of my being characterized as having a
particular state of mind as derangement associated with HIV and of being
falsely designated as having a particular mania (ie. that is prevalent
amongst Tibetian demonstrators)  is presently the subject to litigation
as a claim of religious, racial and sexual vilification against the
Victoria Police, Alfred Hospital and the Equal Opportunity and Human
Rights Commission.

Dolf presents with a decade-long history of a very complex and unusual
belief system that is involved in his conflict with his Insurer. I could
not understand what the exact dispute was with the Insurer--he is
receiving salary continuation; it may be that there were some aspects of
this that were denied by the Insurer, but he did not make this clear.

Given the complexity of his system and the degree to which it affects
his life, I consider him to have a delusional disorder. That is, that he
holds a very complex system of beliefs that other people do not
understand and which tends to impinge adversely on much of his life due
to his preoccupation with it. It also reflects his continuing antipathy
towards organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church [over his
presence at Archbishop Pell’s refusal of communion at Pentecost Sunday
Mass Melbourne on 31 May 1998 and 21 June 2000 as a treasonable act of
heteronomy against autonomous regulative free under the Commonwealth].

A letter dated 28 November 2003 from the Director of Psychiatry at the
Alfred Hospital reads in part: “One issue which I would like to raise
with you is your contention that no diagnosis was made during your
admission to The Alfred Inpatient Unit in August 1999. I think that is
incorrect. The circumstances are as follows. Brian Griffin of the Inner
West C.A.T. Team assessed you on 21 August and completed an Authority to
Transport without Recommendation form as is provided for under the
Mental Health Act. In it he said, ‘Dolf is psychotic and expresses
delusions re his role in the end of the world. He was apparently
catatonic earlier in the interview. He is insightless re his situation.’

You were brought to The Alfred where you were recommended for inpatient
psychiatric care. Copies of those forms are attached and unfortunately
were not in your medical record and you probably didn’t have them
previously provided to you.

As you were brought into hospital on Sunday, 22 August you were examined
by our oncall psychiatrist, Dr. Kemp. She found that you met the
involuntary detention criteria under the Mental Health Act. She did not
come to a firm diagnosis and thought you were more likely than not to
have hypomania.

You were examined by Dr. Kym Jenkins the day after and she confirmed the
diagnosis of hypomania. On 25 August you were no longer in need of
involuntary hospitalization and Dr. Kym Jenkins discharged you off the
Act. During the course of your admission you were seen by Associate
Professor Judd who also confirmed a diagnosis of hypomania.

Thus there seemed little doubt in the mind of a number of psychiatrists
at The Alfred that you were hypomanic at the time of admission and you
settled quickly.” [Associate Professor Peter Doherty, Director of
Psychiatry, The Alfred Hospital]

Much of the antipathy, of course, has a justifiable basis, eg: the
homophobic comments that are made by senior clergy of various faiths
from time to time.—Is that it conflicts with the Church’s official
teachings with respects to a 17 year court battle over right to life,
lack of clarity over holocaust denial, Pope Benedict’s obscurity over
the 75th anniversary when the office of Holy See signed the Concordat
with the German Reich during World Youth Day 20 July 2008, and attempts
to redefined the sense of holocaust as being associated to a pro-life
anti-abortionist stereotyping: “They all seem to be suffering from the
same problems - sex obsessions, mental hospitals, "Nazis" and "freedom
of choice" (I think that's a reference to abortion and the fact that the
jew is in favour of the holocaust that is now known as "freedom of
choice") In any event, they all come across as pathetic creatures who
should be confined for their own good until they can be studied to find
out what their problems are. I also believe that they should be denied
use of the therapy room computers, since said computers are being used
to spread their madness and libel all over the net.”

Dolf does manage to look after his day-to-day affairs, in that he can
provide a roof over his head and basis necessities. However, he spends
an enormous amount of time and energy on his dispute with his Insurer
and also promulgating his ideas on the Internet. He finds it hard to
understand why people do not understand them and often make rude
comments. He often interprets this in a paranoid way, ie. that people
are actively discriminating against him.

(ru) dolf: "There were two highlights to the Roman Catholic World Youth
Day as special mass on 20 July 2008 which occurred on 21 July 2008 in
William Street, Sydney.

I turned to a group of 5 or more persons and International visitors and
participants in that event at traffic lights in proximity to Palmer
Street and said,"I will not forget the abuses to our human rights which
you have subjected us to this week."

The reason why Pope Benedict XVIth (Joseph Ratzinger) at World Youth Day
Sunday Mass spoke of 'an interior emptiness, an unnamed fear, a quiet
sense of despair,' is that it was the 75th anniversary when the office
of Holy See signed the Concordat with the German Reich on 20 July 1933.

And I want Roman Catholics to know that we know the cause for this
despair which Pope Benedict XVIth (Joseph Ratzinger) feels.

To another approaching group of International visitors and participants
in that event including a nun,

I said, "Heil Hitler!"

The nun responded, "Heil!"

"You can't call yourself a real Catholic and hold such absurd views. I'm
not certain about his place on Judgement Day," said the 52-year-old
Sabina Medina, a resident of La Reja who who wakes up to the seminary
bells at 6am every day, sharing the shock that many in the local
community feel concerning Bishop Williamson's statement about the Holocaust.

ONLY birdsong and muttered prayers disturb the tranquil cloisters where
men dressed in long, black cassocks make their way to daily Mass said in
Latin: "Have you not heard, a Brisbane Catholic priest has been sacked
following a long-running dispute with the Vatican over his controversial
practices.

Father Peter Kennedy, from St Mary's Parish in South Brisbane, was
notified of his termination by Archbishop of Brisbane John Bathersby in
a letter dated Friday 6 February 2009.

It followed an ultimatum to the church last August in which the
archbishop called the 700-strong parish "an authority to itself" and
threatened to close it.

At the church, unorthodox masses are conducted, women can preach and
homosexual couples are blessed.

In this week's letter, Archbishop Bathersby said it gave him no pleasure
to terminate Father Kennedy's appointment from Saturday 21 February. But
he said there was no reason for further discussion of the decision.

"I have repeatedly asked for changes but you and community have not
budged an inch," he wrote.

"... Time and time again St Mary's has chosen to go its own way."

Parishioner Karyn Walsh said the community was deeply upset by the
decision and was behind Father Kennedy's plea. Ms Walsh said the
parish's gay and lesbian community in particular felt discriminated
against by the archbishop's decision. She said the parish did not
consider the liturgical reasons given for Father Kennedy's termination
were good ones. "They are really no reason to take away such a strong
sense of community that exists at St Mary's," she said. "There's
certainly a strong feeling that people don't want to go anywhere." The
archbishop has been sought for comment while a spokesman for Father
Kennedy said he was making no further statements." ["'Rebel' priest
sacked in mass row" by Jessica Marszalek (c) The Australian newspaper 08
February 2009]

Yet the neo-classical seminary of Our Lady of Corredentora, set in open
countryside in the peaceful outskirts of Buenos Aires, is at the eye of
a storm that stretches all the way to the gates of the Vatican. For the
past five years, Bishop Richard Williamson has presided over this
ultra-conservative religious community in La Reja, but the man behind
the international uproar is not receiving visitors.

But by lifting the excommunications without demanding any undertaking
from Bishop Williamson and the others, the Pope has angered not just
liberals, who see it as capitulation to an unpleasantly reactionary
splinter group, but also the many conservatives who admired his
insistence on obedience and who feel he has blunted the most fearsome
disciplinary instrument in the Pope's gift.

The controversial British cleric certainly does not seem about to break
his quasi-monastic routine to answer Pope Benedict's request for
clarification of his comments on the Holocaust, which surfaced last week
shortly after the Vatican's decision to welcome back into the church
four excommunicated bishops, including Williamson.

Few, in Rome at least, were ready to vent their criticism publicly. But
according to one well-informed source, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re,
the senior Vatican official who was told to sign the decree lifting the
excommunications on behalf of the Pope, "roared" his disapproval of the
move.

Defenders of the initiative noted that the decree did not, of itself,
heal the schism or settle the issue of the SSPX's future status within
the church. The announcement said it was issued out of "paternal pity".

"What Benedict has said is that this is the first step in a dialogue,"
acknowledged a prominent British liberal speaking on condition of
anonymity. "But that could be very bad for the church as a whole. It is
one thing if (the Lefebvrists) come nearer to the church universal. But
if the church universal comes closer to them, it matters a great deal."
[by Oliver Balch and John Hooper, "As Holocaust storm rages, cleric
seeks solace", The Age newspaper 8 February 2009]

I've heard that the Anglican Church of Australia, in dialogue with 
athiests, are even considering recommending overturning the blasphemy 
laws--seems that they won't be able to do so in relation to the 
accusation of hypocrisy and fascism being raised against them and the 
former military service, Governor General Michael Jeffrey and Prime 
Minister John Winston Howard with respects to their impropriety, impiety 
over the August 2004 passage of marriage laws and turning a blind eye to 
the continuing culture of injustice towards racial, sexual and religious 
vilification which is Australian Society: "We sometimes get the 
impression that our society needs at least one group that will not be 
tolerated, against which we can hurl our hatred. And if someone dares to 
reach out to that group - in this case the pope - he also loses the 
right to tolerance and can also, without fear or reserve, be treated 
with hatred," Benedict wrote of "hostility" of reactions to his decision 
to lift the ex-communication of Holocaust denier Richard Williamson. 
[From correspondents in Vatican City, 12 March 2009, Article from: 
Agence France-Presse]

These rabid fascist Irish Catholic dogs need to show a greater respect 
for the Commonwealth--the atheist ones are particularly feral mongrels 
who are a disease in this country. Another month or so and I should have 
my project sufficiently progressed to present a human rights complaint 
to the Dutch consulate--bypassing Australian justice altogether as immoral.

As you can can see from this present revision of the vMeme Cube (which 
is suitable for Apple Safari and Mozilla Firefox www-browsers), I have 
advanced it sufficiently to store textual PONDERING wrapped by <p> tags 
within the HTML document.

These don't necessarily need to be visible, but my goal is to provide an 
expandable and portable electronic book architecture of the King James 
version of the Bible.

- dolf
- http://www.grapple.id.au/vCube.html

PS. expect to do more debug work on the BOEK(id) function to ensure it 
works correctly with jackNote / memeBrain notion.

<p id="jackNote@zen:5,row:9,col:4,nous:70,date:2009.2.19">
<span id="memeBrain@telos:2130,super:59,ego:24" 
onclick="spanCLICK(id)">NSW police provide bushfire relief</span>
</p>



Terry J. Wood wrote:
 > Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> wrote in news:dabel-218B2E.10055912032009@c-
 > 61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
 >
 >> The Bible was written in Greek, not Latin or English.  (The Old
 >> Testament was written in Hebrew).
 >
 >
 > Dr. Steven Colbert, the only true CONSERVATIVE PUNDIT in AMERICA, claims
 > that the Bible was written in Olde English and later translated in
 > AMERICAN:
 >
 > Says Wikiality.com:  "Written by Jesus in Old English and later
 > translated into American, The Bible has an "Old Testament" and a "New
 > and Improved Testament".
 >
 > http://www.wikiality.com/Bible
 >
 > Steven is a doctor, so he must know what he's talking about.
 >
 >
 >
 > BTW, Steven needs you to help him win the naming rights for NASA's
 > newest addition to the space station.
 >
 >    http://www.wikiality.com/Image:SpaceModuleColbert.jpg
 >
 >
 > Vote here: http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/name_ISS/index.html by
 > entering the string "COLBERT" into the suggestion box.  Don't let
 > "MYYEARBOOK" or "XENU" (the the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy"
 > in Scientology) win out!  Vote early!  Vote often!
 >
 >
 >> I would claim that all of this is off topic for this group, anyway,
 >
 > It normally would be, but at Wikiality.com we vote to determine the
 > truth of something.
 >
 > We're bringing democracy to the TRUTH!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45843

In article <71s4s9Fm4690U1@mid.individual.net>,
 "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote:

> "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:VT2ul.26906$cu.18650@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
> > Hi David,
> >
> > The ancient Romans used to use the 'vaulted chambers' for their worship of
> > sex gods.
> >
> 
> Did they now, I didn't know you were an expert on Roman religions Dario. So 
> come on tell us, which "sex gods"? and just how were they worshipped? 
> Perhaps you'd like to provide a source for that?
> 
> But in any case, if the word means "vaulted chamber" it doesn't mean "to 
> worship a sex god", does it?

Dario provided a cite.  It appears you didn't read it.

> Perhaps you'd like to give us a clear and accurate etymology for the word,
> describing *in detail* every nuance of meaning of it in both Latin and 
> English.

The Bible was written in Greek, not Latin or English.  (The Old 
Testament was written in Hebrew).

I would claim that all of this is off topic for this group, anyway, 
except that the list of newsgroups includes three with the word "christ" 
in them.

-- 
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46088

I have provided a very clear statement of religious belief associated 
with Natural, Common Law and Constitutional perspectives--Any lack of 
understanding is about your paucity not mine.

That the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission appears to 
singularly act with dishonesty and perversity of justice in its 
deliberations over religious, racial and sexual vilification.

I'll talk about my 21 August 1999 protest only when specific questions
are asked ... the matter of my being characterized as having a
particular state of mind as derangement associated with HIV and of being
falsely designated as having a particular mania (ie. that is prevalent
amongst Tibetian demonstrators)  is presently the subject to litigation
as a claim of religious, racial and sexual vilification against the
Victoria Police, Alfred Hospital and the Equal Opportunity and Human
Rights Commission.

Dolf presents with a decade-long history of a very complex and unusual
belief system that is involved in his conflict with his Insurer. I could
not understand what the exact dispute was with the Insurer--he is
receiving salary continuation; it may be that there were some aspects of
this that were denied by the Insurer, but he did not make this clear.

Given the complexity of his system and the degree to which it affects
his life, I consider him to have a delusional disorder. That is, that he
holds a very complex system of beliefs that other people do not
understand and which tends to impinge adversely on much of his life due
to his preoccupation with it. It also reflects his continuing antipathy
towards organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church [over his
presence at Archbishop Pell’s refusal of communion at Pentecost Sunday
Mass Melbourne on 31 May 1998 and 21 June 2000 as a treasonable act of
heteronomy against autonomous regulative free under the Commonwealth].

A letter dated 28 November 2003 from the Director of Psychiatry at the
Alfred Hospital reads in part: “One issue which I would like to raise
with you is your contention that no diagnosis was made during your
admission to The Alfred Inpatient Unit in August 1999. I think that is
incorrect. The circumstances are as follows. Brian Griffin of the Inner
West C.A.T. Team assessed you on 21 August and completed an Authority to
Transport without Recommendation form as is provided for under the
Mental Health Act. In it he said, ‘Dolf is psychotic and expresses
delusions re his role in the end of the world. He was apparently
catatonic earlier in the interview. He is insightless re his situation.’

You were brought to The Alfred where you were recommended for inpatient
psychiatric care. Copies of those forms are attached and unfortunately
were not in your medical record and you probably didn’t have them
previously provided to you.

As you were brought into hospital on Sunday, 22 August you were examined
by our oncall psychiatrist, Dr. Kemp. She found that you met the
involuntary detention criteria under the Mental Health Act. She did not
come to a firm diagnosis and thought you were more likely than not to
have hypomania.

You were examined by Dr. Kym Jenkins the day after and she confirmed the
diagnosis of hypomania. On 25 August you were no longer in need of
involuntary hospitalization and Dr. Kym Jenkins discharged you off the
Act. During the course of your admission you were seen by Associate
Professor Judd who also confirmed a diagnosis of hypomania.

Thus there seemed little doubt in the mind of a number of psychiatrists
at The Alfred that you were hypomanic at the time of admission and you
settled quickly.” [Associate Professor Peter Doherty, Director of
Psychiatry, The Alfred Hospital]

Much of the antipathy, of course, has a justifiable basis, eg: the
homophobic comments that are made by senior clergy of various faiths
from time to time.—Is that it conflicts with the Church’s official
teachings with respects to a 17 year court battle over right to life,
lack of clarity over holocaust denial, Pope Benedict’s obscurity over
the 75th anniversary when the office of Holy See signed the Concordat
with the German Reich during World Youth Day 20 July 2008, and attempts
to redefined the sense of holocaust as being associated to a pro-life
anti-abortionist stereotyping: “They all seem to be suffering from the
same problems - sex obsessions, mental hospitals, "Nazis" and "freedom
of choice" (I think that's a reference to abortion and the fact that the
jew is in favour of the holocaust that is now known as "freedom of
choice") In any event, they all come across as pathetic creatures who
should be confined for their own good until they can be studied to find
out what their problems are. I also believe that they should be denied
use of the therapy room computers, since said computers are being used
to spread their madness and libel all over the net.”

Dolf does manage to look after his day-to-day affairs, in that he can
provide a roof over his head and basis necessities. However, he spends
an enormous amount of time and energy on his dispute with his Insurer
and also promulgating his ideas on the Internet. He finds it hard to
understand why people do not understand them and often make rude
comments. He often interprets this in a paranoid way, ie. that people
are actively discriminating against him.

(ru) dolf: "There were two highlights to the Roman Catholic World Youth
Day as special mass on 20 July 2008 which occurred on 21 July 2008 in
William Street, Sydney.

I turned to a group of 5 or more persons and International visitors and
participants in that event at traffic lights in proximity to Palmer
Street and said,"I will not forget the abuses to our human rights which
you have subjected us to this week."

The reason why Pope Benedict XVIth (Joseph Ratzinger) at World Youth Day
Sunday Mass spoke of 'an interior emptiness, an unnamed fear, a quiet
sense of despair,' is that it was the 75th anniversary when the office
of Holy See signed the Concordat with the German Reich on 20 July 1933.

And I want Roman Catholics to know that we know the cause for this
despair which Pope Benedict XVIth (Joseph Ratzinger) feels.

To another approaching group of International visitors and participants
in that event including a nun,

I said, "Heil Hitler!"

The nun responded, "Heil!"

"You can't call yourself a real Catholic and hold such absurd views. I'm
not certain about his place on Judgement Day," said the 52-year-old
Sabina Medina, a resident of La Reja who who wakes up to the seminary
bells at 6am every day, sharing the shock that many in the local
community feel concerning Bishop Williamson's statement about the Holocaust.

ONLY birdsong and muttered prayers disturb the tranquil cloisters where
men dressed in long, black cassocks make their way to daily Mass said in
Latin: "Have you not heard, a Brisbane Catholic priest has been sacked
following a long-running dispute with the Vatican over his controversial
practices.

Father Peter Kennedy, from St Mary's Parish in South Brisbane, was
notified of his termination by Archbishop of Brisbane John Bathersby in
a letter dated Friday 6 February 2009.

It followed an ultimatum to the church last August in which the
archbishop called the 700-strong parish "an authority to itself" and
threatened to close it.

At the church, unorthodox masses are conducted, women can preach and
homosexual couples are blessed.

In this week's letter, Archbishop Bathersby said it gave him no pleasure
to terminate Father Kennedy's appointment from Saturday 21 February. But
he said there was no reason for further discussion of the decision.

"I have repeatedly asked for changes but you and community have not
budged an inch," he wrote.

"... Time and time again St Mary's has chosen to go its own way."

Parishioner Karyn Walsh said the community was deeply upset by the
decision and was behind Father Kennedy's plea. Ms Walsh said the
parish's gay and lesbian community in particular felt discriminated
against by the archbishop's decision. She said the parish did not
consider the liturgical reasons given for Father Kennedy's termination
were good ones. "They are really no reason to take away such a strong
sense of community that exists at St Mary's," she said. "There's
certainly a strong feeling that people don't want to go anywhere." The
archbishop has been sought for comment while a spokesman for Father
Kennedy said he was making no further statements." ["'Rebel' priest
sacked in mass row" by Jessica Marszalek (c) The Australian newspaper 08
February 2009]

Yet the neo-classical seminary of Our Lady of Corredentora, set in open
countryside in the peaceful outskirts of Buenos Aires, is at the eye of
a storm that stretches all the way to the gates of the Vatican. For the
past five years, Bishop Richard Williamson has presided over this
ultra-conservative religious community in La Reja, but the man behind
the international uproar is not receiving visitors.

But by lifting the excommunications without demanding any undertaking
from Bishop Williamson and the others, the Pope has angered not just
liberals, who see it as capitulation to an unpleasantly reactionary
splinter group, but also the many conservatives who admired his
insistence on obedience and who feel he has blunted the most fearsome
disciplinary instrument in the Pope's gift.

The controversial British cleric certainly does not seem about to break
his quasi-monastic routine to answer Pope Benedict's request for
clarification of his comments on the Holocaust, which surfaced last week
shortly after the Vatican's decision to welcome back into the church
four excommunicated bishops, including Williamson.

Few, in Rome at least, were ready to vent their criticism publicly. But
according to one well-informed source, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re,
the senior Vatican official who was told to sign the decree lifting the
excommunications on behalf of the Pope, "roared" his disapproval of the
move.

Defenders of the initiative noted that the decree did not, of itself,
heal the schism or settle the issue of the SSPX's future status within
the church. The announcement said it was issued out of "paternal pity".

"What Benedict has said is that this is the first step in a dialogue,"
acknowledged a prominent British liberal speaking on condition of
anonymity. "But that could be very bad for the church as a whole. It is
one thing if (the Lefebvrists) come nearer to the church universal. But
if the church universal comes closer to them, it matters a great deal."
[by Oliver Balch and John Hooper, "As Holocaust storm rages, cleric
seeks solace", The Age newspaper 8 February 2009]



Dan Abel wrote:
> In article <71s4s9Fm4690U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
>> "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message
>> news:VT2ul.26906$cu.18650@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> The ancient Romans used to use the 'vaulted chambers' for their worship of
>>> sex gods.
>>>
>> Did they now, I didn't know you were an expert on Roman religions Dario. So 
>> come on tell us, which "sex gods"? and just how were they worshipped? 
>> Perhaps you'd like to provide a source for that?
>>
>> But in any case, if the word means "vaulted chamber" it doesn't mean "to 
>> worship a sex god", does it?
> 
> Dario provided a cite.  It appears you didn't read it.
> 
>> Perhaps you'd like to give us a clear and accurate etymology for the word,
>> describing *in detail* every nuance of meaning of it in both Latin and 
>> English.
> 
> The Bible was written in Greek, not Latin or English.  (The Old 
> Testament was written in Hebrew).
> 
> I would claim that all of this is off topic for this group, anyway, 
> except that the list of newsgroups includes three with the word "christ" 
> in them.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46121

Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> wrote in news:dabel-218B2E.10055912032009@c-
61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> The Bible was written in Greek, not Latin or English.  (The Old 
> Testament was written in Hebrew).


Dr. Steven Colbert, the only true CONSERVATIVE PUNDIT in AMERICA, claims 
that the Bible was written in Olde English and later translated in 
AMERICAN:

Says Wikiality.com:  "Written by Jesus in Old English and later 
translated into American, The Bible has an "Old Testament" and a "New 
and Improved Testament". 

http://www.wikiality.com/Bible

Steven is a doctor, so he must know what he's talking about.



BTW, Steven needs you to help him win the naming rights for NASA's 
newest addition to the space station.
  
   http://www.wikiality.com/Image:SpaceModuleColbert.jpg


Vote here: http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/name_ISS/index.html by 
entering the string "COLBERT" into the suggestion box.  Don't let 
"MYYEARBOOK" or "XENU" (the the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy"
in Scientology) win out!  Vote early!  Vote often!


> I would claim that all of this is off topic for this group, anyway, 

It normally would be, but at Wikiality.com we vote to determine the 
truth of something.

We're bringing democracy to the TRUTH!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46103

"Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message
news:VT2ul.26906$cu.18650@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Hi David,
>
> The ancient Romans used to use the 'vaulted chambers' for their worship of
> sex gods.
>

Did they now, I didn't know you were an expert on Roman religions Dario. So 
come on tell us, which "sex gods"? and just how were they worshipped? 
Perhaps you'd like to provide a source for that?

But in any case, if the word means "vaulted chamber" it doesn't mean "to 
worship a sex god", does it?

Perhaps you'd like to give us a clear and accurate etymology for the word,
describing *in detail* every nuance of meaning of it in both Latin and 
English.

Or maybe you'd prefer to reflect on the point that we speak English, not 
Latin and that *in English*  "fornicate" means

<quote>
. verb formal or humorous have sexual intercourse with someone one is not
married to.
<unquote>


David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45697

On Mar 4, 6:28 am, "Neosapienis" <dariowest...@nospambigpond.com>
wrote:
> Hi Anna,
>
> "Here is what  a blogger says on this issue. Not saying I necessarily
> agree with him but I thought it might be interesting to throw this
> into the general discussion. As it is a blog you can comment there as
> well as here.
>
> http://www.ronniewrogers.com/2008/07/29/public-nudity-innocent-or-sin/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bckash
>
> Recently, I was asked what the Bible says about public nudity. As you
> well know, many believe that the taboo of public nudity is merely
> social, and that apart from societal mores, there is nothing immoral
> about public nudity. What does the Bible say?
>
> First let me be clear. I draw a distinction between task nudity and
> social or sexual nudity. Task nudity refers to a person being nude for
> such things as taking a shower at the gym. Therefore, this article
> does not refer to task nudity but rather whether it is moral to be
> nude in public, in mixed company other than with one’s spouse, and/or
> for the purpose of being nude, disrobed etc., for either sexual or
> social nudity."
>
> "Nudity is beautiful prior to the fall: There is nothing inherently
> evil about nudity. For example, Genesis 2:25 says concerning man and
> woman before the fall, “And the man and his wife were both naked and
> were not ashamed.“ Further, God declared all that He created to be
> “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Consequently, the naked body as created by
> God is beautiful; however, this was before the fall of mankind. Before
> the fall, the nudity of man and woman did not provoke temptation, but
> sin introduced distortion into the created order that did not
> previously exist. This distortion can be seen by comparing Genesis
> 2:25, which says prior to the fall that Adam and Eve were naked and
> “were not ashamed to (Genesis 3:7) whereas immediately after the
> introduction of sin into the world Scripture describes their attempt
> to hide their nakedness with clothing. More importantly, God clothed
> their nakedness: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his
> wife, and clothed them.“(Genesis 3:21)"
>
> Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing fig
> leaves together.  God did not shame their nakedness nor condemn them to
> their state of shame.  Shame is a man made think that does not occur with
> any other species in the world be they animal or sentient.  Added to that,
> there were also other religions and cultures prior to Judaism where some of
> its adherents wore clothes and others went naked.
>
> "One commentator lucidly notes the change, “Their bodies were
> sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first
> with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the
> body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and
> turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust
> of the flesh.”1"
>
> That "lust of the flesh" was created by God in the first place, as one of
> God's first commandments to Adam & Eve was to 'go forth and multiply'.
> Without those lusts and attractions they would not have been able to
> reproduce.
>
> "Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
> as “very good” and clothing was not necessary or even suggested in the
> Garden prior to the fall. We should be equally clear that immediately
> after the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve. God is the one who started
> the clothing of the human body; therefore, in our present fallen
> state, clothing is not an option, a mere status symbol to be discarded
> in one’s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
> blessing and provision of God."
>
> That's bullshit.  See my point above as to A&E being the first to clothe
> themselves, which the author has clearly missed.
>
> "The origin of dress is associated with a changed state brought about
> by sin, resulting in nakedness being seductive, provocative, and
> potentiating shame and further allurement away from God and His plan
> for humans."
>
> This is more a cultural thing than a biological issue.  Many Europeans both
> Christian and non-Christian understand that mixed nakedness can be non
> seductive and non-provocative.
>
> "Therefore, prior to the fall of man into sin, Adam and Eve were naked
> without shame. Immediately after the fall, they were ashamed and
> sought to cover themselves, which God did as well. Today those who
> express their shamelessness about public nudity fail to realize that
> shamelessness in the garden was because of the purity of the creation
> whereas after the fall any sense of shamelessness is due to the
> hardness of the heart from sin “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah
> 3:5)."
>
> Unjustness does not come from being socially naked with others.  There are
> as many just and honest people involved with nudism as much as there are
> some unjust and dishonest types.
>
> "Nudity is beautiful between a husband and wife: Contrary to social
> Darwinism, which sees man as an animal, different only from all other
> animals in degree rather than kind, man is created in the image of
> God, and is therefore categorically different than animals. Thus, the
> argument that animals do not wear clothing is no argument or
> determiner of what humans should or should not do. Biblically, the
> body and marriage are sacred and marriage is the proper context for
> sex, and social or sexual nudity.  The beliver’s body is not only
> sacred because it was created by God but also because it is a temple
> of the Holy Spirit, (1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, public nudity is
> wrong because it desacralizes marriage, sex, and the temple of the
> Holy Spirit."
>
> There is nowhere in the Bible which enforces this.  He has overlooked Isaiah
> 20:2 in which the prophet was commanded to minister naked and barefoot for
> three years to people other than his family.  He has also overlooked the
> mulititudes of people who took their clothes off and spread them on the road
> when Jesus rode into Jerusalem.
>
> "Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.
> That some are not ashamed reveals more about their spiritual
> deprivation than about whether public nudity is sin or not. Zephaniah
> said, “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity is
> humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God’s way and
> elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentiates adultery,
> fornication….."
>
> Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for me,
> hey?  I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex God
> with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).
>
> "Gen 19:22-25 associates shame with exposure of the nakedness of Noah.
> Leviticus 18 prescribed several specifics about regulating nudity and
> appears to use nudity as a euphemism for sex as well. We live in a
> very sensual culture, and the further we move from being a culture
> influenced by biblical principles, the more public nudity and scanty
> dressing will become tokens of liberation from so-called cultural
> taboos."
>
> The problem was not with Noah being naked, but being drunk and Ham taking
> advantage of his father's situation to make fun of him in a sexual manner.
> Note that God does not condemn Noah for being naked.
>
> "Christians do see nudity and sex as beautiful gifts from God, and
> they, like every other blessing of life, are to be used according to
> God’s plan. “Christians hold that worldly gifts are subordinate to the
> gifts of grace and that the new spirit of divine life consecrates
> these goods from selfish to pious uses…early Christians conformed
> their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
> vain spirit.”2"
>
> The early Christians had no problem with nudity until the reign of
> Augustine.  Jesus never spoke against nudism or nudity because it was a lot
> more prevalent in his culture than in the world today.
>
> "The Scriptures remind us, “For those who are according to the flesh
> set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
> according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit“(Romans 8:5).
> Therefore, we are commanded, “Set your mind on the things above, not
> on the things that are on earth“(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
> in light of the warning “Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
> appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
> earthly things“(Philippians 3:19)."
>
> Flesh in this context is not to with the skin or body parts, but rather
> 'selfishness'.
>
> "Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
> who promote public nudity as “innocent” or “social and not sexual”
> seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity. Those who
> support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc. say that
> walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the
> opposite sex has nothing to do with sex. In other words, there is no
> organic relationship between nudity and sex or nudity and sin."
>
> Some nudists do, which is the politically correct position.  This is just as
> wrong and extreme as those who refer to nudity as being a prelude to sex
> orgies.  We need some kind of middle ground here.  Being naked with others
> CAN be sexual and arousing in certain places and times but it is not
> necessary to go from simple nudity to full on sexual activity.
>
> "First, as already shown, non-task nudity outside the confines of
> marriage is sin in this fallen world. Second, while nudity is not
> sufficient for sex, it is necessary. Their attempt to totally
> disassociate sex from nudity is laughable. First, the Scripture makes
> the clear connection between sex and nudity with all of the
> regulations regarding nudity, as well as using nudity as a euphemism
> for sex. Also, it seems that the pornographers understand the
> connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or
> photos that cause lust that can only be satiated by sex."
>
> Obvioulsy he hasn't heard of 'dry humping'.  Added to that, pornographers
> actually tend to make more money out of selling photos of women in skimpy
> clothing than ones who are merely naked.  The reason: it is far more
> alluring to create images that leave something to the imagination.
>
> "It seems that men understand the connection since they are by every
> known rational mind to be visual. Lastly, it seems that if honesty
> prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable
> connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more
> intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing
> with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be
> multilayer thick burlap."
>
> This is a strawman's argument.  Women are just as visual, maybe even more
> so, than men by what attracts them to men.  There are strip shows for
> females, maley magazines like "Playgirl", as well as semi-nude men plastered
> on virtually every advertising billboard, magazine and newspaper cover you
> can find.  I don't tend to find multilayered clothing to be particularly
> sexy any more than nakedness.
>
> "Christians should show forth the glory of God by covering what He
> intended to be covered recognizing the insatiable appetite of fallen
> man to desacralize everything, including himself, and live at the
> basest level of human existence; thereby allowing sensory pleasure to
> reign supreme with no shame."
>
> What rot!  Jesus never taught this.  This self made fascist authoritarian is
> making up his own rules.
>
> --
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dario Western
>
> Home: (07) 3267-0099
> Mobile: (0437) 428-859
>
> Web Page:http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------------------

Dario....why do you and other nudist become so filled with contempt
when a person reads his Bible and naturally forms an opinion and yet
you call him a fascist.....am i a fascist because i read the Bible and
conclude killing of other humans.is wrong and sinful...i notice you do
not attempt to explain your thoughts on how you feel about the
scriptures...why is that....it does seem that folks agree with this
preacher but hate him because he said it....wow....jz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45792

On Mar 4, 5:38 am, "Neosapienis" <dariowest...@nospambigpond.com>
wrote:
> I am not condemning him for reading the Bible as much as I am for coming to
> false conclusions and then purporting them to be true.
>
> Anyone who is opposed to human nudity in my book is either a fascist or a
> Nazi.
>
> --
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dario Western

And should be killed, right?  That's what you said. You want someone
to put a bullet in that guy's head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46046

Zee wrote:

> Dario....why do you and other nudist become so filled with contempt
> when a person reads his Bible and naturally forms an opinion and yet
> you call him a fascist.....am i a fascist because i read the Bible and
> conclude killing of other humans.is wrong and sinful...i notice you do
> not attempt to explain your thoughts on how you feel about the
> scriptures...why is that....it does seem that folks agree with this
> preacher but hate him because he said it....wow....jz

Don't forget he said he wanted someone to put a bullet in the guy's
head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46094

I am not condemning him for reading the Bible as much as I am for coming to 
false conclusions and then purporting them to be true.

Anyone who is opposed to human nudity in my book is either a fascist or a 
Nazi.



-- 

Best wishes,

Dario Western

Home: (07) 3267-0099
Mobile: (0437) 428-859

Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zee" <jonZeee@webtv.net> wrote in message 
news:80de75b9-e43e-43f1-919b-82679508ee1e@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 6:28 am, "Neosapienis" <dariowest...@nospambigpond.com>
wrote:
> Hi Anna,
>
> "Here is what a blogger says on this issue. Not saying I necessarily
> agree with him but I thought it might be interesting to throw this
> into the general discussion. As it is a blog you can comment there as
> well as here.
>
> http://www.ronniewrogers.com/2008/07/29/public-nudity-innocent-or-sin/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bckash
>
> Recently, I was asked what the Bible says about public nudity. As you
> well know, many believe that the taboo of public nudity is merely
> social, and that apart from societal mores, there is nothing immoral
> about public nudity. What does the Bible say?
>
> First let me be clear. I draw a distinction between task nudity and
> social or sexual nudity. Task nudity refers to a person being nude for
> such things as taking a shower at the gym. Therefore, this article
> does not refer to task nudity but rather whether it is moral to be
> nude in public, in mixed company other than with one’s spouse, and/or
> for the purpose of being nude, disrobed etc., for either sexual or
> social nudity."
>
> "Nudity is beautiful prior to the fall: There is nothing inherently
> evil about nudity. For example, Genesis 2:25 says concerning man and
> woman before the fall, “And the man and his wife were both naked and
> were not ashamed.“ Further, God declared all that He created to be
> “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Consequently, the naked body as created by
> God is beautiful; however, this was before the fall of mankind. Before
> the fall, the nudity of man and woman did not provoke temptation, but
> sin introduced distortion into the created order that did not
> previously exist. This distortion can be seen by comparing Genesis
> 2:25, which says prior to the fall that Adam and Eve were naked and
> “were not ashamed to (Genesis 3:7) whereas immediately after the
> introduction of sin into the world Scripture describes their attempt
> to hide their nakedness with clothing. More importantly, God clothed
> their nakedness: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his
> wife, and clothed them.“(Genesis 3:21)"
>
> Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing fig
> leaves together. God did not shame their nakedness nor condemn them to
> their state of shame. Shame is a man made think that does not occur with
> any other species in the world be they animal or sentient. Added to that,
> there were also other religions and cultures prior to Judaism where some 
> of
> its adherents wore clothes and others went naked.
>
> "One commentator lucidly notes the change, “Their bodies were
> sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first
> with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the
> body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and
> turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust
> of the flesh.”1"
>
> That "lust of the flesh" was created by God in the first place, as one of
> God's first commandments to Adam & Eve was to 'go forth and multiply'.
> Without those lusts and attractions they would not have been able to
> reproduce.
>
> "Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
> as “very good” and clothing was not necessary or even suggested in the
> Garden prior to the fall. We should be equally clear that immediately
> after the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve. God is the one who started
> the clothing of the human body; therefore, in our present fallen
> state, clothing is not an option, a mere status symbol to be discarded
> in one’s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
> blessing and provision of God."
>
> That's bullshit. See my point above as to A&E being the first to clothe
> themselves, which the author has clearly missed.
>
> "The origin of dress is associated with a changed state brought about
> by sin, resulting in nakedness being seductive, provocative, and
> potentiating shame and further allurement away from God and His plan
> for humans."
>
> This is more a cultural thing than a biological issue. Many Europeans both
> Christian and non-Christian understand that mixed nakedness can be non
> seductive and non-provocative.
>
> "Therefore, prior to the fall of man into sin, Adam and Eve were naked
> without shame. Immediately after the fall, they were ashamed and
> sought to cover themselves, which God did as well. Today those who
> express their shamelessness about public nudity fail to realize that
> shamelessness in the garden was because of the purity of the creation
> whereas after the fall any sense of shamelessness is due to the
> hardness of the heart from sin “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah
> 3:5)."
>
> Unjustness does not come from being socially naked with others. There are
> as many just and honest people involved with nudism as much as there are
> some unjust and dishonest types.
>
> "Nudity is beautiful between a husband and wife: Contrary to social
> Darwinism, which sees man as an animal, different only from all other
> animals in degree rather than kind, man is created in the image of
> God, and is therefore categorically different than animals. Thus, the
> argument that animals do not wear clothing is no argument or
> determiner of what humans should or should not do. Biblically, the
> body and marriage are sacred and marriage is the proper context for
> sex, and social or sexual nudity. The beliver’s body is not only
> sacred because it was created by God but also because it is a temple
> of the Holy Spirit, (1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, public nudity is
> wrong because it desacralizes marriage, sex, and the temple of the
> Holy Spirit."
>
> There is nowhere in the Bible which enforces this. He has overlooked 
> Isaiah
> 20:2 in which the prophet was commanded to minister naked and barefoot for
> three years to people other than his family. He has also overlooked the
> mulititudes of people who took their clothes off and spread them on the 
> road
> when Jesus rode into Jerusalem.
>
> "Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.
> That some are not ashamed reveals more about their spiritual
> deprivation than about whether public nudity is sin or not. Zephaniah
> said, “…the unjust knows no shame” (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity is
> humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God’s way and
> elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentiates adultery,
> fornication….."
>
> Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for me,
> hey? I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex God
> with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).
>
> "Gen 19:22-25 associates shame with exposure of the nakedness of Noah.
> Leviticus 18 prescribed several specifics about regulating nudity and
> appears to use nudity as a euphemism for sex as well. We live in a
> very sensual culture, and the further we move from being a culture
> influenced by biblical principles, the more public nudity and scanty
> dressing will become tokens of liberation from so-called cultural
> taboos."
>
> The problem was not with Noah being naked, but being drunk and Ham taking
> advantage of his father's situation to make fun of him in a sexual manner.
> Note that God does not condemn Noah for being naked.
>
> "Christians do see nudity and sex as beautiful gifts from God, and
> they, like every other blessing of life, are to be used according to
> God’s plan. “Christians hold that worldly gifts are subordinate to the
> gifts of grace and that the new spirit of divine life consecrates
> these goods from selfish to pious uses…early Christians conformed
> their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
> vain spirit.”2"
>
> The early Christians had no problem with nudity until the reign of
> Augustine. Jesus never spoke against nudism or nudity because it was a lot
> more prevalent in his culture than in the world today.
>
> "The Scriptures remind us, “For those who are according to the flesh
> set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
> according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit“(Romans 8:5).
> Therefore, we are commanded, “Set your mind on the things above, not
> on the things that are on earth“(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
> in light of the warning “Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
> appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
> earthly things“(Philippians 3:19)."
>
> Flesh in this context is not to with the skin or body parts, but rather
> 'selfishness'.
>
> "Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
> who promote public nudity as “innocent” or “social and not sexual”
> seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity. Those who
> support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc. say that
> walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the
> opposite sex has nothing to do with sex. In other words, there is no
> organic relationship between nudity and sex or nudity and sin."
>
> Some nudists do, which is the politically correct position. This is just 
> as
> wrong and extreme as those who refer to nudity as being a prelude to sex
> orgies. We need some kind of middle ground here. Being naked with others
> CAN be sexual and arousing in certain places and times but it is not
> necessary to go from simple nudity to full on sexual activity.
>
> "First, as already shown, non-task nudity outside the confines of
> marriage is sin in this fallen world. Second, while nudity is not
> sufficient for sex, it is necessary. Their attempt to totally
> disassociate sex from nudity is laughable. First, the Scripture makes
> the clear connection between sex and nudity with all of the
> regulations regarding nudity, as well as using nudity as a euphemism
> for sex. Also, it seems that the pornographers understand the
> connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or
> photos that cause lust that can only be satiated by sex."
>
> Obvioulsy he hasn't heard of 'dry humping'. Added to that, pornographers
> actually tend to make more money out of selling photos of women in skimpy
> clothing than ones who are merely naked. The reason: it is far more
> alluring to create images that leave something to the imagination.
>
> "It seems that men understand the connection since they are by every
> known rational mind to be visual. Lastly, it seems that if honesty
> prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable
> connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more
> intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing
> with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be
> multilayer thick burlap."
>
> This is a strawman's argument. Women are just as visual, maybe even more
> so, than men by what attracts them to men. There are strip shows for
> females, maley magazines like "Playgirl", as well as semi-nude men 
> plastered
> on virtually every advertising billboard, magazine and newspaper cover you
> can find. I don't tend to find multilayered clothing to be particularly
> sexy any more than nakedness.
>
> "Christians should show forth the glory of God by covering what He
> intended to be covered recognizing the insatiable appetite of fallen
> man to desacralize everything, including himself, and live at the
> basest level of human existence; thereby allowing sensory pleasure to
> reign supreme with no shame."
>
> What rot! Jesus never taught this. This self made fascist authoritarian is
> making up his own rules.
>
> --
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dario Western
>
> Home: (07) 3267-0099
> Mobile: (0437) 428-859
>
> Web Page:http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------------------

Dario....why do you and other nudist become so filled with contempt
when a person reads his Bible and naturally forms an opinion and yet
you call him a fascist.....am i a fascist because i read the Bible and
conclude killing of other humans.is wrong and sinful...i notice you do
not attempt to explain your thoughts on how you feel about the
scriptures...why is that....it does seem that folks agree with this
preacher but hate him because he said it....wow....jz 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45844

"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:71nbg2Fm1s09U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message 
> news:Oturl.25000$cu.18744@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for 
>> me, hey?  I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex 
>> God with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).
>>
>
> fornicate
>
>  . verb formal or humorous have sexual intercourse with someone one is not 
> married to.
>
>  - DERIVATIVES fornication noun fornicator noun.
>
>  - ORIGIN Latin, from fornix 'vaulted chamber', later 'brothel'.
>
>
>
> Can't see anything about "pagan sex gods" in there.
>
>
>
> David.
>
==================================
Do you know what the original "brothels" were? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46001

"dolf" <dolfboek@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:i9Jxl.30520$cu.3739@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:37:53 -0700, "Richard  C."
>> <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> ==================================
>>> Do you know what the original "brothels" were?
>>
>> Ho sells?
>
> Do you know what the original "brothels"
>
> .jackNote@zen: 3, row: 1, col: 3, nous: 29 [Date: 2009.3.23, Time: 2051 
> hrs, Super: #317 / #44 - Moderate Values/ Setting Up Precepts; I-Ching: 
> H1 - Creative Principle/Heaven; Tetra: 36 - Strength, Ego: #418 / #29 - 
> Deeming/ Non-Assertion; I-Ching: H36 - Sinking Light; Tetra: 67 - 
> Darkening]
>

<Rest of nonesense snipped>

Which planet are you from?

David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46015

Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:37:53 -0700, "Richard  C."
> <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
> ...
>> ==================================
>> Do you know what the original "brothels" were? 
> 
> Ho sells?

Do you know what the original "brothels"

.jackNote@zen: 3, row: 1, col: 3, nous: 29 [Date: 2009.3.23, Time: 2051 
hrs, Super: #317 / #44 - Moderate Values/ Setting Up Precepts; I-Ching: 
H1 - Creative Principle/Heaven; Tetra: 36 - Strength, Ego: #418 / #29 - 
Deeming/ Non-Assertion; I-Ching: H36 - Sinking Light; Tetra: 67 - Darkening]

@memeBrain [Telos: #3427, Super: #9 - Inconstancy of Achievement/ 
Practising Placidity; I-Ching: H7 - Army; Tetra: 32 - Legion, Ego: #25 - 
What's behind it all?/ Imaging the Mysterious; I-Ching: H62 - Small 
Excess; Tetra: 10 - Defectiveness/Distortion]

Male Idea: #9 has 0 Categories

Female Idea: #25 has 0 Categories

were?

@memeBrain [Telos: #600, Super: #34 - Great Guide/ Trust in its 
Perfection; I-Ching: H18 - Arresting Decay; Tetra: 27 - Duties, Ego: #33 
- Achievable Goals/ Virtue of Discrimination; I-Ching: H9 - Minor 
Restraint; Tetra: 35 - Gathering]

Male Idea: #43 has 0 Categories

Female Idea: #58 has 0 Categories

Ho sells?

@memeBrain [Telos: #333, Super: #14 - Metaphysical Issues/ Praising the 
Mysterious; I-Ching: H19 - Approaching; Tetra: 9 - Branching Out, Ego: 
#9 - Inconstancy of Achievement/ Practising Placidity; I-Ching: H7 - 
Army; Tetra: 32 - Legion]

Male Idea: #57 has 0 Categories

Nous Categories
#1, #2, #4, #50 - Destruction
#1, #5, #50, #1 - Ah now!
#1, #6, #10, #30, #10 - Foolish
#1, #6, #50 - (also see 51/701); to be nothing, naughty, wicked; to make 
effort, to labor, to toil; to be exhausted, to suffer; to earn by labour
#1, #6, #50 - Breath; nothingness; vanity; naughtiness; worthlessness; 
sinfulness; falsehood; hypocrisy; deceit; idolatry; idol; labor or 
sorrow; distress
#1, #6, #50 - wealth; force (poetically: son or sun)
#1, #50, #6 - n. Powerful or Rich
#1, #50, #6 - we
#2, #5, #50 - to be pressed together, to be thick; the thumb; great toe
#2, #50, #5 - to build; lay a foundation; to build upon or up in; to 
rebuild, restore; grant family prosperity (descendants)
#4, #3, #50 - to grow, increase; grain, corn, bread
#4, #50, #3 - to be yielding, impressible
#5, #2, #50 - to be hard
#7, #50 - sort, kind
#8, #9, #10, #30 - n. Waverer
#8, #9, #40 - to muzzle; to close up; to restrain
#8, #40, #4, #5 - Desire, longing; delight; object of delight; lust
#8, #40, #9 - to crouch; a lizard
#20, #30, #6, #1 - Confinement; a prison
#40, #1, #6, #10 - Desires
#40, #4, #8, #5 - overthrow, ruin
#40, #7, #2, #8 - An altar; (see also #114)
#40, #10, #4, #2, #1 - n. 'Flowing Waters' --- of a city in Reuben
#50, #2, #5 - to be raised or convex, to be prominent
#50, #3, #4 - to be in front or present, to be manifest
#50, #3, #4 - to flow
#50, #3, #4 - the front; before, in presence of; over against; against 
(as opposing); like, corresponding to; over (president); from over 
against, opposite
#50, #6, #1 - No, to nay, say 'no' (also the English word 'No' exactly)
#50, #6, #1 - to be tough or raw

Female Idea: #67 has 0 Categories

Nous Categories
#1, #2, #10, #4, #50 - n. Father is Judge --- father of the Tribe of Dan
#1, #6, #20, #10, #30 - to cause to consume, give to eat
#1, #10, #5, #50, #1 - where now?
#1, #30, #6, #30 - Ingathering; time of harvest, 6th Hebrew month (from 
Sept. to Oct. new moon)
#1, #30, #6, #30 - Nought
#2, #10, #50, #5 - Discernment, understanding; n. Intelligence, Binah 
---the third Sephira, considered the feminine or passive potency. Binah 
is nu-omicron-upsilon-sigma (#720) in Greek. It corresponds to the Heart 
of Adam Qadmon (#161)
#2, #50, #10, #5 - n. Yah Built-up; building
#3, #8, #6, #50 - Evacuation, defecation; belly (of creeping animals)
#5, #2, #50, #10 - stone-wood, ebony-wood, hard-wood
#5, #40, #7, #2, #8, #5 - on the altar
#7, #10, #50 - the letter Zain; weapon; ornament; sword
#7, #4, #6, #50 - pride, haughtiness
#7, #30, #30 - to wave, to shake or scatter out, to squander
#8, #50, #9 - to spice, to season, flavor; to ripen; to embalm (a corpse 
by spicing); to be reddish
#9, #8, #50 - to pound, crush; to oppress; to grind; the grinders (molar 
teeth)
#10, #2, #50, #5 - n. He (God) Causes to Build
#10, #7, #50 - to nourish; to pamper
#20, #30, #6, #5, #6 - (#71); n. Firm
#20, #40, #7 - to form into balls or grains
#30, #6, #30, #1 - unless
#50, #2, #8, #7 - n. Barker (of a dog god of the Avites)
#50, #3, #10, #4 - Chief man, overseer; leader; prince; noble or 
excellent things
#60, #2, #5 - A turn or course (of events)
#60, #3, #4 - to fall down before, to adore (used only of idol worship 
or of a man with god-like powers)
#60, #6, #1 - to agitate, to move hither and thither
#60, #6, #1 - n. Devoted To Seve (roughly 'devoted to Chronos', the name 
of an Egyptian king Sevechus contemporary with King Hoshea of Israel)

- dolf
- http://www.grapple.id.au/vCube.html (firefox / safari only)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46126

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:37:53 -0700, "Richard  C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:

...
>==================================
>Do you know what the original "brothels" were? 

Ho sells?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45986

Neosapienis wrote:

>
> Actually, it was Adam & Eve who clothed themselves first by sewing fig
> leaves together.  God did not shame their nakedness nor condemn them to
> their state of shame.  Shame is a man made think that does not occur with
> any other species in the world be they animal or sentient.

That is because animals have no knowledge of good and evil

> "One commentator lucidly notes the change, �Their bodies were
> sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first
> with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the
> body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and
> turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust
> of the flesh.�1"
>
> That "lust of the flesh" was created by God in the first place, as one of
> God's first commandments to Adam & Eve was to 'go forth and multiply'.
> Without those lusts and attractions they would not have been able to
> reproduce.

That is not relevant to the question of whether it is appropriate to
be naked in a mixed gender situation. It just says that husband and
wife should have sex and it is good for society when they have
children (although that was more important in earlier times than now
as there are now 5-6 billion people in the world).

> "Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
> as �very good� and clothing was not necessary or even suggested in the
> Garden prior to the fall. We should be equally clear that immediately
> after the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve. God is the one who started
> the clothing of the human body; therefore, in our present fallen
> state, clothing is not an option, a mere status symbol to be discarded
> in one�s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
> blessing and provision of God."
>
> That's bullshit.  See my point above as to A&E being the first to clothe
> themselves, which the author has clearly missed.

They did so after eating from the fruit of the knowledge of good and
evil. They had gained knowledge of the sexual implications that can
arise from nudity.

> "The origin of dress is associated with a changed state brought about
> by sin, resulting in nakedness being seductive, provocative, and
> potentiating shame and further allurement away from God and His plan
> for humans."

> This is more a cultural thing than a biological issue.  Many Europeans both
> Christian and non-Christian understand that mixed nakedness can be non
> seductive and non-provocative.

I believe that. But I don't think everyone can be naked without being
seductive and non-provocative. Now it might be by choice or people who
study human behavior always debate how much is behavior is influenced
by people's genes.  Some people may just be genetically hardwired to
be more "horny" than others. It could be something in their background
that developed that tendency in them (the whole nature vs nurture
thing) or it could be a combination of both. Still as humans I like to
think we ultimately have free will over such matters. Even if a person
is "hard wired" for something or even if they are "conditioned" for
something it doesn't mean that they ultimately can't use their free
will to control their actions. At least I hope that's the case because
even if it wasn't we need to hold them accountable for the protection
of others.

> "Therefore, prior to the fall of man into sin, Adam and Eve were naked
> without shame. Immediately after the fall, they were ashamed and
> sought to cover themselves, which God did as well. Today those who
> express their shamelessness about public nudity fail to realize that
> shamelessness in the garden was because of the purity of the creation
> whereas after the fall any sense of shamelessness is due to the
> hardness of the heart from sin ��the unjust knows no shame� (Zephaniah
> 3:5)."
>
> Unjustness does not come from being socially naked with others.  There are
> as many just and honest people involved with nudism as much as there are
> some unjust and dishonest types.

There needs to be more just and honest people involved with nudism.
Actually everyone needs to behave and think as saints, as angels, at
least while they are at the nudist venue.  Nudism depends as Wiccans
say in their creed "Perfect Love and Perfect Trust".

> "Nudity is beautiful between a husband and wife: Contrary to social
> Darwinism, which sees man as an animal, different only from all other
> animals in degree rather than kind, man is created in the image of
> God, and is therefore categorically different than animals. Thus, the
> argument that animals do not wear clothing is no argument or
> determiner of what humans should or should not do. Biblically, the
> body and marriage are sacred and marriage is the proper context for
> sex, and social or sexual nudity.  The beliver�s body is not only
> sacred because it was created by God but also because it is a temple
> of the Holy Spirit, (1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, public nudity is
> wrong because it desacralizes marriage, sex, and the temple of the
> Holy Spirit."
>
> There is nowhere in the Bible which enforces this.  He has overlooked Isaiah
> 20:2 in which the prophet was commanded to minister naked and barefoot for
> three years to people other than his family.

Again, I ask, please look at WHY he was commanded to do that. When you
find out let me know and tell me why as it is really an example of
"bad nudity". There was a specific reason commanded to do so given a
specific situation that was going on.  Please tell me what it was.

But it does show that mixed gender public nudity doesn't rise to being
an actual "sin".

> He has also overlooked the
> mulititudes of people who took their clothes off and spread them on the road
> when Jesus rode into Jerusalem.

All their clothes? Or just some of their garments.  I will have to
look that up.

> "Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.

I disagree with half of that. At least I disagree with the Bible
indicating that public nudity rises to the level of a "sin".

> That some are not ashamed reveals more about their spiritual
> deprivation than about whether public nudity is sin or not. Zephaniah
> said, ��the unjust knows no shame� (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity is
> humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God�s way and
> elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentates adultery,
> fornication�.."
>
> Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for me,
> hey?  I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex God
> with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).

Perhaps he overstated that. Yeah, I disagree that it always has to be
the case. But it isn't good of you to wish him death for making such
as statement as wrong as it may be.

> "Gen 19:22-25 associates shame with exposure of the nakedness of Noah.
> Leviticus 18 prescribed several specifics about regulating nudity and
> appears to use nudity as a euphemism for sex as well. "

That's the key part about those specifics. It would be interesting to
see what Hebrew words were actually used. The passages there were
obviously about sex and not simple nudity.

>We live in a
> very sensual culture, and the further we move from being a culture
> influenced by biblical principles, the more public nudity and scanty
> dressing will become tokens of liberation from so-called cultural
> taboos."

Agree there, but that statement has to do with people who are scantly
clad and wear provocative clothes instead of about social nudity as
practiced (or should say claimed to be practiced) by nudists.


> The problem was not with Noah being naked, but being drunk and Ham taking
> advantage of his father's situation to make fun of him in a sexual manner.

True.


> Note that God does not condemn Noah for being naked.

I have heard somewhere (I need to find the quote) that Jewish culture
found "Seeing naked People" as worse than being naked yourself.

> "Christians do see nudity and sex as beautiful gifts from God, and
> they, like every other blessing of life, are to be used according to
> God�s plan. �Christians hold that worldly gifts are subordinate to the
> gifts of grace and that the new spirit of divine life consecrates
> these goods from selfish to pious uses�early Christians conformed
> their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
> vain spirit.�2"
>
> The early Christians had no problem with nudity until the reign of
> Augustine.  Jesus never spoke against nudism or nudity because it was a lot
> more prevalent in his culture than in the world today.

He didn't speak against nudism because nudism didn't exist in his
culture. Now you are right nudity was more prevalent in his culture
but it seems that was for the most part single gender nudity and
perhaps young children.

> "The Scriptures remind us, �For those who are according to the flesh
> set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
> according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit�(Romans 8:5).
> Therefore, we are commanded, �Set your mind on the things above, not
> on the things that are on earth�(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
> in light of the warning �Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
> appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
> earthly things�(Philippians 3:19)."
>
> Flesh in this context is not to with the skin or body parts, but rather
> 'selfishness'.

Flesh has to do with the body, which means don't set ones mind on
physical pleasures like eating and having sex and stuff like that. Not
saying one shouldn't eat or have sex. Just saying that shouldn't be
the focus of their mind.  It is kind of like saying don't focus on
"earthly treasures".

> "Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
> who promote public nudity as �innocent� or �social and not sexual�
> seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity. Those who
> support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc. say that
> walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the
> opposite sex has nothing to do with sex. In other words, there is no
> organic relationship between nudity and sex or nudity and sin."

That's the nudist line and I believe there is a great percentage of
people who participate in nude recreation that can do that. But the
problem is with those who are unwilling or unable to do that.

> Some nudists do, which is the politically correct position.  This is just as
> wrong and extreme as those who refer to nudity as being a prelude to sex
> orgies.  We need some kind of middle ground here.  Being naked with others
> CAN be sexual and arousing in certain places and times but it is not
> necessary to go from simple nudity to full on sexual activity.

We aren't talking about only full on sexual activity. We are talking
about anything that sexualized the environment including dirty talk.
There can be no middle ground for nudism to work.

> "First, as already shown, non-task nudity outside the confines of
> marriage is sin in this fallen world. Second, while nudity is not
> sufficient for sex, it is necessary. Their attempt to totally
> disassociate sex from nudity is laughable. First, the Scripture makes
> the clear connection between sex and nudity with all of the
> regulations regarding nudity, as well as using nudity as a euphemism
> for sex. Also, it seems that the pornographers understand the
> connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or
> photos that cause lust that can only be satiated by sex."
>
> Obvioulsy he hasn't heard of 'dry humping'.  Added to that, pornographers
> actually tend to make more money out of selling photos of women in skimpy
> clothing than ones who are merely naked.  The reason: it is far more
> alluring to create images that leave something to the imagination.

Yeah, I don't totally agree with him on that statement. Although
regarding your statement it is all about how one defines sex, isn't
it?  If sex is only the insertion of a male penis into a woman's
vagina, then he is right, that can only be done with at least both
people's bottom clothing down. But commonly when we define sex we
include more activities than that, as we should. That is why when you
say that as long as there is no "full on sexual activity" at a nudist
venue then it's okay. Any activity that sexifies the environment
including dirty talk, feeling of breasts, etc is inappropriate at a
nudist venue.

> "It seems that men understand the connection since they are by every
> known rational mind to be visual. Lastly, it seems that if honesty
> prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable
> connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more
> intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing
> with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be
> multilayer thick burlap."

That is kind of a lame example. After all it is the mystery that makes
it exciting in a sexual sense. It is in the "unwrapping of the
present".  What would make more since in this example would be for
when a couple first meet they should wear a multilayer thick burlap,
because then there would be more to unwrap as they become more
intimate.

> This is a strawman's argument.  Women are just as visual, maybe even more
> so, than men by what attracts them to men.

Actually I think studies show that men are more visual when it comes
to sex.

>There are strip shows for
> females, maley magazines like "Playgirl", as well as semi-nude men plastered
> on virtually every advertising billboard, magazine and newspaper cover you
> can find.

Well first one could say that this is an attempt for females to be
more "male" in their sexuality. Kind of a feminist reaction saying if
males can do it we can too. But also I didn't say that women aren't
visual at all when it comes to sex, just that men are far more so.

> I don't tend to find multilayered clothing to be particularly
> sexy any more than nakedness.

His point was that if there were no connection between nudity and sex
then people would find it more sexy to take on clothes than to take
them off, but since they find it more sexy to take off clothes than to
put them on that proves there's a connection between sex and nudity.
I find it a faulty argument but that is the one he was making.

> "Christians should show forth the glory of God by covering what He
> intended to be covered recognizing the insatiable appetite of fallen
> man to desacralize everything, including himself, and live at the
> basest level of human existence; thereby allowing sensory pleasure to
> reign supreme with no shame."
>
> What rot!  Jesus never taught this.  This self made fascist authoritarian is
> making up his own rules.

I didn't see Jesus teaching one way or the other on public nudity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46124

"Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message 
news:Oturl.25000$cu.18744@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Somebody go to this preacher's place and put a bullet in his brain for me, 
> hey?  I have never seduced anyone's spouse nor worshipped a pagan sex God 
> with my nudism (which 'fornication' actually means).
>

fornicate

  . verb formal or humorous have sexual intercourse with someone one is not 
married to.

  - DERIVATIVES fornication noun fornicator noun.

  - ORIGIN Latin, from fornix 'vaulted chamber', later 'brothel'.



Can't see anything about "pagan sex gods" in there.



David.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | rec.nude

csiph-web