Christian Nudists

MyChainsAreGone said:

Absolutely it's possible. And I would argue that it's needed. I have a good friend who asked the very same question... I should put you in touch with him. We can continue that conversation by email... I assume you got my email to you...

Click to expand...

I just remembered one more related question, and this one is far more theological so I'll propose it to you.

Let's play devil's advocate, and say that we're wrong about nudity; being nude before people (at least e.g. for the sake of art or recreation) is sinful.

However, in this scenario we're going to state that as objective fact, but we're also going to say that neither of us believe that to be the case. Furthermore, we've scrutinized the text and believe, without much doubt, that we're in the right.

Based on our belief, we live in a way that constantly violates the objective fact; that is, we endlessly sin without repentance because we don't know that we're sinning. In my case, it would be via shooting nude portraits and thereby teaching the nude model to sin.

What does that mean for our eternal state? On the one hand, Rom 14 speaks about doubtful things, and it seems to indicate that if a "stronger" brother isn't really stronger and is actually misled, that he'll still be saved.

On the other hand, 1Jo warns us that those who are in sin (constant, unrepentant) have not known God.

I acknowledge that abstinence from sin won't save us and that sinning won't cause us to lose our salvation; I suppose this is about whether in that scenario we were saved, and whether we're hardening our hearts to the point that we likely never will be.

I think you know this, but it's not my goal to justify sin. Rather, I'm a doubtful person; I doubt (emotion) even some things that I know (logic) are certainly not evil. Given my proneness to doubt, I don't feel confident in most things I do. For example, I would doubt whether I should publish a Christian book even on a safe topic because maybe I've made errors -- even if I was very careful. Nudity in portraits is much more doubtworthy, because of the lust issue. In any case, this question isn't about convincing me. You probably can't completely eradicate my doubt, perhaps even if you had a verse which specifically stated that nudity is acceptable. Rather, again it's about what if. What if we're wrong, and we unknowingly live in unrepentant sin?

And note: I do not believe that Rom 14 addresses this kind of doubt, though the baptists often use it this way. I could exegete that, but hopefully I won't need to.

blackhole said:

I just remembered one more related question, and this one is far more theological so I'll propose it to you.

Let's play devil's advocate, and say that we're wrong about nudity; being nude before people (at least e.g. for the sake of art or recreation) is sinful.

However, in this scenario we're going to state that as objective fact, but we're also going to say that neither of us believe that to be the case. Furthermore, we've scrutinized the text and believe, without much doubt, that we're in the right.

Based on our belief, we live in a way that constantly violates the objective fact; that is, we endlessly sin without repentance because we don't know that we're sinning. In my case, it would be via shooting nude portraits and thereby teaching the nude model to sin.

What does that mean for our eternal state? On the one hand, Rom 14 speaks about doubtful things, and it seems to indicate that if a "stronger" brother isn't really stronger and is actually misled, that he'll still be saved.

Click to expand...

A very little pondering of this question leads to the conclusion that this is not going to be an issue of salvation or being useful to God's Kingdom...

NO ONE of us has our theology perfect. Yet, it is still behooves us to act in accordance to what we believe to be true. However, when we act in accordance with our own understanding of truth, technically speaking, we are sinning if in fact our understanding is in error.

But since no one has attained perfect theology, it follows that there's never been a person (besides Jesus) who managed to live 100% in alignment with the truth.

So, if God cannot abide working with someone who has some faulty beliefs, we are ALL in big trouble!

Interestingly, we see God working with people who have faulty theology all the time. And His expectations of them are in line with what they believe at the time.

Consider Jacob... putting up striped and spotted sticks in hopes that it would cause the goats and sheep to bear striped and spotted young... Nuts, right? Yet, God still honored Jacob and gave him lots of animals that way.

Or consider Gideon... he was essentially a pagan idol worshiper when God called him to deliver the Israelites. Gideon's theology was pretty rudimentary at best... so, he asks God for a sign... a "fleece" ... and God complies... not just once but twice. We know now that asking for such signs is actually an expression of unbelief. Fast forward to Zachariah, the high priest... when told by God that his wife would bear a son, his unbelief expressed by questioning God's promise earned him 9 months of not being able to speak. No warning... no "fleece" or proof... nothing but a rebuke for his unbelief. God worked with each of these men according to their current theological understanding of God... Zach knew God a LOT better... and he surely should have known better than to question God's ability to fulfill His promise! Gideon... not so much.

So, God is bigger than our imperfect understanding of truth, and He's able to use us in spite of our errors in belief. He's also perfectly capable opening our minds to specific truth correction when He sees fit.

The truth is that God is much more tolerant of--and willing to use--people who have erroneous beliefs than we are! We need to relax about the fact that God uses people that we disagree with. And we need to not beat our own selves up for having errors in our own beliefs! God's bigger than our mistakes.

=============

There's a couple other articles that you should read...

Squeamish Translating - Evidence that modern Bible translators have been squeamish when translating any passage that may portray nudity in common society in a neutral light.

Yes, even the KJV demonstrates some uneasiness about nudity... but its a LOT better than the more modern versions!

You Can't Do That! - Ways that many Christians abuse/misuse/misinterpret/misapply various passages of Scripture in an effort to control or restrict the behavior of other Christians.

This article includes a discussion of Romans 14.

MyChainsAreGone said:

There's a couple other articles that you should read...

Squeamish Translating - Evidence that modern Bible translators have been squeamish when translating any passage that may portray nudity in common society in a neutral light.

Yes, even the KJV demonstrates some uneasiness about nudity... but its a LOT better than the more modern versions!

You Can't Do That! - Ways that many Christians abuse/misuse/misinterpret/misapply various passages of Scripture in an effort to control or restrict the behavior of other Christians.

This article includes a discussion of Romans 14.

Click to expand...

Do you have a links to somewhere other than Scribd?

blackhole said:

Do you have a links to somewhere other than Scribd?

Click to expand...

I have updated the links...

For your convenience, here they all are again... plus a few extras:

Rightly Dividing 1 Timothy 2:9 (it's NOT about keeping covered)

The Biblical Purpose of Clothing (it's NOT to prevent lust)

You Can't Do That (how "stumbling" passage have been misinterpreted to control Christian behavior)

Squeamish Translating (modern translators have obscured biblical references to non-sexual nudity)

Nakedness in the OT (a comprehensive word study on ervah... its meaning and usage in the Bible)

Examining the Physical Nature of the Imago Dei - Part 1 , Part 2a, Part 2b (a comprehensive word study on tsalem, demonstrating that it speaks of a visual likeness)

MyChainsAreGone said:

I have updated the links...

For your convenience, here they all are again... plus a few extras:

Rightly Dividing 1 Timothy 2:9 (it's NOT about keeping covered)

The Biblical Purpose of Clothing (it's NOT to prevent lust)

You Can't Do That (how "stumbling" passage have been misinterpreted to control Christian behavior)

Squeamish Translating (modern translators have obscured biblical references to non-sexual nudity)

Nakedness in the OT (a comprehensive word study on ervah... its meaning and usage in the Bible)

Examining the Physical Nature of the Imago Dei - Part 1 , Part 2a, Part 2b (a comprehensive word study on tsalem, demonstrating that it speaks of a visual likeness)

Click to expand...

I've now gone over most of what I'm going to. I probably won't read your 1Ti 2:9 paper, because I'm already very familiar with that text's misuse.

I think that your text on the purposes of clothing is the one with the strongest apologies.

1) Regarding Ervah: As you pointed out, nakedness isn't necessarily involved, but sexual expression is (and is somewhat loosely defined). Do you agree then that someone can be fully clothed and yet in violation of ervah? For example: JLo's superbowl dance was ervah, and would have been ervah even if she wore a burka.

2) If you agree with that, then also: Is it sinful for us to look upon such ervah if we do so without coveting? For example, if I tell another Christian: "Watch this superbowl halftime video, and tell me whether you find it offensive," have I sinned by asking him to look upon ervah? I think this question is important because ervah is constantly offered to us -- even apart from media which involves nude sex acts.

3) Given your interpretation of shame, how do you deal with Mar 5:15? Is your argument that demons made him naked to remove his protection from the elements? Or because he lacked clothing that showed his social status? etc.

4) If nakedness is good, how do you deal with Hab 2:15, which apparently refers directly to the genitalia? To help understand my difficulty with this text, imagine replacing "nakedness" with any other good thing. For example: "Woe unto him who gets his neighbor drunk, to entice him to become more loving." Getting someone drunk is bad, but it was doubly bad because the enticer did it to look at the other's nakedness.

5) In Nah 3:5, God doesn't take their clothing (which would be a sign of poverty/defeat). Rather, he "lifts" their skirts and exposes their shame.
5a) How do you reconcile this usage of shame?
5b) More importantly, how do you defend your view of nakedness as not improper, considering its usage here and that it supposedly refers (again) directly to the genitals?

Archivist said:

What hearsay? I clearly said "Scripture tells us that Peter fished whiole naked." It in John 21:7 (KJV):

"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked) and did cast himself into the sea."

As I said, other evidence shows that it was common to fish while naked.



I didn't ask you to prove that predators lurk in the world. I asked you to prove your apparent claim that nudity leads to rape.

Click to expand...

And what did Peter do? He put his clothes on to see Jesus.

In Genesis God made the clothes and PUT Them on Adam and Eve before driving them out. God didn't hand them the clothes and say, wear them if you want to. He actually made them himself and put them on Adam and Eve. That's a pretty significant thing. And when you combine that with the other scriptures Where God forbade nakedness it's pretty clear what his intent was. It was for us to be clothed and not see everyone's nudity. It was about shame. It was about recognizing sinfulness. Before sin we could be naked and unashamed. After sin we could no longer be naked and unashamed. We were clothes by God in relation to our shame.

It's shame to be running around nude with people.

rjs330 said:

And what did Peter do? He put his clothes on to see Jesus.

In Genesis God made the clothes and PUT Them on Adam and Eve before driving them out. God didn't hand them the clothes and say, wear them if you want to. He actually made them himself and put them on Adam and Eve. That's a pretty significant thing. And when you combine that with the other scriptures Where God forbade nakedness it's pretty clear what his intent was. It was for us to be clothed and not see everyone's nudity. It was about shame. It was about recognizing sinfulness. Before sin we could be naked and unashamed. After sin we could no longer be naked and unashamed. We were clothes by God in relation to our shame.

It's shame to be running around nude with people.

Click to expand...

If God made blueberry oatmeal and fed it to Adam and Eve, would that mean we have to eat blueberry oatmeal -- forever?

You mentioned other scriptures which forbid nudity. Source them.

rjs330 said:

And what did Peter do? He put his clothes on to see Jesus.

Click to expand...

He wrapped his cloak around himself and jumped into the water. Clothing was expensive; he probably didn’t want to risk losing it.

In Genesis God made the clothes and PUT Them on Adam and Eve before driving them out. God didn't hand them the clothes and say, wear them if you want to. He actually made them himself and put them on Adam and Eve. That's a pretty significant thing. And when you combine that with the other scriptures Where God forbade nakedness it's pretty clear what his intent was. It was for us to be clothed and not see everyone's nudity. It was about shame. It was about recognizing sinfulness. Before sin we could be naked and unashamed. After sin we could no longer be naked and unashamed. We were clothes by God in relation to our shame.

Click to expand...

God made clothing made from animal skins to replace the inferior clothing made from plants that Adam and Eve had already made.

It's shame to be running around nude with people.

Click to expand...

I've been to nude beaches. Nothing shameful about it.

Oh, another thing. Your (RJ's) interpretation reminds me of those who believe that it's sinful to seek a wife, because God brought a wife to Adam. They believe that because God did it this way in one case, that it's how every righteous man's life will go.

And that thought is contrary not only to what's reasonable or logical, but it's also contrary to 1Co 7.

blackhole said:

If God made blueberry oatmeal and fed it to Adam and Eve, would that mean we have to eat blueberry oatmeal -- forever?

You mentioned other scriptures which forbid nudity. Source them.

Click to expand...

It was obviously God's intent to clothe them. And there are posts earlier that list all the scriptures regarding nakedness and God's prohibition of it.
And scripture after scripture even in the New Testament always relates nakedness to shame. Demon possession was usually accompanied by nakedness. Paul talked often about nakedness relating to sin and shame. It's not glorified as something beautiful or wonderful. In the OT it's the same unless accompanied strictly by the overcoming power of God and that rarely. The vast majority of the nakedness is related to shame, humiliation and judgement.

If you want to ignore all that so you can run around naked, be my guest. But don't pretend that the Bible teaches it's a wonderful thing. Because it doesn't. It teaches it's shameful.

And God didn't feed them blueberry oatmeal. He clothed them. If he fed them buleberry oatmeal we would say he did it to have them feed themselves not that they had to eat blueberry oatmeal. In this case God clothes them indicating we should be clothed to cover out nakedness. Not that we had to use whatever animals he killed to clothe them with.

Archivist said:

He wrapped his cloak around himself and jumped into the water. Clothing was expensive; he probably didn’t want to risk losing it.



God made clothing made from animal skins to replace the inferior clothing made from plants that Adam and Eve had already made.



I've been to nude beaches. Nothing shameful about it.

Click to expand...

Yes there is. Nakedness in scripture always indicates shame. The only time it's not is when someone is overcome by the spirit of God for a particular purpose.

rjs330 said:

It was obviously God's intent to clothe them. And there are posts earlier that list all the scriptures regarding nakedness and God's prohibition of it.
And scripture after scripture even in the New Testament always relates nakedness to shame. Demon possession was usually accompanied by nakedness. Paul talked often about nakedness relating to sin and shame. It's not glorified as something beautiful or wonderful. In the OT it's the same unless accompanied strictly by the overcoming power of God and that rarely. The vast majority of the nakedness is related to shame, humiliation and judgement.

If you want to ignore all that so you can run around naked, be my guest. But don't pretend that the Bible teaches it's a wonderful thing. Because it doesn't. It teaches it's shameful.

And God didn't feed them blueberry oatmeal. He clothed them. If he fed them buleberry oatmeal we would say he did it to have them feed themselves not that they had to eat blueberry oatmeal. In this case God clothes them indicating we should be clothed to cover out nakedness. Not that we had to use whatever animals he killed to clothe them with.

Click to expand...

Clothed to be protected from the elements.
And I'm not going through 1,091 posts. Source your claims.

blackhole said:

Oh, another thing. Your (RJ's) interpretation reminds me of those who believe that it's sinful to seek a wife, because God brought a wife to Adam. They believe that because God did it this way in one case, that it's how every righteous man's life will go.

And that thought is contrary not only to what's reasonable or logical, but it's also contrary to 1Co 7.

Click to expand...

That's why you shouldn't take one scripture as the end all and be all of all things. God made one woman for Adam. But the rest of scripture indicates over and over again that men sought after wives with God's full approval. Clothing man and woman is also seen thought scripture which fulfills God's putting clothes to cover their nakedness. God tells us throught scripture that nakedness is shameful. And tells us to clothe ourselves. God doesn't ever tell us to run around naked. He does tell us to cover our nakedness and tells us nakedness is shameful and overwhelmingly promotes it as shameful, or an indication of judgement. In the NT nakedness often was one of the indicators of demon possession and Paul always indicates nakedness with shame and sin. It's never glorifies or shown to be wonderful.

rjs330 said:

That's why you shouldn't take one scripture as the end all and be all of all things. God made one woman for Adam. But the rest of scripture indicates over and over again that men sought after wives with God's full approval. Clothing man and woman is also seen thought scripture which fulfills God's putting clothes to cover their nakedness. God tells us throught scripture that nakedness is shameful. And tells us to clothe ourselves. God doesn't ever tell us to run around naked. He does tell us to cover our nakedness and tells us nakedness is shameful and overwhelmingly promotes it as shameful, or an indication of judgement. In the NT nakedness often was one of the indicators of demon possession and Paul always indicates nakedness with shame and sin. It's never glorifies or shown to be wonderful.

Click to expand...

Check your NT references again. I just searched the KJV for naked and nakedness in the NT, and in every case that I see Paul refer to it, except the one case where the man was demon possessed, it does not speak of sin and shame. It speaks of being poor or outcast/punished by man.

blackhole said:

Clothed to be protected from the elements.
And I'm not going through 55 pages of posts. Source your claims.

Click to expand...

That's not why God clothes them. They were naked and ashamed. And perhaps some good study on shame and nakedness would do you well. Either that or you can find the post that already lists much if the scriptures that deal with it.

Paul tells us we are the righteousness of Christ. He tells us in Romans to present ourselves holy and blameless. Peter tells us to pursue godliness. What good are we doing or how are we living examples of godliness and holiness when we are participating in acts that God calls shame? We are better than that. If God calls something shameful we are not living a life that fully pleases him if we participate in that. Will believers that participate in those things go to heaven? Yes of course. But the works of their life will be burned up in the judgement because they pursued things that are not good in the eyes of God. They pursued things that God calls shameful.

I don't expect to pursuade you or any other Christian who loves public nudity. That's between you and God. You are the one who has to answer to him as to why you pursued something God said was shameful and always equates with shame and sin. Even in heaven we will not be naked, but clothed.

blackhole said:

I've now gone over most of what I'm going to. I probably won't read your 1Ti 2:9 paper, because I'm already very familiar with that text's misuse.

Click to expand...

Actually, the paper doesn't deal with the passage's misuse... it exposes the passage's mistranslation. I think you'll appreciate it.

blackhole said:

I think that your text on the purposes of clothing is the one with the strongest apologies.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

blackhole said:

1) Regarding Ervah: As you pointed out, nakedness isn't necessarily involved, but sexual expression is (and is somewhat loosely defined). Do you agree then that someone can be fully clothed and yet in violation of ervah? For example: JLo's superbowl dance was ervah, and would have been ervah even if she wore a burka.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify something... ervah doesn't simply mean using the body for "sexual expression"... the core meaning of the word is not replaced... it's simply not alone. Exposure of the body is definitely part of it... even if total "nakedness" is not.

Also, ervah is not a rule to be "violated"... it is a noun that refers to body exposure with "intent."

The SB show was definitely sexual. Could it be described as ervah, since there was so much body exposure? Possibly. But remember, ervah does not carry with it the presumption of immorality in the expression... context is what determines that. I suggest that the SB show finds its condemnation in Habakkuk 2:15... more on that below.

blackhole said:

2) If you agree with that, then also: Is it sinful for us to look upon such ervah if we do so without coveting? For example, if I tell another Christian: "Watch this superbowl halftime video, and tell me whether you find it offensive," have I sinned by asking him to look upon ervah? I think this question is important because ervah is constantly offered to us -- even apart from media which involves nude sex acts.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think that the exposure to ervah in itself is sinful. If I happen to walk in on a husband and wife while they are making love, I have not sinned by seeing them, nor have they sinned by being seen. But if I choose to use that sight to inflame my own lusts, or they are subverting the goodness of their union to attempt to entice me to sin, then there's a problem.

A lot of good things that we know about a healthy marital sexual relationship had to be learned by people who studied the act of copulation... not for illicit purposes, but to understand ourselves better... and to honor the sacredness and goodness of the act. Is that wrong? I think it's hard to make such a case... so... asking someone to watch the SB show for the purpose of learning and making a moral evaluation would be in the realm of learning and the desire to uphold righteousness. That said, we have to be careful that anyone we encourage to watch it is mature enough to not turn it into a personal sexual experience in their own minds. That would fall under the teaching of Romans 14 and the "weaker brother" instruction.

Keep in mind Jesus' instructions in Mark 7... nothing outside of us can defile us simply by entering into us... that includes what we see. If "lust/covetous" happens in our hearts in response to what we see, then it means the lust was already there, and it is being revealed... not caused by the external stimuli.

blackhole said:

3) Given your interpretation of shame, how do you deal with Mar 5:15? Is your argument that demons made him naked to remove his protection from the elements? Or because he lacked clothing that showed his social status? etc.

Click to expand...

There's no way to know exactly why the man lived naked... fact is that he--empowered by the demons--refused to wear chains and shackles, too. Most likely, his nakedness was simply the result of the man being completely separate from society.

With our modern aversion to nudity, we read this account and see the nakedness is THE primary indicator of the demonic problem. But I think the complete inability for the society to contain him was the real indicator... and clothing would simply be something that such a tormented person would have no concerns about maintaining in wearable condition (let alone having a resource for getting new clothes).

Once he is healed, he's described as "sitting down at the feet of Jesus,", "clothed," and "in his right mind." ALL three of these things were indicators of his healing... and his soundness to reenter society as a healthy soul, no longer tormented by the enemy.

Yet, we focus on the one. Why? Because we are so biased against public nudity in our modern mindset. It's NOT the main point--nor the main indicator--in the account (Mark 5 doesn't even mention that the guy was unclothed! Only Luke 8:27 tells us that!)

The notion that the "demons made him naked" is based on a bias that nudity is simply wrong. And that notion is countered by another account in the bible of a man overtake by a "Spiritual Power" and caused to be naked... King Saul!

In 1 Samuel 19, Saul is out of his mind (literally tormented at times by demons!) and he's chasing David trying to kill him. Saul ends up going to Samuel and the other prophets in search of David. And then the Spirit of God (1 Samuel 19:23 !!) comes upon Saul and he begins prophesying naked!

So... a clothed demonized man comes under the power of God's Spirit and is then found naked and in his right mind!! (Surely acting under the influence of God's Spirit and "prophesying" can be considered a "right mind").

Does anyone bother pointing out that passage about Saul when talking about demonized people and nudity? Nope. Because it doesn't support the bias.

blackhole said:

4) If nakedness is good, how do you deal with Hab 2:15, which apparently refers directly to the genitalia? To help understand my difficulty with this text, imagine replacing "nakedness" with any other good thing. For example: "Woe unto him who gets his neighbor drunk, to entice him to become more loving." Getting someone drunk is bad, but it was doubly bad because the enticer did it to look at the other's nakedness.

Click to expand...

To me, this is the most significant passage in all the bible that speaks against inappropriate contentography.


As already noted, ervah, (nakedness) means more than simple nudity... it's consistent usage in the OT infers active sexual use of that nakedness.

So, "look on their nakedness" would seem to imply "watch them have sex."

And I suggest that you can consider the "make your neighbors drink" to be--in essence--using personal resources (money/wine) as a "pay-off" to get the neighbors in the desired state of mind to perform sexually.

Woe to the person who pays money to watch other people have sex.

That's the essence of inappropriate content.

Is that a stretch for that passage? I don't think so. Besides, are we to assume that human appetite for inappropriate content is only a modern problem? Certainly, not... since prostitution has been around long before the bible times.

One more note... your translation said, "...entice him to become more loving." That's an interesting take... but it's clearly based upon the use of "uncover the nakedness of" in Leviticus 18... which equates uncovering (looking upon) nakedness as actually participating sexually with that person. That's interesting to consider, although I suspect it might be difficult to make a very strong case to support (different author and context), but it certainly is not in conflict with what I've suggested.

Back to J-Lo and the SB show... we (culture/NFL/Pepsi) certainly DID pay money to watch someone act very sexually for our "entertainment"... Woe to us for that!

blackhole said:

5) In Nah 3:5, God doesn't take their clothing (which would be a sign of poverty/defeat). Rather, he "lifts" their skirts and exposes their shame.
5a) How do you reconcile this usage of shame?
5b) More importantly, how do you defend your view of nakedness as not improper, considering its usage here and that it supposedly refers (again) directly to the genitals?

Click to expand...

That's not how I read the passage.


God's purpose is to "show to the nations" the sinful conduct (adultery/ervah) of the city/nation of Nineveh. So, to start with, the narrative is metaphorical. It makes sense--in this word picture--to "lift the skirt" to reveal the "adultery/ervah" of Nineveh. God is declaring that He will show the kingdoms Nineveh's "disgrace" (it's a different Hebrew word than the typical word for "shame" in the OT) because of their sinful conduct... as a city/nation.

So, does this passage really address "shame" as I've defined it? No, I don't think so. Does it establish a link between simple nudity and "shame" or sin? Again, no, I don't think it does.

rjs330 said:

That's not why God clothes them.

Click to expand...

Why DID God clothe them?

Well, an honest student of God's Word will acknowledge that the text does not tell us the answer to that question.

I've asked the question, and sought a reasonable answer to it... my findings are here:

rjs330 said:

They were naked and ashamed.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Bible only tells us that they were "naked and UNashamed." (Genesis 2:25)

The Bible NEVER tells us that they were "naked and ashamed." In fact, when asked why he was hiding, Adam only said that he was naked and "afraid."

So, before you make assertions about what's true in God's Word, be sure to acknowledge what it actually says... Can you make a case that they were also "ashamed"... possibly... so... make that case, rather than just declaring it.

rjs330 said:

And perhaps some good study on shame and nakedness would do you well. Either that or you can find the post that already lists much if the scriptures that deal with it.

Click to expand...

I actually have done a good study on "shame" and "nakedness" in the Bible (note, they are two distinct topics, not one and the same).

I'm not sure what you have discovered from your study of those two topics (you have done that study, right?), but I learned that the way the church has been teaching about nakedness for years is not actually biblical.

First of all, the word usually translated "nakedness" in the OT Hebrew (ervah) seems to always infer some sort of active use of the naked body... and that usage is almost always sexual.

That means, when we see the word "nakedness" in the OT, we need to understand that it's implying sexual activity as well. And that is a HUGE point to keep in mind.

Second, of all the words that speak of the unclothed state of the human body, the only one EVER associated with shame is the word ervah... the "sexual" nakedness. And yes, there are plenty of other references to nudity that have no shame associated with it. What's more, even ervah is not always associated with shame! This strongly suggests that in the Bible, simple nudity is NOT shameful... only the sexual misuse of nudity. Even sexual nudity is not shameful--in the correct context.

And in EVERY case in the OT, if there is both nakedness AND shame... there is clear indication of shameful conduct as well! Again, this strongly suggests that the "shame" in any given passage is not the result of the nudity, but of the sinful conduct.

What has your study shown you?

Here's my research on ervah.

rjs330 said:

Paul tells us we are the righteousness of Christ. He tells us in Romans to present ourselves holy and blameless. Peter tells us to pursue godliness. What good are we doing or how are we living examples of godliness and holiness when we are participating in acts that God calls shame?

Click to expand...

Again, God never calls simple chaste nudity "shame."

rjs330 said:

We are better than that. If God calls something shameful we are not living a life that fully pleases him if we participate in that. Will believers that participate in those things go to heaven? Yes of course. But the works of their life will be burned up in the judgement because they pursued things that are not good in the eyes of God. They pursued things that God calls shameful.

Click to expand...

To this, I agree... given the proviso that God never called public nudity "shameful."

rjs330 said:

I don't expect to pursuade you or any other Christian who loves public nudity. That's between you and God. You are the one who has to answer to him as to why you pursued something God said was shameful and always equates with shame and sin.

Click to expand...

No... NOT always... not even in the NT.

Most (if not all) instances of simple uncondemned nudity in the NT has been translated right out of the modern versions! Just compare to the KJV and it's easy to see.

I also did a study on this matter, and I have exposed the anti-nudity bias in the modern translators here:

rjs330 said:

Even in heaven we will not be naked, but clothed.

Click to expand...

Exactly what will we be clothed with in heaven? As I read in Revelation 19:8, we will be clothed with "the righteous acts of the saints."

Are you suggesting that we will need some sort of man-made clothing in heaven? Isn't that ludicrous to suggest? Is there anything man-made in heaven? ... much less something man-made in order to maintain "moral purity" in heaven! And if our "clothing" in heaven is not required to maintain moral purity, then what possible purpose could it fulfill for us in our glorified state?

Will there be something "shameful" about our spiritual bodies? Is that even remotely plausible to suggest? What sort of "clothing" (spiritual or otherwise) would ever make our spiritual--glorified and undefiled--bodies more suited to heaven?

The very suggestion that we will need clothing in heaven is an idea that utterly disintegrates when we ask any questions about what such a "need" for clothing means about our glorified bodies.

C.S. Lewis pondered these questions... and he rejected the suggestion that the "clothing" of heaven in any way resembles the look or purpose of earthly clothing (found HERE):

“First came bright Spirits, not the Spirits of men, who danced and scattered flowers. Then, on the left and right, at each side of the forest avenue, came youthful shapes, boys upon one hand, and girls upon the other. If I could remember their singing and write down the notes, no man who read that score would ever grow sick or old. Between them went musicians: and after these a lady in whose honour all this was being done.

I cannot now remember whether she was naked or clothed. If she were naked, then it must have been the almost visible penumbra of her courtesy and joy which produces in my memory the illusion of a great and shining train that followed her across the happy grass. If she were clothed, then the illusion of nakedness is doubtless due to the clarity with which her inmost spirit shone through the clothes. For clothes in that country are not a disguise: the spiritual body lives along each thread and turns them into living organs. A robe or a crown is there as much one of the wearer's features as a lip or an eye.

But I have forgotten. And only partly do I remember the unbearable beauty of her face. ... ”

Click to expand...

It is a mistake to attach the same meaning of clothing here on earth with the meaning of clothing in heaven.

You are welcome to show me how I'm wrong in anything posted here.

MyChainsAreGone said:

Actually, the paper doesn't deal with the passage's misuse... it exposes the passage's mistranslation. I think you'll appreciate it.

Click to expand...

Mistranslation which leads to misuse; we're covering the same idea. I addressed it when I wrote my book on toplessness.

Toplessness was very easy to defend, but nudity hasn't been so easy. In any case, I believe that I'm sufficiently convinced that public nudity isn't sinful (though I have no desire to do it).

Between my understanding of the definition of shame and the way that you've clarified the common verses used against nudity, and the many points I've thought of about the fall and nudity, I believe I'm sufficiently convinced. Again, thank you. I may posit more challenges if later I need to.

I'm planning to write my senior thesis (philosophy major) on nudity, shame and disgust. Unfortunately, it can't be a theological exposition, but I hope to earn an MTh some day and perhaps I'll expand it for that thesis.

Forgive me if I asked you this already, I don't believe that I have:

Can you point me to conservative-approved christian art schools which require exposure to nudity (e.g. figure drawing) or to theologians / pastors / commentators who agree with you that public nudity (or at least nudity in art) isn't sinful? I loathe to do this because an appeal to authority is a fallacy, but when I want to defend my own view, these references may assuage attacks.

The ones that I know to apparently approve are: Francis Schaeffer, David Guzik, C.S. Lewis, probably Rookmaaker, and also Gordon College.

https://www.gordon.edu/download/pages/ArtPolicy_NudeModels.pdf

rjs330 said:

It was obviously God's intent to clothe them.

Click to expand...

God's "intent" to clothe them... yes... but why? The text doesn't tell us what was in God's mind.

Did God intend to "hide" their bodies? If so, from whom?? Nobody in the vicinity (for years to come) would be in danger of inappropriate desires at seeing their nude bodies. And would anyone suggest that God intends for husbands and wives to be clothed around each other at all times?

Did God intend the garments to keep them warm? Well, that's certainly a viable reason! They were cast out of the Garden!

Did God intend for the garments to protect their bodies? That too is a viable reason! Because now the ground (which would require tilling) would produce dangerous plants with thorns and thistles!

Those two purposes both make more sense than the "hiding" idea... and they arise from the immediate context!

Got any other biblical reasoning to give us a clue why God clothed them?

Here's my more complete effort to address that question...

rjs330 said:

And there are posts earlier that list all the scriptures regarding nakedness and God's prohibition of it.

Click to expand...

I find NO general "prohibition" of nudity or nakedness in the Bible. In case you're thinking Leviticus 18, that defines and prohibits incest. Any other interpretation of the passage makes no sense. And, if you don't agree with that assertion, then you have to conclude that nakedness is NOT prohibited around anyone except your own close relatives.

rjs330 said:

And scripture after scripture even in the New Testament always relates nakedness to shame.

Click to expand...

Always? Not at all. Not even the majority of the time!

In fact, I can think of only ONE passage in the NT that seems to directly link nakedness with shame. How many can you think of?

"Scripture after scripture"??? That is a complete fabrication.

rjs330 said:

Demon possession was usually accompanied by nakedness.

Click to expand...

Again, where do you get "usually" here? I can think of only ONE passage that can be construed that way.

And there's also one passage that tells us that a person got naked in direct response to the Spirit of God coming upon him! King Saul, in 1 Samuel 19:23-24.

So... nakedness empowered by demons... and nakedness empowered by the Spirit of God. Both are biblical.

rjs330 said:

Paul talked often about nakedness relating to sin and shame. It's not glorified as something beautiful or wonderful. In the OT it's the same unless accompanied strictly by the overcoming power of God and that rarely. The vast majority of the nakedness is related to shame, humiliation and judgement.

Click to expand...

Paul NEVER talked about nakedness relating to "sin and shame."

In the OT, whenever nakedness and shame show up together, there is ALWAYS a description of shameful conduct!

You are so committed to your false ideas about the nakedness/shame connection that you have not honestly evaluated whether that connection is biblically sound or not.

rjs330 said:

If you want to ignore all that so you can run around naked, be my guest. But don't pretend that the Bible teaches it's a wonderful thing. Because it doesn't. It teaches it's shameful.

Click to expand...

Actually, God's original design for human habitation on this planet was "naked." There's little more affirmation that you could find in the bible than that. Specifically mentioned by God. Holistically described by God as "very good" along with the rest of Creation.

And... the pre-fall condition of man is still the post-fall ideal.

• Walking with God was lost, but still remains our goal today.
• Interpersonal unity with spouse and others was damaged, but that unity is still our goad today.
• Standing before God and others "naked and unashamed" should still be our goal today.

rjs330 said:

And God didn't feed them blueberry oatmeal. He clothed them. If he fed them buleberry oatmeal we would say he did it to have them feed themselves not that they had to eat blueberry oatmeal. In this case God clothes them indicating we should be clothed to cover out nakedness.

Click to expand...

Do you not see that when you said "we should be clothed to cover our nakedness" that you are presuming a purpose in the clothing that is foreign to the inspired text?

It is just as viable (actually, more viable) to say "we should be clothed to keep warm outside of the Garden" or "we should be clothed to protect our bodies from a harsh environment."

But none of those purposes are stated in the text.

Again, I remind you, that if God's clothing of Adam and Eve is to be presumed to be a command, then that "command" applies to husbands and wives even when they are alone. That position is untenable.

rjs330 said:

Not that we had to use whatever animals he killed to clothe them with.

Click to expand...

God killed an animal?

You might have always heard that, but the text doesn't tell us that.

Certainly, there was no "sacrifice" for their sin... the bible never calls it that either (ever!)

blackhole said:

Can you point me to conservative-approved christian art schools which require exposure to nudity (e.g. figure drawing) or to theologians / pastors / commentators who agree with you that public nudity (or at least nudity in art) isn't sinful? I loathe to do this because an appeal to authority is a fallacy, but when I want to defend my own view, these references may assuage attacks.

The ones that I know to apparently approve are: Francis Schaeffer, David Guzik, C.S. Lewis, probably Rookmaaker, and also Gordon College.

https://www.gordon.edu/download/pages/ArtPolicy_NudeModels.pdf

Click to expand...

Those are some of the names I would have pointed you to! Other than Gordon College, I'm not sure of any other Christian University with the courage to make that sort of statement.

I would also point you to Pastor David L. Hatton's works. He's one of the writers for the MyChainsAreGone.org website. This will get you connected to his work:


From there, he links to several other of his works.

One that I would especially recommend this work of his:


He also has a couple of books...

Meeting at the River
Who Said You Were Naked

Both are available on Amazon.

For what it's worth, I think this IS a tremendously important theological issue.

And for that, I'd encourage you to listen to Dr. Albert Mohler's talk... An Evangelical Theology of the Body: Biblical Theology and the Sexuality Crisis

And you should familiarize yourself with the teaching of Pope John Paul II... his seminal work, The Theology of the Body. As a biblically conservative Evangelical, I've found that work to be the most challenging and significant theological concepts I've ever been exposed to. And I say that as a Pastor's son, and a graduate of Moody Bible Institute.