login info join!
Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Why is nudity a sin? Search   Reply
first1234567last
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


Extreme Body Art wrote:

No it isn't.

If people believe one thing and the church writes something completely contrary to what the "people" say.. the church doesn't change to fit to what the people say.

It's the church's job to fix any "False" understandings of what is being taught.. not the other way around.

Think this out in real-world terms.  You speak as if the church is a completely different entity than the people running it.  It isn't.

This is why religion has changed over the years.  21st century Christianity is totally different than the Christianity that started in the 1st centry.

Jan 15 12 04:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


Robert Sawin wrote:

You know I adressed this issue in my statement BUT NOOO just ignore me.  hmm

I didn't see it.

Jan 15 12 04:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Sawin
Posts: 6,740
Carlsbad, California, US


Robert Sawin wrote:
The bible says that if you look at another women with lust in your heart then you are committing adultery.  It also goes on to say that every person you have slept with is considered a marriage in the sight of God  and is also considered adultery.   Because Images tempt man to think or do things that might make them sin, its the actual action that becomes sin.  that is the lusting and the act of making love with another women out of wedlock. 

God made sex.  Sex is not dirty it is man that defiled and perverted sex.  Sex is between a man and a women and there god.  it is a union between the three. 

For ages there have been angelic pieces of art depicting women as nude. such as the birth of venus.  Even in great churches there are nude images of adam and eve. 

Before sin in the garden of eden both adam and eve roomed the garden with out shame.  when they ate the fruit of good and evil they where aware of there nakedness and that produced shame.  the awareness had nothing to do with nakedness it self but rather innocence.  Its much the same with a 2yo running around the house naked.  when we grow older we become aware of such things in the world and we feel shame when we expose our selves in a socially inappropriate way. 

So in the long and short of it the images them self do or are not sin its the malice behind the creation or the malice of the person consuming the image that creates sin. 

the bible also goes on to say if your arm causes you to sin then cut it off.  in other words if you go to the store and the magazine rack is filled with naked women then don't go to that store if that is your weakness.

here it is.

Jan 15 12 05:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


Robert Sawin wrote:
here it is.

You can take my statement that "Churches are NOT OK with nudity" for face value.
I challenge you to show me any Church (of a name-brand religion) that accepts modern day nudity.  Don't refer me to statues and artworks from 1000 years ago.  I gave examples of nudity that is not acceptable in any modern church of a name-brand religion.
I made the statement contradicting Art of CIP's assertion that "Church is not against nudity."

In fact, the Church is in fact against nudity, which is why no modern day depictions of nudity are present in Churches.  Don't keep refering to artworks grandfathered in from cultures 1000 years ago.

Jan 15 12 05:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Body Painter
Extreme Body Art
Posts: 4,932
West Jordan, Utah, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
Think this out in real-world terms.  You speak as if the church is a completely different entity than the people running it.  It isn't.

This is why religion has changed over the years.  21st century Christianity is totally different than the Christianity that started in the 1st centry.

What do you think the Epistles were?
Epistle to the Galatians
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Philippians
Epistle to the Colossians


They were letters from the HEAD of the Church telling THE PEOPLE what they were doing was wrong.

So yes, the people of the church is different from the people who lead it.
And in those letters, you will not find one Epistle stating "Nudity should be between husband and wife".

That is a personal belief.. not Church doctrine.

Jan 15 12 05:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
Christopher Willingham
Posts: 21,859
Long Beach, California, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
You're being totally evasive to my points.
Art of CIP wrote:
It's not evasive at all.  My experiences are different from yours

We're not talking experiences.

Thus the glaring flaw of religion.

Rather it be religion, education, employment, and life in general - there will always be differences.  This is a fact of life - if you feel religion has some special designation that allows it to exist outside of the same conditions every living thing on this planet does, then perhaps it might be time you take a serious look at why you hold those beliefs.

Jan 15 12 05:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


Extreme Body Art wrote:
So yes, the people of the church is different from the people who lead it.

Totally untrue.

And in those letters, you will not find one Epistle stating "Nudity should be between husband and wife".

That is a personal belief.. not Church doctrine.

Would there be a Church if there were no people?
Again, I say, the Church is the people.  You can't separate the two.

Jan 15 12 05:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


Art of CIP wrote:

Rather it be religion, education, employment, and life in general - there will always be differences.

Not in mathematics and sciences though.

Jan 15 12 05:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Erick Prince
Posts: 3,457
Austin, Texas, US


MisterC wrote:

Should it be disorganized?

Absolutely. If people worshiped how they choose to rather than follow some LOOSELY interpreted and edited doctrine that continuously is changed the world would be a far better place.

Jan 15 12 05:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Sawin
Posts: 6,740
Carlsbad, California, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
You can take my statement that "Churches are NOT OK with nudity" for face value.
I challenge you to show me any Church (of a name-brand religion) that accepts modern day nudity.  Don't refer me to statues and artworks from 1000 years ago.  I gave examples of nudity that is not acceptable in any modern church of a name-brand religion.
I made the statement contradicting Art of CIP's assertion that "Church is not against nudity."

In fact, the Church is in fact against nudity, which is why no modern day depictions of nudity are present in Churches.  Don't keep refering to artworks grandfathered in from cultures 1000 years ago.

How much you want to bet a church would except a naked image or stain glass window  of adam and eave, or a naked baby jesus or something along those lines.

the fact is god made sex and the human body.  churches who are down right against nudity may have issues of there own to mend.  Like I said sex is good the human body is made in the image of God.  but it was man and his sinful ways who defiled the very nature of sex and the image of the human body.

Look at children and women in third world countries who are naked in images.  I see them in bulletins all the time at our church for missions.

Jan 15 12 05:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Body Painter
Extreme Body Art
Posts: 4,932
West Jordan, Utah, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Totally untrue.


Would there be a Church if there were no people?
Again, I say, the Church is the people.  You can't separate the two.

You aren't understanding...

The body of the church has no bearing on what is "allowed".

If the people thought human sacrifices should be practiced and the HEAD of the church said "Sorry, no".. the head directs the body.. it won't happen or they are technically no longer members of that specific organization.

But then.. maybe YOUR church is "the people" the Church I go to has a Head and is directed by that head.

People can believe all they want and say anything they want, but if the head says differently... sorry. It doesn't change.

Jan 15 12 05:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


Robert Sawin wrote:

How much you want to bet a church would except a naked image or stain glass window  of adam and eave, or a naked baby jesus or something along those lines.

Again, I am refering to modern day nudity

I'm well aware of nude images of Biblical characters.  Even then, genetalia is conventiently covered or hidden or removed.

Jan 15 12 05:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Orca Bay Images
Posts: 32,233
Lodi, California, US


Robert Sawin wrote:
How much you want to bet a church would except a naked image or stain glass window  of adam and eave, or a naked baby jesus or something along those lines.

Many churches likely would except such artwork. As in, not accept it.

Jan 15 12 05:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
GHWatson
Posts: 520
WINSTON SALEM, North Carolina, US


If you show your bits, you're gonna burn in the fiery pits of hell in eternal damnation.

http://images.zaazu.com/img/The-Devil-devil-fire-monster-smiley-emoticon-000833-medium.gif

Unless you're charging industry rates, of course..
Jan 15 12 05:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Sawin
Posts: 6,740
Carlsbad, California, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Again, I am refering to modern day nudity

I'm well aware of nude images of Biblical characters.  Even then, genetalia is conventiently covered or hidden or removed.

In many cases that may be true but sex and the human body has never changed sense the dawn of man.  This simple human pleasure we call sex is just a natural part of being human.  It is simple ignorance with in the church when people get all out of touch with what those things are.   

Church is not a bunch of ned flanders there are churches that have a balanced view of what sex means and the value of the human body.

Jan 15 12 05:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25,779
Newark, California, US


Erick Prince wrote:

Absolutely. If people worshiped how they choose to rather than follow some LOOSELY interpreted and edited doctrine that continuously is changed the world would be a far better place.

Jim Jones and Kim Jong Il agree with you.

Jan 15 12 05:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
Christopher Willingham
Posts: 21,859
Long Beach, California, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
Not in mathematics and sciences though.

Then why in every math and science class I have ever taken, some students flourished while others failed?  We were all given the same books, assigned the same homework, and taught the same knowledge.  Yet not all got the same grades.   Oh, and by the way - math and science does change - throughout history countless discoveries have been made, and chances are many more will be made.

Jan 15 12 05:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Body Painter
Extreme Body Art
Posts: 4,932
West Jordan, Utah, US


Art of CIP wrote:

Then why in every math and science class I have ever taken, some students flourished while others failed?  We were all given the same books, assigned the same homework, and taught the same knowledge.  Yet not all got the same grades.   Oh, and by the way - math and science does change - throughout history countless discoveries have been made, and chances are many more will be made.

QFT

Jan 15 12 05:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Orca Bay Images
Posts: 32,233
Lodi, California, US


Erick Prince wrote:
Absolutely. If people worshiped how they choose to rather than follow some LOOSELY interpreted and edited doctrine that continuously is changed the world would be a far better place.
SKPhoto wrote:
Jim Jones and Kim Jong Il agree with you.

And Tomás de Torquemada would love you, SK.

Jan 15 12 05:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


Robert Sawin wrote:

In many cases that may be true but sex and the human body has never changed sense the dawn of man.  This simple human pleasure we call sex is just a natural part of being human.  It is simple ignorance with in the church when people get all out of touch with what those things are.   

Church is not a bunch of ned flanders there are churches that have a balanced view of what sex means and the value of the human body.

Yes, but, that isn't the point we're debating.  I'm speaking of modern day Church being OK with nudity.

Jan 15 12 05:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
Not in mathematics and sciences though.
Art of CIP wrote:
Then why in every math and science class I have ever taken, some students flourished while others failed? We were all given the same books, assigned the same homework, and taught the same knowledge.  Yet not all got the same grades.

Different mental capacities, different parental upbringing.  Some people pay attention, some don't, most are somewhere in between.  This should be obvious to you.

Art of CIP wrote:
Oh, and by the way - math and science does change - throughout history countless discoveries have been made, and chances are many more will be made.

And when those discoveries are made, the entire science community adjusts accordingly and uniformly...unlike religion wink  Science is also much more methodical in finding the truth.  Also, scientific discoveries are provable and reproducable...otherwise, it's called a "theory".

Jan 15 12 06:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
Christopher Willingham
Posts: 21,859
Long Beach, California, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
Not in mathematics and sciences though.
Art of CIP wrote:
Then why in every math and science class I have ever taken, some students flourished while others failed? We were all given the same books, assigned the same homework, and taught the same knowledge.  Yet not all got the same grades.

Different mental capacities, different parental upbringing.  Some people pay attention, some don't, most are somewhere in between.  This should be obvious to you.


And when those discoveries are made, the entire science community adjusts accordingly and uniformly...unlike religion wink  Science is also much more methodical in finding the truth.  Also, scientific discoveries are provable and reproducable...otherwise, it's called a "theory".

The first question was clearly and obviously rhetorical...

Science provides man with a framework to study and understand observable phenomena.  That is to say that it is a human realm of study and knowledge.  What happens if something exists outside the the realm of phenomena that is observable to humans?  Does this mean it does not exist?

Jan 15 12 06:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


Art of CIP wrote:

The first question was clearly and obviously rhetorical...

Science provides man with a framework to study and understand observable phenomena.  That is to say that it is a human realm of study and knowledge.  What happens if something exists outside the the realm of phenomena that is observable to humans?  Does this mean it does not exist?

Yes wink

Jan 15 12 07:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DHayes Photography
Posts: 4,807
Richmond, Virginia, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Yes, but, that isn't the point we're debating.  I'm speaking of modern day Church being OK with nudity.

"Ex Nihilo" (out of nothing) was created by sculptor Frederick Hart and unveiled in 1982.  It is one of three friezes commissioned to decorate the west facade of the Washington National Cathedral.  The figures are a bit larger than life sized and anatomically correct.

http://www.lahainagalleries.com/images/frederick_hart_full_scale_exnihilo.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_sd4aOA0Ur-I/SexTQyC9SRI/AAAAAAAAFaM/UtnW1vv0ITg/2237745165_821690ac0a_o%5B4%5D.jpg

Jan 15 12 07:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


^^^ Angels huh?
Jan 15 12 07:57 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Justin
Posts: 21,682
Fort Collins, Colorado, US


Justin wrote:
The National Legion of Decency was not part of the church I went to - although we were supposed to be very mindful of the Legion's ratings.
Art of CIP wrote:
Sorry   your church experience was a poor one.

Um, the National Legion of Decency was a national (hence the name) authority, voice of the church. Nudity in movies drew an automatic C ("condemned"). They had to be talked out of giving a C in "Cleopatra" due to Elizabeth Taylor's bath scene (which didn't actually show the bits fully). Good Catholics didn't go see the "C" movies, and good Catholic kids didn't get to see the "adult" designated movies.

Things have changed a bit. The MPAA killed the Legion of Decency. Mercifully.

Jan 15 12 08:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25,779
Newark, California, US


Justin wrote:

Justin wrote:
The National Legion of Decency was not part of the church I went to - although we were supposed to be very mindful of the Legion's ratings.

Um, the National Legion of Decency was a national (hence the name) authority, voice of the church.

Of the Catholic denomination.

Jan 15 12 08:12 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Justin
Posts: 21,682
Fort Collins, Colorado, US


Justin wrote:
Um, the National Legion of Decency was a national (hence the name) authority, voice of the church.
SKPhoto wrote:
Of the Catholic denomination.

Yes, indeed. In case that wasn't clear with all my, when I went to Catholic school, and good Catholics followed what the Legion said, and all that. That was all a Catholic thing.

Jan 15 12 08:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
New Kidd Imagery
Posts: 1,909
South Salt Lake, Utah, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
^^^ Angels huh?

Naked angels.. still nude.
What do you need as proof before you will give it up?

this?
http://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/pot … iew/440872 18+

Jan 15 12 08:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mickle Design Werks
Posts: 5,949
Washington, District of Columbia, US


New Kidd Imagery wrote:
This is a serious question.
This is not directed at any one model as I have had about 3 or 4 models reply to my inquiries about nude modeling and they reply saying "I don't pose nude because I'm Christian".

But I have photographed quite a few "Christian" models in the nude. So if it is against the Christian belief to pose nude, why are there models that ARE Christian posing nude?

Are they sinning?

Nudity in an of itself is not sinful, it's how it's used that some belief systems and religions rail against. It's just gotten to the point where people conflate these beliefs with the actual state of being naked.

I've always found it funny that nudity is so frowned upon yet according to some religions this is the image that God has made us into. Don't think God cared so much about fashion.

Jan 15 12 08:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25,779
Newark, California, US


Justin wrote:

Justin wrote:
Um, the National Legion of Decency was a national (hence the name) authority, voice of the church.

Yes, indeed. In case that wasn't clear with all my, when I went to Catholic school, and good Catholics followed what the Legion said, and all that. That was all a Catholic thing.

When believers (I won't say church-goers here, as they are not necessarily one and the same thing as evidenced by such as post in SB and admit to it) say "the church" they are referring to the body of believers worldwide regardless of sect or denomination.

Jan 15 12 08:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6,420
Nashville, Tennessee, US


New Kidd Imagery wrote:

Naked angels.. still nude.
What do you need as proof before you will give it up?

this?
http://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/pot … iew/440872 18+

Basically yes.  This is why I kept specifying "modern-day" nudity.  That ancient stuff is "excusable".  Sort of like how a B&W nude = fine art wink

Jan 15 12 08:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Christina__Smith
Posts: 1,202
Modesto, California, US


I dont believe in god so Im off the hook....I think a lot of Christian people hold to a certain code of conduct just like any other subculture in the US and nudity is thought of as being something shameful. The book of genesis points this out very clearly. I do think it depends on the individual persons interpretation of what is acceptable and what is not, however..there are lots of different christians with different viewpoints
Jan 15 12 08:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Wysiwyg Photography
Posts: 6,326
Salt Lake City, Utah, US


New Kidd Imagery wrote:
Naked angels.. still nude.
What do you need as proof before you will give it up?

this?
http://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/pot … iew/440872 18+
ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
Basically yes.  This is why I kept specifying "modern-day" nudity.  That ancient stuff is "excusable".  Sort of like how a B&W nude = fine art wink

WELL in that case.. yes.. the Church would not be OK with THAT type of nudity.. but nudity in general SIMPLE nudity (even the black and white shit you so callously toss aside and say "No.. it cannot be innocent nudity".) Would be OK.. as already proven.

We were just talking about nudity in general.. not "explicit" nudity.

Jan 15 12 08:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Honey Stinger
Posts: 6,328
Madison, Wisconsin, US


Christina__Smith wrote:
I dont believe in god so Im off the hook....I think a lot of Christian people hold to a certain code of conduct just like any other subculture in the US and nudity is thought of as being something shameful. The book of genesis points this out very clearly. I do think it depends on the individual persons interpretation of what is acceptable and what is not, however..there are lots of different christians with different viewpoints

I like that you refer to Christians in the US as a subculture. I thought I lived in the wayoutasphere.

Jan 15 12 08:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25,779
Newark, California, US


Christina__Smith wrote:
I dont believe in god so Im off the hook....I think a lot of Christian people hold to a certain code of conduct just like any other subculture in the US and nudity is thought of as being something shameful. The book of genesis points this out very clearly. I do think it depends on the individual persons interpretation of what is acceptable and what is not, however..there are lots of different christians with different viewpoints

Since you don't believe in God, perhaps you should stay off the hook when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

Jan 15 12 08:49 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Justin
Posts: 21,682
Fort Collins, Colorado, US


SKPhoto wrote:
When believers (I won't say church-goers here, as they are not necessarily one and the same thing as evidenced by such as post in SB and admit to it) say "the church" they are referring to the body of believers worldwide regardless of sect or denomination.

I'll catch you up. Here's how it went:

Me: If the church is OK with nudity, why is the crucified Jesus always shown with a loincloth?

Art of CIP: Crucifixion was a Roman execution technique.  The execution of Christ is a fairly sanitized subject matter.  After all - crucifixion is fairly gruesome, the images are cleaned up as much as possible.  Let's face it, an accurate, gruesome portrayal of a Roman execution via crucifixion isn't exactly something folks want be to looking at as the choir sings.

Me: We've been to different churches. I've seen plenty of representations with the spikes driven through palms or wrists, through the feet, the crown of thorns on the head, blood flowing freely, and the subject looking up in agony. Never has the divine penis seen sunlight in those images, though.

Look, this is a real stretch. You look at the Catholic Church's ratings of movies, and why they rated them, prior to the MPAA. Look at Catholic school uniforms. Look at depictions of Adam and Eve and the Crucifixion. Julius II and his embrace of Michaelangelo's work notwithstanding, yes, the church has had a big problem with nudity. I was in it. I know.



So that was the bridge to the Catholic Church, and that's how the discussion tracked from that point, at least at my end. But it still seems apparent to me that the church/Church certainly doesn't embrace nudity all that easily, and certainly not with depictions of the crucifixion. (We don't even need to get into Paul's bit about women dressing modestly and not braiding their hair.)

Jan 15 12 08:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Sawin
Posts: 6,740
Carlsbad, California, US


SKPhoto wrote:

Since you don't believe in God, perhaps you should stay off the hook when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

LOL.  while in some distant universe I would want to agree with you.  But I can't mainly because as a christian my self I see and have people react negatively towards my belief and often times out of ignorance.  I believe it is a christians duty to show love and compassion towards  those who don't know Jesus.  I have no intentions on cramming any thing down peoples thoughts but I'd be damned if I just sit back and not at least say anything.  Because I believe in heaven and hell and a god that saves, how could I live with my self knowing that I never said a few words to that unbeliever and it caused him or her to go to hell because of my failure to act.  So it is a burden that God has placed on my heart to be a positive witness to those who do not know and don't understand. 

But all the while I know that even God him self can witness to those where there is no salt and light.  I have herd peoples testimonies on this.  there is nothing that can take man away from the love of God

Jan 15 12 08:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
Christopher Willingham
Posts: 21,859
Long Beach, California, US


ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Yes wink

Interesting.  One simple philosophical question, and you would rather completely conflict science and philosophy rather ponder a question that conflicts with your world view...

Jan 15 12 10:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
Christopher Willingham
Posts: 21,859
Long Beach, California, US


Justin wrote:

Justin wrote:
The National Legion of Decency was not part of the church I went to - although we were supposed to be very mindful of the Legion's ratings.

Um, the National Legion of Decency was a national (hence the name) authority, voice of the church. Nudity in movies drew an automatic C ("condemned"). They had to be talked out of giving a C in "Cleopatra" due to Elizabeth Taylor's bath scene (which didn't actually show the bits fully). Good Catholics didn't go see the "C" movies, and good Catholic kids didn't get to see the "adult" designated movies.

Things have changed a bit. The MPAA killed the Legion of Decency. Mercifully.

You keep using church and catholic as if they are one in the same.  You do realize there is protestant religion as well right?  Once again, I am sorry your experience with religion was a poor one.

Jan 15 12 10:25 pm  Link  Quote 
first1234567last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers