Topless Danes

[Angel4Truth]

yes you can have the last word. See you guys later !

 

[Tissue]

You remind me of my sister when she was nine. She used to do the same thing.

Though, I guess it is wisdom, insofar as it mimics your aged actions.

 

[Archivist]

Tissue there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom does come with age even if that is a foreign concept to you. Whether or not you like it also - you wont understand that concept untill you get older.

Wisdom comes with age??????

Maybe yopu need to learn your history.

Mozart published is fisrt opera at 14. Eward Rutledge signed the Declaration of Independence at the ripe old age of 26. Jonathan Dayton was also 26 when he signed the Constitution. And Albert Einstein had his most productive year in 1905 when he was--you guessed it--26.

Now can we PLEASE get back to the OP??????

 

[Nadiine]

Wisdom comes with age??????

Maybe yopu need to learn your history.

Mozart published is fisrt opera at 14. Eward Rutledge signed the Declaration of Independence at the ripe old age of 26. Jonathan Dayton was also 26 when he signed the Constitution. And Albert Einstein had his most productive year in 1905 when he was--you guessed it--26.

Now can we PLEASE get back to the OP??????

Um, wisdom is not TALENT or even knowledge or ability - or gifting by God or calling by God...

but yes, onto topic would be best

 

[Chajara]

Two things: Why is it that when I'm desensitized to nudity it's because I'm an unrepentant sinner or whatever was said, but a male gynecologist is desensitized to it it's a gift from God? That doesn't make sense. And it doesn't matter anyway, because the entire point is: If you are desensitized, you do not think lust upon seeing someone naked simply because they are naked.

On this silly age/wisdom debate: Didn't Jesus start preaching at the tender age of twelve? You know, when his parents accidentally left him behind and had to go back and get him and found him sitting and preaching to a bunch of adults who marveled at his wisdom? I can find a verse if no one knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Archivist]

I'm not PURITANICAL, I cover up my boobs and genitals like a normal person.

So women who go topless are not normal. Millions of women in Africa and South America are not normal. The women who sunbath topless in Europe are not normal.

Don't call me puritanical as an insult when you haven't even seen me.

But it is acceptable for you to insult those women who go topless by saying that they are not normal.

I'm calling for NORMAL CLOTHES - ie. just wear clothes & don't go 1/2 naked.

But you think that it is completely acceptable for men to go topless.

I just love how all of a sudden if we don't think women going 1/2 naked is Godly, we're automatically "puritanical" or prudish.

That's better than saying that those who go topless are not normal.

Again, same crap is done with anyone anti-gay... just say you're against homosexuality becuz it's sin and youre instantly a homophobe.

But that isn't waht we are discussing in this thread.

Maybe we should make negative terms for people who have trouble with conservative morality & slap them on people around here.

You've already done that. You say that they are not "normal."

Sorry that label isn't going to fly and its absurd extremism for this drastic topic of partial nudity

Something that is common practice in much of the world is "drastic?"

 

[catlover]

Two things: Why is it that when I'm desensitized to nudity it's because I'm an unrepentant sinner or whatever was said, but a male gynecologist is desensitized to it it's a gift from God? That doesn't make sense. And it doesn't matter anyway, because the entire point is: If you are desensitized, you do not think lust upon seeing someone naked simply because they are naked.

On this silly age/wisdom debate: Didn't Jesus start preaching at the tender age of twelve? You know, when his parents accidentally left him behind and had to go back and get him and found him sitting and preaching to a bunch of adults who marveled at his wisdom? I can find a verse if no one knows what I'm talking about.

Because fundamentalists want culture on their terms which they believe are "of God" but it's really of Puritanical culture...

 

[Nadiine]

So women who go topless are not normal. Millions of women in Africa and South America are not normal. The women who sunbath topless in Europe are not normal.

NORMAL = I am normal, I am NOT puritanical. I wear normal clothes, not puritanical clothes. You read into that one.

But it is acceptable for you to insult those women who go topless by saying that they are not normal.

No, you read into my statement - I was defending myself that I was normal, not puritanical - not that I was normal becuz I wasn't topless.

But you think that it is completely acceptable for men to go topless.

sorry, I find this LAME. I cant' believe adults are even using such silly, non issues to make a supportive argument for female toplessness.

That's better than saying that those who go topless are not normal.

still beating the dead horse?

You've already done that. You say that they are not "normal."

Something that is common practice in much of the world is "drastic?"

paganism is common too - I find it drastic to worship false gods....
partial nudity is drastic when God covered up Adam and Eve after the fall. We were meant to be covered by God's own implimentation, not our own.

I also reject that ALL women agree with it or go topless even in European countries.

I'd venture to say it's liberal - non believers who are more engaged in toplessness, not serious Christian women. By serious I mean dedicated spiritually to the Lord in regular church attendance of some kind and serving Him somehow. (more could be added for a better description)

 

[Nadiine]

Because fundamentalists want culture on their terms which they believe are "of God" but it's really of Puritanical culture...

and liberals don't on their lack of moral modesty?
Your argument works both ways catlover - I don't want what you want for my culture either.

Further, the more our culture swings into liberalism, the worse the youth are getting if anybody hadn't noticed lately. It's moving towards liberalism, and I sure don't see things getting better... just the opposite

 

[Tissue]

This is literally an impossible debate. So far, no one on the "fundamentalist" side of things is willing to explicitly address the OP. The conservative side has not shown that they can grapple with the facts of societal influence.

I'm calling it quits, personally. I've outlined the necessary points; if they will not be addressed (or refuted), then we are all at an impasse.

 

[Nadiine]

This is literally an impossible debate. So far, no one on the "fundamentalist" side of things is willing to explicitly address the OP.

I'm calling it quits, personally.

How can you even say this? Have you skipped the entire thread?
I can't copy the OP becuz it's flagged as reported, so anyone can reread it

I don't see how this wasn't addressed as an issue with numerous reasons given

 

[Tissue]

The issue is equality with men. You and others are taking Scripture out of context to show that the breasts should be covered. If this is the case, then cover up men as well. Then things are equal.

 

[Nadiine]

The issue is equality with men. You and others are taking Scripture out of context to show that the breasts should be covered. If this is the case, then cover up men as well. Then things are equal.

ok I addressed that too, by saying it's a lame support for topless females all around.

Last I checked, equality didn't mean identical standards or capabilities for both sexes - unless you want men to also go into women's bathrooms & vice versa.

We are equal as people, not in identical in anatomy and standards or abilities where that's concerned.
It's no more unequal than putting a woman in a heavy lifting job that men are more suited for anatomically.

But the biblical approach answers the OP directly. Men being able to be shirtless in public and women not being able to isn't an equality issue, it's a decency issue, the anatomy is different and predominantly viewed by males as an object of sexuality.

 

[Tissue]

ok I addressed that too, by saying it's a lame support for topless females all around.

Right. Calling something lame is clearly a cutting and vibrant commentary.

You assume this is all obvious; and to you, it might be. We don't accept your interpretation of Scripture, however. The sooner you learn that there are smart people out there who have different understandings of Scripture, the better you'll be in debates such as this.

Last I checked, equality didn't mean identical standards or capabilities for both sexes - unless you want men to also go into women's bathrooms & vice versa.

It does mean identical standards and capabilities. There is a men's bathroom, there is a women's bathroom. This is equal.

We are equal as people, not in identical in anatomy and standards or abilities where that's concerned.

We could be. There are women stronger than I; why should I be allowed to choose to fight on the frontlines, and not them?

It's no more unequal than putting a woman in a heavy lifting job that men are more suited for anatomically.

As a gender. But not on an individual basis. If you're too dainty for construction, that's fine. But if there's a woman that wants to do construction and is completely capable, she should be allowed to.

But the biblical approach answers the OP directly. Men being able to be shirtless in public and women not being able to isn't an equality issue, it's a decency issue, the anatomy is different and predominantly viewed by males as an object of sexuality.

Your Biblical approach. Not THE Biblical approach. Again, fair reminder, you aren't God.

 

[Nadiine]

Right. Calling something lame is clearly a cutting and vibrant commentary.

Yes I think it is, men's chests are not 'sex objects' where women get sexually aroused on - if you hadn't noticed, the amount of male porno mags is way out of balance to the amount of female porno mags made and sold.
Women are not visually stimulated the same way men are, so no, their chests are not something women find sexual that should be hidden under clothing becuz it causes them to lust.
For the few who do, then they should stay away from what tempts them.

You assume this is all obvious; and to you, it might be. We don't accept your interpretation of Scripture, however. The sooner you learn that there are smart people out there who have different understandings of Scripture, the better you'll be in debates such as this.

It's not my interpretation of scripture, it's blatant and clear - it's not as if I've done some fancy CREATING of meaning - it was a generalized statement to all Christian women to dress modestly in moderation with propriety as is fitting as a Christian.
How is that now some 'private interpretation"?

Same problem with the gay condemnation and fornication - people just don't read it that way either (conveniently), my answer is that many WON"T read and accept what it means becuz they are either in rebellion, refuse proper teaching of scripture by appointed teachers God provides, or cannot discern the spiritual truths in it for specific reasons (usually self interest to personal preferences)

It does mean identical standards and capabilities. There is a men's bathroom, there is a women's bathroom. This is equal.

if they were equal, they wouldn't NEED SEPARATE BATHROOMS AT ALL, would they? why? Just equally put us all in together.
It's rather separatist isn't it? & why do men have stalls & women don't??? hmmmmmm
why don't men's bathrooms have those baby changer tables installed in them?
This is how silly the equality issue gets when you really want to get to identical standards

We could be. There are women stronger than I; why should I be allowed to choose to fight on the frontlines, and not them?

Missed the point once again - this is silly to continue

As a gender. But not on an individual basis. If you're too dainty for construction, that's fine. But if there's a woman that wants to do construction and is completely capable, she should be allowed to.

well, MANY WOMEN ARE too dainty for construction, WHAT ABOUT THEM IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO?

Again, this is why it's silly to even go into this. People will argue the obvious and I call this simple rebellion of facts staring them in the face.

Your Biblical approach. Not THE Biblical approach. Again, fair reminder, you aren't God.

again, anyone can say "the crucifixion is your literal biblical approach, I consider it all allegorical"... off the hook.

This is the typical liberalist answer for everything found in the bible used in debate - including the most obvious.
It's the same line we saw in Genesis, "has God said?"

"well I don't interpret it that way".

The minute you dislike something, you run to interpretation excuses "your interpretation"... those of the same spirit share the same moral interpretations of the same bible.
As if that gives your view all the credibility you need.

There's a great divide going on - there's a reason for it. But this thread isn't the place for that discussion. The verse IS obvious, but it won't be accepted as such because people want to live the way they decide, not the way God commands.

If you can't tell the world from a Christian, then there should be some question going on as to who's who.

 

[Nadiine]

here's an article specifying exactly what I was leading to in my previous posts regarding anatomical differences of the sexes & why it's not the same:

"What is the difference between a man going bare chested in public versus a woman going bare chested in public?" Is there a difference? First, let me state that there is a difference in the chemical make up of the male gender of the species and the female gender of the species.

God made us different. Males have a different physical build than females. Males have different sexual organs than females. Males have a different hormonal content than females have and thereby a different chemical balance. Males have different emotional makeup than do females. Males and females ARE different.

Now the question we need to ask is this, "Do any of these differences affect the ability of either of the genders to dress modestly?" And the answer is "Yes!" While both the chemicals testosterone and estrogen are in both genders, there is a different distribution in the gender.
In the male gender there is more testosterone than there is estrogen. In the female gender there is more estrogen than testosterone. One of the purposes of testosterone is to sexually motivate the genders. Since there is more of it in the male gender, males are more sexually motivated.

Additionally, according to medical professionals, there is also a direct relationship between the visual cortex in the brain of the male and the production of testosterone. While testosterone causes one to be sexually stimulated, visual sexual stimulus increases the production of testosterone especially in the male gender where a higher amount is already present.
This increases sexual stimulation and desire. Removing the visual stimulus will thus decrease the amount of testosterone produced and decrease the sexual desire. This is why we find specific issues of modesty addressed to women in the New Testament such as in 1 Timothy 2.


Now, in case you haven't noticed, there is a difference between the bare chest of a male and the bare chest of a female. Female breasts contain mammary glands whereas males do not. The Bible recognizes that the female breast can be a sexual stimulant. In Proverbs 5:19 we read instructions from a father to his son regarding the sexual relationship he should have with his wife. The Father instructs, "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."
The Bible here indicates that female breasts are at least in part for the sexual satisfaction of the male. And we also know that men do receive visual sexual stimulation from looking at the female breast. It is incumbent upon the Christian woman, therefore, to ensure that her breasts are properly covered so that this will not produce a stumbling block for Christian men.

Now in regard to the chest of a male, there can be sexual stimulation derived from that as well from the female, but it is not as strong and does not produce the kind of chemical response within the body of the female as it does in the male. Moreover the consistency of the response in the female is considerably different. Men respond consistently to bare breasted females.

However, women respond inconsistently to bare breasted men. But since there is a chance that a bare male breast would sexually stimulate a female, then the male should ensure that he cover his breast appropriately as well.

So there is a difference between a bare breasted male and a bare breasted female. However, so far as the Christian is concerned, if it provides occasion for anyone to stumble, the Christian male should not go bare breasted.

Now I would like to conclude with a few more words on modesty. Dressing modestly primarily reflects one's attitude toward one's self.
"Will I dress in such a way so as to bring glory to God, or will I dress in a way that will be pleasant to me?" This is the ultimate question that we must ask in regard to our dress. I would hope that each of us as Christians would be willing to sacrifice our own personal desires and comfort in our personal dress in order to bring glory to God.
There is always someone, however, who asks, "How will I know that I am dressed modestly?" I would like to suggest two avenues of thought for you. First, if you are a female, ask one of the older Christian ladies in the congregation. The Bible says that the elder are supposed to teach the younger and part of that instruction is how to be chaste ( Titus 2:5).

Second, there is the principle of no doubt. If you are unsure about your clothing, then don't wear it. Wear something that you KNOW would be suitable. Don't give yourself or anyone else reason to doubt that you are dressing in a modest manner and things will go well for you.

 

[Nadiine]

we also don't base laws and morality on equality solely either. As an argument, men being able to go topless & women not being able to, is NOT an automatic plausible reason for acceptance of it.

Not when anatomy is not the same.

Scripture trumps concepts as well when they are taught. God places the male over the female in an authoratative (spiritual authority) position over the wife -
that doesn't remove their equality, it's simple order. Just like the parents are the authority over their kids - the kids aren't any less equal than the parents as human beings just because they are in authority.

 

[Tissue]

Yes I think it is, men's chests are not 'sex objects' where women get sexually aroused on - if you hadn't noticed, the amount of male porno mags is way out of balance to the amount of female porno mags made and sold.
Women are not visually stimulated the same way men are, so no, their chests are not something women find sexual that should be hidden under clothing becuz it causes them to lust.
For the few who do, then they should stay away from what tempts them.

You have had this explained to you countless times by a number of others. You have not answered their assertion, and I have no doubt that you'll ignore me when I raise it against you as well. Nonetheless, in the hopes that we can actually move forward, and you will actually engage in seriousness, I'll reiterate it.

Breasts are seen differently because we've told people that they are different for so long. If it was customary for a man's chest to be covered at all times, women would have a similar approach. It's all got to do with what culture says.

This is psychological fact; this isn't just some pet idea we're throwing out. Go and do the research. If you choose to ignore it, then you simply cannot be reasoned with.

It's not my interpretation of scripture, it's blatant and clear - it's not as if I've done some fancy CREATING of meaning - it was a generalized statement to all Christian women to dress modestly in moderation with propriety as is fitting as a Christian.
How is that now some 'private interpretation"?

Yet, that's exactly what you've done. Go read some postmodern thought.

if they were equal, they wouldn't NEED SEPARATE BATHROOMS AT ALL, would they? why? Just equally put us all in together.
It's rather separatist isn't it? & why do men have stalls & women don't??? hmmmmmm
why don't men's bathrooms have those baby changer tables installed in them?
This is how silly the equality issue gets when you really want to get to identical standards

This is too absurd to even address.

If you want to give two children an equal portion of cake, you don't give them the cake and let them figure it out. You portion it out so that each has their own, proper piece, equal, yet separate. That's exactly what is being debated here.

Missed the point once again - this is silly to continue

No, I'm illuminating the actual issue. You're simplifying it.

I used to agree with you, when I was about eleven or twelve. Then I realized the actual depth of the issue. It's not as if we'd be FORCING women to fight on the frontlines. We'd simply be giving them that opportunity, if they chose to take it.

well, MANY WOMEN ARE too dainty for construction, WHAT ABOUT THEM IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO?

That's God's fault. Not society's.

There's a great divide going on - there's a reason for it. But this thread isn't the place for that discussion. The verse IS obvious, but it won't be accepted as such because people want to live the way they decide, not the way God commands.

And here we have the great problem with the church today; the very problem that is driving away millions of young adults of my generation, the very attitude that would prompt a Gandhian stance of: "I love your Jesus, but I hate your Christians".

You seem to have this intense desire to be God; or, that is, to know everything. You cannot. You aren't God. God is the only one who can know everything, and thus, be absolutely certain.

You didn't write the Bible.

You believe that your interpretation is correct for two main reasons:

1) It seems correct to you; that is, you have some sort of an emotional feeling that suggests truth in this matter. This emotional feeling may or may not be from the Spirit. At any rate, there are those who hold the contradiction of your position, who also "feel" as though it is right. Since you cannot both be right, this cannot be a proper criteria (even though both would argue that they have the illumination of the Spirit).

2) The majority of Christians agree with you. But then, the majority has never been a yardstick by which truth is found. This clearly cannot be the proper criterion.

And so what else do you have? Nada. You have no objective appeal to a true interpretation of Scripture. All you can do is the best you can, and present it as such. Presenting your intepretation as THE interpretation is arrogating the quality of omniscience to yourself, and it's quite fair to say that that is blasphemy.

I really have no doubt you'll shrug off this entire argument, without bothering to actually dissect it. It's a constant trend with you. An argument is presented, and ignored. Presented, and ignored. Your propositions are rebutted/refuted, and you make no further defense of them, simply assuming they are true.

But, again, there's always that faint and distant hope.

 

[Nadiine]

I did adress all this Tissue, I just don't address it 200 times like you keep demanding I do.

I said, BREAST ATTRACTION IS NOT LEARNED - unless you also have to LEARN not to be attracted/aroused by female genitalia.
If you see that all day long do you stop being aroused? NO. it's a natural sexual arousal to certain sexual organs.
It is NOT a learned or unlearned behaviour if you just "see it enough".
Otherwise, porn would be fresh out of business wouldn't it??

This is now having to turn to anatomy/sex ed 101 and I'm not going there.
This is ridiculous actually.

go read a grade school sex ed booklet, it's all in there for you as to what biologically happens as we hit puberty.

 

[Tissue]

I said, BREAST ATTRACTION IS NOT LEARNED - unless you also have to LEARN not to be attracted/aroused by female genitalia.

Of course it isn't. The stigma attached to it, however, is. Again, this is undeniable fact.

We never suggested that the breasts aren't seen as a sexual stimulus. But so are the pectorals in a male.