Thursday, October 11, 2007

Disneyland

Sherry said...
Hey!! P-mamma!!Were you at downtown Disney today (in Anaheim)?????????????? I could've sworn I saw the possums. I think I collected their money at the World of Disney store. Was it Possum1 and Possum2????? If it wasn't them then they have doppelgangers. Was it your family? Is that what the surprise was?-Sherry
5:17 PM


Um. This is SOOOOO bizarre! Yes, Sherry! We were in Downtown Disney this afternoon. :) How funny is that?

And, I need to send a shout out to Allan and Brad! It was great meeting someone who reads the blog in an unexpected place. --- So, there I was standing outside the Adventure Land restrooms with the boys when I was approached by Allan and Brad who said, "This may sound weird, but...does the term possummomma mean anything to you?" LOL I apologize for being a bit freaked out, at first. It was a strange feeling to have someone come up and say, "I KNEW it was YOU!" I hope you guys had a great day.

To catch everyone else up -
We took P#3 (Gracie) to Disneyland for her birthday. We had so much fun. The new Finding Nemo (re-tooled from the old subs) was awesome!! G had a wonderful, wonderful birthday; they gave her a birthday badge at Town Hall and, all through the day, cast members were greeting her with, "Happy Birthday, Grace!" About an hour in, she finally said, "Mommy. How do they know my name?" LOL Disney really knows how to make a little girl feel special. If you have the time and desire, you can view the slideshow below (or click the link for the captioned version). I'll warn you - it's long. But, there's something for everyone. Also, it struck me, at around noon, that there is NO religious references or "God" in Disneyland. It was awesome. Go Disney for not caving into popular opinion and keeping Disneyland magical for everyone.



I'm going to go pour myself into bed and catch some much needed rest.

36 comments:

Ang said...

Great pictures!! Looks like everyone had a great time celebrating P#3's birthday!

Chris said...

In responce to people recognizing you in Disneyland, what can I say other than...

It's a small world, after all.

**ducks**

Great pictures, BTW. Looks like you all had a lot of fun :)

Atheist in a mini van. said...

ROFLOL! That was very punny, Chris.

You know what, though? I discovered that there *is* a song more annoying than the Small World theme. It's the "Birthday Song" that Disneyland plays during the character birthday party.
"Happy Birthday. Happy Birthday. Happy, happy, birthday to you." Repeat this four thousand times and add a really peppy, American Idol wannabe' kid who decides to sing with the tape and... you have a song that will NOT leave your brain for weeks.
In fact, on the ride home yesterday (as you can see from the pics, it's a long drive), we all started getting a bit punch drunk and it became a joke to start humming the song to see what someone would chuck at you. :)

Terra said...

PMomma,

As usual, great pics! I'm glad to see that you included some pics of non-perfect children this time so hopefully Jackass, oops, I mean, John has nothing to complain about. *winks* What a special time for your family and what a great b-day treat for Grace. Beautiful family, as always. Thanks for sharing your special day! :D

Atheist in a mini van. said...

As usual, great pics! I'm glad to see that you included some pics of non-perfect children this time so hopefully Jackass, oops, I mean, John has nothing to complain about. *winks*
HAHAHAH!! You know what's funny? When I was taking the group pic in front of Small World, Mike (P-daddy) said "Owen was squirming. Do you wanna' take it again?" I thought, "Nah! John'll like it." :)

I was actually surprised how little smiling was going on when I sat down to look at the pics. I was trying to take candid shots and I guess we were all a bit tired and hot. I had forgotten how difficult it is on the little ones at places like Disneyland. No naps (or quiet spaces to recharge). Hunger gets pushed aside because of lines and proximity to food (good thing I took Apple chips in our bag). Lots of noise and stimulation. It's amazingly fun, but extremely high energy.

What a special time for your family and what a great b-day treat for Grace.
Yes! It was. :)
Now if I could just get that silly birtdhay song out of my head.

john r said...

Disneyland is corrupt. What "family friendly" or Christian company promotes sexuality in young girls. Disney promotes greed and sets up false heros for our innocents.

Saurian200 said...

John R,

Disneyland is corrupt. What "family friendly" or Christian company promotes sexuality in young girls. Disney promotes greed and sets up false heros for our innocents.

Sounds great! All order the tickets, you warm up the car.

Seriously, you've reached the point where your just saying how sinful what ever P-Momma is talking about is and nothing else.

If you're a troll your not a very good one. If you're not a troll, well, thats just sad.

john r said...

http://www.afa.net/

Your the all knowing atheist but you don't know the Christian position on Disney. Please read the link I sent you and it's feelings on Disney.

I oppose what P-momma does because her life is offensive to me and all other good Christian families. She makes a mockery out of what God has given her. The only reason you like her is because she's an anti-Godly woman and you are a man against God. You are equally yoked.

The only good thing I will say having seen the pictures of her family is that she appears to apreciate modesty in the dress of her daughters. Although, it's preferable to dress girls as girls and not clothe them in short pants or pants of any kind. There I said something nice.

Molly said...

Does anyone else want to go out and buy about a metric ton of Gymboree pants for girls and mail them to PM?

Atheist in a mini van. said...

LOL, Molly!!
We have pants. Grace just prefers the dresses with tights. ;)

Saurian200 said...

John R,

Your the all knowing atheist but you don't know the Christian position on Disney. Please read the link I sent you and it's feelings on Disney.

I'm all knowing? That's good to know. But, then if I didn't know that then how could I have been all knowing? I know it niw so does that mean I became all knowing? Explain yourself.

Anyway, I thought only God was supposed to be all knowing. Hmmm John, was that a little blasphemy. It's okay, we don't mind.

As for the christian position on Disneyland. Yes, I do know it. I JUST DON'T CARE. It's not like you've given me any reason to care. You juststated your position (well, their position) as if it was beyond question.

Well, guess what? It's not. In fact, it's so not beyond question that I and every other person here is questioning it. So how about actually supporting your position, (thier postition)instead of whining about how the mean 'ol atheists don't agree with you.

Case in point:

oppose what P-momma does because her life is offensive to me and all other good Christian families. She makes a mockery out of what God has given her.

Oh boo hoo. Want your bottle little baby. Listen, people living their lives in a way you wouldn't is not an offensive concept to anyone with any maturity or confidence in their worldview.

If you need everyone to think and act the way you do in order to feel some peace then you must be increadably insecure in your beliefs. And if you are that insecure in your beliefs then I don't see how they have any merit or why I should adopt them.

As a represenitive of your faith you leave a LOT to be desired.

The only reason you like her is because she's an anti-Godly woman and you are a man against God. You are equally yoked.

Oh there are many more reasons besides just that. Also, I'm not anti-God. I don't even believe in him.

I'm not attacking God, I'm attacking you and your beliefs. Your not the first theist to mistake an attack on themselves as an attack on God.

However since the god of the Bible doesn't seem to take too kindly to people saying they are on the same level as him. You may want to be more careful in the future. I've read the Bible, dude's got anger issues. (No, that wasn't an attack on God, that was an attack on the concept of God as described in the Bible. I know you can't tell the difference but just keep in mind that we can.)

The only good thing I will say having seen the pictures of her family is that she appears to apreciate modesty in the dress of her daughters. Although, it's preferable to dress girls as girls and not clothe them in short pants or pants of any kind. There I said something nice.

Not really, no. That's more then a little sexist. What's wrong with girls wearing pants? Please don't tell me you can't tell the difference if their not wearing ankle-length plaid skirts?

Wait, let me guess, it's in the Bible right? Girls wearing pants make a mockery of you, your god, your beliefs, and so on and so forth. I'm getting close, aren't I. Oh, tell me I am.

Saurian200 said...

Molly,

Does anyone else want to go out and buy about a metric ton of Gymboree pants for girls and mail them to PM?

I don't know. I think if I went into Gymboree ard started buying clothes for girls, people would find it more than a little creepy.

"Why no, there not for my kids. I don't have kids. I'm sending these cross country. Well, hello officer."

Still, nice thought though.

Molly said...

...Girls wearing pants make a mockery of you, your god, your beliefs...

I'm so wearing pants.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Shall we all take pictures of ourselves (the women) wearing pants?
Bonus points if the men on this blog will take pic of themselves in a dress.
Which would be more offensive? ;)

Atheist in a mini van. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Terra said...

I'm almost a little offended that John came back but didn't take any offense to me calling him a jackass. I wonder if he wasn't smart enough to catch it?

I'm a woman and I wear pants 99% of the time. In fact, I can't even really remember the last time I wore something other than pants. What kind of a world do you live in where you find it "offensive" that women wear pants? John, if you want to live in a sexist country, where people will agree with your bigotry, what are you doing here? Also, if you find us so offensive, why don't you bugger off to another blog-perhaps a fundy one where people will agree with you. Perhaps it's because you love the attention? Trust me, if you think you're doing your faith any good with your comments you are sorely mistaken. Especially here.

I have to say-and I bet I speak for more than a few of us-that I feel pity for you and your obvious small sense of self-worth.

Saurian (that's weird, I always thought it was 2K, not 200..anyway....) A big amen to what you said about John being insecure and a poor representative of his faith.

Molly said...

I'm totally willing to post pictures of myself in pants. And my significant other is willing to post a pictures of himself in a skirt. Also, I wonder how offended John is going to be if I take a picture of our 100lb male Rottie in a dress...? That has to count for at least one deadly sin right?

John said...

Girls should wear dresses because it brightens their countenance. Femininity is sacrificed for function without cause. If a girl can't do it in a skirt with grace and style than she shouldn't do that activity. Girls were made by God to be an attractive helpmeet to there husbands and fathers. It's a glorious calling and girls should be proud to be girls. Society tells girl that they have to compete with boys in sports and school and that's not so. Our church realizes the sin and error in expecting girls to be like boys. I am glad to see that P-Mommas daughters are allowed to keep their crowning glory and dress modestly (mostly). I have seen worse from worldly atheist parents. God must be in her heart to make her keep her daughters pure and chaste. Her sons are also dressed appropriately. See, I still have hope that possummomma will see that God loves her and has been helping her all along.

Chris said...

I didn't realize God was such a fashion nut. Has he been watching too much Queer Eye for the Strait Guy?

Saurian200 said...

John R,

Girls should wear dresses because it brightens their countenance.

If that's the only reason then why shouldn't guys wear dresses too? I know plenty of guys whose countenance could use some brightening up.

Femininity is sacrificed for function without cause.

Since when is femininty determined by nothing more then the clothes a woman wears. I see no reaason why a woman can;t be feminine while wearing pants.

For example, if I put a big burly male truck driver in a dress, (I don't know how I'd do that, still...) I really don't think he would be that feminine regardless o0f what he was wearing. (No offense intended to all the big burly female truck drivers out there.)

There are way more important aspects to feminity and masculinity than just what a person wears. And anyway, what if a girl doesn't want to be that feminine? So what? I honestly don't see how that hurts anyone.

If a girl can't do it in a skirt with grace and style than she shouldn't do that activity.

I disagree, girls should be just a free to go mountain climbing and cross country skiing as everyone else.

Girls were made by God to be an attractive helpmeet to there husbands and fathers. It's a glorious calling and girls should be proud to be girls.

I agree that girls should be proud to be girls. (Or at least, not be ashamed to be girls.) But it really isn't that glorious the way you describe it.

And what of a woman doesn't want to be married. I don't have a problem with that.

Society tells girl that they have to compete with boys in sports and school and that's not so. Our church realizes the sin and error in expecting girls to be like boys.

What if they want to compete with boys? Say for instance a woman wants a successful careers. Depending on what career she chooses she is almost certainly going to have to compete with men. Shouldn't she be prepared before hand like her male collegues were?

Or, do you feel that women shouldn't have jobs and that waht they want from thier lives is irrelevent?

I am glad to see that P-Mommas daughters are allowed to keep their crowning glory and dress modestly (mostly). I have seen worse from worldly atheist parents.

Given your past performance on this blog I get the feeling that this is mostly an exageration? (For instance, I doubt that many of the kids your talking about were really dressed that badly or that all of the parents you're thinking of were actually all atheists, or real.)

God must be in her heart to make her keep her daughters pure and chaste. Her sons are also dressed appropriately.

Yeah, because the interference of your god is the ONLY possible explanation for why her kids were dressed that way.

If your not very good at detecting sarcasm the previous sentence was absolutely dripping with it.

See, I still have hope that possummomma will see that God loves her and has been helping her all along.

You can hope that all you want, just don't hold your breath waiting for it.

See, I asked you not to do someting because I was concerned it would almost certainly result in your death. Atheists can indeeed show concern for other people.

Saurian200 said...

Molly,

Saurian (that's weird, I always thought it was 2K, not 200..anyway....) A big amen to what you said about John being insecure and a poor representative of his faith.

Thank you! :)

If I'm getting amens then can I claim that this blog is tax exempt?

No, probably not.

john said...

If that's the only reason then why shouldn't guys wear dresses too? I know plenty of guys whose countenance could use some brightening up.

The Bible says that men shall dress like men and women shall dress like women.

Since when is femininty determined by nothing more then the clothes a woman wears. I see no reaason why a woman can;t be feminine while wearing pants.

Men should dress like mean. Women should dress like women. There is nothing feminine about pants. They were created to clothe men who are working. Pants show curves that are immodest in women.

There are way more important aspects to feminity and masculinity than just what a person wears. And anyway, what if a girl doesn't want to be that feminine? So what? I honestly don't see how that hurts anyone.

When a female is wearing a modest dress, it is easier for her to be modest and feminine. When a women wears pants, it is harder to act and walk in a modest fashion. She will do things that are not befitting a woman in pants. It hurts the soul of a woman to be dressed as male.
Any girl who considers herself born into Christ's covenant will wish to dress in a way that is pleasing to her God. If she desires to dress masculine she needs to be counselled about that for it is not pleasing. You also should consider how men feel when seeing a woman dressed immodestly. A Christian woman will dress in ways that do not entice Christian men to break purity bonds.

I disagree, girls should be just a free to go mountain climbing and cross country skiing as everyone else.

If girls do male things, what will happen to the domain of the home? Can you tell me that Mr. Answers? If boys started giving birth to children, what would this world be like?

And what of a woman doesn't want to be married. I don't have a problem with that.

A woman should only marry when her father and her God tell her to do so. If she is unmarried it's because God has not given her her husband. I have no problem with that.

Or, do you feel that women shouldn't have jobs and that waht they want from thier lives is irrelevent?

Are you stupid? GODLY WOMEN WANT WHAT GOD WANTS. They sacrifice their own wants for the will of God. God has determined a path for women and it's a special path that men can not follow. It's Gods design. God knows their feelings.

Yeah, because the interference of your god is the ONLY possible explanation for why her kids were dressed that way.

Now you are learning.

All good things come from God. If possummomma has good things, then they have come from God. That's LOGICAL like you like. What don't you understand about it.

Chris said...


>> And what of a woman doesn't want to be married. I don't have a problem with that.

> A woman should only marry when her father and her God tell her to do so. If she is unmarried it's because God has not given her her husband. I have no problem with that.

>> Or, do you feel that women shouldn't have jobs and that waht they want from thier lives is irrelevent?

> Are you stupid? GODLY WOMEN WANT WHAT GOD WANTS. They sacrifice their own wants for the will of God.


...etc...

Jon, however did you manage to get internet connection in the 18th century? It certainly couldn't have been the will of your god, he seems to be stuck there even further back. Maybe he'll catch us with the rest of us when he stops being a stuck up little bitch.

Saurian200 said...

John,

The Bible says that men shall dress like men and women shall dress like women.

So where does it say that pants are for men only and wearing them is the equivilent of dressoing like a man?

Be careful about ascribing modern ideas about fasion onto the culture that produced the bible. Ideas about "what men should wear" and "what women should wear" have varied greatly over time. At one point in many western cultures it was quite common for men to wear wigs and heavy makeup. THis was considered to be msculine. Now, those people are considered cross-dressers.

Unless the bible is very specific about exactly what is menswear and what is womenswear then appealing to the bible doesn't in anyway support your position. Not to mention the bigger problem, namely that neither I nor most of the people here accept the authority of the bible.

So basically, just because the bible says its wrong, that;s not really a valid defence of your ideas about it being wrong for women to wear pants.

Men should dress like mean. Women should dress like women.

You can repeat it all you want but it doesn't make it true.

There is nothing feminine about pants.

Okay, explain to me how these are masculine. They seem pretty feminine to me.

They were created to clothe men who are working.

Not exactly. From the article:

Nomadic Eurasian horsemen/women such as the Iranian Scythians, along with Achaemenid Persians were among the first to wear trousers, later introduced to modern Europe via either the Hungarians or Ottoman Turks.

So it seems as if origionally pants were worn by both men and women but later became a clothing item usually associated with just men. In the past century the trend has reversed. Granted pants are probably worn by a lot more women then they used to be but then again the same is true of men as well.

Now, the article may not be accurate but if you want to throw around authoritative statements about history and be taken seriously you should at least TRY to back them up.

Your beliefs don't seem to be based on fact, so why should I or anyone else (like you for example) accept them. Take this for example:

Pants show curves that are immodest in women.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are many different designs of pants and that not all of them show off many curves. Also, there are many dresses and skirts that show off the same curves.

So the "problem" has nothing to do with pants but with tight clothing in general. Your solution wouldn't solve the problem in any conceivable way.

When a female is wearing a modest dress, it is easier for her to be modest and feminine. When a women wears pants, it is harder to act and walk in a modest fashion. She will do things that are not befitting a woman in pants.

You still haven't established that wearing pants is immodest or that a woman can't be feminine while wearing pants, so untill you show otherwise I have no reason to accept that any of this is true.

It hurts the soul of a woman to be dressed as male.

Yeah, sure it does. (That's more sarcasm.)

Again, you still haven't shown that weearing pants is the equivilant of dressing like a man.

Further you seem to keep forgetting that you are talking to atheists. You can talk about what your religion says about this or that but unless you can back it up, (Which you aren't even attempting to do) no one is going to care.

Without support your religion is no better than Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Wicca, UFO Cults, or any of the other thousands of belief systems whose adherents are just as convinced of their validity as you are of your particular religion.

I don't accept what your religion says for the same reasons I don't accept what their religion says.

If you want me (or anyone else) to believe what you say, you have to support it instead of just repeat it.

If girls do male things, what will happen to the domain of the home? Can you tell me that Mr. Answers?

How are mountain climbing or cross country skiing "male things"?

If boys started giving birth to children, what would this world be like?

You can't possibly be serious. How exactly would women doing "male things" lead to boys giving birth to children? Did you put ANY thought into what you wrote?

A woman should only marry when her father and her God tell her to do so. If she is unmarried it's because God has not given her her husband. I have no problem with that.

So the woman has no say at all in this? If that's what your god wants then he is horrendously immoral. If you worship such a god then so are you.

Such a system would garuntee unhappy people and loveless marriges. That doesn't suggest a loving god.

And people wonder why divorce rates are rising? If that is what marrige is supposed to be then why wouldn't they be?

Are you stupid? GODLY WOMEN WANT WHAT GOD WANTS.

Ah, but a lot of different people disagree about what god wants. You haven't shown your beliefs to be any more valid then any of thiers. YOu just claimed they were. Of course, they claim the same thing, so why should I listen to you instead of them?

God has determined a path for women and it's a special path that men can not follow. It's Gods design. God knows their feelings.

Yet there are still women in such situations who aren't happy. Your god doesn't seem to be very good at this.

Now you are learning.

Well, since you don't seem to understand sarcasm, you might want to read this.

If that was meant as a joke or sarcasm then you really need to read the part about sarcasm in written communication.

All good things come from God. If possummomma has good things, then they have come from God. That's LOGICAL like you like.'

Actually as I have stated before (I don't know if I did in this thread but I and others have stated it in other threads.) I prefer things to be reasonable, in other words both logical and well supported.

While this argument of your (only this one though) may be logical it is alos completely unsupported so it is not reasonable and I have no reason to accept it as true.

To put it more simply, since you have not supported your premises I have no reason to accept them. Since I do not accept your premises I have no reason to accept the conclusions you draw from them regardless of whether the logic is sound or not.

Logic helps, you should always make an effort to make your arguments logical and sound, but the logic is only part of a good argument. Support is just as important and your posts are seriously lacking in that regard.

What don't you understand about it.

Don't be so arrogant as to assume that just becasue someone disagrees with you that it can only be because they don't understand you.

I understand your argument but since it is unsupported (many of your other positions are both unssuported and illogical) I reject it.

So far you have either been unable or unwilling to support your claims. Untill you do I have absolutely no reason to accept them.

If you don't back up your claims the you won't accomplish anything more then stroking your own ego. But hey, I'm sure your god just loves hubris, right?

(See, that's sarcasm.)

Atheist in a mini van. said...

A Christian woman will dress in ways that do not entice Christian men to break purity bonds.

WHAT THE FUCK!?! What kind of twisted train-of-thought is this? Are you saying that women should dress a certain way so that men aren't tempted to do something sexual? Basically, this is like saying, "It was all her fault. Did you see what she was wearing?"

If girls do male things, what will happen to the domain of the home? Can you tell me that Mr. Answers? If boys started giving birth to children, what would this world be like?

*mouth agape*
Uh... you know, us humans that walk upright and live in homes have figured out that men can be just as nurturing as woman. And, THAT IS A GOOD THING! Both, the mother and father, should feel comfortable doing ANYTHING it takes to raise a child and keep a home. I know that, in your cave, you are regarded as a godly father, but...from my vantage point, you just look like a complete ass.

Are you stupid? GODLY WOMEN WANT WHAT GOD WANTS. They sacrifice their own wants for the will of God. God has determined a path for women and it's a special path that men can not follow. It's Gods design. God knows their feelings.

*rolls eyes* I'm all about being a giving person and, when needed, sacrificing my wants for the needs of others. But, demanding that all women give up their independence and individuality to please someone else is fucking archaic and assinine. In case you didn't hear, John; women are people, too. They don't have fewer desires than men. Every woman doesn't want marriage or children; some want careers and lovers. More power to them!

You seem to have this sick fascination with the way I run my family. Why is that? I don't dress my children a certain way because God has planted some suggestion in my heart...I provide the kids with clothes I consider acceptable (since I'm paying the bills) and that are appropriate to their age and activities. That's just common sense! P3 wears a lot of dresses because she LIKES them.

As for their "crowning glory"...it's HAIR. It's long because that's how they like it. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over yourself.

See, I still have hope that possummomma will see that God loves her and has been helping her all along.

Ever the presumptuous prick, aren't you?

Hey - by the way John, here's something I've been meaning to ask you. When you e-mailed me, your IP clicked back to Georgia. Another e-mail pinged in Tontitown, Arkansas. *thinks* Hmmmmmmm... who do I know that lives there?

John said...

I am in Arkansas. I never mailed you from Georgia. I didn't lie about that.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are many different designs of pants and that not all of them show off many curves. Also, there are many dresses and skirts that show off the same curves.

The only time a woman should wear pants is when they are under her skirt. I think they call them under pants.

How are mountain climbing or cross country skiing "male things"?

Men were created to do strenuos physical work. Women were not. Women were created by GOD to fit a man not to push him out of his sphere.
Just as men should not take over the sphere or a woman. Each sex has a purpose. We don't challenge Gods plan because we want to climb mountains.

Without support your religion is no better than Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Wicca, UFO Cults, or any of the other thousands of belief systems whose adherents are just as convinced of their validity as you are of your particular religion.

There are many religions but there not all right. Only one can be right or they all are fake. My religion is the only one that offers salvation through Jesus Christ. We live in the new covenant.

Yet there are still women in such situations who aren't happy. Your god doesn't seem to be very good at this.

If they are not happy they are not in perfect submission to the will of GOD. God asks so little.

PM
WHAT THE FUCK!?! What kind of twisted train-of-thought is this? Are you saying that women should dress a certain way so that men aren't tempted to do something sexual? Basically, this is like saying, "It was all her fault. Did you see what she was wearing?"

You have a filthy mouth. Satan's tongue and ways have found a place to dwell.
Yes I am saying that women are at fault. Men are too. When there is a lack of purity there are two people at fault. Women who dress in ways meant to attract men should not be suprized when men come around.

You seem to have this sick fascination with the way I run my family. Why is that?
It's not sick. I pity your family. You have made fun of familys like mine. What do we say, if its to hot in the kitchen get out.

Perpetual Beginner said...

Notice the picture, John? Pants.

I wear pants almost exclusively. Know why? Because when I was twelve a "Good Christian" teacher stuck his hand up my skirt and into my underwear. And yes, it was a below the knee, not tight skirt - perfectly modest by your standards.

So that modesty prevents men from lusting improperly after women thing? Not so much. And pants provide much less access while making running away screaming (before or after breaking a kneecap) much easier.

Russ said...

John,

Does your religion so blind you to the basics of human reproductive biology that you do not understand that the only way you could possibly get men to stop lusting after women is to get rid of women altogether? Look at the Middle East where they force woman to dress in what amounts to a bag covering her entire body. Does it stop lust? No. Does it stop rape? No. Dress a woman any way you choose, and there will still be men who are turned on to the max by them.

Hell, most men don't even need to see a woman to get Mr. Willy walking the straight and narrow. Simple suggestions are more than enough. A mannequin can do it; lingerie can do it - with or without the woman; thinking about sports that put women in what would be considered immodest positions in other settings - gymnastics, figure skating, beach volleyball. The possibilities are as varied as humanity itself.

I think that for Christian men, what really bothers them more than anything else about human sexuality is the fact that they can't just switch it off. Notice, John, that even though you're married, you still get the hots for other babes. Your god didn't turn your little tallywacker into a one-woman gland just because you made nuptial promises. Biology doesn't work that way. You might not act on it - though incest and adultery are far more frequent among fundamentalist christians than any other US religious identity - but it's there. Don't bother denying it. You're human; you lust, want to or not.

So, don't try to suggest that modifying a woman's dress will free her from what you see as the horror of some man being sexually attracted to her. I can't stop it; you can't stop it; and, clearly, since you have to resort to rather earthly mechanical means to address the problem like making a woman dress so you might be less attracted to her, your silly god can't stop it either. Notice that your god isn't coming to your aid in this matter, just as it has never come to your aid in any other, John. Now, don't you wish prayer worked so you could just say, "Precious Lord, Please don't let me get a raging boner walking past Victoria's Secret." Or, what's more likely since you, like all males, enjoy your sexual arousal immensely - though, of course, you can't admit it with god watching you 24/7 and all - "Dear Lord, Please make my woman unattractive to all men but me."

You're an evolved human with evolved human biological urges, John, deal with it.

John B said...

I had to laugh out loud at John's comments about what people should wear. Why? Because he's got it all so completely wrong. Which is just typical of so many 'Christians' - picking and choosing what bits of the Bible they want to quote and interpret, and ignoring all the rest.

As far as I remember (and I haven't even looked at a Bible in over 30 years), God made Adam naked. And then he made Eve too, also naked. The proper form of mankind that God chose to make us in, was to be naked! And not dressed.

Again, as I remember it, it is quite clear in the Bible that it is not until after Adam and Eve had disobeyed God and eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, that they knew they were naked. And only then did they cover themselves up to hide their embarrassment.

So, John, your belief on the need to dress in a certain way is a direct result of Adam and Eve disobeying God. Covering ourselves up with clothing is a result of the original sin. Happy with that thought?

If Adam and Eve had been good, like they should have been, we would all still be running around naked, as God made us to be.

I'll just bet God is right now sitting wherever He sits and thinking again, "But I deliberately made them naked. I'm onimpotent. I knew what I was doing. Don't they realise that? My intention was that they be naked, so that the glory of God might be on display for all to see."

Except of course, that there is no God. He is just something imagined up by a bunch of people who cannot deal with the real world, as it really actually is.

John B (UK)

shaun said...

ROFL! I love the arbitrariness of Christian dogma - seriously.

The Bible says that men shall dress like men and women shall dress like women.

So, who exactly decides what this is? This is like the Fashion Euthyphro dilemma - does God say what is masculine and feminine? If not, God must have some other standard that he's using to determine this.

If girls do male things, what will happen to the domain of the home?

I think the same applies here. What are "male things?" Who determines this? This is like the Activity Euthyphro dilemma.

A Christian woman will dress in ways that do not entice Christian men to break purity bonds.

I so love the Christian "Blame the victim" mentality as well...

Men were created to do strenuos physical work.

Says who? Where?

Russ said...

John B (UK),

Really good point: "But I deliberately made them naked. I'm onimpotent. I knew what I was doing. Don't they realise that?"

No doubt, John B, they do not.

One thing I would hope that the other John would get from all this is that these are issues that we have thoughtfully considered. Many who visit here were quite like him a short time ago. While we do maliciously mock him - I think it's the whole "familiarity breeds contempt" thing - we can only do so for having earned our maliciousness by reading his holy book, assessing its purported veracity against that uncompromising standard called reality, and finding it woefully lacking. Since its tiny smattering of literary gems can in no way overcome its innumerable defects, it would be considered nonsensical completely laughable gibberish if it were written today. I doubt it would make it past a junior editor at any respectable publishing house.

If John R reads this I do hope he understands that perhaps the most important assessment that most of the denizens of this blog have made is that, as you, John B, point out, "there is no God." We've considered it humorously: if god can't keep John R from sprouting a woody then he can't be omnipotent. We've considered it philosophically like from the Epicurean problem of evil: if god can't or simply won't eliminate evil, then it can't be omnipotent and omnibenevolent; thus, it's not a god. We've considered it from the standpoint of prayer: the crown heads of Europe may well have had more prayers uttered pleading for their health and well-being than any other group who have ever lived and yet they have been no more healthy or long-lived than the general public. But, the bible promises that god will answer prayer unconditionally, so we can justifiably conclude that god is not there.

John R, learn from John B, "There is no God." Say it. The phrase even has a fine sounding mnemonic, TING, making it much easier to remember. TING. TING. So, John R, each time you hear a bell sound - TING - remember what it stands for: There Is No God. Carillons, chimes, doorbell, glockenspiel, church bell, liberty bell, or bell choir, you always have its ready reminder, TING, that there is no god.

Country Wife said...

Hmm..what was the popular style of dress when the bible was written? Oh, I know...
To-GA! To-GA! To-GA!

Saurian200 said...

John R,

The only time a woman should wear pants is when they are under her skirt. I think they call them under pants.

As is mentioned in the article about pants I linked to in my post, when people say the word pants they generally mean trousers. What that means is that pants and underpants are different concepts. Thus your position is still women should never wear pants.

Once again, we all know that that is your position, but since you won't support it, we reject it. Just repeating it over and over won't change a thing.

Men were created to do strenuos physical work.

Yet many men either can't or don't and many women do. That might have been what your god wanted, but that's not what he got. Pretty unimpressive for an omnipotant being.

Not only that, but what about giving birth? Carrying a child and giving birth to it are both strenuos physical activities. So how come women, and only women can do it? If men were designed to be the only ones who do physical strenuos stuff, then how come men don't carry and birht children?

Clearly, women can indeed to physical strenuos work as well. Your god appears to have designed them that way.

Women were created by GOD to fit a man not to push him out of his sphere.
Just as men should not take over the sphere or a woman. Each sex has a purpose. We don't challenge Gods plan because we want to climb mountains.


How is a woman climbing a mountain pushing men out of their sphere. Just because a woman is doing an activity that doesn't mean that a man can't. Did the woman tie up the male mountain climbers before they could get started?

A woman doing an activity that traditionally men do is in no way the same as women actively preventing men from doing those activities. They can both do them.

There are many religions but there not all right. Only one can be right or they all are fake.

True. Of course I'm in the "they all are fake" camp. Neither you nor anyone from any of the other religions have given me any reason to think otherwise.

My religion is the only one that offers salvation through Jesus Christ. We live in the new covenant.

And Hinduism is the only religion that offers me a way to be reincarnated into a better life. And the aincient nordic religion is the only one that offers me a way to get into Valhalla. And the Heaven's Gate cult is the only religion that offers me a way to hitch a ride on a comet.

Once again, simply stating your beliefs is NOT the same as supporting them. We all know what you believe. If you don't find statements of other people's beliefs to be convincing then don't expect us to find yours convincing. How about trying a new tactic like, oh, I don't know, supporting your beliefs.

If you can, who knows, you might actually convince someone of something. If you can't well that should give you something to think about.

If they are not happy they are not in perfect submission to the will of GOD. God asks so little.

What are you talking about? According to you he asks a LOT form people.

He asks them to dress in a certain way, think in a certain way, act in a certainm way. They have to live their entire lives the way god wants making sure every last little detil meets his approval. And, if that's not how they wanted to live thier lives, they are not allowed to be happy, they are constantly told by his followers that they're bad people and there is something wrong with them.

You said it yourself, your god asks for, "perfect submission to the will of GOD." That's not asking a lot? What would you consider asking a lot of a person?

Atheist in a mini van. said...

And the Heaven's Gate cult is the only religion that offers me a way to hitch a ride on a comet.

See...for my money, THAT would be the coolest and most creative way for a deity to take people out of this universe. AND, you can wear sneaks (sneakers) and a comfy jogging suit. Pass me that Kool-aid.

Perpetual Beginner said...

Actually "Only one is right, or they're all fake" is not the only options with religions.

My personal belief would run something along these lines: God is incomprhensible to humans (we can't even understand ourselves, what on earth makes us think we could possibly understand God (assuming God exists)?). Humans are also extremely falliable - I.e. there is no person on this entire planet who is completely correct about everything. Religions are human creations, meant to provide community in our relationship with God, but still human creations. Therefore religions (ALL religions) are flawed, both because we are creating them around something we don't (and can't) understand, and because we are frequently just wrong.

Therefore, since I am inherently unable to find a "correct" religion, I find the one that is as good as I can find, and work to make it better as I see it. But I also keep firmly in mind that most other religions are probably right in some place mine screwed up, even as the reverse is also true.

Note - this holds for atheism as well.

Rachel said...

"There are many religions but there not all right. Only one can be right or they all are fake."


Aha! Now, YOU, John, are learning....