Ostentatious religious dress

Discuss church-state separation issues that are relevant in Ireland.
saintsebastian
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by saintsebastian » Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:38 pm

Ygern wrote:
saintsebastian wrote: My understanding is that religious dress is not a matter of choice regarding certain religions, it is required by the level of understanding one gains in study and belief. At each level attained, the dress indicates that achievement.

That might be true up to a point, at least once upon a time, a long, long time ago in the same way as someone receiving a Master's degree wears different garments to someone receiving a Bachelor's degree. But nuns and priests and Hassidic Jews and Amish and women in Saudi Arabia are not displaying levels of understanding in their garb. Not even close. They are hiding their shameful bodies.


.......immodest dress causes more disruption and promotes anxiety in a far greater way than any religious dress. saintsebastian
I'm dying to know what you mean ... really ... give details... lots of details... and pictures if possible.
The statement delivered by Al Quaida and Osama bin Laden says it all. The reason for their attacks even though misguided faults "decadence of culture" as the target of their attempts to overthrow cultured civilization. Some of the images they presented were immodest dress, pointing to the Islamic robes as the proper dress for women which there again promoted my understanding that the attainment of religious enlightenment indicates what level of dress corresponds with religious learning.
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by Ygern » Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:42 pm

The statement delivered by Al Quaida and Osama bin Laden says it all. The reason for their attacks even though misguided faults "decadence of culture" as the target of their attempts to overthrow cultured civilization. Some of the images they presented were immodest dress, pointing to the Islamic robes as the proper dress for women which there again promoted my understanding that the attainment of religious enlightenment indicates what level of dress corresponds with religious learning.

I really don't understand what you're getting at. You're surely not equating murderous totalitarian crackpots with religious enlightenment... and are you suggesting that western society is decadent for letting women choose their own clothing?
The universe is huge and old, and rare things happen all the time ~ Lawrence Krauss
Cork Skeptics
saintsebastian
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by saintsebastian » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:38 am

Ygern wrote:
The statement delivered by Al Quaida and Osama bin Laden says it all. The reason for their attacks even though misguided faults "decadence of culture" as the target of their attempts to overthrow cultured civilization. Some of the images they presented were immodest dress, pointing to the Islamic robes as the proper dress for women which there again promoted my understanding that the attainment of religious enlightenment indicates what level of dress corresponds with religious learning.

I really don't understand what you're getting at. You're surely not equating murderous totalitarian crackpots with religious enlightenment... and are you suggesting that western society is decadent for letting women choose their own clothing?
Not at all, to answer your inference that religious clothe themselves with garb to hide their shameful bodies I will agree. The evidence comes from the Book of Genesis in the Bible where Adam and Eve were tempted to eat the forbidden fruit. Afterward, God came to visit them and asked them why they had fashioned loin coverings to which they replied, "Because we are naked". And God said to them, "Who told you that you were naked"?

The human body became shameful after the fall of Adam and Eve and since then has covered the human body with clothing to hide the shameful body.

The observation by the murderous totalitarian crackpots is accurate in the sense that they despise decadence in western society. In no way do I propose that the despots are religious, quite the contrary, they are as decadent as those they accuse. What I do propose is that religious garb is intended to portray a certain level of religious enlightenment. If that were not true, then why do the irreligious mimic this garb with an absolute oxymoron of reversed logic in their own apparal ie: the garb of the grim reaper etc. Garb or clothing presents an image in and of itself with intention. Those who are immodest present an image of promiscuity and those who are modest present and image of virtuous intentions. In this way the thoughts, emotions and intentions of all are revealed in how they either cover or uncover their shame.
aZerogodist
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Co. CORK
Contact:

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by aZerogodist » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:10 am

saintsebastian wrote: The evidence comes from the Book of Genesis in the Bible where Adam and Eve were tempted to eat the forbidden fruit. Afterward, God came to visit them and asked them why they had fashioned loin coverings to which they replied, "Because we are naked". And God said to them, "Who told you that you were naked"?
evidence??? your quoting as evidence from the same fable that you forgot to mention said that a snake with vocal cords told the child-minded-Eve to eat an apple and then the evil-woman-Eve forced the innocent-child-minded-Adam to eat the apple (which some say was actually a tomato). Then god equally punished Adam, (go forth and multiply without becommit-ing of course). [aside I was reading the evidence for Tir na òg from another book....]
saintsebastian wrote: The human body became shameful after the fall of Adam and Eve and since then has covered the human body with clothing to hide the shameful body.
Nothing shameful about the Human machine, fine some people fill it with McDonalds and flaunt their overflowing excess, on public beaches.
saintsebastian wrote:The observation by the murderous totalitarian crackpots is accurate in the sense that they despise decadence in western society. In no way do I propose that the despots are religious, quite the contrary, they are as decadent as those they accuse. What I do propose is that religious garb is intended to portray a certain level of religious enlightenment.
I'm holyier than you kind of thing, even though all are equal in the eyes of the gods
saintsebastian wrote:If that were not true, then why do the irreligious mimic this garb with an absolute oxymoron of reversed logic in their own apparal ie: the garb of the grim reaper etc.
etc harry potter, witches, service repair men?
saintsebastian wrote:Garb or clothing presents an image in and of itself with intention. Those who are immodest present an image of promiscuity and those who are modest present and image of virtuous intentions. In this way the thoughts, emotions and intentions of all are revealed in how they either cover or uncover their shame.
So your saying that you can judge a book by its cover. Your key word is the word "IMAGE"
saintsebastian
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by saintsebastian » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:13 pm

aZerogodist wrote:
saintsebastian wrote: The evidence comes from the Book of Genesis in the Bible where Adam and Eve were tempted to eat the forbidden fruit. Afterward, God came to visit them and asked them why they had fashioned loin coverings to which they replied, "Because we are naked". And God said to them, "Who told you that you were naked"?
evidence??? your quoting as evidence from the same fable that you forgot to mention said that a snake with vocal cords told the child-minded-Eve to eat an apple and then the evil-woman-Eve forced the innocent-child-minded-Adam to eat the apple (which some say was actually a tomato). Then god equally punished Adam, (go forth and multiply without becommit-ing of course). [aside I was reading the evidence for Tir na òg from another book....]
saintsebastian wrote: The human body became shameful after the fall of Adam and Eve and since then has covered the human body with clothing to hide the shameful body.
Nothing shameful about the Human machine, fine some people fill it with McDonalds and flaunt their overflowing excess, on public beaches.
saintsebastian wrote:The observation by the murderous totalitarian crackpots is accurate in the sense that they despise decadence in western society. In no way do I propose that the despots are religious, quite the contrary, they are as decadent as those they accuse. What I do propose is that religious garb is intended to portray a certain level of religious enlightenment.
I'm holyier than you kind of thing, even though all are equal in the eyes of the gods
saintsebastian wrote:If that were not true, then why do the irreligious mimic this garb with an absolute oxymoron of reversed logic in their own apparal ie: the garb of the grim reaper etc.
etc harry potter, witches, service repair men?
saintsebastian wrote:Garb or clothing presents an image in and of itself with intention. Those who are immodest present an image of promiscuity and those who are modest present and image of virtuous intentions. In this way the thoughts, emotions and intentions of all are revealed in how they either cover or uncover their shame.
So your saying that you can judge a book by its cover. Your key word is the word "IMAGE"
Yes the key word is image. To give you an example fromn exhortation from Pope John Paul II to consecrated religious: that the wearing of habits identify the consecrated to the religious life and identity with Christ. This proves my previous assertion that garb closely correlates in religion to the level of enlightenment and in immodesty to the level of promiscuity. Obviously the promiscuous blatantly advertise their immodesty in dress which proves that you can judge a book by it's cover, at least to some extent.
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by Ygern » Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:25 pm

OK, that's about the biggest load of nonsense I've seen posted on this forum ever, and you do realise that you contradict yourself while you're at it? First you claim that religious garb is indeed to cover the shameful naked body... and then you claim its a sign of religious enlightenment.

Oh wait! You're arguing that seeing the naked body as shameful and decadent *is* religious enlightenment.... aren't you?
:lol:
No wait...
:lol:
Good one.

You don't think that the human species might have started to clothe themselves as they moved into colder climates during their migrations, and started to experiment with finding a way of protecting themselves from the relentless environment and ornamenting themselves with whatever resources they had left over?

The religious hierachy wears the archaic garb that they do because it is traditional... and frankly some of it is the stuff of garish nightmares... enough to make even the most showy of Rococo artists shudder.

Image

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any story where Jesus went around dripping with jewels and gold sewn into his hat.
I'm afraid this outfit speaks only to the excessive wealth that the Church has amassed from it's credulous (and considerably poorer) adherents.

I would love to think that you're kidding, just trying to get a rise out of people on this forum, but we've all met you before. Haven't we?
Just a head's up - changing the name by which you post doesn't actually disguise the fact that you used to post under a different name. Just saying. Not that you would ever do something so underhanded or deceitful, because that wouldn't be very Christian, would it?
The universe is huge and old, and rare things happen all the time ~ Lawrence Krauss
Cork Skeptics
saintsebastian
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by saintsebastian » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:51 am

Ygern wrote:OK, that's about the biggest load of nonsense I've seen posted on this forum ever, and you do realise that you contradict yourself while you're at it? First you claim that religious garb is indeed to cover the shameful naked body... and then you claim its a sign of religious enlightenment.

Oh wait! You're arguing that seeing the naked body as shameful and decadent *is* religious enlightenment.... aren't you?
:lol:
No wait...
:lol:
Good one.

You don't think that the human species might have started to clothe themselves as they moved into colder climates during their migrations, and started to experiment with finding a way of protecting themselves from the relentless environment and ornamenting themselves with whatever resources they had left over?

The religious hierachy wears the archaic garb that they do because it is traditional... and frankly some of it is the stuff of garish nightmares... enough to make even the most showy of Rococo artists shudder.

Image

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any story where Jesus went around dripping with jewels and gold sewn into his hat.
I'm afraid this outfit speaks only to the excessive wealth that the Church has amassed from it's credulous (and considerably poorer) adherents.

I would love to think that you're kidding, just trying to get a rise out of people on this forum, but we've all met you before. Haven't we?
Just a head's up - changing the name by which you post doesn't actually disguise the fact that you used to post under a different name. Just saying. Not that you would ever do something so underhanded or deceitful, because that wouldn't be very Christian, would it?
Yes indeed, religious enlightenment does tell us that the human body is shameful, this is primarily the reason mankind has not reverted to nudity as a natural state of habitat. The fact that in most cultures public nudity is considered obscene or even criminal subject to arrest proves my point beyond doubt that humanity considers the nude human body shameful. If that were not true, then public nudity would be vastly considered "innocence" and would not attract any consideration or become involved in the sale of pornographic materials and web site postings. The value of public nudity would reduce to a common and inconsequential portrait of natural and non seductive stature and all the legal statues concerning public nudity would be struck from the records of national and state legislatures. Also insofar as the jewels which crown the head of the Pope, the significance in that is through religious enlightenment no jewel is considered valuable in relative comparison to the import of Christ's administrative church. Only man considers the value of jewels or precious metals when in fact they are worthless objects of affection relative to Christ. That is the message intended through adornment, that all of this holds no value comparatively to Christ. As Christ is Creator of the entire universe and everything in it including precious metals and jewels, it is only justified that anything consecrated to Christ holds less value than Christ himself as Creator of all that is consecrated. You give greater value to the precious metals and jewels than the Pope does. Also if you are updated on recent developments in metallurgy and gem making, science is currently creating mass production of synthetic gems and metals making precious a mute value.

I see nothing contradictory in making attempt to have a reasonable discussion with you as we are both specimens of struggling humanity.
aZerogodist
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Co. CORK
Contact:

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by aZerogodist » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:17 am

saintsebastian wrote: Yes the key word is image. To give you an example fromn exhortation from Pope John Paul II to consecrated religious: that the wearing of habits identify the consecrated to the religious life and identity with Christ. This proves my previous assertion that garb closely correlates in religion to the level of enlightenment and in immodesty to the level of promiscuity. Obviously the promiscuous blatantly advertise their immodesty in dress which proves that you can judge a book by it's cover, at least to some extent.
You know your right -"This proves my previous assertion that garb closely correlates in religion to the level of enlightenment and in immodesty to the level of promiscuity"- I think the reflection of enlightened religious garb and sexual child abuse preformed by those wearing that garb speaks volumes. -EOT
saintsebastian wrote: Yes indeed, religious enlightenment does tell us that the human body is shameful, this is primarily the reason mankind has not reverted to nudity as a natural state of habitat. The fact that in most cultures public nudity is considered obscene or even criminal subject to arrest proves my point beyond doubt that humanity considers the nude human body shameful.
And are these "most" countries inhibited by christlamic influence.
saintsebastian wrote:If that were not true, then public nudity would be vastly considered "innocence" and would not attract any consideration or become involved in the sale of pornographic materials and web site postings. The value of public nudity would reduce to a common and inconsequential portrait of natural and non seductive stature and all the legal statues concerning public nudity would be struck from the records of national and state legislatures.
Agree nudity and pornography are not the same, makes me think of those Amazon tribes that have never had the unfortunate aquantence with christian missionaries
saintsebastian wrote: Also insofar as the jewels which crown the head of the Pope, the significance in that is through religious enlightenment no jewel is considered valuable in relative comparison to the import of Christ's administrative church. Only man considers the value of jewels or precious metals when in fact they are worthless objects of affection relative to Christ. That is the message intended through adornment, that all of this holds no value comparatively to Christ.
So no coal or mica?
saintsebastian wrote:As Christ is Creator of the entire universe and everything in it including precious metals and jewels,
I love this bit so I have to requote it
saintsebastian wrote:As Christ is Creator of the entire universe and everything in it including precious metals and jewels,
:)
saintsebastian wrote: it is only justified that anything consecrated to Christ holds less value than Christ himself as Creator of all that is consecrated. You give greater value to the precious metals and jewels than the Pope does.
...
saintsebastian wrote:Also if you are updated on recent developments in metallurgy and gem making, science is currently creating mass production of synthetic gems and metals making precious a mute value.
Science the creator, no need for jesus-god anymore.

Mr.Saint everything you say just shows the negative impact religion has had upon the views of the Human body. During the cold war East Germany (I saw in a doc on BBC) people had no "shame" in their bodies, many of them saw that as real freedom. I think Mr.Saint that one of the problems is the "image" that is portrayed in movies and advertisement, as the Human body as an object, and therefore cheap. The biggest problem the church has with the human body is that it is plain animal, with animal instincts, that directly contradict the heavenly holier superiority that the church preaches for the children of the gods. (3linereply?)
saintsebastian
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by saintsebastian » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:53 pm

aZerogodist wrote:
saintsebastian wrote: Yes the key word is image. To give you an example fromn exhortation from Pope John Paul II to consecrated religious: that the wearing of habits identify the consecrated to the religious life and identity with Christ. This proves my previous assertion that garb closely correlates in religion to the level of enlightenment and in immodesty to the level of promiscuity. Obviously the promiscuous blatantly advertise their immodesty in dress which proves that you can judge a book by it's cover, at least to some extent.
You know your right -"This proves my previous assertion that garb closely correlates in religion to the level of enlightenment and in immodesty to the level of promiscuity"- I think the reflection of enlightened religious garb and sexual child abuse preformed by those wearing that garb speaks volumes. -EOT
saintsebastian wrote: Yes indeed, religious enlightenment does tell us that the human body is shameful, this is primarily the reason mankind has not reverted to nudity as a natural state of habitat. The fact that in most cultures public nudity is considered obscene or even criminal subject to arrest proves my point beyond doubt that humanity considers the nude human body shameful.
And are these "most" countries inhibited by christlamic influence.
saintsebastian wrote:If that were not true, then public nudity would be vastly considered "innocence" and would not attract any consideration or become involved in the sale of pornographic materials and web site postings. The value of public nudity would reduce to a common and inconsequential portrait of natural and non seductive stature and all the legal statues concerning public nudity would be struck from the records of national and state legislatures.
Agree nudity and pornography are not the same, makes me think of those Amazon tribes that have never had the unfortunate aquantence with christian missionaries
saintsebastian wrote: Also insofar as the jewels which crown the head of the Pope, the significance in that is through religious enlightenment no jewel is considered valuable in relative comparison to the import of Christ's administrative church. Only man considers the value of jewels or precious metals when in fact they are worthless objects of affection relative to Christ. That is the message intended through adornment, that all of this holds no value comparatively to Christ.
So no coal or mica?
saintsebastian wrote:As Christ is Creator of the entire universe and everything in it including precious metals and jewels,
I love this bit so I have to requote it
saintsebastian wrote:As Christ is Creator of the entire universe and everything in it including precious metals and jewels,
:)
saintsebastian wrote: it is only justified that anything consecrated to Christ holds less value than Christ himself as Creator of all that is consecrated. You give greater value to the precious metals and jewels than the Pope does.
...
saintsebastian wrote:Also if you are updated on recent developments in metallurgy and gem making, science is currently creating mass production of synthetic gems and metals making precious a mute value.
Science the creator, no need for jesus-god anymore.

Mr.Saint everything you say just shows the negative impact religion has had upon the views of the Human body. During the cold war East Germany (I saw in a doc on BBC) people had no "shame" in their bodies, many of them saw that as real freedom. I think Mr.Saint that one of the problems is the "image" that is portrayed in movies and advertisement, as the Human body as an object, and therefore cheap. The biggest problem the church has with the human body is that it is plain animal, with animal instincts, that directly contradict the heavenly holier superiority that the church preaches for the children of the gods. (3linereply?)
What you are missing is the reality and the effect of lust in the human body which causes the degenerative effect which is called shameful. Lacking lust, there would be no shame in nudity. The native tribes of dense jungle have been observed by scientists who have not been able to see any effect of lust on nudity.
mkaobrih
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Ostentatious religious dress

Post by mkaobrih » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:28 pm

saintsebastian - I feel like posting some pornography just to shock you. Sex is just sex nothing shameful. Bodies are just bodies - again nothing shameful - if you think that your body is shameful maybe you should look at your own upbringing and what influenced you to think such non naturalist things.
The church complains of persecution when it's not allowed to persecute.
Post Reply