is it 'ok' to worship God in nudity?

[Some1 Else]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
the eg i used
fact: no cure for Aids
I am sure you agree
5 years from now, they find a cure. What was considered a fact, has changed.
A new fact emerges. Aids can be cured.
Further to this, a vaccine is discovered. Newer fact- Aids can be prevented.
This is what I am trying to say.
Its a fact today (hyperthetically speaking), that i am obese (i am not obese or overweight). Today the fact is I am unhealthy and heading for a heart attack. I act on that fact,and change my lifestyle. This causes me to lose kilos and I am healthy and fit. New fact, I AM healthy and have a long life ahead of me,physically speaking,
So facts do change.

That's fallacious logic. One can't say for sure that there isn't a cure for AIDS, only that we know of no cure at this time. Medical science, nor any other science would make such a definite claim regarding an open issue such as 'there is no cure for AIDS.' If they did, that would completely negate the research they are doing to find one. You are basing your opinion on your own assumptions which have nothing to do with the facts at all. Facts don't change; only our understanding of them does.

Ex.

When earlier people had seen apples fall, they may have chalked it up to completely nonsensical reasons, since they wouldn't have known about gravity at the time. That Newton discovered the force doesn't mean that the facts around the circumstance changed; the fact was only unknown previously, but remained the same regardless.

[Some1 Else]

BTW, Janine, you can't put the label of fact on anything to do with something so subjective such as lifestyle and changes to it. Facts are objective, not subjective to changes at all.

[Some1 Else]

hinamanu wrote:

"One doesn't need spiritual discernemnt to see this as you do, only indoctrination. Been there, had the same I-know-something-you-don't-kno w because my knowledge is more spiritual outlook. You are only fooling yourself if you believe your santimonious words."
You still don't know how to interpret the sower and the seed.
Any born again believer understands the 30 fold, the 60 fold and the 100 fold. But only a born again believer. You will not hear that message spoken in any church except a born again one where it is understood.
Although you sound like you understand the term 'spiritual discernment'
even xcentrik doesn't understand what spiritual means while he holla's his ignorance from the sideline spoiling the image of his academic profoundness.
if cutting and pasting is profound.
Plagarism isn't.

Your assumptions are still showing your attitude very clearly. I grew up in a southern baptist church and heard that parable well before I was ever even baptized at 12, and understand just how they come to their conclusions on it. You act as if knowing this paritcular parable is pertinent to spiritual discernment when it isn't at all. All that's really required to know this parable is to listen in church, or ask a preacher. But saying only a born again believer can understand it's meaning is another example of the holier than thou mentality.

I'm not sure I'd agree with your opinion regarding X, seeing all the assumptions you've made of myself especially. I do recall however that I asked for an example of that hilarious claim you made in regards to his attributing Bible verses to a squid god, which I haven't seen posted yet.

But I digress. Our discussion is in regards to the conflicts between Paul's and Jesus' teachings. Still looking forward to a refutation...

[DaniGirl123]

If we worship in the nude or worship a nude god?

[heyy bby]

i dont know he probly dont care he love us with or with out cloths!

[hinamanu]

"I'm not sure I'd agree with your opinion regarding X, seeing all the assumptions you've made of myself especially. I do recall however that I asked for an example of that hilarious claim you made in regards to his attributing Bible verses to a squid god, which I haven't seen posted yet.

But I digress. Our discussion is in regards to the conflicts between Paul's and Jesus' teachings. Still looking forward to a refutation... "

xcentrik tears down the word of God then attributes scripture to the spaghetti felon.

As for the difference between Christ and Paul,

Christs teachings were pre cross and alluding to the mystery of salvation that "if the powers of darkness had of known, the would not have crucified the lord of glory."
(2 Cor. 2:14,6-8)

Pauls teachings were post cross and emphasise the power of the cross
colossians 2.14

[Janine for Truth]

Some1 Else wrote:

<quoted text>
That's fallacious logic. One can't say for sure that there isn't a cure for AIDS, only that we know of no cure at this time.

yeah but these are 'facts' about Aids. You see them on every aids poster.

AIDS FACTS
There is no cure for Aids.
You cannot get AIds from kissing
blah,blah, blah

Its a fact. And it can change.
If it were truth, it would not be able to change ever.

[Janine for Truth]

Some1 Else wrote:

BTW, Janine, you can't put the label of fact on anything to do with something so subjective such as lifestyle and changes to it. Facts are objective, not subjective to changes at all.

I disagree. Facts are subject to change.

[Some1 Else]

hinamanu wrote:

xcentrik tears down the word of God then attributes scripture to the spaghetti felon.
As for the difference between Christ and Paul,
Christs teachings were pre cross and alluding to the mystery of salvation that "if the powers of darkness had of known, the would not have crucified the lord of glory."
(2 Cor. 2:14,6-8)
Pauls teachings were post cross and emphasise the power of the cross
colossians 2.14

I've still seen no evidence of this particular Xcntrik doing what you claim, but I've noticed there is another poster with a similar name, Xentrik or close to how you spell it. I'm a born skeptic, so don't take offense if I don't just believe what you tell me with no proof.

There is no difference between Christ's and Paul's teaching; Christ was a concept brought about by the Hellenization of the teachings of Jesus and propogated by Paul to further his own personal agenda. This is the main point of the digression in teachings. It must be noted that 'Christ' is basically the Greek equivalent of messiah. Most every term of exaltation in reference to Jesus, i.e. messiah, son of god, son of man, etc., were no more than terms for human positions within the Jewish hierarchy, and they were not taken as having any divine meaning, except in the sense that emperors and rulers were commonly looked at as being a god in their own right.

Jesus' words are the judge here. His word wasn't to change. Who gave Paul the authority to do such? He says Jesus, but I could change some things around and say the same thing; doesn't make it true, nothing but hearsay.

The cross means nothing really, except that a very ancient symbol of worship has been carried over into yet another religion. Others were crucified as well. Would Jesus diminish their suffering to play the sympathy card for himself? I doubt it. But Paul saw this as a viable means to play on people's emotions....and their wallets....and it worked. Paul simply took a popular religious symbol and inserted it into his teachings so as to gain more converts. Pandering as usual, and breaking the commandment in regards to graven images.

Interesting choice in verses though. Paul asserts that the power of darkness was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus which would then negate the idea that it was all part of God's plan and is basically saying that the darkness overpowered the light. This brings God down to the level of below darkness, which could reasonably be seen as blasphemous. Thanks for reinforcing my position.

If Jesus never emphasized his death, nor the cross or any other graven image, but dwelt mainly on life and keeping the commandments, yet Paul changes this completely around, who does one believe? Are we to take Paul's word for it and dismiss those of Jesus? I don't think so. Personally, I'll take those of Jesus and dismiss Paul's, which is why of course I'm not a Christian any more.

[Some1 Else]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
yeah but these are 'facts' about Aids. You see them on every aids poster.
AIDS FACTS
There is no cure for Aids.
You cannot get AIds from kissing
blah,blah, blah
Its a fact. And it can change.
If it were truth, it would not be able to change ever.

Posters are a form of propaganda first and foremost. Saying there is no cure for AIDS is ridiculous. Even if we find a cure next week, the fact doesn't change that the cure was there all along; we just didn't know about it.

If it's found out that AIDS can be transferred by kissing, then the fact hasn't changed, only knowledge in regards to it. Facts remain the same regardless of ignorance to them.

Do you think the AIDS virus has a change of mind and says 'oh let me infect through kissing now?' That's not logical.

[Some1 Else]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree. Facts are subject to change.

Then obviously you are completely dismissing the proper definition in favor of your own.

[groundhog9]

Some1 Else wrote:

<quoted text>
Then obviously you are completely dismissing the proper definition in favor of your own.

Janine is right,facts change,and there is nothing in the definition that conflicts with that.

[Janine for Truth]

Some1 Else wrote:

<quoted text>
Then obviously you are completely dismissing the proper definition in favor of your own.

And you are dismissing common sense.

[Janine for Truth]

Some1 Else wrote:

<quoted text>
Posters are a form of propaganda first and foremost. Saying there is no cure for AIDS is ridiculous. Even if we find a cure next week, the fact doesn't change that the cure was there all along; we just didn't know about it.
If it's found out that AIDS can be transferred by kissing, then the fact hasn't changed, only knowledge in regards to it. Facts remain the same regardless of ignorance to them.
Do you think the AIDS virus has a change of mind and says 'oh let me infect through kissing now?' That's not logical.

facts change. i said facts are subject to change, not that all facts change. however, a number of things may come up to cause that fact to change. i was using that as an example to show you what i have often seen on Aids posters. I was making reference to the first fact that there is no cure for Aids, not necessarily the second.

Why dont you give me an example of a something that you know to be fact...

[groundhog9]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
yeah but these are 'facts' about Aids. You see them on every aids poster.
AIDS FACTS
There is no cure for Aids.
You cannot get AIds from kissing
blah,blah, blah
Its a fact. And it can change.
If it were truth, it would not be able to change ever.

I say truth changes just like facts change.How do you see truth being different from fact in that respect?

[Some1 Else]

groundhog9 wrote:

<quoted text>
Janine is right,facts change,and there is nothing in the definition that conflicts with that.

Really? Let's take a look at that definition again:

fact [ fakt ](plural facts)

noun

Definition:
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
based on fact

3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.

5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case

Looks like you are both wrong.

[Some1 Else]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
And you are dismissing common sense.

Common sense would tell someone that the definition of a word is its accepted usage. So far, the lacking is all you.

[Some1 Else]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
facts change. i said facts are subject to change, not that all facts change. however, a number of things may come up to cause that fact to change. i was using that as an example to show you what i have often seen on Aids posters. I was making reference to the first fact that there is no cure for Aids, not necessarily the second.
Why dont you give me an example of a something that you know to be fact...

Facts do not change; they are truth. Whether you meant one or twenty doesn't matter.

I addressed your statement in regards to there being no cure for AIDS, a ridiculous claim to make. The truth and fact of the matter is that there may or may not be one, but we dont' know of it yet if there is. Regardless, if there is a cure, the statement is false and not fact as you claim. And if a cure is found, the statement never was a fact.

Statement: I need to dust my house.

Now you'll say that could change. Of course this could. Only by effort will this change, which makes it completely subjective to that effort; and therefore not really fact so much as simply my perspective, as others have said 'wow, your house is so clean.'

Statement of fact: George W. Bush is our 43rd president.

This can never change. It is a fact, unfortunately.

I understand your point in regards to AIDS and a cure. However, there not being a cure at this time is not indicative that there isn't a factual cure that we just aren't aware of yet. To state as a fact that there is absolutely no cure is not intellectually honest at all. It's propaganda. I don't really see why it's so difficult to grasp this.

[groundhog9]

Some1 Else wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? Let's take a look at that definition again:
fact [ fakt ](plural facts)
noun
Definition:
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
based on fact
3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth
4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.
5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case
Looks like you are both wrong.

"Looks like" is your opinion,not fact.Your stubbornness and willingness to stretch and twist concepts to feel "right" are facts.

future drugs,future procedures that haven't yet been developed,those are "facts we don't know about yet" in your argument.In real life they won't be facts unless someone puts the work into creating them.

Every moment is different from the last.Using yesterday's truth for todays decisions is very often wrong.

[Some1 Else]

groundhog9 wrote:

<quoted text>
"Looks like" is your opinion,not fact.Your stubbornness and willingness to stretch and twist concepts to feel "right" are facts.
future drugs,future procedures that haven't yet been developed,those are "facts we don't know about yet" in your argument.In real life they won't be facts unless someone puts the work into creating them.
Every moment is different from the last.Using yesterday's truth for todays decisions is very often wrong.

No need to be so testy. Show exactly where I twisted any part of the definition to suit my purposes as you clearly have.

We weren't talking about any future drugs being developed or created, but simply a cure for AIDS being 'found.' I made no assumptions about anything being made, and that was never mentioned during this discussion. Even if it did have to be made, it would still make the statement that there is no cure for AIDS false, in which case it was never a fact. One can't say with certainty, IOW for a fact, that there is no cure for AIDS.