Gen 3:21: And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.
He did not force them to wear them though, He made them for them because they felt that they shouldn’t be naked. I believe this is what he means.
I guess I have been on Earth too long! As a young man I would have never thought that I would have the question seriously presented by a Christian. " Is it OK for old women to pose nude in church for money ?". The sad part is so many don’t have a clue if it is OK or not. The only thing I think that is more amazing is that God hasn’t said that enough is enough and pulled the plug on the whole deal
JPUSC alleged that God did not give Adam and Eve clothes. I would not presume to second guess JP’s intention. The statement was incorrect, and the point is not trivial.
I stand corrected with that scripture verse, but I did intend that God made the clothing because Adam and Eve themselves felt that they shouldn’t be naked.
“shameful and scandalous and morally bankrupt”
2. “anything goes as long as it’s for a good cause”
I’ll go with door #1
I stand by my statement and reject your equivocating and morally relativistic reasoning.
I hope that you all don’t mind this Episcopalian woman posting in this post …
I believe that you are correct. Fig leaves were the first clothes(loincloths) made by Adam and Eve.
Here is the supporting scripture Genesis 3:6-11 (NRSV)
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and
they knew that they were naked;and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. 8 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him,“Where are you?”10 He said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
Interesting to note, the Episcopal women that posed in God's house were not afraid like Adam and Eve to appear naked in front of Him. This is AWESOME, don't you agree! Adam and Eve felt guilt for what they had done, while these women knew that what they were doing was bringing awareness of an awful cancer that has touched many of their sisters in Christ! He knows where these sisters hearts were at--not picking an apple off a tree rather being caring and supportive towards another of God's children with a lot of good old fashion laughter to go around. The gift of laughter-- Praise God! God Is Good-All The Time! AMEN!
Being sincere does not make the acts morally acceptable. It just means the folks were sincere. Wrong, but sincere.
It seems pretty clear that you do not understand the difference between shameful and shameless. Porn stars are not ashamed to have sex on film. It is absoltely HORRIBLE that the consciences of these woman, the pastor and all involved are so twisted and sickened that they would do despicable thing. The ends do not justify the means.
There was a movie made for a similar situation in the U K. It is called The Carelender Girls but they did not pose in a Church.
church >>> reverence
senior ladies’ nudity in church >>> mockery of the One who is to be revered in a house of worship and not funny at all
I was not making a mockery of anything. The reason I said that they did not pose in a church for the movie was I thought that some people who were not familar with the story might think that they did the same thing in the U K and I did not want them to think that.
Certainly not the place for something like that.
There are many scriptures that say basically that one should not do evil to a good end. The money-changers in the Temple, for starters.