Prove there's a god.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#565763 Nov 26, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
You were correct kiddo. It was the city council that voted and not a public vote. I stand corrected.
Public nudity should be allowed only in certain restricted areas and not just out anywhere anyone chooses out in public.
I agree. I think, from reading, that most of the issues were centered around the Castro District. From what I've heard of it, there are a lot of strange people there. They give homosexuals a bad name. I'm homosexual and even I wouldn't go there let alone take a child there. Parents have a responsibility as well to keep their children away from things like that.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#565764 Nov 26, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>It may have when you were clinging to the leg of a nudist and their dangly bits were brushing up against your ear.
hahaa...

I guess if you were the child of a nudist, it might have been a concern.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565766 Nov 26, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Public nudity is fine for those that accept it and don't have a problem with it but still it should be kept private between them because there are many people that don't agree with it and have their own personal reasons for doing so.
It seems like part of the discussion here has been about how Christians are accused of "pushing their beliefs or agenda" on others but in this instance i must point out that you're suggesting that people who agree with public nudity be allowed to push their agenda or beliefs against a population that disagrees with it. Pardon me, but your view sounds very much like a double standard to me.
I strongly believe that it should be up to the parents to decide how the child will be raised regarding nudity, or the birds and the bees or any other issue of a personal issue. Not some stranger on the street with a swinging Johnson or a bare va jay jay.
Oh, Al! hahaha!

I don't want to see old naked men walking around either! Blach! And the smell....

I just didn't like their argument that kids shouldn't see genitalia. It's a stupid argument, since kids have genitalia.

And I didn't bring up the Christian angle - you did! It's an inevitable comparison, though, since we're talking about San Francisco. They weren't really making a Christian argument, however. Their whole point was that "we'd like to allow nudity, but if we do, these gay men take advantage of that and walk around naked." hahaha, what a hypocritical position - the "we want nudity to be legal for the very occasional time someone wants to exercise that right, and we'd love it if more women were naked, but since old gay men want to walk around naked and, let's be honest, their bodies aren't much to look at, we're going to repeal our law. For the kids."

I personally find it disingenuous and silly. But you know what? I don't want to see old naked men when I'm drinking my coffee at Starbucks, either. Yuk! Now, if the law was for "mostly unclad male and female models, professional athletes, and actors" I'd be a bit more interested.

They should have used a better justification, though. Silly San Francisco.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565767 Nov 26, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. I don't give a rat's ass what someone's sexual orientation is nor would a child even know that's an issue. My God-child is four and if any dude walked by him naked, gay or straight, he is going to find clothing by way of an EMS gown.
Why??? That's crazy! You think someone else's nudity hurts your child???

That's insane. What do you think is going to happen to the child? Do you think s/he will explode? Suddenly become a Muslim? I mean, get real.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565768 Nov 26, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
Absolutely. I don't give a rat's ass what someone's sexual orientation is nor would a child even know that's an issue. My God-child is four and if any dude walked by him naked, gay or straight, he is going to find clothing by way of an EMS gown.
Quite frankly I could do without seeing it myself as most the population would not fall into the category of those I would be lining up to see naked. But if it was a private community of just adults or something, well, it isn't exactly going on my "Things to worry about" list. I have more important things going on and whatever floats your boat I guess if someone is a nudist.
But in an age where 5th graders are having sex in front of other students in the middle of class and chicks are blowing dudes for rides at lunch, and every pop-star looks and dresses like she is on her way to a porno shoot the last thing we need is children seeing people walk around naked. And under any circumstances it is just flat-out inappropriate for them to see an adult stranger naked.
Yes body-image is out-of-control where everybody is made to feel bad about themselves and if adults want to embrace the idea that they are comfortable in their bodies enough to be naked around one another then more power to them. Just keep it away from the kids. People's rights can't infringe on the right's of others. That's just the rules.
(T) Peace
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said.:)
No, it wasn't well said. It was an appeal to violence.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#565769 Nov 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, it wasn't well said. It was an appeal to violence.
At the end he said , "people's right can not violate the rights of others". That is exactly the opposite to an appeal for violence.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#565770 Nov 26, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't say nothing i believe what taught to me by man. But I can say fairly confidently that nothing I believe is because man taught it to me. Only what I have come to discover on my own or confirm on my own that I found or someone else showed me makes it past the cutting room floor. Some things people taught me I have found to be correct. A lot of things I have found not to be.
I think people would be shocked if they knew how little the person that taught them actually knew. It is very hard to teach people the Bible. It is a very long and complicated read and takes tons of cross-referencing. Back in the day when most priests learned what they did in seminary, they had no indexes, they had no Internet, the had no Bible searches by keyword or subject. They had no online commentaries or concordances or lexicons. They didn't have input from thousands of people with the same. We have huge advantages these days so I am not knocking priests for only knowing what they do. But there is a good chance many of them didn't know as much as they would need to in order to properly teach it. So they drew their own conclusions often on limited information which leads to errors.
Any serious student of the bible IMO has to start from scratch. Then go though and keep the beliefs they find to be correct and discard the rest. Knowing how fallible man is and therefore how many teachers must be, it is amazing to me people are so resistant to doing this. I feel like I owe it to myself and God to try to figure out what it is He is trying to get me to understand. That is way more important than clinging to something because of indoctrination.
Ok, meant to get off of here a long time ago!
(T) Peace
Go, my son.

Your work here is done.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565771 Nov 26, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>At the end he said , "people's right can not violate the rights of others". That is exactly the opposite to an appeal for violence.
So he had contradictory statements then. He started with "My God-child is four and if any dude walked by him naked, gay or straight, he is going to find clothing by way of an EMS gown."

In other words, he'd violently attack anyone who was publicly naked if his godchild was around, but he doesn't support violating anyone's rights.

Do I have to point out that attacking someone to the point of sending them to the ER is violating another person's right to health?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565772 Nov 26, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaa...
I guess if you were the child of a nudist, it might have been a concern.
What's disturbing is that many of the above posters have openly said that human genitalia are disgusting and would somehow damage or belittle children.

They fail to see how skewed their viewpoints are and they don't understand children, nor that they are raising children to be ashamed of their own bodies. For they are literally imbuing in children a disgust of self, a disgust of their own genitals.

That's more abusive, in my opinion, than any naked body is, and will cause lasting damage to children's sense of self worth.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#565773 Nov 26, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>It may have when you were clinging to the leg of a nudist and their dangly bits were brushing up against your ear.
As a child I was very shy, often hiding behind my mom or the couch when people cam to visit, whether they were strangers or not. I hate to think that as a pre-schooler I would not have had some sort of clothing barrier between her bum and my nose. Growing up associating butt smell with comfort could have altered the nature of aromatherapy in a really disgusting way, a la Eau de bum...oil of crack, etc.

I think that clothing lends humans an "air" of genteelness that beats the heck out of the canine's butt sniffing ritual. Shaking hands with strangers is bad enough. At least as a woman I can refuse to shake a man's hand without breaking any rules of etiquette.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#565774 Nov 26, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What facts? You've provided no facts that support your implied contention that Congress was lying when it said unanimously that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." You provided a snippet that said that one treaty was superceded by another.
You're still wrong.

Pay attention to the context of the treaty and the reason for the treaty and the reason for the words of the treaty and whom those words were addressed to...

Until then, I can't go back & forth with you on this any more.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#565775 Nov 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
What's disturbing is that many of the above posters have openly said that human genitalia are disgusting and would somehow damage or belittle children.
They fail to see how skewed their viewpoints are and they don't understand children, nor that they are raising children to be ashamed of their own bodies. For they are literally imbuing in children a disgust of self, a disgust of their own genitals.
That's more abusive, in my opinion, than any naked body is, and will cause lasting damage to children's sense of self worth.
"Your genitals' place is not in my child's face." How hard is that to understand?

I never said genitals are disgusting, just that their place is not in my face. Normal people "get" that.

I don't want to see them while I'm at the mall shopping or in the food court. I don't want to see them at the park, the library or grocery store either. They belong in the spa showers or your home and that's it. I would never tell my child that she should be ashamed of any part of herself, ever, only that it's not a good idea to roam the streets naked. Any sane person knows this is true.

She's already heard me discuss the newer trend in cosmetic surgery with another relative, labia enhancement; where I expressed my wonder at how so many women felt their genitals were so ugly that they wanted to surgically alter them. I saw the before and after pictures in one article and couldn't tell that there was any discernible difference between what they looked like before and after the surgery. Gee, labia is labia is labia. They all look the same to me, so I don't get how one woman can tell herself that hers looks "prettier" or uglier than any other's.

I understand children very well, I've been one long enough to know what they do and don't like.

The only thing I "imbue" in a child is that they have a right to protest what grosses them out, i.e., pushy adults with an agenda.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#565776 Nov 26, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>As a child I was very shy, often hiding behind my mom or the couch when people cam to visit, whether they were strangers or not. I hate to think that as a pre-schooler I would not have had some sort of clothing barrier between her bum and my nose. Growing up associating butt smell with comfort could have altered the nature of aromatherapy in a really disgusting way, a la Eau de bum...oil of crack, etc.
I think that clothing lends humans an "air" of genteelness that beats the heck out of the canine's butt sniffing ritual. Shaking hands with strangers is bad enough. At least as a woman I can refuse to shake a man's hand without breaking any rules of etiquette.
Where do you get that you can refuse to shake a man's hand without breaking any rules of etiquette?

That is so wrong......and I guess you're another germ-ophobic- shaking hands is "bad enough"??

Do you even know the origins of people shaking hands and why people shake hands?

It is a sign of PEACE, but as you have proven you are hardly a peaceable person, I'm not surprised you find hand shaking to be "bad enough" or that you stupidly think women are exempt from hand shaking. To refuse to shake someone's hand- no matter your gender- is to say you do not come in peace.

BTW, the reason why people wear clothing is for protection from the elements, since the non-human animals you are so quick to scorn and put down have NATURAL protection from the elements which humans do not- be it scales, feathers or fur. And there is no correlation at all between humans wearing clothing and the rituals of animals greeting one another or checking one another out.

This post of yours to which I am responding is one of your most asinine posts yet- not that there aren't plenty of your posts which rate as incredibly asinine; most of your posts can be rated as such.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#565777 Nov 26, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol! Would you consider a free one year membership to the Watchtower Society as a down payment?
I think I have several of those already.

and

I attended for nearly a year, I took all the indoctrination courses, studied the recommended texts, etc

I saw the same thing that I have seen in every christian organization to which I have had intimate access, and that is: men with power using it to access sexual privilege with the youth.

ah

christianity

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#565778 Nov 26, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>At the end he said , "people's right can not violate the rights of others". That is exactly the opposite to an appeal for violence.
Yeah. Your rights are right until they infringe on the rights of others. It is a delicate balance of what should be good manners towards others but less people are being taught good manners by their parents and the schools support bullying by inaction, same thing.

Apology: Politeness too late.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#565779 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Demonstrate otherwise.
do you think the ancient scriptures are 'new'? they are OLD
ancient
so if the ancient scriptures talk about the soul, then the concept of the soul isn't a 'new concept'.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#565780 Nov 26, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
How are you and Patty both from RS or area, both having moved years ago from Ohio, info that both characters gave us voluntarily, both use words that are found in no dictionaries, and keep using them when others have told them they are incorrect many times, both have same style of posting, both have same slang terms when they are caught lying?
Don't you realize that it would be impossible to have read and memorized everything that Patty told us in well over 50,000 posts, plus to also memorize her style, spelling errors, lack of knowledge of correct spelling of several words, mis-use of phrases?
kin

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#565781 Nov 26, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah. Your rights are right until they infringe on the rights of others. It is a delicate balance of what should be good manners towards others but less people are being taught good manners by their parents and the schools support bullying by inaction, same thing.
Apology: Politeness too late.
Schools do NOT support bullying and it is an issue of national importance. It is getting a lot of press and there are many websites dedicated to the prevention of bullying as well as stopping bullying dead in its tracks. In other words, the issue of bullying is NOT taken lightly at all and is even an issue being addressed by the Department of Justice.

As far as good manners go, what do YOU know about it, since you think you're not violating proper etiquette by refusing to shake a man's hand?

To refuse to shake someone's hand is definitely not what is defined as good manners; rather, it is rude and uncalled for and unwarranted.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#565782 Nov 26, 2012
WhatHeSaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain what holds in in place? Would a hard slap knock it loose? I know these questions might sound silly, but at least tell me you have thought about them.
Perhaps if you had a better 'handle' on who and what God is, you might not wonder about such things.

God holds it all together.
we are His creation.

Judged:

10

10

1

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#565783 Nov 26, 2012
ROCCO wrote:
<quoted text>
IF there is a God, Patricia, you can only blame him for your massive inability to discern what is being said by others, whether to you or to others.
Your response to the foregoing post (#565410), which is identical to #545406, is from "Lies Busters" making a comment to Boooots and reposting BOOOOTS' prior comment to someone else about you. It ISN'T "Lies Busters" post to you expressing his opinion ABOUT YOU to you (nor to anyone else).
It is your continuing tendency to misinterpret much of what you read that makes you such an unreliable and untrustworthy messenger of anything. That, together with your shameless tendency to lie, your innate rudeness, and your complete and utter willful ignorance of anything other than rote memorization of all things Christian bible are what make you such a tragic comedy.
It is shameful the damage that people whom you should have been able to trust and rely on in your life have made you the unfortunate calamity that you are.
While you are offensive to behold, those who molded you into the monster you have become should be subjected to repeated corporal punishment.
IF there is a God, hopefully he will spare you an eternity in hell solely because you are the victim of others worse than yourself. I fear, however, that you display too much glee for your actions for you to be able to blame anyone else and be spared the judgment you keep reminding awaits the rest of us yet you so richly deserve.
and who do we blame your deep rooted inadaquacys on?

I am United in Faith.
and until you grasp that, i will reply to your argumentive posts with
UIF.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 min Student 40,728
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 42 min USaWORLDWarMonger 177,239
The Christian Atheist debate 48 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 1,107
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 59 min RiccardoFire 5,865
LOUD CRYIN' SPOILED Black Kids in Wal Mart!!!!! 1 hr Impish Demon 75
Good Nite, Topix Weirdos 1 hr Impish Demon 19
Homosexuals are the REAL reason God DESTROYED S... 1 hr Impish Demon 88
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr karl44 444,415
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr USA Born 596,860
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Bella Italia 612,660
More from around the web