The American Jesus found this.
Viagra is for the treatment of inability to get or keep an hard-on and similar states when erection is of low quality. When you buy remedies like cialis from canada you should know about cialis online canada. It may have a lot of brands, but only one ATC Code. Erectile dysfunction, defined as the persistent impossibility to maintain a satisfactory erection, affects an estimated 15 to 30 millions men in the America alone. Sexual health is an substantial part of a man’s life, no matter his age etc.
He just doesn’t get that different cultures are different, does he? Naked breasts aren’t sexual in many cultures, so they aren’t covered. Really not a complex concept.
All that moisture is going to ruin that piano.
This is so unbelievable, I don’t even know what to say.
You go Pastor Steven! Keep on pissing against the wall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo3o4nfiG7A&playnext=1&list=PLA6E8AACE069DDD52&feature=results_video
I know NGM boobs have always made me a little hot.
He has a point – if it is wrong because you are white skinned, it is wrong if you are black skinned. His error seems to be in assuming that nakedness is wrong, and necessarily “pornographic”, for ANY skin! Good grief – God created us that way, said it was very good and never issued a retraction!
The Sept.5 blog entry by * The American Jesus * was awesome.
http://theamericanjesus.net/?p=7803#disqus_thread
At first I thought it was being written by you, Matthew (did not follow the authors had changed when I followed your link), and was impressed.
No he doesn’t have a point. There are plenty of cultures who developed with a different understanding of appropriate dress and modesty. The fact there are cultures whose women walked around topless doesn’t mean it had a sexual connotation. Just because western society developed the way we have and have interpreted the Bible through our western lens does not mean it was a sin for African or South American cultures to have a different standard of dress.The sin is our judging them by our understanding and cultural values rather than getting to understand them.
The preacher was making a point about morality, and so was I. You are talking about something other than morality, more like cultural custom. Moral behaviors transcend time and transcend culture! (My point was NOT that there was anything wrong with the nakedness, in any culture, regardless of color, and I did not say that.)
Regarding modesty, I read something from C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” not long ago which spoke to the nature of “modesty.” This is the opening of his chapter on “Sexual Morality.”
We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of “modesty” (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes.
A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally “modest,” proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste).
…I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing.
If “modesty” is culturally derived, how can it be a Biblical standard?
The sin is not the picture of the cultures who have a different standard of dress. The sin is in those who look at those pictures and lust or consider it pornographic. The naked human body is not the sin. Put the responsibility in the right place. Not on National Geographic but on the reader. Show some self control. If you are sexually aroused by documentaries about native cultures which are not sexual in nature, then show self control and don’t look at these magazines. If you get sexually aroused by these things, the issue is you, not the pictures, not the magazine.
and if the Bible is what dictates what is modest, then I suppose we all need to be dressing in the cultural dress of the Hebrew people back in the days of the Bible….although which culture of the Bible–the patriarchs’, the glorious Kingdom of David and Solomon, the standard of the Exilic Jews, Christ’s days? Oh and then we get to the fact that in Christ’s days and after, the cultures were different between the gentiles and the Jews even among Christians. The Amish have placed the proper, modest attire back in the 1700-1800 attire. There are Christian churches whose dress code is long dresses and long sleeves for women with head covering. It is quite obvious that modesty for the history of Christianity has been interpreted within culture and through a cultural lens.
Seems like you are preaching to the choir on this one (have you been reading my comments?). You reiterate what I have been saying all along. There is no sin in the nakedness, and no sin in depicting it or viewing it. The sin is when one allows themself to follow the path to LUST, as you say, and we all know that path has nothing to do with nakedness or what is exposed. The admonition to be self-controlled, or better, Spirit-controlled, is a good one, for all of us in every situation. It seems issued, however, in a spirit of misunderstanding…you do not seem to have followed me…
The Bible does dictate what is “modest”, I believe. Rather than an article of clothing, however, it is an attitude – humbleness. One should not think more highly or more lowly of themselves than is appropriate, and not put themselves forward in either way inappropriately.
Steve, I am not seeing then how you can say that Pastor Anderson has a point in this sermon.
He was making the point that morality is NOT based on the color of your skin, and I believe that is true. God’s morality transcends race, time and culture. His premise was WRONG, about nakedness, but his principle about morality was correct. That is what I meant to approve when I said, “He has a point – if it is wrong because you are white skinned, it is wrong if you are black skinned. His error seems to be in assuming that nakedness is wrong, and necessarily “pornographic”, for ANY skin!” *IF* it is wrong, is what I said…and I do not actually believe that it is, which is what a careful re-read will reveal.
Thank you for clarifying. My mistake.
🙂 Sorry I was not more clear.
I read your comment a few times and somehow misunderstood you. I take full blame.