Topless Danes

[The Lady Kate]

Well 2 can play this one easily:

It's only easy if your response makes sense... try again, try harder.

"ya, but it doesn't give people the thrill of forcing others to have to watch them, what's the pleasure of it if you aren't shoving your immorality down people's throats?"

You'll have to ask the people of Denmark that one... assuming you decide to go swimming while you're there.

You don't see a problem with alot of things others do here... it doesn't make your view correct does it?

You see problems where others do not... why should I take on your problems as my own?

Go join a nudist colony for all I care - they have beach areas and all kinds of open nudity - heck they probly have towns & bars; golly, you could go shopping without tops on. woohoo!
LOL

But I don't want to go to a nudist colony... what makes you think I do?

And if you care so little, why are you railing against me so?

 

[Nadiine]

Is it really any less modest than a woman in skimpy bikini bottoms and a skimpy bikini top?

Or, and heres something for you to ponder, a case where "modesty" is not the issue... maybe, just MAYBE the women who want to go topless do so because they enjoy the sensation of sun, sand and surf on a bare chest? Maybe its something that makes them feel good, and the modesty or lack thereof has nothing to do with it? Now, sure, if people were actively flashing in the street, going out of their way to expose their flesh in intentionally seductive ways with the intention of luring men into sin, well, that would certainly be poor form... but is a woman lying on a beach enjoying the sun REALLY comparable to a pole dancing stripper?

Or could it be that context has more of a roll to play here than you are allowing for?

Well, speaking of "roll to play"... would you want to see your mom or younger sister parading around topless?
Personally, I have an even greater aversion towards the thought of seeing my blood relatives naked in public.
I wonder if anyone else does too - not just naked (or 1/2 naked), but having other people watch a younger sister or mom 1/2 naked in public.
Just asking (not that its any litmus test or that I expect much in the replies - & hopefully people would be honest)

The site is buggy, I'll submit first, then add just in case it doesn't load.
Ok it did post, will reply to your post later =)

 

[Nadiine]

I honestly think the problem we have with so called lust connected to body parts is a problem the church created. By making the natural body sin and all the legalism and tradition behind it, it actually created the problem. It took away natural sexuality and replaced it with myths and taboo. It created a mindset that resulted in sexuality becoming preverted.

Actually Genesis 3 disproves this statement singlehandedly; nevermind the biblical examples of BEING CLOTHED (which go ignored)! Adam & Eve prove you wrong by their own actions once sin enters the picture.
They immediately know they're naked and go get covering.

There were NO other people on the earth yet but those 2. It was the OPEN NUDITY they recognized. So there was no other audience to see them naked other than God, and GOD put the animal skin over their bodies to cover them up. (which seems to go unnoticed).

What you're statement is saying is just the opposite - and if you want to use naked people who don't care about the body BECUZ they're naked, I disagree again.

It's called DESENSITIZATION. But where in the bible are people seen going around nude? You always have to go back to AFRICA as if Africa has it RIGHT. Africa is FULL of problems - serious ones. I can't say that I look there to see the standards of right and wrong.

Again, in areas not effected by legalism and religious tradition, body parts don't make people fall into a sexual stupor. My one visit to Africa, actually with a church mission group, we came upon nothing but naked people. The only people affected by it were those in our group. They don't look at each other in steaming lust, even while naked. They actually have a healthy respect and strong family values with all running around naked. Having no hang up with the body, they used deeper reasoning when seeking a marriage partner.

Legalism -- legalism isn't being against open nudity for your information.
Next thing you know, "legalists" are the ones who are against legalized prostitution and open pornography. In a liberalists eyes, a legalist is anybody who wants a moral restriction that they disagree with.

Please go do some study on what legalism is.
Adam & Eve had a "hangup" with the body - and GOD clothed them. So it would seem to me that the ones that have the problem are the ones going naked which shows an open rebellious spirit to what we know innately is wrong.

And this is the source of the problem - as I've mentioned before, the MAJORITY of the world wears clothing and knows to cover up their bodies. It is a majority and there's a reason for that. Adam & Eve brought the same mindset at the fall (which we all inherited by nature).

Throughout history, these many tribes never had problems with lust, jealousy, sexual rage or rape crimes, until they converted. They were then taught the body is dirty, sexually bad and had to be covered. Family stuctures that lasted for generations came apart, crime went up over hate and jealously, ect.

LOL Back 40 jungle tribes are now our standard of example to copy. I've seen it all!
Ever notice how many kids they have - kids they can't hardly even support? Obviously the men are stimulated on a regular basis. (yes I know there's no birth control) - still, they aren't THAT "immune" to her body it would seem would it?

Many Christian, unbiblical principles, actually caused the problems with sexuality. We feel guilty over our body parts because of tradition and misguided teachings. That guilt is actually what has resulted in the host of sexual problems and crimes we have today.

That's just plain FALSE. Other cultures who cover up do NOT have Americas sexual addictions. This is a totally bias and false observation. I can list many normal cultures who don't have Americas sex addiction. And it isn't covering up that produces it, it's immoral people who want sex and feed off widespread pornography for starters.

This is the liberalist approach to everything - just give everybody an "open season" pass on everything they want & let them have it to excess - that'll solve the problem! In actuality it does NOT solve the problem, becuz it creates bondages & vices that lead to others, AND IT'S SIN.
Sin doesn't end - and the flesh is never satisfied; we always need more to satisfy it.

Further, the dress code in America is extremely exposing in and of itself. The more skin they show, the more turned on they get; it would actually prove opposite your observation and proposed liberal "remedy". Until people learn self control here, (better yet, turn to Christ and repent) you will see the immorality continue or get worse.

How is it a CHRISTIAN worldview to say "just make everyone naked and give them what they want". God says we're to do just the opposite. The reason it doesn't work is that in order to start out your little "fix it program" with just going nude to desensitize them to the female body, there are rampant sexual urges and lust that it brings in the meantime until this so called "not caring about it" manifests.

So as a Christian, I'm to embrace this? And if I don't I'm considered "legalistic"? This goes against God's teachings and it's promoting sin and temptation and stumbling.
And by all means, call me a legalist! They called Jesus worse.

The debate that its' what "God says" over culture is silly. It shows lack of biblical knowledge, putting early church teaching that were used to control people over actual truth.

Wrong again - what "biblical knowledge" have you used here but to look at Africa in some remote tribe and decide that since they go naked, it's ok.
Here's some biblical knowledge for you:
Genesis 9:23
But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father.
Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.

Noah's own male offspring wouldn't look at their father naked when he was incapacitated in the tent. There's a direct example that open nudity was not flaunted, it was shameful. And the son who called the 2 brothers to go into the tent & look at their father naked was cursed for it.

The Corinthian church did alot of immoral things IN THE CHURCH and Paul had to reprimand them & set them straight - just becuz people do things doesn't make it right. Namely in the advanced, modern, technical age we live in - we aren't a pigmy tribe in the back 40 jungles - we've gotten a little more advanced to where we aren't spearing gophers for dinner now.

And to make this drastic statement over open nudity? Overkill much??? I doubt that even the majority of even topless sunbathers would want casual, daily full nudism all day long.
Do YOU go naked around other people? (God help them). If it's our "nature" to be naked, then why doesn't 99% of the entire world just go naked all day? Romans 2:14-15 - WE ALL KNOW IT'S WRONG.
Gen. 3 they put clothes on immediately - even without any population around them (and common sense - clothing is also protective)

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well, speaking of "roll to play"... would you want to see your mom or younger sister parading around topless?

Since when does my mom have to obey me?

Personally, I have an even greater aversion towards the thought of seeing my blood relatives naked in public.

Then don't go to the poll with them when you go to Denmark. Why should they suffer for your prudishness?

I wonder if anyone else does too - not just naked (or 1/2 naked), but having other people watch a younger sister or mom 1/2 naked in public.

If they themselves are also 1/2 naked... why aren't you worried about mom checking them out?

Just asking (not that its any litmus test or that I expect much in the replies - & hopefully people would be honest)

Just curious why other people... blood relatives or not... should be the victim of our own hang-ups.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Actually Genesis 3 disproves this statement singlehandedly; nevermind the biblical examples of BEING CLOTHED (which go ignored)! Adam & Eve prove you wrong by their own actions once sin enters the picture.
They immediately know they're naked and go get covering.

Clothing used there as symbols for attempts to conceal sin. By literalizing the story, you've deduced that the body is inherently sinful.

We're not "ignoring" Genesis 3, we're simply reading it differently... you're the one who says God's creation -- God's own image -- is inherently sinful.

There were NO other people on the earth yet but those 2. It was the OPEN NUDITY they recognized. So there was no other audience to see them naked other than God, and GOD put the animal skin over their bodies to cover them up. (which seems to go unnoticed).

Not unnoticed... but don't you find it odd that they were attempting to hide themselves from God? What were they hiding from Him? The very parts God Himself designed and placed on them? Must He be protected from the sight of His own handiwork?

It's called DESENSITIZATION. But where in the bible are people seen going around nude? You always have to go back to AFRICA as if Africa has it RIGHT. Africa is FULL of problems - serious ones. I can't say that I look there to see the standards of right and wrong.

So you think that all Africa's problems stem from their lax attitude towards clothing.... strange thought processes at work here.

Legalism -- legalism isn't being against open nudity for your information.

No, prudishness is. Nobody really cares if you're ashamed of God's work, but don't foist that shame on the rest of us... You are FULL of problems - serious ones. I can't say I look to you to see the standards of right and wrong.

Next thing you know, "legalists" are the ones who are against legalized prostitution and open pornography. In a liberalists eyes, a legalist is anybody who wants a moral restriction that they disagree with.

And in the legalists' eyes, a liberalist is just the same... as I said, PM me when you want help getting that beam out.

Please go do some study on what legalism is.
Adam & Eve had a "hangup" with the body - and GOD clothed them. So it would seem to me that the ones that have the problem are the ones going naked which shows an open rebellious spirit to what we know innately is wrong.

It would seem to me that you have a problem - a serious one - with your interpretation of Genesis. If God's design is so horrid, perhaps He in His wisdom should'nt have designed it.

And this is the source of the problem - as I've mentioned before, the MAJORITY of the world wears clothing and knows to cover up their bodies. It is a majority and there's a reason for that.

Ah, so majority rules now... I never knew you were so much in touch with the world's standards.

Adam & Eve brought the same mindset at the fall (which we all inherited by nature).

They also learned that it takes more than a fig leaf to hide sin from God.

LOL Back 40 jungle tribes are now our standard of example to copy. I've seen it all!
Ever notice how many kids they have - kids they can't hardly even support? Obviously the men are stimulated on a regular basis. (yes I know there's no birth control) - still, they aren't THAT "immune" to her body it would seem would it?

One would think they were "being fruitful and multiplying"... a sad byproduct of lust.

That's just plain FALSE. Other cultures who cover up do NOT have Americas sexual addictions. This is a totally bias and false observation. I can list many normal cultures who don't have Americas sex addiction. And it isn't covering up that produces it, it's immoral people who want sex and feed off widespread pornography for starters.

You may present your alleged list any time, Nadiine.

This is the liberalist approach to everything - just give everybody an "open season" pass on everything they want & let them have it to excess - that'll solve the problem! In actuality it does NOT solve the problem, becuz it creates bondages & vices that lead to others, AND IT'S SIN.

Sin doesn't end - and the flesh is never satisfied; we always need more to satisfy it.

Yes, yes, flesh is evil.... again.

Further, the dress code in America is extremely exposing in and of itself. The more skin they show, the more turned on they get; it would actually prove opposite your observation and proposed liberal "remedy". Until people learn self control here, (better yet, turn to Christ and repent) you will see the immorality continue or get worse.

Worse than what?

How is it a CHRISTIAN worldview to say "just make everyone naked and give them what they want". God says we're to do just the opposite. The reason it doesn't work is that in order to start out your little "fix it program" with just going nude to desensitize them to the female body, there are rampant sexual urges and lust that it brings in the meantime until this so called "not caring about it" manifests.

How is it ANYONE's worldview to say "MAKE everyone naked"? Nobody's asking you to be naked... nobody particularly wants you to be naked... but if people exist who can stand to see some skin without giving themselves over to lust, then let them choose to do so.

Otherwise, there are plenty of swimming pools where the people will keep their tops on.

So as a Christian, I'm to embrace this? And if I don't I'm considered "legalistic"? This goes against God's teachings and it's promoting sin and temptation and stumbling.

How about as a Christian, you leave it alone? There comes a time where even the most zealous should step back and say, "well, it's none of my business..."

And by all means, call me a legalist! They called Jesus worse.

The difference being, Jesus was falsely accused. Funny how you forgot that...

Wrong again - what "biblical knowledge" have you used here but to look at Africa in some remote tribe and decide that since they go naked, it's ok.

Maybe, just maybe... the Bible doesn't have every answer to every situation. Just a thought.

Here's some biblical knowledge for you:
Genesis 9:23
But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father.
Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.

Noah's own male offspring wouldn't look at their father naked when he was incapacitated in the tent. There's a direct example that open nudity was not flaunted, it was shameful. And the son who called the 2 brothers to go into the tent & look at their father naked was cursed for it.

Daddy doesn't like it when the kids see him passed out drunk... imagine that.

The Corinthian church did alot of immoral things IN THE CHURCH and Paul had to reprimand them & set them straight - just becuz people do things doesn't make it right. Namely in the advanced, modern, technical age we live in - we aren't a pigmy tribe in the back 40 jungles - we've gotten a little more advanced to where we aren't spearing gophers for dinner now.

We're also not stoning witches and locking menustrating women in huts. Again... perhaps the Bible isn't always the answer?

 

[Machachachi]

We're also not stoning witches and locking menustrating women in huts. Again... perhaps the Bible isn't always the answer?

I quote this only to emphasize, I don't think the problem of a particular culture is related to a problem with the Bible itself. In addition, blood in a culture where there is no modern medicine is inherently dirty. Blood carries the majority of infectious diseases and someone who is bleeding could spread a lot of unhealth around. That doesn't make the natural cycle of things wrong, it just makes the natural cycle of things dangerous.

Disease was a scary and overwhelming fact of life in ancient days, when the spread of a disease could wipe out a culture because there was no real way to fight its spread other than quarantine and sending anyone even remotely infectious to the edge of the camp. I imagine that had more to do with sending them to a hut than anything else. And honestly there are many sound laws that when enforced end up hurting people. The law isn't wrong, but the people enforcing them are, misogyny is not Biblical, any reasonable reading of Scripture will prove that much.

The Bible is reliable. Don't make the mistake of ignoring it, your position is well founded within the Bible itself anyway, so I don't see why you are saying the Bible is wrong.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Appeal to facts is more valid than appeal to your own religious beliefs.

Um considering this thread is in "Christian philosophy and ethics" then the discussion is SUPPOSE to be on how CHRISTIANS beliefs correspond to this - did you forget where you are?

I've seen some people in this thread who already claim that their understanding of the Bible is absolutely perfect and infallible...

Where? I havent seen one post that has made that claim.

 

[Anglian]

Oops - I thought it was to do with headless Danes - definitely not OK.

In Denmark few give a second glance; do it in Cairo and you'd be stoned. Different strokes for different folks.

A number of people have said it is fine because men do it all the time. Personally I can't stand it when men do it. Women from my own Church would probably rather burn at the stake than walk around topless - but then they wouldn't wear some of the clothes that western women wear either.

As a Coptic Christian living in the West I note, most years, the reaction of some of my young men when they come to a local university in the UK and see what western female students wear (or don't). It is difficult for them as they have been brought up in a society (Egypt) where women dress in a manner St. Paul would have applauded (indeed that he would still recognise).

A friend (male of course) seeing the title of this thread: 'Topless Danes', said 'yes please'; can we order him some?

Anglian

 

[Armistead]

And yet David danced naked before the Lord......in front of people.

Again, it's a cultural issue. No, I don't think our culture is ready for women to go topless. Frankly, I like the mystery of a covered brest. I don't want to look at most boobs. I think it would be a sin to show some of em...but's that's because our culture through religion made breast sexual items.

However, we can't call it sin across the board, where other cultures do not have the sexual hang ups that we have. Were they put emotion and character over body parts.

With anything, once you drive a natural desire or process underground or into the sin pile, the behavior still continues, it just becomes perverted.
When you forbid the natural process, the result will always become harmful.

I saw a lady breast feeding in public with most of her boob showing. I didn't fall into sexual stupor, because I don't have all the traditional hang ups taught by a church.

 

[Angel4Truth]

So, the fact that we are capable of bringing life into this world makes us inferior?

Apparantly the people of Denmark have decided that particular choice need not be private... who are you to tell them otherwise?

Did you forget what you wrote again? Your post was about making a private decision and my post was that the decision isnt private when it affects everyone else.

Are we even in the same thread with each other ??????? Its as if you keep posting without reading any context whatever

 

[Angel4Truth]

I saw a lady breast feeding in public with most of her boob showing. I didn't fall into sexual stupor, because I don't have all the traditional hang ups taught by a church.

And if it were just showing and no baby was present - think the same thing would happen?

Apples and oranges

 

[Armistead]

There was no mistaking the idea when "the word of the Lord" came through Ezekiel in reference to Israel: " I made you grow like a plant of the field, naked and bare. You grew up and became tall and arrived at full maidenhood; your breasts were formed and your pubic hair had grown" (Ezek 16:7).

But read the rest of the Chapter: Jerusalem after being "Clothed with embroidered cloth, swathed in fine linen, and covered with silk" (16:10) "trusted in your beauty and played the harlot." (16:15) This misuse of God's gifts, not respectfully using our bodies as God intended, is what caused God to become angry.

If it is really wrong to be seen nude, why would Jesus be around the naked fisherman who "stripped for work" (Jn 21:7)

Did those who were baptized by John have to be dressed? It was the early Church's custom to baptize men, women, and children together nude. The priest strips off the candidate's clothing before leading them into the water, were Saint Chrysostom's instructions (c.400). Saint Hippolytus of Rome (c.200) says total nudity was required; women were to remove even jewelry and combs. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (c.350) preached to nude candidates: "You are now stripped and naked, in this also imitating Christ on the Cross. " Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.400) said, "Adam was naked at the beginning, and not ashamed. This is why your clothing must be taken off as baptism restores right relation to God."

What about the blind man in Mk 10:50 who, "casting away his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus"? Did a distraught Jesus tell him to put on some decent clothes?

In Old Testament times being nude was very common and accepted. Touching the testicles of a revered superior was a man's way of testifying to the validity of his statement or vow. This was true in Hebrew, Greek and Roman custom. Our words testify, testimony, and testament have come from the word testes...think about that the next time you stand up in church and testi...fy.

Neither the Ten Commandments or the New Testament dictate any restriction on being nude. Greeks customarily exercised nude. In fact the word "gymnasium" comes from the Greek: "to exercise nude".

God commanded Isaiah to go naked and barefoot for three years. King David danced naked in the City of David to celebrate the return of the Ark. When his wife Michal criticized his dancing nude, she was soundly rebuffed and ended up childless until her death (II Samuel 6:20-23). Peter fished nude. The Jewish prophets were commonly naked, so much so that when Saul stripped off his clothes and prophesied naked the people figured he must be a prophet ( I Sam.19:24).

In the first centuries of Christianity, public baths - sometimes several acres in size - became a gathering place throughout the Roman Empire, similar to our shopping malls today. There were more than 850 public baths in Rome by the end of the fourth century. It's pretty evident that Christian women frequented the baths and were bathing with men.

Mixed nude bathing was customary for early Christians until about the end of the fourth century AD. Then the anti-body philosophy adopted by the Church took over. By the fifth century St. Jerome considered it immoral for a Christian virgin to bathe in the nude - even if alone! This practice continues today in a few ultra-strict Christian sects. This body-negative theology can be traced to Plato's negative view of the body, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus or the early Christians. Now the Church is full of myths, fear and guilt over the naked body. It spilled over to our culture generations ago, but by men, not by the teachings of Christ.

 

[Nadiine]

And yet David danced naked before the Lord......in front of people.

Um, maybe you can show me which passage you're referring to, I know of this one:
2 Samuel 6:14
Then David danced before the LORD with all his might;
and David was wearing a linen ephod.

He's wearing a priestly garment of linen there.... so he wasn't dancing around neked in front of people in that instance.

Again, it's a cultural issue. No, I don't think our culture is ready for women to go topless. Frankly, I like the mystery of a covered brest. I don't want to look at most boobs. I think it would be a sin to show some of em...but's that's because our culture through religion made breast sexual items.

It's not cultural. And again, it isn't just OUR culture that makes breasts sexual objects, they are even spoken of in scripture as objects of sexual desire more than once. This is just basic biology and I'm amazed people are even ignoring such facts.

Men are hardwired to be attracted to the female body - that's top & bottom and even the female form itself. We shouldn't have to go over the basics of anatomy 101 as adults I wouldn't think. lol

*is this where I mention "stumbling" again? which is a sin to lead others to be tempted?

However, we can't call it sin across the board, where other cultures do not have the sexual hang ups that we have. Were they put emotion and character over body parts.

We CAN call it sin in the contexts being presented here for sure - I don't speak for the back 40 pygmy tribes in Africa, God knows their situation and mentality and what they know of His truth (revelation given them which would be alot more limited than here).
He'll deal with that.
WE however are not them. And if God considered it sin to get tattoo's, piercings, shaving the heads or beards, etc., then no it isn't just a culture thing when it concerns open nudity.
Nudity is NOT promoted in scripture as any state to be in casually.

Additionally, Amsterday legalizes prostitution & street drugs - it doesn't make that culturally admissible to indulge in just becuz they do it either. MODESTY is not open nudity.

With anything, once you drive a natural desire or process underground or into the sin pile, the behavior still continues, it just becomes perverted.
When you forbid the natural process, the result will always become harmful.

This is just FALSE opinion - you cannot even prove this. If you were correct, then God should let us all just indulge in what turns us on; if we see it enough or do it enough or have it enough, 'IT'LL STOP BEING A BIG DEAL". Tell people that with food addictions - they see & are around food all day long - does putting MORE in their face turn them off from it?
no.

Additionally, PORN should stop this addiction too - just see women's private parts enough & POOOOOOOOOF, he's cured! LOL
We all know that's false.

I saw a lady breast feeding in public with most of her boob showing. I didn't fall into sexual stupor, because I don't have all the traditional hang ups taught by a church.

I'm not even going to go into this, other than to say, you probly took a good long look lol no?

Alot of men don't get 'turned on' by seeing that by the way, a baby kinda "kills it" for them, however some do. It doesn't matter what you did or didn't do, the point is it shouldn't be in people's faces in public and I shouldn't have to be forced to see women's boobs when I'm out trying have to a nice day.

 

[LightHorseman]

Well, speaking of "roll to play"... would you want to see your mom or younger sister parading around topless?
Personally, I have an even greater aversion towards the thought of seeing my blood relatives naked in public.
I wonder if anyone else does too - not just naked (or 1/2 naked), but having other people watch a younger sister or mom 1/2 naked in public.
Just asking (not that its any litmus test or that I expect much in the replies - & hopefully people would be honest)

The site is buggy, I'll submit first, then add just in case it doesn't load.
Ok it did post, will reply to your post later =)

I don't have a sister, but I do have a daughter.

I hope she grows up secure enough in her own body image to wear clothes that she finds both comfortable and appropriate. I would hope that if she were to go out with friends to dinner and a movie, say, she would dress to look nice, and if she went to the beach,m then I would expect her to wear swimmers, pursuant to the fashion of the time. Now, if she went to a topless or nudist beach, well, I admit I might find that confronting, because it would mean my little girl was growing up and becoming aware of her body and cat's in the cradle type stuff... but I wouldn't find anything disgusting about it.

As for my mother, my Mum is a big girl and she can make her own decisions. Personally I wouldn't find anything particularly aesthetic about my mother topless, but, as I said before, I don't think this is an issue entirely about aesthetics, its as much about freedom and comfort. So if my Mum REALLY wanted to go to topless beaches and let it all hang out, good luck to her.

Again, see my comparison between women re;laxing topless in the sun, and topless pole dancers... there is a big difference in context. I would be much more comfortable with the idea of either my mother or daughter topless on a beach than I would be with the idea of them intentionally acting provocatively while topless.

I think thats the real crux... blatantly provocative nudity is not comparable to everyday run of the mill nudity... or at least, it shouldn't be.

 

[LightHorseman]

Alot of men don't get 'turned on' by seeing that by the way, a baby kinda "kills it" for them, however some do. It doesn't matter what you did or didn't do, the point is it shouldn't be in people's faces in public and I shouldn't have to be forced to see women's boobs when I'm out trying have to a nice day.

What, specifically, about seeing another woman's boobs would ruin your day? Could you please try to explain this to me? I really don't see why seeing someone elses body is such a bad thing. I mean, do you find breasts aesthetically displeasing? Or does it just make you uncomfortable because its something you yourself wouldn't do?

I'm really trying to understand your point of view here.

 

[Armistead]

Um, maybe you can show me which passage you're referring to, I know of this one:
2 Samuel 6:14
Then David danced before the LORD with all his might;
and David was wearing a linen ephod.

He's wearing a priestly garment of linen there.... so he wasn't dancing around neked in front of people in that instance.


It's not cultural. And again, it isn't just OUR culture that makes breasts sexual objects, they are even spoken of in scripture as objects of sexual desire more than once. This is just basic biology and I'm amazed people are even ignoring such facts.

Men are hardwired to be attracted to the female body - that's top & bottom and even the female form itself. We shouldn't have to go over the basics of anatomy 101 as adults I wouldn't think. lol

*is this where I mention "stumbling" again? which is a sin to lead others to be tempted?


We CAN call it sin in the contexts being presented here for sure - I don't speak for the back 40 pygmy tribes in Africa, God knows their situation and mentality and what they know of His truth (revelation given them which would be alot more limited than here).
He'll deal with that.
WE however are not them. And if God considered it sin to get tattoo's, piercings, shaving the heads or beards, etc., then no it isn't just a culture thing when it concerns open nudity.
Nudity is NOT promoted in scripture as any state to be in casually.

Additionally, Amsterday legalizes prostitution & street drugs - it doesn't make that culturally admissible to indulge in just becuz they do it either. MODESTY is not open nudity.


This is just FALSE opinion - you cannot even prove this. If you were correct, then God should let us all just indulge in what turns us on; if we see it enough or do it enough or have it enough, 'IT'LL STOP BEING A BIG DEAL". Tell people that with food addictions - they see & are around food all day long - does putting MORE in their face turn them off from it?
no.

Additionally, PORN should stop this addiction too - just see women's private parts enough & POOOOOOOOOF, he's cured! LOL
We all know that's false.


I'm not even going to go into this, other than to say, you probly took a good long look lol no?

Alot of men don't get 'turned on' by seeing that by the way, a baby kinda "kills it" for them, however some do. It doesn't matter what you did or didn't do, the point is it shouldn't be in people's faces in public and I shouldn't have to be forced to see women's boobs when I'm out trying have to a nice day.

Try reading my above post...

God commanded Isaiah to go naked and barefoot for three years. King David danced naked in the City of David to celebrate the return of the Ark. When his wife Michal criticized his dancing nude, she was soundly rebuffed and ended up childless until her death (II Samuel 6:20-23). Peter fished nude. The Jewish prophets were commonly naked, so much so that when Saul stripped off his clothes and prophesied naked the people figured he must be a prophet ( I Sam.19:24).

It's the radical thinking over sexuality that is the problem. I have no problem with modesty and prefer it. We live in a culture that demands that we wear clothing for protection. With all our sexual hang ups, our sexuality is seen as lust and sinful and people act accordingly, so running around naked would be a problem..Still, were cultures haven't been corrupted by sexual myths, nakedness isn't a problem for them.

The breast being sexual objects don't make them sinful. In fact if that's the case, that is the way God made them. It's parts of women that men are sexually attracted, such as legs, rears, ect. That doesn't make it sinful. Puberty created by God makes us sexually attracted to these things beyond our control. The sin is in behavior that would be harmful.

The problem is radical thinking about sex that causes the many problems. No, porn doesn't solve such a problem..silly. It's raising children with a biblical understanding about sexuality, not church traditions created in the 4th century that made sex dirty. Teaching our children about the wonders of sexuality in a responsible way will result in proper behavior. However, we deal in guilt and pervert that which God has made. That is why we have so many sexual addictions and problems.

 

[Armistead]

I don't have a sister, but I do have a daughter.

I hope she grows up secure enough in her own body image to wear clothes that she finds both comfortable and appropriate. I would hope that if she were to go out with friends to dinner and a movie, say, she would dress to look nice, and if she went to the beach,m then I would expect her to wear swimmers, pursuant to the fashion of the time. Now, if she went to a topless or nudist beach, well, I admit I might find that confronting, because it would mean my little girl was growing up and becoming aware of her body and cat's in the cradle type stuff... but I wouldn't find anything disgusting about it.

As for my mother, my Mum is a big girl and she can make her own decisions. Personally I wouldn't find anything particularly aesthetic about my mother topless, but, as I said before, I don't think this is an issue entirely about aesthetics, its as much about freedom and comfort. So if my Mum REALLY wanted to go to topless beaches and let it all hang out, good luck to her.

Again, see my comparison between women re;laxing topless in the sun, and topless pole dancers... there is a big difference in context. I would be much more comfortable with the idea of either my mother or daughter topless on a beach than I would be with the idea of them intentionally acting provocatively while topless.

I think thats the real crux... blatantly provocative nudity is not comparable to everyday run of the mill nudity... or at least, it shouldn't be.

Good Post. I totally agree.

 

[HuntingMan]

This thread really shows where the morality of the church is heading.

Im really glad my own daughters are not influenced by some people on this forum.

 

[IronManMatt]

If it is really wrong to be seen nude, why would Jesus be around the naked fisherman who "stripped for work" (Jn 21:7)

Peter and the other men were fishing out at sea. As in no women around to see their nakedness. When Peter swam to the shore he put his clothes on before leaving the boat. That’s right Peter dressed and then swam to the shore. These days most people think that its okay to get almost naked (swimsuits) as long as they are at the beach or in a swimming pool. Peter gave us a better example to follow. I think men should follow Peter’s example and keep their shirts on unless they are around only other men. And of course women should keep their breasts covered, no matter what culture they live in.

King David danced naked in the City of David to celebrate the return of the Ark. When his wife Michal criticized his dancing nude, she was soundly rebuffed and ended up childless until her death (II Samuel 6:20-23).

David did not dance naked. 2 Samuel 6: 14 “And David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.”

Isaiah 47: 3:They nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, they shame shall be seen…”

Nakedness is shame, and shame is not good.

 

[Armistead]

20 When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"
21 David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD's people Israel—I will celebrate before the LORD. 22 I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor." 23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.

The fact is today we connect nudity with sexuality in everyway, but that was not such an extreme in early generations.