is it 'ok' to worship God in nudity?

[Skunk River Joe]

ypostelnik wrote:

Common sense. Would you stand before a king like that? Should you address the King of Kings in such a clearly disrespectful manner? Simple preparations, respect and reverence are in order when addressing the Creator, all the more so when asking for something, for a prayer to be fulfilled, or when offering direct thanks.

If what you assert is "common sense' we'd be born clothed. If it's okay for me to address my mother naked, and my wife naked, both of whom are actual beings who I revere, why should I not address my imaginary friend naked as well? If the K of K existed and was offended by my nakedness, why would he or she allow me to empty my bowels all over myself at the moment I am about to meet him or her in person? If this deity is bugged by nakedness why were Adam and Eve naked until at least the 1600's when Catholics finally decided to dress 'em up in fig leaves?

[Janine for Truth]

Lil Ticked wrote:

you came into the world naked so whats the big deal?

please i have prayed to God while i was on the toilet. DId God mind? HELL NO! So yes, who cares if you are in your birthday suit. you can be 500kg with stretch marks and folds of fat...that may look quite disgusting to another human being, but GOd looks at the heart. Thats all. He knows everything about us. So you can come to him naked.

poeple are getting too religious about this. Free your mind.

[Skunk River Joe]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
mythology? whose talking about mythology.
i just said that the georgie being the 43rd president of usa is truth, as it cannot change. which brings me back to my argument...facts change,truth doesn't

Beliefs change. Perceptions and interpretations change. Knowledge and ideas change. Situations change and the world EVOLVES.
Facts do not change. If "it" was a fact 10,000 years ago, it is a fact today that "it" was a fact then. Conditions today may be such that that which was a fact 10,000 years ago is not a fact today. But if "it" was a fact then, that fact is still a fact now. The dumb bastard is the 43rd prez. That fact is truth and that will be the case for all time no matter who gets stuck trying to begin the multigenerational task of repairing the harm the brain dead little fascist criminal has done.

[Janine for Truth]

Skunk River Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Beliefs change. Perceptions and interpretations change. Knowledge and ideas change. Situations change and the world EVOLVES.
Facts do not change. If "it" was a fact 10,000 years ago, it is a fact today that "it" was a fact then. Conditions today may be such that that which was a fact 10,000 years ago is not a fact today. But if "it" was a fact then, that fact is still a fact now. The dumb bastard is the 43rd prez. That fact is truth and that will be the case for all time no matter who gets stuck trying to begin the multigenerational task of repairing the harm the brain dead little fascist criminal has done.

no, if it has been so for 10000years and has not changed and will not change ever-, then its truth. Not fact.

I like your description of americas 43rd prez,though!

[Skunk River Joe]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
me too. I agree
Eschaton de pantoon hoosperei too ektroomati oofthee kamoi

As legal counsel for Landau, Luckman, and Lake and the Marvel Group, I demand that you cease and desist from all use of the term "Eschaton" and any variations of the aforementioned term, especially, but not limited to uses in conjunction with the term "Immanentize" and all variations thereof.

[babooph]

I always assumed ,if some "god" was curious about what was under the clothes,the god could take a look-I guess a democrat wants to be naked & a republican has never seen himself naked ?

[Skunk River Joe]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
no, if it has been so for 10000years and has not changed and will not change ever-, then its truth. Not fact.
I like your description of americas 43rd prez,though!

Your first sentence is neither truth nor fact, but I can't say I care a heck of a lot, one way or the other, since the real, bedrock "fact" is that words are just magic tricks and delusion with no actual relationship to anything that is or is not.
I do appreciate your second sentence. It demonstrates great perspicacity and the ability to identify that which is really pretty cool.

[Janine for Truth]

Skunk River Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Your first sentence is neither truth nor fact, but I can't say I care a heck of a lot, one way or the other, since the real, bedrock "fact" is that words are just magic tricks and delusion with no actual relationship to anything that is or is not.
I do appreciate your second sentence. It demonstrates great perspicacity and the ability to identify that which is really pretty cool.

ok enuf with the big words already...
lol.

[Janine for Truth]

Skunk River Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Your first sentence is neither truth nor fact, but I can't say I care a heck of a lot, one way or the other, since the real, bedrock "fact" is that words are just magic tricks and delusion with no actual relationship to anything that is or is not.
I do appreciate your second sentence. It demonstrates great perspicacity and the ability to identify that which is really pretty cool.

mental note "add perspicacity to my vocabulary" Save.

[Janine for Truth]

Skunk River Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
As legal counsel for Landau, Luckman, and Lake and the Marvel Group, I demand that you cease and desist from all use of the term "Eschaton" and any variations of the aforementioned term, especially, but not limited to uses in conjunction with the term "Immanentize" and all variations thereof.

i would if I knew what the hell it meant AND what you just posted...

[hinamanu]

Xcntrik InVidor wrote:

<quoted text>
What?
You claimed that Paul stated that he met Jesus.
Please provide the book, chapter and verse.
Something you have continually wiggled out of.
So again you're being dishonest unless you can provide the substantiation for your empty claim.

you already know Paul had an encounter with Christ on the Emmaus rd.

you don't believe it, but you know its scriptural

So why antagonise some one about a scriptural reference you know exists?

[hinamanu]

Xcntrik InVidor wrote:

<quoted text>
What does agnostic mean?

btw,,

Are you a follower of the FSM or is that just the other eccentric invidor??

[Skunk River Joe]

hinamanu wrote:

<quoted text>
btw,,
Are you a follower of the FSM or is that just the other eccentric invidor??

FSM has disciples by the billions, but no followers. Following is a trait generally associated with sheep, Christians and other feeble minded types.
You have a reasonably good avatar, there, by the way. Although I prefer the Buonarroti and the Dali versions myself.

[Some1 Else]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
well i wish i could remember which thread. it was my first time on topix. but they X says I am lying...so I apologise, perhaps i am mistaken,

Well, I've been posting here for quite a while and have never known of him to post such or even allude to it. Perhaps you ran across the wannabe X....

I'll take note that this is at least the second claim made against him for which I've asked proof. Seems there is none on either count....

[Some1 Else]

Janine for Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
mythology? whose talking about mythology.
i just said that the georgie being the 43rd president of usa is truth, as it cannot change. which brings me back to my argument...facts change,truth doesn't

Any other definitions you'd prefer to throw out as well?

[Some1 Else]

hinamanu wrote:

<quoted text>
you already know Paul had an encounter with Christ on the Emmaus rd.
you don't believe it, but you know its scriptural
So why antagonise some one about a scriptural reference you know exists?

Scriptural or not, it's entirely based on hearsay. What makes Paul credible enough to believe in this regards when Jesus said not to follow those who come after him saying he will return? Isn't this exactly what Paul did in this case?

[Your Daddy]

Xcntrik InVidor wrote:

<quoted text>
What?
You claimed that Paul stated that he met Jesus.
Please provide the book, chapter and verse.
Something you have continually wiggled out of.
So again you're being dishonest unless you can provide the substantiation for your empty claim.

Oh, you keep running and trying to hide... But it's not going to happen....

Here it is again:

Eschaton de pantoon hoosperei too ektroomati oofthee kamoi

Come on brother.... You keep saying you have all the facts...

[Your Daddy]

Xcntrik InVidor wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it a fact the George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States of America or not?

Come on... Don't try to change the subject! Show everyone that you weren’t lying…. Don’t slide back into the hypocritical sludge… Be a man of your word!!!

Eschaton de pantoon hoosperei too ektroomati oofthee kamoi

[hinamanu]

Skunk River Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
FSM has disciples by the billions, but no followers. Following is a trait generally associated with sheep, Christians and other feeble minded types.
You have a reasonably good avatar, there, by the way. Although I prefer the Buonarroti and the Dali versions myself.

I understand its called a church as well

I disbute 'billions' but do you understand the connotation i put under the avatar.

There are no acknowledging FSM adherents in New Zealand.

[hinamanu]

Your Daddy wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, you keep running and trying to hide... But it's not going to happen....
Here it is again:
Eschaton de pantoon hoosperei too ektroomati oofthee kamoi
Come on brother.... You keep saying you have all the facts...

This is hilarious.