Yes, and seriously, how can they look each other in the eye after that? It’s too weird!
Sorry - tacky, poor taste, stupid, and totally inappropriate. If I think of any other adjectives for this I’ll let you know, but I think you get the idea. :rolleyes:
We were all created in God’s image, so who are we to say that part of God is wrong? This would be heresy at the least and border line blasphemy. Being naked is totally natural as long as you are not ashamed. Likewise, looking at the nude; the same rules apply. If you feel either ashamed or lustful, or are observing nakedness in a sinful/immoral manner, it is wrong.
Genesis 3:9-12 shows that Adam and Eve felt ashamed of being naked, after they ate from the Tree of Life. Before the guilt of disobeying God, there was no shame, hence no problem being naked. Once they disobeyed Him, they no longer felt comfortable being naked with each other or God, and remained clothed from there on (notice they were not forced into being clothed, but felt that they should be).
Genesis 9:20-27 shows that Ham informs his brethren of their father’s nakedness and that Shem and Japheth then cover Noah’s nakedness without looking at him. Two possibilities here being that Ham had looked upon Noah with lust and informed his brothers to clothe him without doing the same. The other being Ham simply informed his brothers to cover Noah and they would not look upon his nakedness in the state he was in. This state, would be that Noah (rather bright to say the least), had sinned openly.
Now this was for a good cause, and maybe they could have taken another approach to raise money, but like Pro-Life_Teen had said, at their age and by the way they were posing (especially w/o showing any ‘private parts’), there is nothing wrong with this at all. Whether it should have been done inside the church is debatable, since regardless of what religion this is, it is still where people gather to pray and worship God as we do.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
But seriously, this doesn’t sound too far out there for a Protestant church and there was no Tabernacle present. Wasn’t there just an article about some other Protestant minister putting a bed on stage and challenging his congregation to have sex everyday?
we aren’t talking about these people walking around nude in their own homes, we are talking about them standing naked, in church, while a photographer takes their pictures to make a product to sell as a fundraiser. Please find the bible quote that calls this “natural”
I was referring more to posts like rpp’s “Shameful and scandalous. The pastor and those who posed seem morally bankrupt.” Sure it might not have been the way we would raise money or the best way to have raised money in general, but that seems like a little much to me. :shrug: I understand it was in a church but it was for a good cause. The ends justify the means, especially since the means are just posing tastefully (w/o ‘parts’ showing) for a calendar to support Breast Cancer Awareness.
Men are instantly aroused by the sight of naked women. This is a basic fact of life and I am getting sick of society jamming nudity down our throats at every turn. The fact that the women are “elderly” is even worse since they have had their dignity stolen through deception.
That is inappropriate, creepy, stupid, sinful and highly unnecessary. It lacks modesty and could easily lead men, particularly older men to the near occasion of sin through lust. Younger men will have their appetite for more “age appropriate” pornographic material awakened.
Someone needs to ask this pastor why he has to become a porn merchant for the sake of raising money.
My first reaction is to laugh…what a sight that must’ve been! :rolleyes:
I’m not too keen on having a bunch of naked people photographed in a church simply because somehow it strikes me as not being very “seemly” Heck, we weren’t even allowed to take posed wedding photos in the church we were married in because the parish felt it was disrespectful to our Lord in the Tabernacle. I do understand that this is a bit different than a protestant church, though.
I do, however, think that nudity and porn are two very different things altogether. And to confuse the two can lead to some serious scruples. Heck, if nudity=porn, we’d better not go to the Vatican for fear we might see the statue of David or the naked women in the art in the Sistine Chapel. I suppose that could be considered porn, too, if the elderly naked calendar women are pornographic.
Just my .02.
Thank you Lauren. I agree. A very nice post.
Nudity in and of itself is not sinful or we would never be able to shower. But, there is a time and a place. While this thread presents numerous viewpoints, I believe that the same photograph could have been taken elsewhere. It’s not that God objects to nudity but it’s that we should have more respect for that sacred space where we come to worship God. And that is applicable even where the Real Presence is not acknowledged since their Church still represents the space allotted for worship…That’s my two cents. (if it’s worth that much)…teachccd
Nudity in a church??
What’s next dogs and cats living together? :eek:
I totally agree. I have a major problem with this kind of behavior in church. This is just disgusting behavior. God gave Adam and Even clothing for a reason!
LOL. Didn’t Adam and Eve only have the inclination to put on clothes after they had committed sin? Before, they were just prancing around naked.
Plus, this painting is in the Sistine Chapel:
Not that I condone the calendar, but God didn’t give Adam and Eve clothes, haha.
Moderators, let me know if this picture is OK to post??
Also, I suppose the appropriateness of nudity or partial nudity has to do with the culture and context of a situation. Many paintings representing the baptism of Jesus depict a shirtless John the Baptist in front of Jesus. Whether that was actually the case, I’m not sure.
In American culture, nudity in a sanctuary would probably not be considered proper.
I think having or not having a tabernacle is a non-sequitur; if they consider it God’s house, wouldn’t it be inappropriate whether or not he’s at home?
I agree, though…methinks these kind of calanders are largely harmless, like the hugely obese ladies that pose for that kind of thing…which leads me to my next point…
I don’t know about other men, but what I picture as the OP’s description is hardly erotic. And the women in these calendars…hey, it’s their dignity they’re losing.
I disagree that this sort of thing is likely to lead to sin for older men. Why bother looking at a calendar of wrinkly women when there’s young women a-plenty online or in magazines at their local 7-11?
Yes, inppropriate in a church setting, but when we can’t find a little humor in ourselves, particularly with our own bodies, methinks at that point we take ourselves a wee bit too seriously.
Exactomundo. Very Un-biblical.
Actually, women are even supposed to have their heads covered in church.
Far cry from the chapel veils that the little girls had to wear when I was in Catholic school. I remember a little girl had to stay in the classroom during Mass and write a penance because she forgot her veil. Who knows? She might be one of those Episcopalian ladies now in protest!! :rotfl:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: you’re probably right!!
Why didn’t they take a page from we Catholics and run a “bingo”
Is “bingo” mentioned in the bible?
At least “naked” people are mentioned in Genesis
For what it’s worth, the pastor is but not “he” a “she.” Does that make a difference?
And “elderly” women are not likely lust magnets; but then what do I know?