Nude Church! Pastor Bares Soul and More

reply to post by sk0rpi0n
I was distancing?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Modesty is not wanting to clothe yourself. Arrogance is thinking that you deserve to wear designer jeans and brand name shoes.

You're materialist, that's all. So sit right there and stop telling people how to worship.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You don't need to post a verse in order to have every one of your sentiments based on a thought or belief that can be found in the source of those verses. I don't have to admit that I am racist, but I can still demand that all blacks be prevented from voting. And by the way, I'm not racist. It was only an example.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I can assure you, not wanting to be around a bunch of obese naked middle aged dudes has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. I don't need a verse to know I dont want to be within 100 yards of that.

I was once a member of a home-cell group (a Christian gathering at a church member's house in the week) and this one family had a great pool, so after the religious session everybody would go for a summer evening swim.

Although everybody wore bathing costumes, I was quite shocked to notice that the middle-aged house owner wore a speedo, and lets just say it was virtually see-through.
I don't think he ever noticed, and I doubt it was purposeful.
I think others noticed it too, but nobody ever commented, apparently not even his wife.
But it actually made me wonder what the purpose of that little cloth was.
Perhaps convention rather than anything practical.

In SA the impoverished black community sometimes don't have bathing suits, and around the Christmas holidays beaches were swamped with people in their underwear.
OK, it's a covering, but once again it leaves little to the imagination.
But so what?

I think clothing can even make it worse, by squeezing and contorting things in strange ways.

So if one could preach on a beach to all genders, shapes and sizes, then I really don't see why the lack of a fragile piece of fabric could make so much difference.

It's fascinating to note that not nudity itself, but the kinds of bodies that are nude are most frowned upon (which seems to be negatively sexualizing them in a dismissive sense, as if bodies could not exist outside frameworks of attractiveness/repulsiveness).
That's quite interesting, because those body shapes might not be frowned upon in Africa.

reply to post by halfoldman
If I lived in Africa, I'd go at least without a bra, if not topless altogether, unless I could assure myself that my underclothes were not getting egg deposits from this nasty fly that doesn't mind setting up larvae in your mammaries. The only other option? Iron your bras.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


I think a few of us might enjoy that...but something tells me that aesthetic values were not part of the discussion in this church.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

A good word of advice.


Especially in the last two decades, Africans have become very aware of the Western or colonial gaze on their traditions, and even topless women have become increasingly rare, and at mass events like the Swazi or Zulu Reed Dances foreign journalists and photographers are now strictly controlled or banned.

Real intentional nudism is mainly a white interest in SA.
So African people might frown upon the genital nudity in gender mixed company, but they wouldn't frown on the age or size of the bodies.
In that sense what bodies signify as "respected men" and "attractive women" are still largely different.
There are Western influences, but it's not pervasive, especially in rural areas.
Especially in areas ravaged by AIDS the slimmer figure may even carry a stigma.
So there's also an issue of imagined "health" with bodies, and wanting to associate with bodies that appear more healthy and prosperous according to various cultural positions.

I think in the US it takes some money to keep the younger body, the slimmer and more muscular body beyond a certain age, and concepts of what qualifies such bodies today imply wealth and some sort of industry intervention, although it also comes with health-risks.
In that sense the West Virginia pastor is a betrayal of a certain kind of advertised body.
We don't see him nude really, but what we do see is not what Fashion TV tells us "beautiful bodies" should be like, and hence the anxiety.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Perhaps so, but ddin't the man after God's own heart dance around naked? Why yes, yes he did.

No he did not, nowhere does it say that David danced naked in the OT, where'd you get that crap from the Richard Gere movie about King David? Don't use Hollywood for your biblical source.

2 Samuel 6:14-15

14 Wearing a linen ephod, David was dancing before the Lord with all his might, 15 while he and all Israel were bringing up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets.

He was wearing a linen Ephod which is a type of holy garment.

This is a pic of an Ephod

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Modesty is not wanting to clothe yourself. Arrogance is thinking that you deserve to wear designer jeans and brand name shoes.

You're materialist, that's all. So sit right there and stop telling people how to worship.

LMAO, thats the most absurd thing i ever heard. I go to church wearing t-shirts and shorts in the summer, and overalls in the winter. Do not presume to make assumptions about me without meeting me. I'm not the one sitting naked in a church pew being indecent. I don't need a 5k dollar armani suit or dress up like i'm going to a funeral to worship, i shop for clothing at Wal-mart bucko, but then again i'm a grown ass man not some kid fiending for the latest 80 dollar pair of Old Navy jeans.

So there, you don't know as much about me as you like to pretend you do.

And on the eighth day,
man created bibles,
so those that cannot cover themselves,
are unseen,
by the grace of the good book.

I was hoping to hear the sermon about,
Eves bastard child named
Johnny Appleseed.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Nah, was more working through his wife's response:

20 But when David returned to bless his household, Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, "How the king of Israel distinguished himself today! He uncovered himself today in the eyes of his servants' maids as one of the foolish ones shamelessly uncovers himself!"

Not naked by our standard, mind you, but certainly naked by hers.

Not to attack or criticize anyone or their customs, but there are many churches that regard casual clothes as "indecent" and "disrespectful" during services.

Some may tolerate bad and trashy clothes for a first time, or even donate clothes to really poor converts.
But what you wear becomes a sign of respect.
Others just socialize members into accepted behavior, or even forbid entry to the "indecently dressed".
It varies, but buttoned shirts and long trousers are usually required for men in most evangelical mega-churches here.
The Mormons (I hear they have some kind of special underwear) and the Jehovah's Witnesses are famously well and respectfully dressed.

For women the rules may be more strict than for men.
Many African countries now follow church rules on long dresses for women in society at large (and no trousers).
In some Westernized countries it can lead to cultural antagonism.
Last year, for example, the Russian Orthodox Church wanted to introduce dress codes:



A Baptist word on how women shouldn't wear pants to church to avoid "gender confusion" (although biblically men didn't wear pants):



At least with nudity no pastor will be "gender confused", and "indecency" varies between churches, and some Christians would be totally outraged at the trashy clothes worn in other denominations.
And isn't it always quaint to hear a pastor talk on decency when he refers to other people as "things" and "queers", as if he was the picture of masculinity?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

. I'm not the one sitting naked in a church pew being indecent

i shop for clothing at Wal-mart bucko,

In my opinion anyone who shops at Walmart is way more indecent and lacks a real moral compass. Walmart is to blame for the collapse of many local economies and you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting them.

You do realize that these people are inside of a PRIVATE nudist facility. Everyone in that facility has consented to be a part of it. They are all fully aware that nudity will be allowed during all functions and services provided.

When did God appoint you to be their judge? You no right to judge the morality of these people. They are not exposing themselves to the public. They are not holding services in a location where people who object will be exposed to them.

I find your behavior to be much more offensive than those of the people in the video.

reply to post by IpsissimusMagus

You do realize that these people are inside of a PRIVATE nudist facility. Everyone in that facility has consented to be a part of it. They are all fully aware that nudity will be allowed during all functions and services provided.

I don't give a damn if they were naked on the moon with the Queen of England's consent, naked people could cause someone to stumble and lust and Yeshua is against anything that could cause someone to stumble and sin.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Yeshua is against anything that could cause someone to stumble and sin.

That may apply in your church but it does not apply to all Christian churches. There are many denominations and they all have different practices.

Why don't you go and tell all these church how to practice their faith and how they should conduct their service?

en.wikipedia.org...

1 Catholicism
1.1 Catholic Church
1.2 Other churches
2 Eastern Orthodox
2.1 Eastern Orthodox Church
2.2 Other churches
3 Oriental Orthodoxy
4 Church of the East
5 Protestantism
5.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants
5.2 Lutheranism
5.3 Anglicanism
5.4 Reformed Churches
5.5 Presbyterianism
5.6 Congregationalist Churches
5.7 Anabaptists
5.8 Brethren
5.9 Methodists
5.10 Pietists and Holiness Churches
5.11 Baptists
5.12 Apostolic Churches – Irvingites
5.13 Pentecostalism
5.14 Charismatics
5.15 African Initiated Churches
5.16 United and uniting churches
5.17 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
5.18 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
5.19 Southcottites
5.20 Millerites and comparable groups
5.21 British-Israelism
5.22 Christian Identity
5.23 Miscellaneous/Other
6 Nontrinitarian groups
6.1 Latter Day Saints
6.2 Oneness Pentecostalism
6.3 Unitarianism and Universalism
6.4 Bible Student groups
6.5 Swedenborgianism
6.6 Other non-Trinitarians
7 New Thought
8 Messianic Judaism / Jewish Christians
9 Esoteric Christianity

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Perhaps it could, but I'm not so sure.
Nowhere does Jesus say nudity is required to form lust.

Most people who've been to nudist colonies say it's very disappointing for those expecting anything sexual or lustful.

I think the nudists have generally distanced themselves from perverts quite successfully.

Clothes can also provoke lust, and furthermore accentuate attractiveness and hide imperfections.
I doubt lust could be felt for a person in the nude that couldn't be felt with clothes.

I think it's more about a mark between the "uncivilized" and "civilization" that developed during colonialism (like the "raw" and the "cooked"), considering that much of the southern world and continents were essentially unclothed.
The colonists came there with a sense that they were superior, and the European clothing was a part of that.
(And pushing the cotton markets that made clothes as trade goods with slaves, that no culture in those climates needed for thousands of years.)
Sure, there were some bloodthirsty states, but mostly the colonized people were not abnormal or unstructured.
Even the first converts weren't clothed, and it was a gradual process.

I guess a lot of people would immediately think nudity equals smutty magazines or porn, but those bodies are usually not natural, and they're either enhanced in some way, or chosen from masses of people.

Sure, nudism isn't for everybody, but it's quite a leap to judge that as inherently indecent and lustful.

The OP clip certainly didn't provoke "lust".

But, each to their own view on things.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus

 

You do realize that these people are inside of a PRIVATE nudist facility. Everyone in that facility has consented to be a part of it. They are all fully aware that nudity will be allowed during all functions and services provided.

I don't give a damn if they were naked on the moon with the Queen of England's consent, naked people could cause someone to stumble and lust and Yeshua is against anything that could cause someone to stumble and sin.

Maybe you should re evaluate the meaning of true faith and giving ones soul to God. I am not judging but if it were me that thought that way I would wonder how strong my faith really was.

reply to post by halfoldman

Nowhere does Jesus say nudity is required to form lust.

You're providing more than enough viewing material to create lust. Thats all you need to create the catalyst for lust which is why hebrew women were covered from head to toe under rather muslim like garments, minus burka and hijab.