S W I N S K E Y wrote:
thank god i'm an atheist....

M*A*S*H
Capt. B.J. Hunnicut: Would you like to talk to Father Mulcahy?
The Sergeant: Okay, but I'm an atheist.
Capt. B.J. Hunnicut: Really?
The Sergeant: Swear to God.

Art of CIP wrote:
Nudity is not a Christian sin.  Lust is.  However - if you walk down the street naked, it is against the law.  Go figure - the church is OK with nudity, but the US government is not...  Hmmmm

Funny how that works eh?

If I ever got a message that said "I'm a Christian" I would reply back "Cool, So am I"

I wouldn't try and talk her/him into anything she would be comfortable doing, But i would just simply reply to any remark stating "I have morals, I am a Christian, etc."
... Hell, I have even got the "I'm Mormon" and actually DID reply back "Cool, so am I."

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
Christians don't agree on things


as noted by Alexander the Great.

Ahhhhhh... this was noted by Alexander the Great? He died in 323BC. I think that the 'BC' is still 'Before Christ' Dr Raven.

Art of CIP wrote:
Nudity is not a Christian sin.  Lust is.  However - if you walk down the street naked, it is against the law.  Go figure - the church is OK with nudity, but the US government is not...  Hmmmm

So you're saying your Church allows women to strip naked in service and dance to the choir?  The preacher can drop his pants to emphasize a point during his sermon?

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

So you're saying your Church allows women to strip naked in service and dance to the choir?  The preacher can drop his pants to emphasize a point during his sermon?

Nope - you are saying that.

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

So you're saying your Church allows women to strip naked in service and dance to the choir?  The preacher can drop his pants to emphasize a point during his sermon?

"Lap Dance" would be creating arousal/lust... so.. that likely wouldn't happen

BUT... I sure would laugh AND i wouldn't be opposed to a preacher dropping trou  to prove a point if it was relevant to the lesson

976 Photography wrote:
Well, Adam and Eve were all nekkid in the Garden of Eden. (contrary to the popular belief in the existance of fig-leaf clothing)

And they ended up getting kicked out in part because Eve made Adam eat an apple that was from a forbidden tree ("forbidden fruit", get it? But of course in this case it's literal...) and in part because after eating the fruit they suddenly became aware of their nekkidness and were ashamed of it.

Being made in God's own very image, that didn't sit too well with the Lord, cause it meant they were ashamed of HIS image (body)... and there was that whole "forbidden" thing also...

So they got kicked to the curb and told that if they insisted on wearing clothes, that it should all be made of the same fabric/material lest they impose the wrath of God again and get smote... smitten? Something like that...

So, actually there's nothing wrong with nudity according to God. Cause we all look like Him, and if we're ashamed of our own bodies then we're ashamed of him, which is a big no no. As for "causing" lust in others, well that's not one of God's laws. He doesn't care how "lustfull" you appear, it's on everyone else to not give into their own lust and desires. Otherwise it's their sin, not yours.

"Thou shall not covet your neighbor's wife" simply means, "look, I don't care if she's prancing around her garden in her birthday suit, she's off limits and that's all on you buddy. Control yourself or burn in Hell!"

No where does it say "Thou shall not display thyself in the nude lest ye tempt others and cause them to burn in Hell"

Genesis 2:9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=KJV

We don't know if it was an apple, the Bible doesn't say that, it was just a Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Exodus 20:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=KJV

I really like the part about not Coveting thy neighbor's ass... So models shouldn't look at other models asses and say "Damn, I wish I had an ass like hers"

But anyway
I agree completely that you cannot CAUSE someone to sin.. if you are doing nude photography and the person LOOKING at it chooses to "lust"... that is on him/her, not the person DOING the nude photography.

Extreme Body Art wrote:
Genesis 2:9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=KJV

We don't know if it was an apple, the Bible doesn't say that, it was just a Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Ah, yes. I believe the popular mythos (i.e. pop culture) has always depicted it as an apple, which is why I always mention it that way.

Exodus 20:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=KJV

I really like the part about not Coveting thy neighbor's ass... So models shouldn't look at other models asses and say "Damn, I wish I had an ass like hers"

But anyway
I agree completely that you cannot CAUSE someone to sin.. if you are doing nude photography and the person LOOKING at it chooses to "lust"... that is on him/her, not the person DOING the nude photography.

Yep.

Lohkee wrote:
Waits for lisa and her white knight to come in and save the day

She has a knight?

Art of CIP wrote:
Nudity is not a Christian sin.  Lust is.  However - if you walk down the street naked, it is against the law.  Go figure - the church is OK with nudity, but the US government is not...  Hmmmm

So being naked is not sinful, but enticing Lust would be sinful.

Dave the design student wrote:

So being naked is not sinful, but enticing Lust would be sinful.

Pretty much.  But nudity does not always equal lust.

291 wrote:
wrong section for a religion post.

Huh??

DeniseRegan Photography wrote:
I think people hide behind their Christianity when they don't want to do something. No offense to any Christians here on MM, but if you want to do something, you do it regardless.

That being said, I don't know the specifics of the model's profile page but if someone says they don't do nudes, why question it? She doesn't want to.

Just saying.

Interesting - I see religion as discipline.  It presents a strict guideline that not everyone can adhere to.  No one can ever achieve all of things religion demands.  But that is also the same of any system that humans choose to better themselves.  Self improvement is never an easy path - to live according to something outside of your own beliefs is very difficult.  But in the end - it just another way that humans seek to be better than they are.

New Kidd Imagery wrote:

I thought you had to post an opinion to post in the Soap Box..

I have no opinion on the matter. Just a question.

The structure of your question indicates that you DO, in fact, have an opinion.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
thank the no-gods i'm an atheist....

fixed.

Art of CIP wrote:

Interesting - I see religion as discipline.  It presents a strict guideline that not everyone can adhere to.  No one can ever achieve all of things religion demands.  But that is also the same of any system that humans choose to better themselves.  Self improvement is never an easy path - to live according to something outside of your own beliefs is very difficult.  But in the end - it just another way that humans seek to be better than they are.

Well, my mother is a Jehovah's Witness...there is a lot of "One of Jehovah's Witnessess would never...." coming from her.

I know a lot of people who go to church every Sunday but don't live a life to support what they say they believe in, so I'm just going by my observations.

I see religion as what resonates within you. Yoga, art, music, or food can all be religions too.

291 wrote:
wrong section for a religion post.

DeniseRegan Photography wrote:
Huh??

religious discussion belongs in sb.  the exception is the religion of football.

Dave the design student wrote:

So being naked is not sinful, but enticing Lust would be sinful.

Isn't lust in the eye of the beholder?
It requires knowing the intention of the poser whether the intention to incite lust was present at the inception of the image, otherwise it's the viewer's business what his/her reaction is. If an image induces any emotion, but there was no intent on the part of the subject nor image maker to illicit a particular emotion, then it is the viewer bringing his/her own reaction and imposing that emotion onto the image.

DeniseRegan Photography wrote:

Well, my mother is a Jehovah's Witness...there is a lot of "One of Jehovah's Witnessess would never...." coming from her.

I know a lot of people who go to church every Sunday but don't live a life to support what they say they believe in, so I'm just going by my observations.

I see religion as what resonates within you. Yoga, art, music, or food can all be religions too.

The reasons are varied from person to person.  In reality though - religion usually reflects the person that is practicing it.  Art, music, yoga, music, and even food - all of these things can be a guiding principle in your life.  I am far more dedicated to Art than I am to any religion - so much so that I have developed a firm work ethic and mission statement that I firmly adhere to.

DeniseRegan Photography wrote:
I think people hide behind their Christianity when they don't want to do something. No offense to any Christians here on MM, but if you want to do something, you do it regardless.

That being said, I don't know the specifics of the model's profile page but if someone says they don't do nudes, why question it? She doesn't want to.

Just saying.

If a model doesn't have "I don't do nudes" actually written in their profile and their images in their portfolio have at least "implied"... I will ask.

But I otherwise agree.
Don't hide behind something and say you don't do something "Because of Such and such"...

"Such and Such" is irrelevant... You don't do it because you don't wanna... That should be good enough.

Image K wrote:

The structure of your question indicates that you DO, in fact, have an opinion.

My bad.. then Mods should feel free about moving it.

New Kidd Imagery wrote:

Very interesting point you bring up.

There are models out there that will pose in the most provocative way they can, as long as they aren't naked "They are good in the eyes of God".

Not that there is anything wrong with that. Models can pose anyway they feel comfortable. Just sometimes their reasoning is a bit "hypocritical".

Exactly my point. Personally I feel quite innocent nude. I don't think it at all sexual. In fact one can feel quite vulnerable in certain situations. We use the term 'naked' to mean defenceless. I certainly don't feel 'provocative'. I think nudity can be beautiful; but having modelled for hundreds of artists over the years - and I wouldn't think any of them would think it sexually provocative either - it just doesn't come into the equation.
Now give me a few items of clothing and it is a whole different ball game.
It can be armour; weaponry.
I modelled for Agent PROVOCATEUR and it that kind of proves the point. Lingerie, stockings, corsets, heels, it can all be provocative. Even red lipstick, a dress; gloves, furs.
Nude I am a saint.
Clothed; I can sin for England.

Dagger133 wrote:
We are by nature sinful and unclean, through the sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, we are redeemed in the eyes of God, The Law is fulfilled.

This is the basic centre of the Christian Faith.  As an institution of man the Christian church is a fragmented and divergent thing, with many opposing views on what is and isn't sinful. So to tar all Christians with the same brush, when debating the sinfulness or lack of sin in expressing the beauty of the human form is a bit unfair.

So with respect to models choosing not pose nude just respect their interpretation of their faith; because at some point we will all be judged by not by the institution of man but by God Himself.

Solid post. Fair to almost everyone, but not in the pandering sense.

Erick Prince wrote:
organized religion

Should it be disorganized?

Dagger133 wrote:
We are by nature sinful and unclean, through the sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, we are redeemed in the eyes of God, The Law is fulfilled.

This is the basic centre of the Christian Faith.  As an institution of man the Christian church is a fragmented and divergent thing, with many opposing views on what is and isn't sinful. So to tar all Christians with the same brush, when debating the sinfulness or lack of sin in expressing the beauty of the human form is a bit unfair.

So with respect to models choosing not pose nude just respect their interpretation of their faith; because at some point we will all be judged by not by the institution of man but by God Himself.

Speak for yourself, please.
It sounds contradictory to include all of humanity by using "we" then claiming it unfair to tar all Christians with the same brush. Isn't there a quotation about motes and logs somewhere?

Niall Photo wrote:

Speak for yourself, please.
It sounds contradictory to include all of humanity by using "we" then claiming it unfair to tar all Christians with the same brush. Isn't there a quotation about motes and logs somewhere?

This. x

Niall Photo wrote:

Speak for yourself, please.
It sounds contradictory to include all of humanity by using "we" then claiming it unfair to tar all Christians with the same brush. Isn't there a quotation about motes and logs somewhere?

A sin simply means against the law of god.  Mankind - all of mankind is naturally in a state of sin.  Why? Simple - because humans in our natural state are bound by the laws of nature and the universe.  So unless you know someone that naturally exists and is bound by the laws of God naturally - then by definition - all humans are sinners.

But to be fair - I should ask you.  In your natural state - are you bound by the laws of God?

studio36uk wrote:
QOTD

"Sin, as a concept, is entirely in the self interest of religion.
But for sin there would be no need of God"
- - - Anon

Studio36

No points for the obvious...  If humans in our natural state adhered to the law of God, then there would be no need for the law of god. However - we are bound by the laws of nature and the universe instead.

Art of CIP wrote:

A sin simply means against the law of god.  Mankind - all of mankind is naturally in a state of sin.  Why? Simple - because humans in our natural state are bound by the laws of nature and the universe.  So unless you know someone that naturally exists and is bound by the laws of God naturally - then by definition - all humans are sinners.

But to be fair - I should ask you.  In your natural state - are you bound by the laws of God?

As soon as there is evidence of a god's existence then I'll let you know. If no gods exist then their laws are meaningless. The rules of common human decency take precedence. "Treat others as you want to be treated" is among the best rules.

The question isn't really relevant- one could just as easily ask you, how can you expect any good to come to you when you do not follow Shiva's guidance? or Why do you risk bringing ruin to our community by ignoring Nah-too-si?

One cannot sin against a god that doesn't exist. The only thing that matters is how we treat each other and ourselves, giving respect for respect and tolerance for tolerance.

Niall Photo wrote:

As soon as there is evidence of a god's existence then I'll let you know. If no gods exist then their laws are meaningless. The rules of common human decency take precedence. "Treat others as you want to be treated" is among the best rules.

The question isn't really relevant- one could just as easily ask you, how can you expect any good to come to you when you do not follow Shiva's guidance? or Why do you risk bringing ruin to our community by ignoring Nah-too-si?

One cannot sin against a god that doesn't exist. The only thing that matters is how we treat each other and ourselves, giving respect for respect and tolerance for tolerance.

Now you are getting into "Does God exist?"

If you do not believe he exists.. there is no sin and you are fine.
There are many beliefs out there on the existence of God and many believe you can pick your favorite and live your life the way you see fit... in other words "Pick a belief system that fits best to the way you WANT to live" vs finding the truth in yourself if you think it is even possible to find the truth.

Art of CIP wrote:
Nudity is not a Christian sin.  Lust is.  However - if you walk down the street naked, it is against the law.  Go figure - the church is OK with nudity, but the US government is not...  Hmmmm

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
So you're saying your Church allows women to strip naked in service and dance to the choir?  The preacher can drop his pants to emphasize a point during his sermon?

Art of CIP wrote:
Nope - you are saying that.

YOU said the Church is OK with nudity.  So I'm giving you hypotheticals to test your assertion.

If the organist dropped his pants and played a solo with no hands, would that be OK ?