Men should wear shirts at the beach

blackribbon said:

Where else in the entire Bible does it say that nakedness is a sin? And if the act of being naked where others can see is the sin, then it was NOAH's sin...not his son's sin at all and he had no right to be angry (so another sin).

Click to expand...

I think you've misread what I've been saying.
I believe the act of being a perverse person is a sin, and being naked for some perverted reason is sinful. However, it is simply shameful to be nude in public, or for others to see generally speaking.
It seems implied that Ham's sin was making fun of his fathers state of shame, and it seems that Ham wanting to expose his father to his two brothers was his sin. It was not the fact that he saw his father, but rather that he told his two brothers with the intent of making fun of his father.
One could likely imagine Ham saying to his two brothers "Hey guys, look at father, he's naked and drunk, hilarious."
Gen 9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
So, it seems that the manner in which he told his brothers, was not good.

Does anyone recall this:

Click to expand...

it's the same spirit of embarrassment. What Ham did to Noah, it wasn't rape for crying out loud. It was making a spectacle of him being naked and drunk.

blackribbon said:

And you feel that if the issue was that he made fun of his father that it justified Noah cursing the off-spring (his own grandchildren) for generations. The grandson who wasn't involved (if you take this at face value)? Either Noah was sinful and had an serious anger management problem....or possibly there is much more to this story than is obvious in the few verses devoted to it.

Noah got drunk. Noah got himself naked in his tent. Ham saw him. Ham told his brothers. Maybe even cracked a few jokes about dad. You really believe that God would consider a generational curse the justified punishment for this????

Click to expand...

So, the explanation that Noah was raped, or his wife was, by his own child makes more sense?
Like I said, if that did happen, then Ham would probably have been killed. What I said makes the most sense, since it takes into account what is actually written in the passage rather than a loose reference to another passage focusing only on a phrase.

As for God issuing punishments and generational curses. I can think of more than one offense that seemed minor but had grave consequences.

Lev 10: 1Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.

they mishandled the fire, and God killed them for that.

Let me circle back to my overall point, it's not good to be naked, or unclothed, for others to see with few exceptions (spouses, medical purposes, babies). Most people would agree with me on this, and it seems like common sense, because at this point I'm not even taking about modesty, we're talking about straight up nudity. Even atheists do not go about their own houses walking nude in front of their kids, and it would be shameful to display themselves like that in front of them.

blackribbon said:

Why do you assume that rape would end with Ham's death? In many cultures, rape is actually blamed on the woman and the man gets away with a slap on the hand. Again, you are making assumptions that just aren't there.... we don't know what he did do ... but simply looking at his naked dad doesn't sound very likely...

Click to expand...

When it comes down to knowing who God is, and the punishments described in the Torah it seems likely that a severe punishment would be imposed on anyone who rapes a person, not just a generational curse of being a servant to one's brother's.
I'm not really making and huge assumptions. I'm reading the text, and it seems that more than one person is trying really hard to focus on a single phrase rather than a passage, which we ought not diminish. We do know what he did, he made a spectacle of his father's shameful state. I also want to say that you should also be aware that if you're going to say I shouldn't assume what I believe here, and I'm not only assuming, I'm making a case for what I believe, you should not assume that Ham raped his father, or mother and base anything off that. If you say "no assuming", well, that's a double edged sword, and I'm not assuming, and you shouldn't claim to know anything in the matter, and you might as well say, I could be right.

blackribbon said:

And I am sure that you really aren't comparing the punishment for blatant disobedience to God to disrespecting Noah by his son making fun of him? Again, it would have to be a pretty bad crime to justify cursing a whole generation of your own offspring.

Click to expand...

But isn't it the case that dishonoring one's parents is a form of disobedience to God? So Ham would also be deserving of death, and in fact, every sin is worthy of death. So, a transgression such as Ham's is deserving of death, and the curse Ham was given, wasn't even that bad. It's not like he had to suffer the curse of some pain as Job did, but rather he and his offspring would have to serve.

blackribbon said:

Funny. I can't think of many sins that are as conditional as you are making "being naked" is. Are there other sins that are okay for babies or in the presence of family only that makes them not really be sins anymore?

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I think I've said more than once that being naked in and of itself, is not a sin, and I don't think I've described it explicitly as a conditional sin.
Killing, sex, drug usage. In some cases they are sinful, as with murder, adultery, and drug abuse.
In other cases they are not sinful, as with capital punishment, sex with one's own spouse, and using medication. Running around naked for the purpose of exposing oneself for others to see in order to please oneself is sinful, wouldn't you agree?

blackribbon said:

If you try to compare the two then showing naked skin as an adult is somehow a perversion of being naked as a newborn?

Click to expand...

Clearly you've missed what I've been saying. I'll only repeat myself. Being naked is not a sin. Being a perverted running around to please yourself for some sick reason is sinful. Being naked, as an adult in public, is shameful, not something to be proud of, but not necessarily a sin.
Honestly, I think your view here is quite out there. I'm not even talking about modesty at this point. I'm just saying people should at least wear clothes, or it's shameful. This is crazy.

blackribbon said:

I do not think that Africans that wear tribal clothing that doesn't cover their chest are somehow sinful or a perversion of what is can be good.

Click to expand...

I said earlier in a post that a person could be foolish, or ignorant. Those tribal people, are ignorant. They lack the wisdom that says that we ought to further cloth ourselves. If we were to integrate them into our civilized society they should and must wear clothing that does not reveal their private areas. I'd bet a lot of those tribal people worship tribal gods. So, their culture isn't a very smart one. The culture derived from the Judeo-Christian world is superior.

blackribbon said:

I continue to maintain that most women do not have a sexual problem seeing men without a shirts on the beach. Have you asked many women if they have problem?

Click to expand...

Most? like what 90%? So what, even if 1% of women have this problem, that's still millions of women. Secondly, gay men may have a problem with seeing exposed male chests, and they might be struggling with their homosexuality. However, like I said earlier, sexual attraction isn't the only reason for modesty.

Paidiske said:

I'm trying to work out how the idea of being reduced to being a servant, especially for generations, isn't seen as severe.

Click to expand...

I can't take seriously the claim that idea that Ham raped his mother or father, and got away with it by having to serve drinks to his brothers for the rest of his life, and the rest of his offsprings' lives. Severe is getting killed, or living in literal pain like Job. What Ham got was a permanent demotion, but he was never exiled, or disowned.

Paidiske said:

Near, have you done any reading on colonialism and the damage it has done? I think you might have a bit of a blind spot there about culture.

Click to expand...

Go read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe.
Christian culture did great things for those tribal africans who would leave their babies in a forest to die if they had twins.

Mountainmanbob said:

According to the law of the Land here where I live it is legal for a man to go topless.
Most important -- can't find anything against it in the Bible.

But, if it feels like sin to you -- don't do it.
What might be sin for you might not be sin for me.

M-Bob

Click to expand...

So, is there a verse in the bible that says women should cover their tops?
Also, I think if we hold women to a certain standard, and women feel that a certain standard should be applied to men, then I'll wear a shirt for them. If a women asked a man to cover up, it seems like the right thing to do.

blackribbon said:

Most men who don't wear shirts on the beach, do put them on before getting to the car. Beach wear is not the same as walking around "naked in public". It is actually appropriate beach attire. There are very few shirts designed for swimming.

Click to expand...

Actually, you seemed to be defending the idea that it's not shameful to be naked in public.

blackribbon said:

And I am speechless that you believe that missionaries should be changing the dress of the culture they go tell about Jesus. I missed the verse that says "Go out and tell them about me....and make sure they dress appropriate for Western & European culture...."

Click to expand...

Why not clothe them? That's what Jesus would want.

Matt 25: 36I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was inprison and you visited Me.’

Click to expand...

It's good to clothe naked people.

blackribbon said:

And if you think the problem is that society needs to conform for the sake of the minority...what about pedophiles?...our babies should never be naked or run around in just a diaper in public because it might tempt those with perverted sexual desires.....

Click to expand...

Women who experience attraction to men visually are barley a minority, and their temptations should be acknowledged. If a women were to ask me to wear a shirt around her, I would wear a shirt. What is wrong with helping women who have such a problem? Women who are attracted to men visually are not the same as pedophiles. The two are completely different. You're basically shaming such women with that comparison.

blackribbon said:

In what way is that related to the way they dress? Wearing minimal clothing (based on western standards) somehow made them leave their babies in the forest to die? Putting them in western style clothing stopped this behavior?

Do you realize how many babies we kill in our Christian society? Probably a lot more than all the African twins....

Click to expand...

You didn't read the book, did you? I was pointing out a few aspects of their culture, which truly was inferior, stemming from pagan practices.
As for baby killing in Christian culture, I know of no such thing, because the way I understand christian culture is not the same thing as western culture.