What's on your mind?

Strider1002 wrote:

Toro, your burrito has been found:

OKC Bomb Squad Says Suspicious Item Was a Burrito

No, no my friend. Toro's burritos do not cause a scare.

The scare comes AFTER Toro has consumed many burritos.

Mmmmmm, burritos..... I hope someone from bomb squad ate the burrito instead of throwing it out.

Or maybe they returned the burrito to its rightful owner. And justice was served... with a side of rice and guacamole.

Toro, after eating a burrito, you ARE a bomb threat

Anyone who loses a burrito is NOT worthy of it being returned.....

Burritos are to be consumed, quickly and with a gallon of hot sauce.

Not shoved into a thermos to be lost..... do I need to travel this nation and teach people proper burrito etiquette?


 You sir Saucy are correct. You must have talked to people I work with. I tell them what I ate and they all say "Oh no".

I disagree, in our definition of "food".

You consider a rice cake a meal. I consider it a coaster.

If you're going to have an affair with something...food is a good bet.

Miss Spaulding wrote:

I actually hate rice cakes.

Then, there is hope for you after all my hippie friend.

We have a super-mouse running around here. I found the sucker after he kept running in and out of my room. I'd hear a bag rustle, but when I sat up, he'd be gone. So I just sat there in silence and finally saw him run in, then back out.

So the landlord put down some poison strips around the house. The one in the kitchen is almost empty. And just now I heard him munching on the one outside my door. I got up and tried to catch him, but he was gone. The sucker is fast. So how is he eating all the poison and still alive?

I think mice prefer the term "Mighty Mouse" to "super mouse".




^ You beat me  

LOL! We can call him Santa Mouse

Tell your sister to get one of these.

Sauceman wrote:

They're not?  They're in the bible.  Standards of morality and modesty never change because God doesn't.  Is truth universal or relative to each individual person?  

They are indeed not. The bible is the universal and ultimate truth, I agree. However, not everything in the bible is to be taken word for word and literally (that would be foolish). Everything we search, must be studied with its context and the message it speaks of within the context of the Christian history also.

While standards of morality do not change, the standards of modesty do change. Look at different cultures. Look at modesty as it has changed throughout biblical history.

I believe the idea of Apostle Paul regarding "if it makes your brother sin, do not do it" (paraphrase) applies here. Modesty is one of those ideas that is not internal. As modesty is often judged by others. If a man or a woman wears a bathing suit, there is nothing immodest about a bathing suit. Yet, if it leads to sinful thoughts for other and gets tongues wagging within a community. Then it is better not to wear something that shows so much skin.

I do not believe a woman wearing a skirt is immodest. Yet, if a woman wore a skirt in an Islamic nation, it would be considered immodest. The same way Christian women in some cultures cover their heads in prayer. Are we to say the women who cover their heads are modest and those who don't are immodest? of course not.

Again don't mix morality and modesty. Morality does not change, but standards of modest can change. Think of it this way morality is the rock, however, one aspect of morality which is modesty can change.

Think of dating for example. It would have been unthinkable to date at one point in Christian history. Yet, should we not shun dating and go back to marriage by trading goats and land? of course not.

Well, I could easily convince you that culture has changed dramatically. I've always thought this image was funny:



For some strange reason, I do not find a woman walking around in only a bathing suit attractive. I don't know why and cannot explain it, other than to say a modest woman who is covered up is the most attractive to me. I do my best to look a woman in the eyes and engage her mind, not her breasts.

I guess my point here is modesty is a fixed point. It's probably only my opinion. Does that mean I think women should wear clothes from the 18th Century? No. We can still wear today's clothes comfortably without having to give in to societal pressures.

Sauceman wrote:

Well, I could easily convince you that culture has changed dramatically.  I've always thought this image was funny:



For some strange reason, I do not find a woman walking around in only a bathing suit attractive.  I don't know why and cannot explain it, other than to say a modest woman who is covered up is the most attractive to me.  I do my best to look a woman in the eyes and engage her mind, not her breasts.  

I guess my point here is modesty is a fixed point.  It's probably only my opinion.  Does that mean I think women should wear clothes from the 18th Century?  No.  We can still wear today's clothes comfortably without having to give in to societal pressures.  

And at no point did I suggest that modesty as a standard dosnt exist today or shouldn't exist today. I only pointed out that head covering is a sign of submission and modesty in the bible. And those standards have changed, So if a woman dosnt cover her head, its not like shes being immodest or going against God.

Its good that you try to engage a womans mind and don't gawk at her only for her physical beauty.

I'm not understanding your point. If it was required of women to wear head coverings before God "because of the angels" (whatever that means, I'm still not sure), why has that changed? Because of feminism and being in submission to men was sooo 50 years ago?

Sauceman wrote:

I'm not understanding your point.  If it was required of women to wear head coverings before God "because of the angels" (whatever that means, I'm still not sure), why has that changed?  Because of feminism and being in submission to men was sooo 50 years ago?  

Give me the passage you are talking about and we can discuss it.

As far as the issue of why standards of modesty have changed? They have changed because society and social norms change and are not stagnant. Is feminism the reason? its part of the reason and not all of the reason. Clothing styles change as time goes on.

But again, that's my question. When does society get to dictate what is modest above the biblical standard? And even though you tried to separate them, the same goes for morality. If God says A is moral and B is immoral, it will always be that way. Same with if He says A is modest and B is immodest. If it becomes okay for women to walk around bare-breasted, would it then become modest? Just because society accepts homosexuality, is it then moral and okay? Or because couples sleep together before married is more common? It's all the same to me.

Again, I personally don't care if women wear a head covering. It's not immodest to me. But if the bible says it's immodest to God, that's what matters.