Nope not all parables are. Some are only illustrating a point. Examples include parable of the mustard seed & parable of leaven bread (yeast). Parables took a real life thing that people of the day would be familiar with and used it to illustrate a truth. So taking a real life event like the races mentioned does not automatically mean that the entire thing was being condoned. The parable of the mustard seed was not condoning or condemning trees. It is silent on the matter. You can not therefore use that passage to claim the bible does not speak on nudity. That is not the point of the passage. Same as we can't be critical of John 3:16 for not providing evidence of how to live a godly lifestyle.
But my point is this... ANY "narrative" that does not include a command is not to be taken as a moral imperative for human behavior... it's not teaching what "normative" behavior is. The examples you cited are certainly NOT that.
You know I've been thinking about this since you first made your post about races being run in nude. It does not neccesarily logically follow that just because they ran the races in the nude that it was condoning being nude. That is an assumption on your part and requires evidence. Just like parables illustrate a point it says throw off every encumbrance and run to win the prize. If we take that as condoning nudity then it means it is a biblical command to go naked which is not what early christians did and not what we should do. Yet you are claiming it is a biblical command to follow. Either that or we are not to run the race. The point being made is that we need to do what we can do receive eternal life. If something is getting in the way of us & God then we need to discard that encumbrance.
Again, I think you're missing the point.
Is it to be
assumed that nudity is forbidden by God as the
starting point of the discussion of its morality? I don't think so.
My point never has been that passages such as I mentioned specifically "condoned" or approved of public nudity, but simply that here were biblical cases where nudity was undoubtedly part of the cultural and historical context... particularly within the events described and used as an illustration. And since such public nudity events actually
were extant at the time of the writing of the NT, it's unthinkable that ALL of the NT writers would utterly fail to mention how such a common Greco-Roman cultural practice is actually forbidden for God-fearing Christians. For all practical and textual and contextual purposes, the practice is "acceptable."
Using the races it does actually counter your earlier argument. Women were not allowed to compete. So you would not see naked women at those events. Married women were not allowed to attend. You claimed the bible was silent on that. if we take your interpretation that the passage justifies nudity as not being wrong then it is only reasonable to conclude that the passage is saying once married you should not see a person of opposite gender naked. If you can not reach that conclusion from that then I would suggest you are interpreting things in a way to suit your pre-formed view much like createdtoworship is.
Not at all...
I'm starting with the assumption that an activity (nudity in public... bathing... working... fishing... athletics) is not wrong or sinful in and of itself... until and unless we can find it condemned by clear biblical declaration or obvious application of biblical principle.
Are sports wrong? Should we start with the assumption that they ARE wrong and point out that since the Bible never actually condones sports, we must then conclude that they are forbidden... even though the text itself describes a number of common athletic activities of that day? Well, of course not... we start with the assumption that it's fine to be involved in athletic endeavors... and we rightly note that the Bible never condemns such activities.
By the same token, we should start with the assumption that our nudity is not wrong and we are correct in pointing out that the Bible never condemns public nudity even though the text itself describes a number of contexts where nudity was part of the events described. And like sports, the fact that the context was referenced without ever condemning the practice of nudity (in the immediate context nor elsewhere) makes a strong case
against the notion that it is wrong.
And regarding nudity in segregated settings...
First of all, that was not part of the "challenge" I was responding to.
Secondly I understand (saw it somewhere/sometime) that while the Greek/Roman games were male-only, the Spartans sporting events actually DID include women... and they too performed their athletics without clothing.
And don't you see how your saying this:
"if we take your interpretation that the passage justifies nudity as not being wrong then it is only reasonable to conclude that the passage is saying once married you should not see a person of opposite gender naked." is completely adding something to the passage that it truly and absolutely says NOTHING about??
My whole point here in this entire discussion is that we should NEVER add
anything to God's Word that He chose not to say... particularly when it comes to "rules for righteousness."
Correct not written in that passage. Question is is it written elsewhere? For a number of things you claimed were not written we do know because it is mentioned elsewhere. It is reasonable to make the connection in that case.
When I said "Not Written" I was primarily pointing out that
@createdtoworship never bothered to support a single one of those assertions using scripture... after he repeatedly tried to say that about anything and everything I said.
But beyond that, I would also assert that each of those things he asserted without any scriptural support are
also indefensible scripturally.
They are "not written" anywhere in the bible. You and he are free to show me how that assertion is mistaken.