Can you refute this argument for the permissibility of public nudity?

JackRT · Feb 11, 2020

HARK! said:
If sin could only be determined by me; I might be doing what was right in my own eyes.

Sin most certainly can be determined by others. That's why, back in the good ole days, we had stonings.

So, were those really "the good old days"?

JackRT · Feb 11, 2020

blackhole said:
To be clear, you're suggesting that they didn't bathe for most or even all of this time. Correct?

No, I am suggesting that the Exodus, if there actually was one, did not take place as described.

blackhole · Feb 11, 2020

JackRT said:
No, I am suggesting that the Exodus, if there actually was one, did not take place as described.

Are there any textual hints regarding that idea? As an example of what I mean: Genesis speaks about a six-day creation period, but we see three pairs of days; seemingly it isn't meant to be taken as actually six days.

blackhole · Feb 11, 2020

HARK! said:
That will stand as my supposition; until I'm provided with a cogent rebuttal.

It seems plausible to me. I should look into it more.

HARK! · Feb 11, 2020

JackRT said:
So, were those really "the good old days"?

Murder...........No repeat convicted offenders.
Adultery.........Rates down and falling
Rape..............No repeat convicted offenders.

It must have been very pleasant to live in a righteous society.

timothyu · Feb 11, 2020

blackhole said:
Genesis speaks about a six-day creation period, but we see three pairs of days; seemingly it isn't meant to be taken as actually six days.

I thought day meant age as relating to a period of time.

timothyu · Feb 11, 2020

blackhole said:
They didn't leave Egypt until chapter 12.

Spoiler alert !

Nancy Hale · Feb 11, 2020

blackhole said:
The argument goes:

During the exodus, 600,000 'men on foot' left Egypt and spent years wandering through a desert. There are 20 or more commands related to bathing; bathing wasn't an option. Given the multitude and insufficient water sources (cf. Num 20:11), bathing could not have been private. Bathing underwear had not yet been invented. Therefore, it follows that public nudity was not sinful.

Responses?

How we bathe today is different from just a couple hundred years ago, so why anyone would use today's practices to make an argument about something so long ago is beyond me.
"Queen Isabella I of Spain famously only bathed twice in her life — once when she was born, and once before she married. Queen Elizabeth I is known for the Spanish Armada, never marrying, and announcing: 'I take a bath once a month, whether I need to or not"
Roman's had public baths, so that may have been practiced widely 2k years ago. I read somewhere that further back/in deserts sand was used, just rubbing it on their skin to get off dirt and whatnot. I don't remember where I read it though.
Jesus said if you wash your feet, the whole body is clean.
I don't think applying today's standard to a past time can or should be used to prove anything.

blackhole · Feb 11, 2020

Nancy Hale said:
How we bathe today is different from just a couple hundred years ago, so why anyone would use today's practices to make an argument about something so long ago is beyond me.
"Queen Isabella I of Spain famously only bathed twice in her life — once when she was born, and once before she married. Queen Elizabeth I is known for the Spanish Armada, never marrying, and announcing: 'I take a bath once a month, whether I need to or not"
Roman's had public baths, so that may have been practiced widely 2k years ago. I read somewhere that further back/in deserts sand was used, just rubbing it on their skin to get off dirt and whatnot. I don't remember where I read it though.
Jesus said if you wash your feet, the whole body is clean.
I don't think applying today's standard to a past time can or should be used to prove anything.

You've misunderstood quite a bit, including the source you used when referring to feet.

Peter J Barban · Feb 11, 2020

I would not assume that the Jews bathed in the nude. I remember reading decades ago that Jews consider nudity shameful, so if bathing outside they wear very loose clothing and wash their skin underneath their clothes.

blackhole · Feb 11, 2020

Peter J Barban said:
I would not assume that the Jews bathed in the nude. I remember reading decades ago that Jews consider nudity shameful, so if bathing outside they wear very loose clothing and wash their skin underneath their clothes.

I've also often heard that they were very opposed to nudity.

My difficulty though is that it seems many didn't adhere to this aversion, and also that the Bible required it in ways that are surprising to me. For example, a leper's skin would have to be inspected before being declared clean. A leper might be female; priests were male... Certain privileges were granted only to those who were circumcised; how would you confirm this?.. And fishing was often (if not almost always) done in the nude (cf. Peter's naked fishing, though I've seen a stronger source too).

Of course, I've gone off topic; maybe they didn't bathe nude during the exodus. I'll have to see if I can find any data.

timothyu · Feb 11, 2020

Peter J Barban said:
I would not assume that the Jews bathed in the nude. I remember reading decades ago that Jews consider nudity shameful, so if bathing outside they wear very loose clothing and wash their skin underneath their clothes.

Yes I doubt the weekly ritual baptisms in the baptismal pools were immodest.

blackhole · Feb 11, 2020

timothyu said:
Yes I doubt the weekly ritual baptisms in the baptismal pools were immodest.

Closely related, this may be of interest to you: Does any church follow the Apostolic Tradition of Baptism ‘in the nude’, or was that never the tradition?

GaveMeJoy · Feb 11, 2020

SkyWriting said:
Sin can only be determined for oneself, and not other people.

blackhole · Feb 11, 2020

GaveMeJoy said:
The Bible is very clear regarding many things are objectively sinful for all people in all times.

Why is your post so vague? How does it relate to this thread?

GaveMeJoy · Feb 11, 2020

blackhole said:
The argument goes:

During the exodus, 600,000 'men on foot' left Egypt and spent years wandering through a desert. There are 20 or more commands related to bathing; bathing wasn't an option. Given the multitude and insufficient water sources (cf. Num 20:11), bathing could not have been private. Bathing underwear had not yet been invented. Therefore, it follows that public nudity was not sinful.

Responses?

Unlikely, they had tents and other ways to bathe discreetly. Also it got dark every night...

GaveMeJoy · Feb 11, 2020

A_Thinker said:
There are plenty of commandments regarding uncovering oneself. I'm sure that the Israelites figured out some way to obey God's command ...

Leviticus 18

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, brought up in your father’s family, since she is your sister. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s relative. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s relative. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. 18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Winner

GaveMeJoy · Feb 11, 2020

HARK! said:
That will stand as my supposition; until I'm provided with a cogent rebuttal.

It’s an assumption but one would have to consult a historian

timothyu · Feb 11, 2020

were there no YMHA's in those days?

SkyWriting · Feb 11, 2020

GaveMeJoy said: ↑
The Bible is very clear regarding many things are objectively sinful for all people in all times.

For the reader themselves. But not to be judged by anyone else.

1 Corinthians 2:15
The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

Can you refute this argument for the permissibility of public nudity?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Similar threads