Public nudity is never condemned in the Bible or by Jesus, so would do Christians condemn it

abcaines said:
A sin by any other name is still a sin.
Click to expand...
agreed... .. running nakked in the woods all by yourself - when no one else can see you,- is one thing... .. but going skyclad in a group for the very purpose of seeing each other is another thing entirely... a sin regardless of the label applied... and possibly even illegal if children are present...
 
Last edited:
abcaines said:
Yup. Only thing we can do is take what he/she says at face value.

Either way, it's very evident that what they were doing was trying to bring their pervsion on us for their own thrill. Ransom said the posting such stuff is legally classified as sexual harassment. Those who ended up being faced with the posted picture was a victim.
Click to expand...
To be precise, I meant that being sent unsolicited nude pictures (e.g. sexting) is a form of sexual harassment. I'm not 100% certain that posting the same images in public would legally qualify as the same thing, if only because you're not specifically targeting anyone.

But I stand by what I said about doing so without consent. If anyone wants to find themselves removed from the forum with extreme prejudice, no questions asked and no quarter given, naked pictures of(of themselves or anyone else) is the way to go.
 
I’m not in any manner condoning or defending FunCouple’s picture, but I’m pretty sure a low-cut, cleavage-spilling top won’t qualify as “nudity” or “sexual harassment” under any circumstances in any state. I can’t speak for Canada, but I’d imagine the laws are even less sticky there. (Now, all that being said, it’s still inappropriate and s/he shouldn’t be on this forum.)
 
Last edited:
HukNduck said:
I’m not in any manner condoning or defending FunCouple’s picture, but I’m pretty sure a low-cut, cleavage-spilling top won’t qualify as “nudity” or “sexual harassment” under any circumstances in any state. I can’t speak for Canada, but I’d imagine the laws are even less sticky there. (Now, all that being said, it’s still inappropriate and s/he shouldn’t be on this forum.)
Click to expand...
it;s the unwanted nature of it that makes it harassment... .....it use to be that sexual harassment complaints were judged by a reasonable third person standard .. meaning if it wouldn;t offend the average person it shouldn;t have offended the one making the report.... but all that has changed now mostly due to the disappearance of what anyone could call average people.. ... everybody has an agenda and an angle these days... ..

so now the standard is strictly judged according to whether the comments or action deemed offensive by someone was wanted or not... and whether or not the offender was aware...... .. and in truth that;s where it should have been all along.... ... if you know somebody doesn;t want to be given or presented with comments... attention... pictures of an intimate or sexual nature..or even be spoken to in an overly familiar way or with an unappreciated term of endearment... then why do it?.....

i could probably understand somebody coming to this forum for the first time and not knowing the rules posting something forum members might find offensive.... but us2 apparently had been here before and were well aware of the rules... yet violated them anyway... ..then instead of apologizing they became defensive when the rule violation was pointed out..... they were here for only one reason... to be offensive and stir up controversy.....
 
Last edited:
aleshanee said:
it;s the unwanted nature of it that makes it harassment... .....it use to be that sexual harassment complaints were judged by a reasonable third person standard .. meaning if it wouldn;t offend the average person it shouldn;t have offended the one making the report.... but all that has changed now mostly due to the disappearance of what anyone could call average people.. ... everybody has an agenda and an angle these days... ..

so now the standard is strictly judged according to whether the comments or action deemed offensive by someone was wanted or not... and whether or not the offender was aware...... .. and in truth that;s where it should have been all along.... ... if you know somebody doesn;t want to be given or presented with comments... attention... pictures of an intimate or sexual nature..or even be spoken to in an overly familiar way or with an unappreciated term of endearment... then why do it?.....

i could probably understand somebody coming to this forum for the first time and not knowing the rules posting something forum members might find offensive.... but us2 apparently had been here before and were well aware of the rules... yet violated them anyway... ..then instead of apologizing they became defensive when the rule violation was pointed out..... they were here for only one reason... to be offensive and stir up controversy.....
Click to expand...
I have no issue discussing the subject matter. We have discussions on homosexuality, abortion, transgender issues, etc. Honestly, in comparison, nudity is a bit tame. The issue becomes the posting of suggestive photos with the subject matter.

From a legal perspective, I don’t think a photo of a woman in a top spilling cleavage is going to be cutting the mustard. Again, I’m not arguing it’s appropriate for this forum, and the owner and “manager” (essentially this is Ransom), have every right to ban anyone and everyone if they wish. Now, from a civil law POV, of course anyone can sue anyone for any and all reasons, which is why we have the term frivolous lawsuit.
 
Ekklesian said:
LOL. Any 'naturist' who did so would soon see the error of his ways.
Click to expand...
and it does happen... "naturists" find all kinds of ways to get injured and even killed by the thing they named themselves after.... but aparently have very little knowlege of...... sadly many of them have discovered that it;s no garden of eden out there... not even here in "paradise".... in fact the jungles i go hunting in have a lot of razor grass... ..tourists have gone hiking up there before in shorts and t-shirts only to deeply regret it once they got off the established trail.....
 
Last edited:
HukNduck said:
I have no issue discussing the subject matter. We have discussions on homosexuality, abortion, transgender issues, etc. Honestly, in comparison, nudity is a bit tame. The issue becomes the posting of suggestive photos with the subject matter.

From a legal perspective, I don’t think a photo of a woman in a top spilling cleavage is going to be cutting the mustard. Again, I’m not arguing it’s appropriate for this forum, and the owner and “manager” (essentially this is Ransom), have every right to ban anyone and everyone if they wish. Now, from a civil law POV, of course anyone can sue anyone for any and all reasons, which is why we have the term frivolous lawsuit.
Click to expand...
i agree... i have no problem discussing the subject either.... in fact i have done that here many times... and in almost every case i was the one arguing against what i see as the hyper-fundamentalist views on dress standards and having to defend myself for the way i dress here on my own island.... ..in my opinion.. and the opinions of everyone i know here at home..... i have always dressed appropriate to the environment and conditions i was in.. ...as well as appropriate to the activity i would be doing.. ... ....and yet some on the forum called it immodest regardless of the environment or conditions.... and then went so far as to say women should not be involved in the kinds of activities that might require dressing in ways not approved by fundamentalist men.....

some of the discussions got very intense ..... and no... i did not post any pictures..... and never will..... with the exception of the really old one in my avatar... which .... believe it or not.... some forum members a few years ago also thought was an innapropriate way for any christian female to dress - even going so far as to suggest i should have been wearing cullottes in the rainforest... (which i call kluglottes)... rather than camo bdu pants.. which they see as being made for men....... but trust me - they were made for women.. and i would dare any man.. even one my size... (or the size i was back then).... to put them on and try to walk around....😫

ironically, around that same time there was also discussions going on about "church clothes"... with some saying it was wrong to dress up or wear your nicest clothes to church and even saying the idea that people should dress well for church offended them... ... so i got criticized when i said i had specific very nice dresses i reserved just for church and other special events too....... so while i never mind discussing the subject it;s always been a no win - can;t please everybody, ordeal... ..but i did assure them at the end not to worry... coz if i ever do find myself on the mainland and with the opportunity to attend one of their churches i will go to good will or salvation army before hand, and find some suitable "raggamuffin" attire..;). .... always appropriate to the environment and conditions.. and with respect to persons whose house or property it is.... that;s the best policy... :cool:
 
Last edited:
HukNduck said:
I’m not in any manner condoning or defending FunCouple’s picture, but I’m pretty sure a low-cut, cleavage-spilling top won’t qualify as “nudity” or “sexual harassment” under any circumstances in any state.
Click to expand...

The same couple have gone on other forums and posted nude or topless photos of themselves. The people who have said they're not sincerely trying to start a conversation are correct. They're flaunting their kink.

And of course I am not a lawyer, so take anything "legal" I say as an observation about general principle.
 
The world is filled with idiots!
There may be Christian Idiot groups.
If so, I can recommend prospective members.
 
aleshanee said:
i agree... i have no problem discussing the subject either.... in fact i have done that here many times... and in almost every case i was the one arguing against what i see as the hyper-fundamentalist views on dress standards and having to defend myself for the way i dress here on my own island.... ..in my opinion.. and the opinions of everyone i know here at home..... i have always dressed appropriate to the environment and conditions i was in.. ...as well as appropriate to the activity i would be doing.. ... ....and yet some on the forum called it immodest regardless of the environment or conditions.... and then went so far as to say women should not be involved in the kinds of activities that might require dressing in ways not approved by fundamentalist men.....

some of the discussions got very intense ..... and no... i did not post any pictures..... and never will..... with the exception of the really old one in my avatar... which .... believe it or not.... some forum members a few years ago also thought was an innapropriate way for any christian female to dress - even going so far as to suggest i should have been wearing cullottes in the rainforest... (which i call kluglottes)... rather than camo bdu pants.. which they see as being made for men....... but trust me - they were made for women.. and i would dare any man.. even one my size... (or the size i was back then).... to put them on and try to walk around....😫

ironically, around that same time there was also discussions going on about "church clothes"... with some saying it was wrong to dress up or wear your nicest clothes to church and even saying the idea that people should dress well for church offended them... ... so i got criticized when i said i had specific very nice dresses i reserved just for church and other special events too....... so while i never mind discussing the subject it;s always been a no win - can;t please everybody, ordeal... ..but i did assure them at the end not to worry... coz if i ever do find myself on the mainland and with the opportunity to attend one of their churches i will go to good will or salvation army before hand, and find some suitable "raggamuffin" attire..;). .... always appropriate to the environment and conditions.. and with respect to persons whose house or property it is.... that;s the best policy... :cool:
Click to expand...
When I attended a non-Baptist church, it was very common to see men wearing jeans and even shorts to church. Granted, I usually attended the Saturday evening service, so it was probably even more casual than Sundays. At my IFB church, I still don’t wear a suit and tie, but I do avoid wearing shorts or jeans, though I occasionally wear jeans. I normally wear khakis and a polo. I’m still “underdressed” compared to others, but I refuse to wear a suit and tie unless I’m absolutely required or it seems proper (funerals and sometimes church weddings).
 
Ransom said:
The same couple have gone on other forums and posted nude or topless photos of themselves. The people who have said they're not sincerely trying to start a conversation are correct. They're flaunting their kink.

And of course I am not a lawyer, so take anything "legal" I say as an observation about general principle.
Click to expand...
I wonder if these Christian nudists are somewhat cultish and try to recruit people. I’ve never met one, so no clue, but it makes me wonder.
 
HukNduck said:
When I attended a non-Baptist church, it was very common to see men wearing jeans and even shorts to church. Granted, I usually attended the Saturday evening service, so it was probably even more casual than Sundays. At my IFB church, I still don’t wear a suit and tie, but I do avoid wearing shorts or jeans, though I occasionally wear jeans. I normally wear khakis and a polo. I’m still “underdressed” compared to others, but I refuse to wear a suit and tie unless I’m absolutely required or it seems proper (funerals and sometimes church weddings).
Click to expand...
i saw a man wearing shorts in church only once.... on the mainland when i was visiting family - and i attended church with them one sunday.... ..... it was in the sunday school class where i saw this guy and where everyone was seated in chairs in a circle.. ....he was actually what they called one of the church "worship leaders"... (first time i had ever heard the phrase).... he had on khaki shorts and a light blue t-shirt - which was tucked in... new balance running shoes... and a hat worn backwards which he kept on the entire time.... the usual breaking bad style goatee that was trendy at the time.... and since he kept the hat on i had no idea whether there was hair on his head or not.... but it would not have surprised me to see a shaved head if he had taken it off.... ...he also had enough hair on his legs to more than make up the difference had there been a lack of hair on his head so i guess that was his trade off....:confused:

the point is - that guys appearance was such a distraction that i don;t even remember what the sunday school lesson was about.. - in many ways it was disturbing.... ..it would have been different.. maybe even ok... if he was just another member of the class.. and i didn;t feel as if i had to look at him while he spoke... it was almost a relief when they had a round robin time at the end where everyone spoke up to say something - and i had an excuse to look away... ...

to me it was a classic example of at least one of the things paul was admonishing against in 2nd timothy...... refraining from allowing your appearance to become a distraction in church...and being mindful of your actions as well... . ..living in the tropics and attending churches that are not air conditioned i know all too well that appearance and actions are not the only things about a person that can become a distraction in church.... .....those who never realized right guard goes under the left arm too can be a bigger distraction than all appearances put together.... but paul was a man and no doubt had a mans limited nose sensitivity... so he probably didn;t notice things like that..... (sorry - no offense intended to any men reading this..😬...)


HukNduck said:
I wonder if these Christian nudists are somewhat cultish and try to recruit people. I’ve never met one, so no clue, but it makes me wonder.
Click to expand...

we had cultish groups here before... mostly on the previous forums - and they were definitely here to recruit..... some of them called themselves christian polygamists... ..and not even the mormon kind either... . they claimed polygamy should be acceptable even to baptists too.... . one of the more notorious and infamous polygamists - whose name i will not mention because it always causes him to pop up somehow - even insisted it should be acceptable for a grown man to marry a 12 year old..... as far as i know he was never banned.... but thankfully he moved on to other websites....

there was even a group of klansmen here once trying to recruit new members.... i rmember the name of one of them too... but these kinds of people in these perverse and repugnant groups do more than just recruit... they constantly search the internet to see where someone else might be talking about them... and they go to those places to join in and start new fights..... ...previously famous preachers who fell into sin do the same thing... but they seldom show up under their own name... they usually pop in under a new moniker and go straight in to defending themselves as if they are a third party or "insider" to the church in question....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top