Topless/Nude Beach?

[Svt4Him]

I can't think of the specific verse, but the bible does say that NARROW is the path to Him and wide is the road to destruction. IMO, open minded = tolerant = wide path - which does not = the narrow path God would have us to trod.

When Babylon took over God's people, they did an amazing thing. They let God's people build houses, have churches, marry and be given in marriage, to the point that you couldn't tell God's people from the Babylon people. It took a Godly person to stand up and say 'Wait! Come out of there! Don't be so open-minded that you become a part of the world that is an enemy towards God, it's not your home, don't get comfortable here.'

 

[seebs]

I can't think of the specific verse, but the bible does say that NARROW is the path to Him and wide is the road to destruction. IMO, open minded = tolerant = wide path - which does not = the narrow path God would have us to trod.

This is incredibly dangerous and bad analysis.

Read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Tolerance is the narrow path that few can walk. In the flesh, we are tribal little animals trying to protect our food supply from anything different from ourselves. In the Spirit, we are neighbor to everybody.

 

[Archivist]

Exactly. Men are visually stimulated and my opinion is that people should not dabble with temptation. What good can come from it?

When you say that "men are visually stimulated" you are generalizing. Some certainly are but not all.

Some women are also "visually stimualted," but we aren't having a conversation on whether men should be allowed to go topless in public.

BTW, has anyone other than me noticed that threads on this topic seem to attract a graet deal of attention?

 

[seebs]

My spouse thinks I have hot legs. Should I not be allowed to wear shorts?

The Victorians tried this. It turns out that the boundary of whatever you allow seems erotic. Ankles were erotic to the Victorians.

 

[EmSchmem]

My spouse thinks I have hot legs. Should I not be allowed to wear shorts?

The Victorians tried this. It turns out that the boundary of whatever you allow seems erotic. Ankles were erotic to the Victorians.

OMGoodness! This made me laugh SO hard. I was SO stumbled by my husbands legs when we were dating and engaged that we made a rule that he wasn't allowed to wear shorts unless it was 70 degrees or more (he'd wear shorts all year otherwise). I saw legs, I thought sex!

 

[SirKenin]

Truly I couldn't live if my life had to be so pathetic that I would lock myself in the house for fear of seeing an exposed portion of a woman's body. That's so sad.

Then twisting the passage of a narrow road to try and justify this? And people wonder why I want nothing to do with organized religion? Christians are one thing, and that's why I am here, but this is just plain pathetic.

 

[SirKenin]

OMGoodness! This made me laugh SO hard. I was SO stumbled by my husbands legs when we were dating and engaged that we made a rule that he wasn't allowed to wear shorts unless it was 70 degrees or more (he'd wear shorts all year otherwise). I saw legs, I thought sex!

Controlling your husband because of your weakness? That's equally lame. Sorry, but it is. It seems to me the onus is on you to fix that problem, as opposed to him to cater to it. It's not fair to pawn your problems off on someone else.

 

[EmSchmem]

It was before he was my husband and I made the same concession with the overalls. And dude it's a really jerk move to refer to someone's "weakness" as lame. You don't see me calling you a lame punk who just likes to stir up trouble do you.This is something we decided to do to make things a little easier on the other person in the last few months before we had free reign over one another's body? How is a loving gesture lame?

 

[seebs]

Okay, I'm gonna have to side with Em on this one. We are to accommodate the weaker brother. If something causes someone to stumble, then we shouldn't do it. I think Em was well within her rights to tell her future-husband that the shorts were a problem.

I have a female friend who has a pair of very-short-shorts. I have asked her never to wear them again. She's agreed. (How short? Short enough that, I think, you could probably have sex without actually taking them off. I believe the Geneva Convention prohibits women from wearing pants this short in view of any heterosexual male.)

 

[EmSchmem]

Okay, I'm gonna have to side with Em on this one. We are to accommodate the weaker brother. If something causes someone to stumble, then we shouldn't do it. I think Em was well within her rights to tell her future-husband that the shorts were a problem.

I have a female friend who has a pair of very-short-shorts. I have asked her never to wear them again. She's agreed. (How short? Short enough that, I think, you could probably have sex without actually taking them off. I believe the Geneva Convention prohibits women from wearing pants this short in view of any heterosexual male.)

More laughing on my part. I keep making jokes that I need a really skimpy bikini, short shorts, and belly shirts this summer. Of course I will be 7,8, and 9 months pregnant in June July and August. I wonder what the Geneva Convention has to say about THAT!

 

[SirKenin]

Well I guess he could always wear stockings.

 

[Archivist]

The Victorians tried this. It turns out that the boundary of whatever you allow seems erotic. Ankles were erotic to the Victorians.

That's why the Victorians went so far as to cover table and chair legs.

 

[EmSchmem]

That's why the Victorians went so far as to cover table and chair legs.

That's a cool bit of info. I'll tell my mom that the next time she yaps at me about not having a table cloth.

 

[Johnnz]

I have come into this thread only recently. But, after reading some of the earlier posts I became concerned at some of the views being expressed.

How come Christians can be so disdainful about other people's bodies? Do we imagine that the Holy Spirit is uncomfortable having to live within some people's bodies because of what they look like? Can we call unclean what God has declared clean?

It seems to me that there are those who who are not comfortable with any public nudity. OK. But aren't Christians just as caught up in the body image thing as much as anyone else? Is that an expression of righteousness?

Each person's body is a wonderful work of God created complexity. It is part of that peson's very being. How dare we make negative comments about any person because they do not conform to our social stereotypes of the physical ideal. It may well be that a less than Olympian proportioned person going partially of completely nude is far healthier in their self acceptance than their leaner, firmer fully clothed critics, another example of the mote and the plank.

John
NZ

 

[SirKenin]

I have come into this thread only recently. But, after reading some of the earlier posts I became concerned at some of the views being expressed.

How come Christians can be so disdainful about other people's bodies? Do we imagine that the Holy Spirit is uncomfortable having to live within some people's bodies because of what they look like? Can we call unclean what God has declared clean?

It seems to me that there are those who who are not comfortable with any public nudity. OK. But aren't Christians just as caught up in the body image thing as much as anyone else? Is that an expression of righteousness?

Each person's body is a wonderful work of God created complexity. It is part of that peson's very being. How dare we make negative comments about any person because they do not conform to our social stereotypes of the physical ideal. It may well be that a less than Olympian proportioned person going partially of completely nude is far healthier in their self acceptance than their leaner, firmer fully clothed critics, another example of the mote and the plank.

John
NZ

AMEN! And I leave it at that.

 

[seebs]

I often struggle to reconcile Christians' views of the human body with my belief that God made us. Was He less competent than we normally suppose? Is there something wrong with our bodies?

 

[Svt4Him]

I have come into this thread only recently. But, after reading some of the earlier posts I became concerned at some of the views being expressed.

Well let's see which ones:

How come Christians can be so disdainful about other people's bodies? Do we imagine that the Holy Spirit is uncomfortable having to live within some people's bodies because of what they look like? Can we call unclean what God has declared clean?

Someone has called someone elses body unclean?

It seems to me that there are those who who are not comfortable with any public nudity. OK. But aren't Christians just as caught up in the body image thing as much as anyone else? Is that an expression of righteousness?

Irrelevant Conclusion. Someone may or may not be comfortable with public nudity and have nothing wrong with their perception of their body image.

Each person's body is a wonderful work of God created complexity. It is part of that peson's very being. How dare we make negative comments about any person because they do not conform to our social stereotypes of the physical ideal. It may well be that a less than Olympian proportioned person going partially of completely nude is far healthier in their self acceptance than their leaner, firmer fully clothed critics, another example of the mote and the plank.

John
NZ

Agreed. But my issue is with the amount of men who have problems with nudity, and the effect is has on them. If you don't see that, a quick glance into the inappropriate content industy will cure it. Do you know there are about 25 million hits to inappropriate content sites each week in America?

 

[lin1235]

After the fall in Eden, Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness, and clothed themselves. Our bodies were made perfect by God - sin corrupted the beauty thereof. If there were no sin in the world, we could admire and appreciate each other's bodies without lusting after it, but there is sin, and so nudity is an issue that it was not intended to be in a sinless world.

 

[SirKenin]

After the fall in Eden, Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness, and clothed themselves. Our bodies were made perfect by God - sin corrupted the beauty thereof. If there were no sin in the world, we could admire and appreciate each other's bodies without lusting after it, but there is sin, and so nudity is an issue that it was not intended to be in a sinless world.

And seeing as how I'm perfect I should have no problems hanging out on a nudist beach.

 

[babbred]

After the fall in Eden, Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness, and clothed themselves. Our bodies were made perfect by God - sin corrupted the beauty thereof. If there were no sin in the world, we could admire and appreciate each other's bodies without lusting after it, but there is sin, and so nudity is an issue that it was not intended to be in a sinless world.

Thank you, I was going to quote that story. Now for some other points.

I am married to a European. I live in Europe. Europe is a VERY sexualized society, so don't give me the "it's ok for them to go naked because it's not sexual for them" crud. Ask my dh and he'll tell you that European men love staring at naked women just as much as Americans. The reason they don't have a problem with it is, as somebody else pointed out, because they don't have God. Because Christianity is practically nil here, there is no Christian influence to point out biblical standards.

Song of Solomon was written as a love poem from a husband to his wife. It was not intended to define norms for society.

I have been a Christian most of my life so I consider myself pretty mature. I have traveled on three continents, including many countries in Europe. I am happily married so I "get it" more than every few years. If wanting to uphold standards of decency and protect my European husband from temptation makes me a prude and uptight, then I will proudly wear both of those labels.

The Victorians had naked beaches, segregated by gender--and both genders enjoyed staring at the other. The idea that they covered pianos with cloths to hide the legs is a myth. The Victorians were a higly sexualized society, but they simply didn't flaunt it as much as we do.

Read any book about the differences between men and women, and it will say that most men are visually stimulated, much more so than women. That's why men stare at pretty women in the street, and why their wives/girlfriends get upset. I am going to help my husband by not putting him in the path of temptation

BTW, he's been a Christian for 20 years. In fact, he's a minister. He has also traveled extensivley throughout Europe. And since he's married to me, he "gets it" more than every few years.

We have not gone to such a beach. We will not go to one.