Creationism and the Naked Body

In some other threads I have been staggered at how many people, when referring to the naked human form, seem to believe that it was designed by 'God'.

I can say that I don't know anybody among my circle of friends, family and acquaintances who actually believes that. Everybody I know takes it for granted that the human form is a product of evolution, and that the creationist theory is something that was believed by our ancestors before Mr Darwin's theories were understood.

Any observations????

Stu

In some other threads I have been staggered at how many people, when referring to the naked human form, seem to believe that it was designed by 'God'.

I can say that I don't know anybody among my circle of friends, family and acquaintances who actually believes that. Everybody I know takes it for granted that the human form is a product of evolution, and that the creationist theory is something that was believed by our ancestors before Mr Darwin's theories were understood.

Any observations????

Stu

[Rik]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "Everbody I know takes it for granted...." as I woudn't presume to know what everbody I know thinks on the subject. Although I broadly agree with you.

I too take the view that the evidence we have suggests that the human body evolved without any divine intervention but I suspect that when people talk about the body being created they don't actually believe that the human form suddenly appeared but rather that the human form was created on a evolutionary basis. (If that makes sense /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Rik

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Which ever theory one believes, the human body works as intended.

In creationism, we were created in God's image. Point blank. What could be more perfect? ( well, I guess our knees could bend the other way when we need them to.)

In evolution, an imperfect design was either wiped out, evolved further to accept climate conditions,or cross breeded enough to survive.

I am not an expert on either and will admitt it now.

Does anyone believe in "Evolution: The Process Of Creation!"

[TXK NUDE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Everybody I know takes it for granted that the human form is a product of evolution, and that the creationist theory is something that was believed by our ancestors before Mr Darwin's theories were understood.

Any observations????

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, yes. Darwin's theories of evolution were NEVER originally applied to humans. His initial theories dealt with MICRO-evolution of various species that were essentially separated from the rest of the world on islands too far for animal migration to have occured. He latered developed a theory of MACRO-evolution as an explanation of species who were totally indigionous to specific islands throughout the Pacific Ocean. It was actually Professor Leaky who applied evolution to humankind...and later "proved" his theory with Lucy-the missing link. Lucy was later proven to be a ape's skull with the rib cage of a wild boar. Leaky was eventually completely discredited and cast out of the scientific community. Unfortunately, it was too late as his theories were by then being preached in public school science classes as factual. The theory of human evolution has actually been disproven, as mummified remains from the ice age have had the same skeletal structure as modern man! Neandertals and Cromagnan men have yet to be actually identified by complete skeletal remains. So...what's easier to believe...a concocted a THEORY of man's evolution...or a belief that has been widely believed for thousands of years that men were created by a higher being?

TXK

If faced with a choice between believing an imperfect but compelling scientific theory or a totally unfounded story in an ancient book full of magic and myths, I know which I would prefer.

There is not a jot of hard evidence to support creationist theories whereas evolutionary theory fits in beautifully with our own understanding and observations about how species evolve over time, either selectively through breeding by human beings, or by the actions of nature.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
Darwin's theories of evolution were NEVER originally applied to humans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was there from the beginning, just not out in the open.

Darwin's first book The Voyage of the Beagle laid out the case for natural selection. His second book The Origin of Species expanded that to a full blown Evolutionary Theory. Darwin purposely did not expound upon human origins in that book due to religious sensitivities (aka fear). But in his third book on evolution he did indeed take that subject head on with The Descent of Man. Read them here. (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/)

My own views? I don't believe in a prankster God who created a universe scattered with false evidence of evolution. I don't believe in a satanic or gnostic second god with the power of creation and the desire to deceive. I believe the evidence of science -including evolution- is nothing less than the fingerprints of God in a continuing act of creation.

http://www.loxieandzoot.com/stuff/tan_gallery/evolution.jpg

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
If faced with a choice between believing an imperfect but compelling scientific theory or a totally unfounded story in an ancient book full of magic and myths, I know which I would prefer.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You mean you prefer logic over irrational culture? Surely not.

Rik

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Mankind has believed in our creation by a God for thousands of years, but have only been looking for evidence of evolution for, what? 150yrs? Give it time. For all we know, the missing link could be buried beneath a city like Paris or Rome and may be centuries before discovered, or a link has already been found and reburied by the church.
OOH! I love a conspirocy theory!

Rik

"You mean you prefer logic over irrational culture? Surely not."

I trained as a lawyer. If I am to believe something to be fact then I will look for evidence. When I find evidence I will apply logic to it in the hope of making sense of it thus giving me an accurate assessment of the truth of something.

That doesn't stop me feeling things nor reacting to stimuli with emotion. My dislike of seeing nudity IS emotion - just as I don't want to see animals being slaughtered in an abbatoir or my elderly neighbours having sexual intercourse or some poor soul being beheaded in Saudi Arabia.

Logic is a tool for man to use to solve problems. It should not become the sole controller of our thoughts, actions and feelings.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by R.M.GREENMAN2:
For all we know, the missing link could be buried beneath a city like Paris or Rome <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Missing link to what?

There is ample evidence of early hominids who were more apelike than human, and later ones who were nearly within the normal range of modern human variation (such as homo sapiens neanderthalensis). The action in the search for human origins is in discovering which hominds are on the branch of evolution that led to us, and which were twigs that shot off that branch. The existance of the branch is not in doubt -except to those who doubt evolution on non-scientific grounds.

-Mark

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Logic is a tool for man to use to solve problems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem to use your tool inconsistently.

Rik

[Naturist Mark]

There is a theory that may be of interest to Stu that I ran across in an article about why humans are naked apes. (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s952365.htm)

The question is why humans have just light body hair rather than the fur coat all other primates have. Among the theories are the Aquatic Ape idea, the louse theory, and the illustrated man theory (my name for it /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Scientist Terrence Kealey believes humans selected for less body hair in order to expose the skin for decoration -painting, tattooing, accessorizing with the latest Gucci fashions. He then says:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And incidentally, this has one very interesting side effect, which is that I think the whole naturalist, nudist movement is an evolutionary error, we were never meant to be naked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Needless to say I think that may be taking the theory too far. After all clothing would defeat the purpose by covering up the canvas.

But here's evidence for Stu's argument that clothes are natural. Have fun Stu!

-Mark

[gamblefish]

I am among the apparent few(?) who believe in the creation account brought forth in the book of Genesis (I know there are at least a couple more of you out there /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

For those interested in learning more about creationism...check here. (http://www.creationism.org/)


Although I do believe in micro-evolution, I cannot believe that our universe just came together from nothing without a Creator. I cannot believe that life just happened, and that a brainless blob of protoplasm (no hw, I am not referring to you!!) figured out that it was better to be a fish than a, well, brainless blob of protoplasm...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
In some other threads I have been staggered at how many people, when referring to the naked human form, seem to believe that it was designed by 'God'.

I can say that I don't know anybody among my circle of friends, family and acquaintances who actually believes that.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well Stu, apparently there are no Christians (or Muslims or Jews or...) in your circle of friends, family or aquaintances. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gamblefish:
I cannot believe that our universe just came together from nothing without a Creator. I cannot believe that life just happened <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Evolutionists do not necessarily believe that life 'just happened'.

Many, if not most evolutionists believe in God. Many, if not most Christians also accept evolution as God's plan.

A very good book that examines the place of God in evolution is Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/fdg/index.html)

An excerpt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Each of the great Western monotheistic traditions sees God as truth, love, and knowledge. This should mean that each and every increase in our understanding of the natural world is a step toward God and not, as many people assume, a step away. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play complementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.

A nonbeliever, of course, puts his or her trust in science and finds no value in faith. And I certainly agree that science allows believer and nonbeliever alike to investigate the natural world through a common lens of observation, experiment, and theory. The ability of science to transcend cultural, political, and even religious differences is part of its genius, part of its value as a way of knowing. What science cannot do is assign either meaning or purpose to the world it explores. This leads some to conclude that the world as seen by science is devoid of meaning and absent of purpose. It is not. What it does mean, I would suggest, is that our human tendency to assign meaning and value must transcend science and, ultimately, must come from outside it. The science that results can thus be enriched and informed from its contact with the values and principles of faith. The God of Abraham does not tell us which proteins control the cell cycle. But he does give us a reason to care, a reason to cherish that understanding, and above all, a reason to prefer the light of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance.

As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. Their God fashioned a material world in which truly free and independent beings could evolve. He got it right the very first time.

To some, the murderous reality of human nature is proof that God is absent or dead. The same reasoning would find God missing from the unpredictable branchings of an evolutionary tree. But the truth is deeper. In each case, a deity determined to establish a world that was truly independent of his whims, a world in which intelligent creatures would face authentic choices between good and evil, would have to fashion a distinct, material reality and then let his creation run. Neither the self-sufficiency of nature nor the reality of evil in the world mean God is absent. To a religious person, both signify something quite different - the strength of God's love and the reality of our freedom as his creatures.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Science has not evicted God. For some of us it Illuminates.

-Mark

[Nude in the North]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

I can say that I don't know anybody among my circle of friends, family and acquaintances who actually believes that.
Any observations????

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There are no Nudists in your circle of friends either. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

Maybe you need better friends.

Steve

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
Many, if not most evolutionists believe in God...
...Science has not evicted God. For some of us it Illuminates.

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very true Mark. I guess I was directing my post to Stu, who appears to be a non-believer.

Rik,

"You seem to use your tool inconsistently."

That's odd. My wife says exactly the same thing.

naturistmark1

"But here's evidence for Stu's argument that clothes are natural. Have fun Stu!"

Thanks for that one, Mark. Needless to say, that's a theory I can very easily subscribe to. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gamblefish

That's fine, gamblefish, and you can hold that view.

So who created the Creator of all this life?

"Well Stu, apparently there are no Christians (or Muslims or Jews or...) in your circle of friends, family or aquaintances."

I do have Christian and Jewish friends who I know don't subscribe to the creationist theory. I have a couple of Muslim friends but, to be perfectly honest, I've never discussed it with them so they may or may not believe in it.

gamblefish

"Very true Mark. I guess I was directing my post to Stu, who appears to be a non-believer."

When asked for my religion I usually say Buddhist. As you are probably aware, Buddha was a man like you or I, without any divinity, and he never preached about a God or about faith - in fact he discouraged faith in everything - including his own teachings!!! So yes, you could call me a non-believer.

Stu

[David77]

On the following web page is an interesting article entitled, "How the Concept of God Developed Over the Ages".
http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_devel.htm

Scrolling further down on this web page, it indicates,
Atheism is one possible choice for people who have abandoned belief in a theistic God. Atheists have no belief in the existence of a supernatural deity.

Agnosticism is another option.

J.C. Spong (an American Episcopalian Bishop and writer) argues that there is another response to the loss in belief in a theistic God.

He suggests that belief in a non-theistic God can continue -- a God with the following descriptions:

Love is God. God is in each individual.
God "is a symbol of that which is immortal, invisible, timeless."
"God is Being -- the reality underlying everything that is."
<hr width= "75">
There are so many definitions of "God" that one can not assume that we are talking about the same.

Last Sunday I was talking to a new, modern, very moderate, Muslim friend and I find that in their religion some ponder the definition of God. He mentioned that he had read a book by an Imam (Moslim cleric) giving what he (my friend) found as a new, faciniting definition of God, explaining that God "is part of every person, whether we want it or not". This, too, sounds like it may be a non-theistic definition of God.

Here is a web page from Boston University School of Theology giving all the various theologies with many definitions of God;
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes.htm

[stevenf64]

Naturilstmark,
Most Christians I know do not believe as you say. Most Christians believe that all things were created by GOD.
Stu I have no clue where you get some of your theorys. Most Evelotionist change there few as they get on in years. I pitty them. Evolotion is an impossibilty. Adaptation is natural, changing to suit ones enviroment. IF you really believe in evolution explain the humming bird. Also since I obviously dont have a clue explain why apes arent still becoming people and things arent still crawling from the sea?
Stu I hate to say this but I feel sorry for you.
ITs amazing how many experts are here. Well thats just my 2 cents and yes I am a Christian, I do believe Jesus died to pay my sin debt and I claim him as my savior.
Steve

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
So who created the Creator of all this life?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe that God is eternal. He is, was and always will be...He is self-sufficient and exists outside our three-dimensional world of time and space.

Here is what John N. Clayton has to say:

One question which inevitably comes up in a discussion of this nature is what is the origin of God? If God created matter/energy, and designed the systems that have propelled matter into its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always ?been? than it is to say that matter has always ?been?? As Carl Sagan has said, ?If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?? (Cosmos, p. 257).

From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward ?empty,? is yet a long way from being there?a condition incompatible with an eternal universe. The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as ?heat death.? Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and ?die.? All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe.


You can read more here. (http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/WhoCreatedGod/WhoCreatedGod.html)

[sojourner]

Stu, and others,

Creationism versus evolution is an arguement that will be debated by scientists of both persuasions. I personnally believe in creation because evolution takes too much faith to believe in. I have heard the arguements by both sides but have come to the conclusion that it depends upon your world view, where you start from, as to which you will believe in.

I like to look at the probabilty factor of evolution.
Given that, there is no way that I could ever believe we are creatures of chance. The following site discusses the Mathematical improbability of evolution: http://www.icr.org/newsletters/btg/btgnov03.html?ref=afoh
Yes, it is a Christian site, and yes that is the world view I start from, but I would like to see someone come up with the mathematical proof that evoltion could have occured by anything other than miraculous chance after miraculous chance.

Soj /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[David77]

It is misplaced faith to trust in the Bible to tell you about creation, as there are two conflicting accounts.
Yes, there are two versions of creation as follows;
The first versions is in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

It is considered the "J" version from Judah, using the sole name "Elohim" 35 times for God.

The second version is in Genesis 2:4-24.
It is considered the "E" version from Isreal using only the name "Yahweh" 11 times for God.

They describe creation events in different order.

In the first version, God created plants first, then animals, then man and woman.

In the second version, God created MAN first. Then he created plants. Then, so that man should not be alone, God created animals. And last, after man does not find a satisfactory mate among the animals, God created woman.

Genesis 1
plants
animals
man & woman

Genesis 2
man
plants
animals
woman

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sojourner:
I like to look at the probabilty factor of evolution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't just stop at the low odds of evolution. Look how unlikely a universe with life is. If any of a number of physical constants and characteristics had been even a little bit different we couldn't be here. Among those are:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>The Gravitational Coupling Constant
<LI>The Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant
<LI>The Weak Nuclear Force Coupling Constant
<LI>The Electromagnetic Coupling Constant
<LI>The Ratio of Protons to Electrons
<LI>The Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass
<LI>The Age of the Universe
<LI>Expansion Rate of the Universe
<LI>The Entropy Level of the Universe
<LI>The Mass of the Universe
<LI>The Uniformity of the Universe
<LI>The Stability of the Proton
<LI>Fine Structure Constants
<LI>Velocity of Light
<LI>Nuclear Energy Levels of 8Be, 12C, and 16O
<LI>Distance between Stars
<LI>Rate of Luminosity Increase for Stars
[/list]

This is known as the Anthropic Principle, and was popularized by Nobel Prize winning physicist John Wheeler, who stated: ?A life-giving factor lies at the center of the whole machinery and design of the world.?

However the fact that there is life in the universe doesn't invalidate the improbability because there is a selection effect in our observation. The universe we observe had to have developed in exactly the way it did or else we couldn't be here to observe it. Steven Hawking describes this 'Weak Anthropic Principle' thus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> ?The weak anthropic principle states that in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or in time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence.? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Selection Effect applies to that little bit of our description of the universe explained by evolution too... As unlikely as evolution is to result in us, or intelligent life of any kind, we can only observe it from the viewpoint of the end of a string of all those unlikely circumstances that did result in us.

Many people view the Weak Anthropic Principle as a means of removing God from the equation. But that still doesn't mean God isn't the author of the equation.

Can somebody help me connect this back to naked bodies?

[Trailscout]

David77 is quite mistaken when he discredits the Holy Scriptures based on a supposed contradiction between two artificially divided portions of the book of Genesis.

David was quoting a discredited theory of contradictory accounts of creation by multiple authors (a.k.a The Documentary Hypothesis). The contradiction disappears in the original Hebrew and it has been proven that there was only one author of the Penteteuch (Torah) except for Joshua's obituary of Moses at the end and Adam, Abraham, Joseph and one or two other patriarchs probably contributed the source documents for the early portions of Genesis.

Here's a detailed explanation:
Did Moses Really Write Genesis? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3745.asp)

[Bob S.]

I actually believe in what i like to refer to as "divine evolution" as has been described here. That there was a plan for the evolution of animals.

It was done to show that humans are just another animal on Earth. That we are no better or worse than other animals. That is one reason why I believe that nakedness is natural.

stu, do you know anyone who actually disagrees with you? And also, good joke (Although I don't know whether to laugh or feel pity).

"Scientist Terrence Kealey believes humans selected for less body hair in order to expose the skin for decoration -painting, tattooing, accessorizing with the latest Gucci fashions. "

I believe that Mr. Kealey is wrong on that. Micro-evolution needs a reason for happening, an external, environmental reason. Personal fashion cannot cause a loss of body hair. And I don't think that ancient hirsute humans would have thought about painting their skin, but maybe decorating their hair.

What they need to do is find an environmental reason for becoming hairless. Wishing it would not work.

Bob S.

[namedun]

I see only one reason to believe in any divinity: The big bang. The big bang supports everything. Not one peice of science cannot be eventually linked back to the big bang. However, not one piece of science can explain why the big bang occured. Only divinity can attempt to unravel the big bang.
ummmm..........being naked is fun

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[averagejoe]

This one is different...

In this topic, we have an agnostic opposed to nudity in general asking why a bunch of naturists beleive in God.

There is something seriously wrong with the Matrix this morning...

[Baron Lake]

namedun,
The Intelligent Design "theory" has many serious flaws. Any theory that cannot be falsified, for one thing, can never reveal verifiable knowledge.
Ultimatly, however, ID runs into the problem of who designed the Designer (suggesting orders of magnatude increases in the "intelligence" necessary to produce succesive "designers").
The fact that we do not yet understand some (most!) aspects of the universe in which we live does not rule out an increased understanding or imply some sort of knowledge "barrier" that we cannot cross. It was once believed that mice were "created" in rag piles. Science has allowed us to know the truth. (They come from "spells" cast by evil spirits /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).
Baron

Stevenf64

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I can assure you I am not to be pitied. You say evolutionists change their theories periodically. Well, I?m no expert in that field but I would be surprised if the theory as devised by Darwin hadn?t been revised and modified since it was first devised. That?s how science develops.

I am not a believer and evolutionary theory makes far more sense to me than believing in some divine and omnipotent being for whose existence there is not one scrap of evidence.

Gamblefish

I?m no physicist but the question I?d have to ask is ? if there is a God, why did He have to create such a massive vastness of space, matter and time to accommodate a few intelligent creatures? I mean, what is the point of, say Pluto, or the asteroid belt, or the ice-caps on Europa? And why create a universe and then wait 15 billion years to populate it with intelligent life?

?Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always ?been? than it is to say that matter has always ?been??

I don?t suggest that matter has always ?been?. Indeed, as you know, the current thinking is that all matter was created from the energy that itself was a product of the ?big bang?. Have never said that there is evidence that there is no God. But we certainly can?t find any evidence that here is.

Sojourner

?I like to look at the probability factor of evolution. Given that, there is no way that I could ever believe we are creatures of chance.?

Bear with me on a little analogy. You clean your bathroom very thoroughly with disinfectant and, I the process, you kill 1,000,000,000,000 germs. But one ? and only one ? survives. Now he is a thinking germ! When he divides to make more germs he tells his little offspring that they are special because he must have been chosen by God to live when all others have perished. So there must be a reason for this. After all, the chances of him surviving were a staggering 1,000,000,000,000 to 1!!! How could that possibly be a coincidence? The 999,999,999,999 germs who died aren?t around to tell him he was just plain lucky!

Mark ? I think that analogy answers your point as well. I have lost count of the number of people who won he Lottery who think it was ordained by God that they should win. After all, the chances of winning are about fourteen million to one ? yet it was ME who won! Do you see what I?m saying?

Bob ? ?stu, do you know anyone who actually disagrees with you??

Yeah, lots of people. But this issue really is a cultural thing illustrating the religious divide across the Atlantic. If you asked the average British person whether he believes that human beings evolved from apes or whether they were created in God?s image they would almost always say the latter and I?m sure other Brits here would confirm that. And that even includes most Christians! It?s been like that here for as long as I can remember. My parents were taught evolution theory at school in the 1930s! I knew there were still ?creationists? in the US but I didn?t realise how many there were.

?Personal fashion cannot cause a loss of body hair. And I don't think that ancient hirsute humans would have thought about painting their skin, but maybe decorating their hair?.

I suspect that we have become less hairy over many generations because of natural selection. I?m not certain of the precise mechanism of that, but it?s just a theory.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Mark ? I think that analogy answers your point as well. I have lost count of the number of people who won he Lottery who think it was ordained by God that they should win. After all, the chances of winning are about fourteen million to one ? yet it was ME who won! Do you see what I?m saying? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The lottery winner is a good example of the selection effect. The fact that there is a very low chance for you to win the lottery, but you do, doesn't mean some outside force changed the odds in your favor. From your self selected vantage point it may seem that the odds were changed, but they weren't. You aren't the whole lottery equation, you are just one out of the 14 million -of whom someone was almost certain to win.

For the selection effect to explain the unlikely hospitality of the universe as a haven for life without invoking Wheeler's "life-giving factor" the Weak Anthropic Principle requires our universe to be a subset of an immensely larger meta-universe. Large enough that there is at least one chance out of the innumerable billions that a life friendly universe could exist among all the dead ends. Many cosmologists consider this to be true, with a number of different theories about the nature of the meta-universe.

Note that each time science succeeds in taking God out of the equation the universe grows larger and larger. The theists among us will note that everytime the universe grows larger there is that much more room to find God in the equations.

-Mark

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

I forget who said it:
"EVEN IF WE COULD PROVE THERE WAS NO GOD, WE WOULD NEED TO CREATE ONE"

This goes back to my "Why I Am What I Am" thread, and how I began it with the fact that I am not Athieist due to what I see in nature as being too perfect to be accident.

[sojourner]

Stu,

In response to my post, you made an interesting point. Glad to see that you survived the cleansing. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Yours may have been the one species to "evolve" but then you still need to take the probability of all of the thousands of other "evolving" species being lucky enough to survive as well. You may also have been lucky enough to be one of 14,000,000 to win a lottery. But for every species alive today to meet even those small odds when compared to the statistics that were run, that is still staggering. One failure anywhere in the process means the process starts over. As I noted, depending upon your world view will your beliefs go. You replied to Gamblefish about why did a creator make such a vast expanse for just a few intelligent life forms. I'd ask this question first before I answer, do you enjoy what you see in the heavens, the beauty of it all? Do you see the beauty that is around us in nature? Coming from a view that there is a creator, this beauty and expanse was made for us to enjoy and appreciate. Also, if that was made for us to enjoy, it makes us significant, something evolution takes away from us.
We'll continue to disagree, but I do commend you for starting a topic that can be discussed intellectually. Your questions will help some of us search for the answers to strenghten our beliefs.

Mark

"Note that each time science succeeds in taking God out of the equation the universe grows larger and larger".

When I was a child I was told that the universe was infinite. Now they're telling us it's expanding! How the heck can something infinite expand?? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"The theists among us will note that everytime the universe grows larger there is that much more room to find God in the equations."

I don't believe that there is a God. Similarly, I don't believe that there isn't a God. The truth is I don't know. And I'm happy with that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

R.M.GREENMAN2

"I forget who said it:
"EVEN IF WE COULD PROVE THERE WAS NO GOD, WE WOULD NEED TO CREATE ONE"

I think it was Carl Jung, but I may be mistaked.

"This goes back to my "Why I Am What I Am" thread, and how I began it with the fact that I am not Athieist due to what I see in nature as being too perfect to be accident."

You think nature is PERFECT? Look again! Children are born with deformities and congenital illnesses and weaknesses every day. Why, if nature is perfect?

sojourner

"Yours may have been the one species to "evolve" but then you still need to take the probability of all of the thousands of other "evolving" species being lucky enough to survive as well."

Most species don't survive indefinitely - ask any dinosaur!

"You may also have been lucky enough to be one of 14,000,000 to win a lottery. But for every species alive today to meet even those small odds when compared to the statistics that were run, that is still staggering."

Yes, but whatever species was left would come to the same conclusion. But for a small matter of genetics, the intelligent life form on this planet today could have been a giant insect, or a talking reptile, or a computer-literate ostrich! OK, it turned out to be a mammalian biped that communicates by speech - so that's what God must look like. It makes no sense when you really think about it.

"I'd ask this question first before I answer, do you enjoy what you see in the heavens, the beauty of it all? Do you see the beauty that is around us in nature? Coming from a view that there is a creator, this beauty and expanse was made for us to enjoy and appreciate."

Hang on. Beauty is a relative concept - and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's only my aesthetic opinion that the mountains and oceans and savannas are beautiful - it isn't hard fact. To my dog, a plate of leftover food is beautiful! And if you think that nature is beautiful then just dig a few holes in the ground. Then, when you uncover the rotting carcass of a recently dead animal with maggots crawling out of its eye sockets, tell me that's beautiful too. After all, didn't the same God who created the mountains also create death and decay and creepy-crawlies?

"Also, if that was made for us to enjoy, it makes us significant, something evolution takes away from us."

If evolution is truth then we should embrace it. If there really IS a God, I'd think he would expect nothing less of us than that.

"We'll continue to disagree, but I do commend you for starting a topic that can be discussed intellectually. Your questions will help some of us search for the answers to strenghten our beliefs."

I'm pleased you realise that I'm not discussing this just to undermine people's faith - faith that gives them comfort and reassurance and meaning to their lives. Personally I'd rather know the truth - even if the truth is less pleasant.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
When I was a child I was told that the universe was infinite. Now they're telling us it's expanding! How the heck can something infinite expand?? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, there is infinity and then there is infinity. Just because something is infinite doesn't mean it can't become more infinite. Really.

When I was a young sprout most cosmologists thought the universe, that is this universe is finite. It burst into existence in the Big Bang and has been expanding (but not infinite) ever since. Many (including Einstein) though it was 'closed' meaning finite but without boundaries. The analogy was an expanding balloon, all space is the surface of the balloon, but that surface is curved back on itself like a sphere - no edges, but finite. The tricky part is that that 'curvature' is in a fourth spacial dimension, not just 3 like a balloon. http://www.physics.hku.hk/~nature/CD/regular_e/lectures/images/chap19/triangles.jpg

Now there are competing theories that space is flat or curved but truly infinite. In the curved version the shape is hyperbolic, like a saddle in 4 dimensions. In all cases the universe is expanding still, not in the sense that things are moving apart from each other, but that space itself is stretching and increasing the space between (relatively) stationary object. Think of ants on the surface of a balloon that is being blown up, as the balloon gets larger the distance between ants increases even though they may be standing still.

In the case of one of the open topologies think of a rubber sheet being evenly stretched in all directions.
http://www.physics.hku.hk/~nature/CD/regular_e/lectures/images/chap19/openclose.jpg

The topology of the universe (what shape it has) is still a hot topic, with the view that one of the infinite (open) topologies seeming to be ascendent at the moment. God only knows how it will turn out. (Or perhaps Buddha)

-Mark

[Boreas]

"When I was a child I was told that the universe was infinite. Now they're telling us it's expanding! How the heck can something infinite expand??"

Stu, that type of question has baffled me through the years. We were taught that heaven was above and hell was below. Then we learned that there are other planets and such up there...does that mean heaven is further away or non-existent? I have read some books by Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong and J.S Spong. They helped clarify and muddy my faith. I now believe that the Bible does have a lot of useful things for me in it. I also believe it is not absolute. Developing the Christian Church was a political thing (Isn't it still?) and when the church was being developed they had many fights over what went into the Bible. Many good and useful writings did not make "the cut". So, my thinking is that the universe hasn't necessarily expanded (though I am not a physical scientist to judge that) we just know more about it. Just as in the Bible illnesses were caused by the devil. We now know they are caused by germs.

When I found this poem by MK Gandhi it resonated with me and today it comes closest to describing what my faith involves. The only thing is, I can't call God "He". If God is so all powerful etc, S/he would not be limited to just "He. That is my opinion for what it is worth. Subject to change and hopefully growth.

The Meaning of God Poem
There is an indefinable mysterious Power that pervades everything.
I feel It, though I do not see It.
It is this unseen Power which makes Itself felt and yet defies all proof,
because It is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses.
It transcends the senses....
That informing Power or Spirit is God....
For I can see that in the midst of death life persists,
in the midst of untruth, truth persists,
in the midst of darkness light persists.
Hence I gather that God is Life, Truth, Light. He is love.
He is supreme good.
But he is no God who merely satisfies the intellect if He ever does.
God to be God must rule the heart and transform it.

M. K. Gandhi
(Young India, October 11, 1928)

My profession has also given me reason to believe in miracles...whatever they are. I believe that as long as there is life there is hope. My biggest lesson in that was the man who I met after he had been given last rites by the priest and the doctor had given up on him. He had "end stage" cirrhosis of the liver. Last I saw him he had been sober for two years (after that). He "shouldn't" have been sober nevermind alive.

[Trailscout]

Stu asked, "When I was a child I was told that the universe was infinite. Now they're telling us it's expanding! How the heck can something infinite expand?? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif "

Mark offered some interesting speculation about the shape of the universe. I am not as well-versed in physics as he seems to be, but I take an interest in such subjects and try to stay abreast of the latest theories in summary form. My ears perked up recently as I watched a documentary on television describing the latest theories about matter, energy and the universe. As I recall, they contend that there are at least seven dimensions in our universe. Space accounts for three (length, width, and height), time for the fourth dimension and that leaves three more unaccounted for, but just as real as the dimensions we can directly measure and perceive. Room enough for God, angels, heaven and hell and maybe alternate universes that rival our own for complexity and size.

I am quite sure that there is a God, but his existence only matters if God takes a personal interest in humans. If God is the dispassionate Prime Mover, the cosmic watchmaker who "wound the clock and walked away", then his existence is not relevant and we are no better off than if random factors led to our emergence from the slime.

For most of us, the nature of God, not his existence is our primary concern.

R.M. Greenman2 is on the right track when he made the general observation that "perfection" in the natural world is evidence of a creator. We could rightly protest that nature is imperfect, but that is to overlook the evidence of good design, biotic systems having "irreducible complexity" that could not be assembled through fortuitous mutations and natural selection over eons of time.

If God is all powerful and perfectly good, why is there imperfection, ugliness and death in the natural world he created? We should not be too quick to assume that God is the author of evil at least not directly. Christian and Jewish orthodox doctrine teaches that the principal created being, Lucifer, departed from serving God of his own free will. Apparently the fossil record shows that death and disorder entered the universe billions of years ago, perhaps from some corruption caused by this very powerful and by then evil entity, renamed Satan. The fossil records shows successive periods of the sudden appearance of communities of progressively higher life forms, each nearly wiped out by cataclysmic floods and volcanic events of global proportions.
From a Judeao-Christian standpoint, this could chroncile a multi-billion year-long war between the Lifegiver and the Destroyer.

The emergence of fully modern humans in Eden seems to be the beachhead for God's final assault on evil, death and chaos. I don't know if Eden was the only perfect place on Earth, perhaps God renewed the entire earth. Regardless of which scenario was correct, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, the entire earth would become an edenic paradise as man colonized this newly "terraformed" planet. Death and decay were not created by God. They are simply the result of rebellion against life, beauty and order and ultimately rebellion against God.

Our primordial ancestors' choice to listen to Satan seemed to bring him final victory over the Lifegiver, but God continued to reveal himself through the prophets. A system of rituals and sacrifices for sin presaged God's final solution: God himself would appear on earth in the flesh. The incarnation of Christ (Messiah) is the ultimate refutation of those who claim that God was distant and aloof from those he created.

Stu, when we say man is made in God's image, we simply mean that like him, we are sentient beings capable of every emotion, most importantly love. God is amorphous or polymorphous. He is spirit, we are organic creatures. There is only so far that you can take such an analogy in the physical realm. Think about our souls and we are not so different from the Holy One.

Beauty is not necessarily a relative concept. Since we are created in God' image, we would share much of his perception of goodness and beauty. In due time, he will destroy sin and death (and consequently all ugliness).

Stu, I would like to quote you one more time, "Personally I'd rather know the truth - even if the truth is less pleasant."

I would like to counter by saying: Truth is not pleasant or unpleasant in and of itself. It is how you react to the truth that will determine if this new knowledge leads to sorrow or joy.

For all his power, God cannot force you to love him. If you are free to reject God and make evil choices, guess what? So is everyone else. Some people exercising their freedom not to love God and their fellow man have unleashed great evil into the world. God will eventually put an end to evil, but that would also put an end to this time of choosing we now enjoy. We endure the agonies and horrors of this fallen world, the ugliness of sin in order that a few more souls will have a chance to escape the world and run into our Heavenly Father's arms.

You must choose to follow Jesus of your own free will or it could not, by definition be love. If you reject the Creator, you choose an eternity of darkness and isolation, separated from everyone and everything. You will have no body to feel pain, but your soul will continue to exist in "fiery" torment of everlasting regret. But that does not have to be your fate. God has provided a way for you to escape such a horrible place. If you ever reach a point where God is self-evident, you have access to peace with him through Jesus the Son. For reasons beyond my ken, some people never "get it" and die without knowing God. To be fair to God, he does call everyone in one fashion or another, but not everyone listens.

[Bob S.]

stu, you know that was a joke, right? It just seems that every time you report talking to your friends and neighbors, they all agree with you.

"I suspect that we have become less hairy over many generations because of natural selection. I’m not certain of the precise mechanism of that, but it’s just a theory."

I can't believe I am saying this but...I agree.

"After all, didn't the same God who created the mountains also create death and decay and creepy-crawlies?"

Well, if there weren't those creepy-crawlies, then we would have to burn all of our dead and the Earth would be littered with dead animals and vegitation.

"if there is a God, why did He have to create such a massive vastness of space, matter and time to accommodate a few intelligent creatures? I mean, what is the point of, say Pluto, or the asteroid belt, or the ice-caps on Europa? And why create a universe and then wait 15 billion years to populate it with intelligent life?"

Why do artists create backgrounds for their portraits? Why does the Mona Lisa have a background? And what if the stars were put there to remind us of His presence? As for waiting for so long, it takes quite a while to create infinity, doesn't it?

"After all, the chances of winning are about fourteen million to one – yet it was ME who won! Do you see what I’m saying?"

I also love it when athletes do that. Like G*d actually cares about sports. If He is, I am going to assume that he is not a fan of the Cubs or the Red Sox. And if the game is won, they thank the heavens, but if they lose, they blame themselves. I recall one comedian who made the joke (paraphrasing): You ever notice that players thank G*d when they win, but don't do the same when they lose. You'll never hear a uy say 'Yeah we would have won the game, but Jesus made me drop the ball.'

Bob S.

[Dolby]

Death and decay are a neccessary part of life. I would hope that not everyone or everything would live for eternity. Or that organic matter would just sit there forever, piling up miles high. Are you saying that Satan created my compost pile?

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Stu
Perfections in nature outweigh deformities.
Deformities do not survive long in nature, only mankind has made it possible for deformed beings to survive.

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dolby:
Death and decay are a neccessary part of life. I would hope that not everyone or everything would live for eternity. Or that organic matter would just sit there forever, piling up miles high. Are you saying that Satan created my compost pile? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Death and decay are a necessary part of the present ecology, but there is another world order coming when there will be no more predation among higher animals, nor would there be parasitism, death, disease or sin. Death would occur at the cellular level, but would be in stasis with meiosis and thus not occur at the organismal level (among vertebrates at least). Living for eternity would not become a burden in the absence of sin, aging and disease.

Although Satan may have initiated the entrance of organismal death into our world, God is still very much in the business of nurturing life, and that includes reusing the bodies of creatures that have died. My backyard compost heap is meatless and does just fine with leaves, grass clippings and vegetable scraps. Fungi, worms and invertebrates convert it into rich black soil in less than a year.

Our parents ate from the wrong tree. They would still be nude and enjoying life in paradise if they had made a different decision.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
there is another world order coming when there will be no more predation among higher animals, nor would there be parasitism, death, disease or sin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Trail, will there still be human procreation in this new order? If yes, what might the population growth rate be, and how will it be sustained?

Dolby

"Death and decay are a neccessary part of life."

Why? Why didn't God differentiate humankind from other animals by making us immortal? That's if there really is any such entity as God. I certainly don't believe there is any such entity as Satan!!!

R.M.GREENMAN2

"Perfections in nature outweigh deformities."

Have you ever met a perfect human being? Physically or in character? I haven't.

"Deformities do not survive long in nature, only mankind has made it possible for deformed beings to survive."

I'm afraid that I agree with Darwin here. It is the deformities that lead to diversity and, ultimately, new and successful species arising. A few million years ago in Africa only the deer with the longest necks could reach the leaves at the top of the trees. In times of paucity of food those long-necked deer survived when others starved. Today we call those deer giraffs.

Trailscout

"Our parents ate from the wrong tree. They would still be nude and enjoying life in paradise if they had made a different decision."

Wow! Do you REALLY believe that stuff is literally true? I'm astonished! You'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of a fundamentalist sect in the UK who believed it. I'm certain that most clergy here no longer think that this story actually happened.

Stu

[Fresh Air]

The key word, which has been used alot in this discussion, is "belief". Some believe in pure creation and others in a purely non-divinity concept (which is often incorrectly labeled 'evolution'), then there are the rest of us inbetween.

Ultimately, though, belief is a personal choice. It is a desicion made on things not fully known. It is my view that as much as we might be convinced that our own personal beliefs are more correct than the next persons, they really are not. Personal journeys taken to arrive at current conclusions place us in bias perspectives. One must respect another as having gone though an equally studious journey in life and therefore respect and validate differing beliefs than their own.

I just think it's nice that all of our journeys have lead all of us to nudism in one way or another.

Both the domains of science and religion deserve respect. But, when it comes to the unobserveable questions, all the answers will be provided by neither.

In reference to the original question. I do feel that the nude form was orignially designed by God, but has also evolved into what it is today since then. Either way (scientifically or theistically) it is a work of art and something that I feel will be marveled at (inside and out) thoughout time.

Fresh Air

[Dolby]

Stu,

I think it's self evident that without death and decay we would be smothered in organic matter and the world would have been over populated centuries ago. I never said anything about God here, I was responding to a specific statement in a post.

Why didn't God make us immortal? Don't know. Has nothing to do with what I wrote.

If you don't believe in God, that's your business, not mine. I have no problem with others having different belief systems.

As for the reference to Satan, I just used that to further illustrate my point. For the record, I don't believe in Satan. (Hey, I agreed with you!) Nor do I buy into the idea that anything "bad" must have been created by Satan. Suffice to say I find the whole concept very contradictory.

[Bob S.]

"Why didn't God differentiate humankind from other animals by making us immortal? "

According to Genesis, He did. And then Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge at the urging of the serpent. And as I learned, the serpent was not the Devil. As a result of this, Adam and Eve were made mortal and evicted from Eden. The serpent lost its legs and made to crawl on its belly.

"It is the deformities that lead to diversity and, ultimately, new and successful species arising."

Only the deformities that make the animal more suited to their environment. Some deformities are fatal to animals in the wild. A zebra that was born with three legs will not survive into adulthood.

"I'm certain that most clergy here no longer think that this story actually happened."

So your clergy do not believe what they preach?

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
So your clergy do not believe what they preach? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very few clergy in the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches preach the Bible as science. I have yet to meet a Methodist minister who denounced evolution or preached a young Earth (although I know there are a few).

Men and women of faith (and of the cloth) can love, cherish and live by the lessons of the Bible without closing their minds to the rest of the evidence God left in world.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
Men and women of faith (and of the cloth) can love, cherish and live by the lessons of the Bible without closing their minds to the rest of evidence God left in world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now that's the most cogent statement I've seen on this subject in a while. The lessons of the Bible, and the geologic evidence around us all, are both useful and should not be at loggerheads with each other.

Thanks for the thought, Mark. It eloquently expresses my feelings of many years on the subject.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I?m no physicist but the question I?d have to ask is ? if there is a God, why did He have to create such a massive vastness of space, matter and time to accommodate a few intelligent creatures? I mean, what is the point of, say Pluto, or the asteroid belt, or the ice-caps on Europa? And why create a universe and then wait 15 billion years to populate it with intelligent life? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How do you know we're the only ones? The universe is big enough to accomodate any number of intelligent life forms which may not be at all like us. And, given astronomical distances, I'm not surprised we haven't heard from any of them yet (if you don't count angels and discount speculation regarding government cover-ups).

[shãybare]

The universe is definitely large enough and old enough to have had the rise and fall of many intelligent lifeforms at several different points in the universe.

[Trailscout]

Mark,

I don't know of any Creationists who believe the Bible is a science book, but as the inspired word of God, when it describes an event, it is historically and scientifically accurate. Frankly, the Bible does teach some things that would require divine intervention to be accomplished, but if you believe that there is a god and that he has the power to intervene, then it is not too big a leap to allow for the possibility that he has intervened in human affairs. The incarnation of Christ is certainly a drastic intervention. It takes more faith to believe in the Messiah and all that this title implies, than it does to believe that you and I descend from a pair of human beings who were named Adam and Eve. I accept both teachings as reasonable.

The Bible is very much told from a human perspective, so I am not surprized that it ignores previous earth ages that have passed into the fossil record.

I have the utmost respect for young earth creationists, even though I am not one. They have amassed some interesting evidence that points to the possibility of a recent creation.

What many people object to, including many non-Christians, is the notion that mutations, natural selection and time are sufficient forces to create all life as we know it. That notion is preposterous to a large number of well-educated people. My major professor in college is a pantheist, well educated and very liberal, but he always laughed at the the concept of blind evolution creating the world as we know it.
He proposed that nature itself has a consciousness that guides evolution. He described the sum of all life as a "super-organism". I am intrigued by the idea, but from my Christian perspective, I contend that nature's God did the guiding. I also contend that Satan has been working unsuccessfully for billions of years to thwart the Lifegiver's plans, but there have been some brief cataclysmic moments eons ago when the Destroyer seemed to have the upper hand.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
The Bible is very much told from a human perspective, so I am not surprized that it ignores previous earth ages that have passed into the fossil record. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I think the Bible was written in terms directed to the limited level of humankind's understanding at the time of its writing. If people didn't know the earth was round, and was not the center of the universe, plus the myriad other physical truths that we know now, then there was no way they were equipped to understand the technical details of their own origins. Perhaps we still aren't! Thus the simplified story of Genesis, which I take with a wink and a nod exactly as erudite adults do when a small child is told, "The stork brought you to Mommy in the hospital, honey."

Now I'm sure you can tell I'm no scholar, but this is just a speculation of mine, based on simple bunkhouse logic, that I like to throw out for people to ponder.

[shãybare]

Moboy, we think alot alike. Is that scary or what? It is unfortunate, but alot of (too many) organized religions still take much of the bible literally. There will even be some on this forum that will take offense that I didn't capatilize the first letter in bible.

[work at home nudest]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
The Bible is very much told from a human perspective, so I am not surprized that it ignores previous earth ages that have passed into the fossil record. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I think the Bible was written in terms directed to the limited level of humankind's understanding at the time of its writing. If people didn't know the earth was round, and was not the center of the universe, plus the myriad other physical truths that we know now, then there was no way they were equipped to understand the technical details of their own origins. Perhaps we still aren't! Thus the simplified story of Genesis, which I take with a wink and a nod exactly as erudite adults do when a small child is told, "The stork brought you to Mommy in the hospital, honey."

Now I'm sure you can tell I'm no scholar, but this is just a speculation of mine, based on simple bunkhouse logic, that I like to throw out for people to ponder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[work at home nudest]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by work at home nudest:

Sorry about the empty reply - I'm still evolving.

Every Bible I've ever seen begins with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". And then there is a period. And when the second sentence begins, the Earth is already there. No timeframe.

The Bible can be used as a science textbook like your car's owners manual can be used to teach Engineering.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
The Bible is very much told from a human perspective, so I am not surprized that it ignores previous earth ages that have passed into the fossil record. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I think the Bible was written in terms directed to the limited level of humankind's understanding at the time of its writing. If people didn't know the earth was round, and was not the center of the universe, plus the myriad other physical truths that we know now, then there was no way they were equipped to understand the technical details of their own origins. Perhaps we still aren't! Thus the simplified story of Genesis, which I take with a wink and a nod exactly as erudite adults do when a small child is told, "The stork brought you to Mommy in the hospital, honey."

Now I'm sure you can tell I'm no scholar, but this is just a speculation of mine, based on simple bunkhouse logic, that I like to throw out for people to ponder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[namedun]

I beleive that nudity has as much to do with religion as bannanas have to do with religion. Supposedly bannanas were created by some divine being (whichever one you want to name). The thing is, we don't dress bannanas up, it would be silly and wasteful (not unlike dressing ourselves up).
Maybe people feel some sort of divine connection with nudism, but I'm pretty sure even if I had faith in any god, being naked wouldn't would give me the divine vibes.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by namedun:
I beleive that nudity has as much to do with religion as bannanas have to do with religion. Supposedly bannanas were created by some divine being (whichever one you want to name). The thing is, we don't dress bannanas up, it would be silly and wasteful (not unlike dressing ourselves up).
Maybe people feel some sort of divine connection with nudism, but I'm pretty sure even if I had faith in any god, being naked wouldn't would give me the divine vibes.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I respect your beliefs, Namedun, but I would like to say that to us who believe in God, He is not just some "divine being" out there in the universe, but rather a Person actively interested and involved in all of our lives' activities, including our naked times. Belief, to us, is not just intellectual assent; it involves all our thoughts and all our actions.

If you believed that your child (if you have children) was in immediate danger, wouldn't that make your heart pound and kick you into fight-or-flight mode? That's how vital belief in God is to us--vital enough that virtually anything can enhance our sense of connection to the Divine Presence.

(No, I'm not trying to convert anyone; I'm sharing something true to me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

[namedun]

Yes, the mind can do wonderful things.

And no, I hope to never have children.

[BrianM]

Stu,
I will attempt to address your original observations from my point of view...I haven't been on this board for a few days, but I read through the posts, and the subject seemed to change to another discussion of the reality of religion. I will attempt ot answer in a secular fashion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
In some other threads I have been staggered at how many people, when referring to the naked human form, seem to believe that it was designed by 'God'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Naturally, if people believe in a god that created everything, and since we are born without clothes, then they will have that belief. Perhaps your astonishment is that so many people on this board beleive in a god. Since this board is mostly people from the USA, my observation is that most people in the USA seem to beleive in a god, to some degree. No need to discuss why, it has been covered.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

I can say that I don't know anybody among my circle of friends, family and acquaintances who actually believes that. Everybody I know takes it for granted that the human form is a product of evolution, and that the creationist theory is something that was believed by our ancestors before Mr Darwin's theories were understood.

Any observations????

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Many modern thinking religious people accept evolution as a fact, that divine intervention was used to guide the evolution of animals, but that human were created separately, and that the human soul is not a result of evolution. This is supported by many mainstream churches, including the Catholic Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
and another one from the Presbyterian Church
http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm

Now, I see this is as just an observation you made to stir an argument, as you have not made any conclusions which support your beliefs which are relevant on this board (ie public nudity, etc). Did you intend for this question to spawn arguments for and against your known beliefs, or did you simply polling the masses for their religious beliefs

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
There will even be some on this forum that will take offense that I didn't capatilize the first letter in bible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not offended, unless I were you grammar teacher....All novels' titles should be capitalized...ie The Holy Bible. http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/t.html If you are refering to this work, even if you shorten the title to Bible, then you still probably should capitalize it.

However, the term bible is sometimes used as a noun, along with a descriptive adjective, such as computer bible, gardening bible, etc, to mean something that is a superior writing. This generic term can be left uncapitlaized, I guess, unless it was part of an actual title.

[shãybare]

BrianM, point well taken. However, I was referring to my not giving it the same reverence as some. I am not always clear enough even though a lot of people say they can see right through me. Their eyes are better than mine because I've stood in front of mirrors for hours and couldn't see through me.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
BrianM, point well taken. However, I was referring to my not giving it the same reverence as some. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not offended. Why should you give reverence to something you don't believe in?

[TXK NUDE]

Here's a question for this thread...

IF Stu and other evolutionist really believe what they say they believe, then humans are logically the highest form of perfection on this planet, having "evolved" and survived to become the highest form of life here. This should make them and their bodies idealistic and perfect. IF this is true, as I suspect it should be for true evolutionists, then why does Stu and Rocket (in their many incarnations) find the perfect human body so disgusting? By their own beliefs the human is the closest thing to perfection we have on planet Earth, so...what's up with their absolute and verbose disgust and objection to seeing this evolutionary model of perfection as nature (and evolution) intended? I guess this is one of those things that makes you go...Hmmmmmmm.

[Prometheus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
IF Stu and other evolutionist really believe what they say they believe, then humans are logically the highest form of perfection on this planet, having "evolved" and survived to become the highest form of life here. This should make them and their bodies idealistic and perfect... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Evolution doesn't lead to perfect organisms. It leads to organisms that are good enough to survive most of the time. As long as a species, in this case humans, remains viable in its current environment, its evolutionary history reaches a plateau and any remaining minor problems go unfixed. Therefore, we are still susceptible to emotions that can seem quite imperfect at times.

[Prometheus]

Back to the OP:

Stu, You have probably figured out by now that creationism is something that is more common in the USA than it is across the pond. It is one of the central doctrines of some religions (notably several branches of Christianity) that appear to be gaining popularity here. What worries me is the tendency for this belief to be accompanied by a disturbingly negative opinion toward science.

[Trailscout]

I would hope that all Christians will eventually figure out that they were created by the CREATOR. That notion has been around before there were Christians in the world. (last time I checked Moses was a Jew). Dispite the current chatter, belief in the gospel did not originate in America. Christianity came from across the pond, largely thanks to Englishmen such as John Wesley.

Civilization does not always march forward. It seems to have marched in reverse when large numbers of people on both sides of the pond were hoodwinked into believing that life spontaneously arose from nothing with no outside help and that in each subsequent geologic age, organisms suddenly appeared with a new set of highly interdependent modifications. In the lingo of academia, these new organs and/or metabolic functions demonstrate what is called "irreducible complexity", that is they could not have emerged independently of each other. Most reasonable people would conclude that they also could not have emerged without Divine Guidance.

In the case of humans, anatomically modern humans have been found further and further back in the fossil record, bypassing the "missing link" apes that were once claimed as our ancestors. There simply isn't enough time for even fortuitous random mutations to generate a modern human from anything comparable to say, an Australopithecine. For one thing, humans and great apes both have very long waits before they reach reproductive maturity. Five million years of breeding apes has failed to produce anything more than chimps, bonobos, orangutans and gorillas in the mist.

There is a disturbing tendency for specialists in one science or another to make sweeping pronouncements in disciplines far beyond their professional competency.

There are very few true "Renaissance Men" these days. Before the evolution cult hijacked modern science, some of the most brilliant minds of the 17th and 18th centuries were quite comfortable with harmonizing their faith in God the Creator with their scientific studies of the natural world.

[Bob S.]

"Supposedly bannanas were created by some divine being (whichever one you want to name). The thing is, we don't dress bannanas up, it would be silly and wasteful (not unlike dressing ourselves up)."

No, namedun, but bananas should reflect what naturists and nudists have known all along. That the best part of us is underneath the wrapping. And Jochanaan, don't get too upset with what he mentioned as "some divine being." When I read that, it sounded like he was just covering all the bases of all religions and not being disrespectful of any one of them.

"Evolution doesn't lead to perfect organisms. It leads to organisms that are good enough to survive most of the time."

Great wording Prometheus.

"As long as a species, in this case humans, remains viable in its current environment, its evolutionary history reaches a plateau and any remaining minor problems go unfixed."

Kind of like Kevin Costner's Mariner from "Waterworld." He developed gills after most of the world was covered in water. And we do have some minor evolutionary steps that we take. A long time ago, a part of our lineage lost some of their melanin (skin coloring). I read somewhere a while ago that baldness may be more common as our brain grows. It could push the hair follicles out of existence to make room.

"In the case of humans, anatomically modern humans have been found further and further back in the fossil record, bypassing the "missing link" apes that were once claimed as our ancestors."

That just goes to show that scientists can be wrong in the timetables. It doesn't prove that their ultimate theories are incorrect.

"There simply isn't enough time for even fortuitous random mutations to generate a modern human from anything comparable to say, an Australopithecine...Five million years of breeding apes has failed to produce anything more than chimps, bonobos, orangutans and gorillas in the mist."

There seems to be enough time for that. And the environment was different back then. That may be the one thing that is not quite known, how evolution really takes place.

"There is a disturbing tendency for specialists in one science or another to make sweeping pronouncements in disciplines far beyond their professional competency."

That is so true. And that goes for specialists in one religion or another.

Bob S.

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
Here's a question for this thread...

IF Stu and other evolutionist really believe what they say they believe, then humans are logically the highest form of perfection on this planet.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay, not having read the entire thread nor being Christian, maybe I should stay out of this, but...

What in the world gave you that idea? I don't know anyone who believes that humans are perfect. It's certainly not a part of evolutionary theory.

[namedun]

A common mis-conception, that is sometimes used in arguements, is the idea that we have evolved to be perfect.
1. We are still evolving
2. We will always be evolving
3. Evolution to a point of perfection is contrary to the theory of evolution; there is no perfection in evolution just adaptation and a general mixing of genes.
4. Believing that because we "are the most intelligant/sentiant" life-forms on this planet, or that because we have the power to destroy Earth for our own desires, doesn't make us any "better" than any other animal.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[shãybare]

I don't believe that idea about bigger brains and baldness. However, I will definitely use that line with the ladies! hehe

[Nude in the North]

I don't believe the Hair / Brain thing either.
My brain was just as big when I had hair as it is now. It's just a little fuller now.

I do think we will evolve to have even less hair in the future. But don't expect any big changes for another million years or so.

I don't believe the phrase "in God's image" has anything to do with the human form. I believe it refers to our ability to reason and imagine. The mysteries of the universe are there to give us something to think about.

Imagine what life would be like if we had nothing to ponder.

Steve

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vin:

I don't know anyone who believes that humans are perfect. [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My second wife was. She must have been since she criticized everything I said and did. I've known a few people who acted as though they believed they were perfect. It really irritates those of us who are. Just kiddin' folks.

[Jochanaan]

Not all creationists are anti-science. Some have used the scientific method to question certain currently held assumptions.

One example, reported by the Institute for Creation Research, is a project to drill deeper into the earth than anyone had ever done before, some five miles or more. At the bottom of the hole was--salt water! Considerably saltier than that of today's oceans. This lends credence to the statement in Genesis 7 that "all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up" (vs. 11), possibly resulting in the Mid-Oceanic Ridge that runs through the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans.

There are still some serious questions to be asked, such as that of very distant astronomical objects suggesting that the universe, if not our world, is much older than the six thousand or so years of Biblical history. But what I have read opens my mind to the possibility that the Genesis account may be more literally true than many, including I, had previously thought. After all, scientific theories sometimes change.

And no, before anyone asks, I am not a strict literalist regarding the Bible. Many passages are obviously metaphors and other figures of speech. There's no reason to believe that Jesus' stories, for example, aren't fiction. But if scientific research verifies portions of the Biblical account, who am I to argue?

[BrianM]

Just a few comments:
Real evolutionists know that evolution is a theory, but many people think of our evolutionary creation as a fact. Again it is a theory, with some pretty good scientific support. All the possibilities, however, may never be known to man and may not be so obvious.
But the real issue here IMHO, is that while all the facts of evolution or creation may never be known, that does not mean that either the existance of a God, an Alien, Jesus or Allah is a fact either. In fact, there is actually little to no known scientific evidence to support the supernatural theories, but there is scientific evidence to support other ideas, be it evolution, dna seeding, etc.
And the Young Earth Science is just plain Bunk...its like trying to prove the thoery that Large rabbbits talk, based on the observation that they do in Alice and Wonderland

[Jochanaan]

Have you checked out the creationist materials? If so, you have a right to say they're bunk, but if not, I would encourage you to do so before you make comments on them. I used to think they were bunk, too, until I read some of their books and web sites--and I have a moderately good scientific background; my father was a physicist.

Like nudism, creationism really can't be judged by anyone who hasn't checked it out thoroughly.

[Nude in the North]

" On the first day "
I have never believed that the "Day" it took to create the Heavens and the Earth were only 24 hours long.
A day to God could be a Billion years to us for all we know.

How can we know all the answers, when we havn't even thought of all the questions yet.

Steve

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
Have you checked out the creationist materials? If so, you have a right to say they're bunk, but if not, I would encourage you to do so before you make comments on them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have read abstracts of several of the Young Earth "science" theories. I know there are ideas about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, carbon dating, fossilization after volcanic flow, global flooding just to name a few. Problem is, all the twisted theories do not stand the test of scientific reason, and are deemed pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community as well as mainstream Christian organizations. Its just a fact that the earth is older than 6000 years. Its kind of like beleiving OJ was truly innocent (or the Earth is 6000 years old), just because the defense was able to cast a shawdow of doubt (the YEC's twisting scientific discovery to suit their timeline).
This excerpt is directly from the Presbyterian Churches (Presbyterian is a moderate thinking organization for those not familiar, not fundamentalist nor free thinking) website.
"It may be that the Westminster Divines understood the "six days" as well as such phrases as "of the dust of the ground" and "the rib of man" in a literal sense; but, as they were merely using the words of Scripture with no intention to argue the theory of evolution (of which they had never heard), we are free to interpret their words in a different sense, just as we now do the words of Scripture. Nowhere is the process by which God made, created or formed man set out in scientific terms. A description of this process in its physical aspects is a matter of natural science. The Bible is not a book of science. As John Calvin said, commenting on Genesis: "To my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." (Genesis Commentary ? on Chap. 1, verse 6). "

Heres the link to the page to read the entire position:
http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm

Now, if mainstream Churches do not beleive the bunk, then who should?

[BrianM]

Another interesting view of nudity and sexuality can be found right on the same Presbyterian website that I mentioned above. Again, while I have questions about the existance and intent of a God, the Presbyterians tend to be somewhat open for discussion on issues, and welcome questions, etc.

"One hint of this divine desire lies in Genesis 2:25, in which the man and woman are described as "not ashamed." Modern Christians tend to connect this section of the verse with what immediately precedes it?the fact that the man and woman were naked?but in their innocence and purity, not ashamed. In fact, the concept of shame runs throughout the Old Testament as a measure of broken covenants. In the Genesis account, the lack of shame means far more than an ease with nudity or sexuality; it is a state of being that comes from unbroken, right relationships with God and one another. Other scripture passages, especially from the prophets in the Old Testament and the gospels and epistles in the New Testament, make it very clear that such wholeness is what God has always intended for humanity at every level of society. God intended life to be whole. "

http://www.pcusa.org/pwgathering/theme/catron1.htm

IMO, as far as Christian organizations go, the Prebyterians seem to be pretty level headed, with a positive purpose and outlook for man and nature, not a fire and brimstone perspective.

[Jochanaan]

It may be that the Earth is four and a half billion years or so old, or it may be that it is six thousand or so, or some other age. Who can really tell for sure? None of us were alive at its beginning. And my faith in God is not based on such questions, but on my experiences with Him.

[Baron Lake]

Jochanan,
If the earth is only 6,000 years old then god has a lousy sense of humor. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Humanity counts on reason for its survival. If this is all a cosmic joke it's a sick one. (I like hw's and your jokes a lot better.) /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif BTW, why do works of religious art show Adam and Eve with bellybuttons?

[OZJames]

Baron Lake you should have ended your question with "touche" or would that be agressive ?

God is within everyone if they believe he/she is. That belief helps the believers and possibly helps them help others. I am sure that Jochanaan and many other religious people enjoy a better life as a result of their belief. It is good that we can debate religion in a totally voluntary forum like this where we can butt in or butt out as we like. We all learn from debate.

I only wish some religious fanatics, like Al Quaeda would not try and impose their religion/beliefs/way of life on the rest of the world by terrorism. I see that detracting from the the benefits to life that religion may give. It creates religious hatred which seems to grow on itself.

Its about time many intolerant people recognised that everyone is different and that everyone is entitled to live their life and believe in whatever they like and leave other people to do the same - as long as no laws are broken.

JAMES

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
It may be that the Earth is four and a half billion years or so old, or it may be that it is six thousand or so, or some other age. Who can really tell for sure? None of us were alive at its beginning. And my faith in God is not based on such questions, but on my experiences with Him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What else does one have to say???? Mr. John Calvin, the leader of the "every thing is gods plan" idealism, says that the Bible IS NOT the correct book to learn astronomy, etc.
pasted from previous post:
[As John Calvin said, commenting on Genesis: "To my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." (Genesis Commentary ? on Chap. 1, verse 6). "]

[Bob2]

In looking at things from a somewhat different perspective, we know that many of the elements that make up the earth are over 2+ billion years old. This is a given fact, no matter where you stand on the scriptural issue. Albert Einstein, more or less, is credited with acknowledging the "big bang theory," whereby the elements now drifting through space originated from a central point. An explosion at this central source occured in some past eon which started the journey of these elements now traveling through space.

Whether you believe the scriptural account, or prefer to believe that it was more or less the "luck of the draw," these same elements found in space are also found on Earth.

When the Earth was created, formed, or whatever; was it done from "nothing" or was it created from these same elements now found in space? The date of the Earth's creation had to occur sometime after the "big bang." The elements that make up the Earth would thus be older than the Earth itself.

The scriptures state that a thousand years is like one day to the Lord. The measurement of time to the ancients who wrote the scriptures is different than how we measure time today. Whether the Earth was created in six days, six thousand years, or six million years; it is a given fact that it was created and that we are now living upon it.

A set of scriptures state: "this my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Is it really that essential in the broad scheme of things to know the exact date the earth was formed? If so, by knowing this date what will it do for us?

[Nude in the North]

The Bible was written so people of that era could understand it. People that thought the earth was flat. People that thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

God could have filled it with dates and technical data, explaining everything , and answering every question that mankind could think to ask. But arn't you glad he didn't?

What fun would life be if you knew Everything. If there were no questions to seek answers for.
If there were no mysteries to solve.
If you already knew the meaning of life.

God knows the answer.

Maybe that's why he created us without that knowledge.

Steve

[Trailscout]

Bob2,

I acknowledge God as creator. That does not obligate me to set a date for that creation. It does not obligate me to believe that everything we now see was directly created out of nothing with no intermediate steps.

Believing that we got here by the "luck of the draw" is not an option for Christians and Jews, maybe not an option for some other religions as well.

The Bible focuses on the past 6000 years of human history. Whenever anyone writes a book, part of the task is to decide what not to write, what not to include in the story. The details are provided if and only if they are useful in fulfilling the goals of the author. God is a general contractor who delegated the task of biblical authorship to a handful of men, under his supervision. God chose to provide only a bare summary of the natural history of the earth. It is accurate, but too brief for us to presume too much other than providing us the knowledge that God is the creator of all things.

I am glad that God decided that it was important to say that he created us nude and it was good and our wardrobe was complete. He didn't have much to say about a lot of things, so what he did say is all the more important.

[Baron Lake]

OZJames,
No aggression intended. Certainly not toward Jochanaan who is a Gentleman and Scholar. As to your comment about intolerance: "Religion" seems to be the primary force in the imposition of laws promoting and protecting intolerance. Well there is Stu.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nude-in-the north,
Lets see if I have this straight. God has hidden the truth from us from the beginning so that we may "enjoy" the quest for knowledge(?) having proceeded to condem humanity for seeking that knowledge, kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden for disobediance (before they had acquired the knowledge of right and wrong). Were A & E "set up"? Or, maybe god just didn"t know what would happen. No that couldn't be (the Omnipotent/Omniscient thing). I agree life would indeed be pretty boring if we already knew all the "answers". How bored do you think God is?

[Nude in the North]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Lake:


Nude-in-the north,
Lets see if I have this straight. God has hidden the truth from us from the beginning so that we may "enjoy" the quest for knowledge(?) having proceeded to condem humanity for seeking that knowledge, kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden for disobediance (before they had acquired the knowledge of right and wrong). Were A & E "set up"? Or, maybe god just didn"t know what would happen. No that couldn't be (the Omnipotent/Omniscient thing). I agree life would indeed be pretty boring if we already knew all the "answers". How bored do you think God is? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well ... It's not a perfect theory.

Steve

[MikeJB]

In some other threads I have been staggered at how many people, when referring to the naked human form, seem to believe that it was designed by 'God'.
------------------------------------------------
Thats because youre an ATHEIST! They dont beleive in god or any religion for that matter, they seem to go the evoulution route. I mean there isnt anything wrong with that and even though I generally beleive more in the god created idea but I kinda question it sometimes and people like you, even though your ideas are a bit eccentric at times, are sometimes a good alternerative to all the excessive "god" stuff I hear from my dad. Until I actually got out of his little shell I actually beleived in god without a doubt and question because thats kinda what I felt I should do and now I think its good to see things from different points of view and not just go with the flow like my family does, as far as religion goes it seems they go along with mostly what the radio guy says *hes a christian* and what the pastor says *I dont even go to church anymore, my dad does* and im just trying to think outside the box. I think whichever way you think about the human body being created, it isnt bad or wrong so I dont see any reason why people cant live happily naked, I mean it just doesnt make any sense to me why anyone would be shocked or repulsed by seeing it and I think alot of these religous fanatics that go and run under rocks at the sight of nudity are nuts. Even though I was brought up as a textile chrisitian and beleived most of that bs my dad fed me, I never really beleived in the whole nudity thing, some things just didnt fit and there were lots of loopholes and inconsistencies, all of which my dad thinks hes an expert on and can explain magically about all of them to clear my mind, hah!, some help he was! Thats kind of why im here. Ive always liked being without a shirt and lately ive gotten into the whole being nude thing, although ive liked it for a long time, ive never really seriously tried it till lately but ive considered it for a long time and this site and others have given me the reason to really try it. So honestly Stu even though youre an Atheiest and probably will never really accept nudity, I do accept your beleifs, but I just think that the human body is something that should be nude, as nature or god intented.