What does everyone think about this? Are the two doctrines compatible? If not, why not? If so, why so?
Christian Nudism
- Thread starter Balugon
- Start date
I think if your purpose is pure, then it is acceptable before God. I have heard nudists say that when everyone is naked, is is as if no one is, and that they are actually less tempted than when they see a person with deliberately suggestive clothing. I hear it also promotes healthier body images in young people.
I have no reason to judge you.
With that said, I don't like the idea of removing oneself from society, nor forcing nudism on those who do not approve of it, so I don't see how it is practical for a permanent life basis.
At least, it wouldn't be for me.
I have no reason to judge you.
With that said, I don't like the idea of removing oneself from society, nor forcing nudism on those who do not approve of it, so I don't see how it is practical for a permanent life basis.
At least, it wouldn't be for me.
Upvote
0
How do you react to God designing things originally with people being nude then (speaking of Adam and Eve)?
Ah, you might be surprised how many nudists you may know without knowing it. The majority of nudists don't live in communes in certain places, they have day jobs and live and work with everyone else. They tend to keep their nudity to their houses, to get-togethers, to resorts, and to nude beaches. You might also be surprised at how many nudists don't have an issue with putting on clothes from time to time, including when the weather isn't permitting (like being cold).
Upvote
0
Jew-Man
Newbie
- May 23, 2010
- 43
- 2
- 30
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I think if your purpose is pure, then it is acceptable before God. I have heard nudists say that when everyone is naked, is is as if no one is, and that they are actually less tempted than when they see a person with deliberately suggestive clothing. I hear it also promotes healthier body images in young people.
I have no reason to judge you.
With that said, I don't like the idea of removing oneself from society, nor forcing nudism on those who do not approve of it, so I don't see how it is practical for a permanent life basis.
At least, it wouldn't be for me.
Upvote
0
How do you react to God giving the saints robes of white instead of letting them walk around nude?
Upvote
0
"8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. ...14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses." Revelation 19:8,14
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Did you know the tabernacle had something similar?
Exodus 25:4
blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen
the tabernacle is a shadow of christ so i thought your quote was interesting and made me think of this
Upvote
0
Touché. But you made me laugh thinking of naked saints attacking the wicked. LOLZ.
Anyway, this topic isn't big enough for me to seriously debate. Continue with your weirdness.
Upvote
0
Blackmarch
Legend
generally the doctrine of man and the doctrine of Christ do not mesh very well...
Nothing I find supports nudism in the scriptures, rather it seems to support the opposite.
Maybe the day when everyone is like adam and eve before the fall, having no clothes might be okay, but in this day and age that is playing with fire.
Upvote
0
Or perhaps lack of experience around nudity is only adding to the fire? People wouldn't be so obsessed with playboy pin-ups if what was in the magazines was something they were used to seeing every day. And just like some people freak out when they see daddy long-legs (spider kinda creature) though daddy long-legs teeth are too small to bite humans, if people realized that seeing human bodies nude wasn't inherently sexual, they wouldn't be so interested in a woman just because she had a little cleavage showing.
And the fact that God, in his perfection, created man walking around nude, means God's ultimate ideal is that it is possible. What is it that we lost in the fall that we haven't been able to get back in Christ? We got the Holy Spirit back, which means we can walk in the same level of holiness that we used to. Knowledge isn't an issue, because God knows all the evil in the world and yet is able to walk perfectly holy. The Bible never says God clothed man for a sexual reason. And God commanded at least one prophet to walk around publically nude (and for 3 years at that- Isaiah 20). As for non-Christians, we already know they are able to act somewhat in a godly manner, because they don't all commit murder and then kill themselves; so therefore it's entirely possible for social nudity to be an acceptable practice (and scientific studies back that up, as do historical findings). And how did Jesus back up the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman in the New Testament? He pointed back to creation and basically said that what God established in the beginning was how it was supposed to be (Matthew 19:1-10). I'm not saying everyone should be naked all the time, but that there is Scriptural evidence that social nudity is an acceptable practice.
And I'm not necessarily debating you, the thread is just a little slow and so I'm just throwing info out there to try to give it a little juice.
Upvote
0
Evergreen48
Senior Member
Just a thought, but that could work another way also. It could be that when they are so used to seeing it every day, they lose interest in it as far as the sexuality of it is concerned; become bored, and might even move on to something new - something they've never tried before - say for instance, homosexuality?Balugon said:
God didn't create man walking around nude. Thats only in the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, which is not literal, but is a metaphor. God created mankind with enough sense and intelligence to know that you do not go about socially without any clothes on. True enough primitive man may have gone without clothing in some tropical parts of the world. And in some parts of the world people still wear little or no clothing. But if anyone has ever watched any of the documentaries about these people, they see that they are very base and have not moved up very far from their base animal instincts since their beginning. I do not believe God is pleased with their mode of living.
The Bible doesn't have to teach us this. It is one of those things that just comes to us as we grow and mature into adulthood.
This was visionary only. The same as His command to Hosea to take a prostitute for a wife.
Just because social nudity is an acceptable practice in some cultures, does not make it acceptable to God. There are many things even in our own present day society that have become acceptable in the societal realm which are an abomination in God's eyes.
God did not establish that mankind should not wear clothing to hide their nakedness. And going around in public with no clothes on does not back up the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman.
Where is this scripture? Book, chapter and verse please.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I understand your concern Evergreen that you think nudism is a sexual issue and that it is an excuse for people to arouse lust in themselves for sexual pleasure, but nudism is not a sexual situation. People are so used to not seeing the opposite sex nude, and have been so engrained/taught that it is a sexual issue, that they just assume it is and get excited about the thought of it. But when people are given the chance to be nude around others, and merely choose to use the time to socialize or do normal people things like cook or clean, they realize that bodies don't make something sexually charged, but that it is people's beliefs and choices that can make a situation sexually charged. Even cooking can be made sexy, if a man and his wife want to be frisky and sexually playful while cooking dinner. It doesn't mean that cooking dinner is inherently sexually arousing. Clothes, or lack there-of, aren't what give sexuality its power. People give sexuality its power. I know this is a new concept to you, and you may not want to accept it, and maybe you won't. But science has found it to be a clean practice, which means it has at least some plausibility even to an unbeliever; and the Bible has no commands against the practice of social nudity, which means it can't outright be condemned. And the fact that Adam and Eve were created nude, and their geneology is traced to Jesus, shows that God was okay with social nudity in the beginning, which gives the practice quite a bit of credence. If God's idea of perfection included social nudity as acceptable, and God doesn't change, then social nudity being acceptable is still a desire of God's. I merely ask that you maybe re-take a look at Scripture, and be open to the possibility that social nudity really can be pure, and that culture possibly has just lied to people about the truth so that they don't realize how mundane nudity can be.
I'll now try to respond to the different parts of your response individually, and perhaps can at least clarify the belief I stand for.
Nudity isn't inherently sexual. People become so interested in nudity from a sexual standpoint both because they are curious about the opposite sex's anatomy which they were never taught properly about, and because strip joints, inappropriate contentographic material, and other situations specifically try to use nudity in a way to arouse people sexually. If the women at strip joints just sat there talking about their day and drinking coffee and reading a newspaper (while nude), men would become bored quite quickly because the women weren't doing things to try to arouse the men's sexuality. It would be so mundane the men would just leave. This is because sexuality is largely an issue of the mind.
Just like one person could punch someone in the face for making a rude comment about them, because they became angered by what was said, so also a different person in the same situation could feel compassion for the person who made a rude comment about them, because they knew the offending person was hurting emotionally and acted out of a wounded position. One of the two reactions was appropriate, one wasn't. The rude comment didn't change, but the reactions of the people were different. Why? Because the two reacting people came from different levels of understanding and different mindsets. It was a mental situation. Sexuality in normal circumstances is like this. People can choose to be sexual, or they can choose not to. A lot of times people become aroused at things they were never intended to be aroused by because their minds are not educated the way they should have been. It is like this in some Arab places, where even the sight of an exposed ankle is arousing, because the men have been forbidden from being able to see it, even though there is nothing inherently sexual about an ankle.
There is nothing inherently sexually arousing about the nude human body. When you're used to seeing nudity, you don't get unnecessarily aroused. Why? Because that same woman who may use her vulva for sexual encounters also uses it to pee and to sit on, scratches it when it's itchy, and may even use it for non-sexual fun pretending it's a clam or a canyon or whatever else if she happens to be bored. All of these other situations aren't sexual, and men's bodies/minds realize this as they are allowed to be around women who are nude. This puts sexuality mentally into it's proper place- when women specifically choose to be sexual, or when a man and a woman choose to be sexual together. The same goes for women viewing and being around men's genitals.
Homosexuality wouldn't have a specific link to social nudity, because men would be around nude men and women at the same time. Homosexuality also has a variety of reasons for its occurence, and most homosexuals aren't nudists, so there is no direct correlation between them.
I'll now try to respond to the different parts of your response individually, and perhaps can at least clarify the belief I stand for.
Nudity isn't inherently sexual. People become so interested in nudity from a sexual standpoint both because they are curious about the opposite sex's anatomy which they were never taught properly about, and because strip joints, inappropriate contentographic material, and other situations specifically try to use nudity in a way to arouse people sexually. If the women at strip joints just sat there talking about their day and drinking coffee and reading a newspaper (while nude), men would become bored quite quickly because the women weren't doing things to try to arouse the men's sexuality. It would be so mundane the men would just leave. This is because sexuality is largely an issue of the mind.
Just like one person could punch someone in the face for making a rude comment about them, because they became angered by what was said, so also a different person in the same situation could feel compassion for the person who made a rude comment about them, because they knew the offending person was hurting emotionally and acted out of a wounded position. One of the two reactions was appropriate, one wasn't. The rude comment didn't change, but the reactions of the people were different. Why? Because the two reacting people came from different levels of understanding and different mindsets. It was a mental situation. Sexuality in normal circumstances is like this. People can choose to be sexual, or they can choose not to. A lot of times people become aroused at things they were never intended to be aroused by because their minds are not educated the way they should have been. It is like this in some Arab places, where even the sight of an exposed ankle is arousing, because the men have been forbidden from being able to see it, even though there is nothing inherently sexual about an ankle.
There is nothing inherently sexually arousing about the nude human body. When you're used to seeing nudity, you don't get unnecessarily aroused. Why? Because that same woman who may use her vulva for sexual encounters also uses it to pee and to sit on, scratches it when it's itchy, and may even use it for non-sexual fun pretending it's a clam or a canyon or whatever else if she happens to be bored. All of these other situations aren't sexual, and men's bodies/minds realize this as they are allowed to be around women who are nude. This puts sexuality mentally into it's proper place- when women specifically choose to be sexual, or when a man and a woman choose to be sexual together. The same goes for women viewing and being around men's genitals.
Homosexuality wouldn't have a specific link to social nudity, because men would be around nude men and women at the same time. Homosexuality also has a variety of reasons for its occurence, and most homosexuals aren't nudists, so there is no direct correlation between them.
Needs proof to back up the claim.
In many parts of the world, including Egypt, people have been involved in social nudity. The Greeks did some or most of their athletic events in the nude. The Romans had mixed gender nude baths. Finland, Estonia, and other places had and have coed nude saunas. In ancient Egypt, in the warmer months, the children ran around nude due to the heat. Before private showers were invented, people bathed nude in rivers; and in India, people still bath nude in the Ganges even though other people can see them. Social nudism picked up speed in Germany in the early 1900's, has a strong presence in France, and is permitted on many beaches in Spain and sometimes even in certain cities. The Japanese used to regularly practice family bathing at public bathing houses, and even though it's largely declined now, they do still have some places where it is practiced. Social nudity is far more widespread than Americans assume it is, and our aversion it to is merely based on assumptions. Church-goers used to call magnetism (and magnets) "of the devil" because an "invisible force" was able to act on two pieces of nearby metal. But demonic involvement was disproven by research, and now it is widely accepted by Christians. It is also worth noting that America has the highest teenage pregnancy rating out of all of the developed countries(Programs to Prevent Teen Pregnancy | eHow.com) (Global incidence of teenage pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). We obviously aren't as civilized as we say we are. So it is worth at least doing the research to find out the truth about social nudity, because it doesn't seem to be the issue we say it is in other countries.
Needs evidence to back up the claim.
God can't command sin, so if being nude around men, women, and children was sinful, God would not have told Isaiah to do it, because it would have violated God's very nature.
I was noting in this passage that Jesus was referencing God's original order. It is of worthy of note that even Jesus used the Genesis book as part of his backing for truth. In the story of Genesis, Adam and Eve are included as being nude, and Adam is later mentioned as part of Jesus' geneology (Luke 3:38). It would stand to reason then, that the nudity was also indeed not metaphorical, and that Jesus using God's original design for marriage might also mean at some point he could have chosen to address social nudity with the same argument as well, though there were many things not mentioned as being talked about by Jesus, including masturbation, so he may have simply had bigger issues to tackle in people's lives than concerning hself with their clothing choices at the time.
It was part of my original response.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Blackmarch
Legend
I would say that it's more than just lack of experience, but also a combination nof how culture drives and directs how people act and react to gender, sxuality, and sensuality.
Perhaps.. if we could change all or most of the factors in culture that promote things like a playboy magazine does.
Another factor one has to consider is that our bodies have visual cues and some form of notice/reaction hardwired at some level, altho it seems culture can influence how it is solidified or is expressed.... and that will always come out somehow.
I don't believe that the Garden of Eden was the or the Ideal only End Ideal that God saw, else he would not have put the tree there in the first pplace.
I don't think it was a matter of losing something, rather one of gaining a couple things-
Knowledge, whatever Knowledge of the tree constituted (which is also a big question of what that entails)
and having eyes opened, which probably means some form of understanding in a way as to make one responsible (but then again we also have the questioin of what it totally entails)
Which to go around in the nude in the one ideal the God had placed adam and eve in, we would have to lose the Knowledge and have our eyes shut and be returned to the same state that adam and eve were in before the fall.
It seems to me that it's an or situation - you can have this OR you can have this, but not both.
the language in teh bible uses metaphors and etc.. to cover up the more explicit/intimate actions usually.
I think it is telling that God decided to cloth adam and eve- even tho the bible does not say why any which way. I think it's also telling that once Adam and Eve partook of the fruit they decided to make themselves something to clothe themselves. I do not think that adam and eve were dumb, nor did it for no reason.
As for the prophet in isaiah, that depends on how its intrepreted and what is generally believed on the ancients views of what constituted nakedness...
but assuming that he did go around buck naked for a few years, an individual has to be very cautious about applying a very specific command given for a specific reason to be applied to everyone.
For instance at one point God commanded Abraham to lie about his wife, another time God commanded the israelites to wipe out and drive out all who lived in what would become the kingdom of israel.... not exactly something that one would want to be adopted by everyone.
mankind has often incorporated things into society that are contrary to God.. even murder, without instantly destroying it- but just because they did so doesn't mean it's a good idea.
So that would not be the argument I would use to promote nudity if i had to promote it.
yep kinda figuredAnd I'm not necessarily debating you, the thread is just a little slow and so I'm just throwing info out there to try to give it a little juice.
am squeezing it.
Upvote
0
It seems you make the assumption that sexual passion is inevitably aroused by the sight of the nude opposite sex. And yet people aren't noticed to have that problem with young children (typically), old people (though the viewer might cringe), and sometimes people their age of the opposite sex that they find highly unattractive. It can also be noted that in some tribes everyone goes entirely nude, and they seem to not be lost in orgies. That said, perhaps your belief is coming from beliefs that have been passed down by culture as well. If I'm not mistaken, I believe social nudists actually have been documented as having less sexual encounters/experimentation than even the general populace (Nudist Society: The Controversial Study of the Clothes-Free Naturist Movement in America by William E. Hartman, Iris Bancroft, Donald Johnson | New, Second-hand, Rare | Alibris UK) (JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie [this link is right, it just didn't show here right]). It's culture that has put sexual overtones on viewing different body parts, not the body itself. Women use their vulvas to pee with, like I've said before. Also, the more accustomed one becomes to naturally seeing genitals, the less of a focus they become. If a person saw a duck-billed platypus in their back yard, they would probably stare for a long time, possibly even an hour, just watching it because it was out of the ordinary. But if duck-billed platypuses were as common as birds/cats, they would probably care less that it was walking through their back yard. The same goes for nudity. Seeing a vulva becomes no more arousing than seeing an arm. And the reason online pictures don't really change things is because A) most of them are in poses intended to try to arouse people (aka- "Hi! How do you like my sex pic!!"), and B) not being in person prevents someone's mind from picking up on the socialization and interaction cues it needs to fully comprehend that it isn't in a sexual situation. It's like the difference between looking at a picture of a pizza online, and actually eating one. There is a HUGE difference.
Not necessarily. As I believe I've said before, God knows all things and yet has no issues with sinning. We have the same Spirit inside us to give us strength to not sin (if we are believers), so I don't think we really have an excuse. Science already backs up that nudists tend to be less sexually deviant than non-nudists, which was noted in my references from before.
Well, they might have been dumb. They did try to hide from God behind trees in the Garden..... Also note in the Scripture, that Adam mentions to God that he hid from God because he was naked, and yet at the time of Adam's hiding, he already had the fig leaf covering on (Gen. 3:10,7). I think Adam and Eve made the clothes perhaps because they lost a spiritual glory, whether it was visible or not, and so they tried to cover themselves up. I think God clothed Adam and Eve as a sign of redemption to them, because God shed blood in order to make the garments for them, and then he covered them with the effect (skin/hide) of the shed blood.
I didn't find any Scripture in my research that mentioned God told Abraham to lie about his wife. Abraham did lie about his wife, but I believe it was out of fear, not from a command from God. And while God did tell the Israelites to kill everyone, technically we are all guilty of death outside of Christ, so it was still just, though in God's ideal world none of the sins would have ever happened, so he would never have had to deal with this kind of issue, though he ended up doing so anyway.
And man also has had a habit of making tons of pointless laws for society, as Jesus portrayed when confronting the Pharisees on several occasions, and so i would argue clothing being mandatory is one of them.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
R
Riot Riot Riot
Guest
While I'm not a nudist, I do know of a few of them. To be honest, this whole subject just makes me think of all the different tribes around the world. Indigenous nudity is normal among the majority of them.
I know that in some tribes the men don't even see breasts as a sexual part of a woman's body. Why is that? Because the women's breasts are always out in the open for everyone to see. The people in the tribe see breasts as nothing more than a means for food for the children.
It is completely possible for nudity to be an accepted part of society. Just look at a lot of countries in Europe. They have nude beaches, and they also display nudity on television because it's not a big deal over there. I don't see America every changing our sexual perception of the human body, though. We're too deeply rooted in believing that nudity automatically = immoral sexuality and perverseness.
Also, in reference to the Adam and Eve thing... [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Some feel that Adam and Eve were so embarrassed by their nudity that they had to create clothes to hide their genitals. However, that interpretation seems unlikely, because Adam and Eve would have been used to seeing each other naked continually since Eve was created. They would hardly suddenly become embarrassed in each other's presence. (Source -- Nudity as mentioned in the Bible)
Anyways, I'm not really here to debate.
I honestly find the whole thing completely fascinating. I don't know that I could ever take up the nudist lifestyle, but I certainly don't see anything wrong with it as long as you're not being sexually immoral by lusting after others.
[/FONT]
I know that in some tribes the men don't even see breasts as a sexual part of a woman's body. Why is that? Because the women's breasts are always out in the open for everyone to see. The people in the tribe see breasts as nothing more than a means for food for the children.
It is completely possible for nudity to be an accepted part of society. Just look at a lot of countries in Europe. They have nude beaches, and they also display nudity on television because it's not a big deal over there. I don't see America every changing our sexual perception of the human body, though. We're too deeply rooted in believing that nudity automatically = immoral sexuality and perverseness.
Also, in reference to the Adam and Eve thing... [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Some feel that Adam and Eve were so embarrassed by their nudity that they had to create clothes to hide their genitals. However, that interpretation seems unlikely, because Adam and Eve would have been used to seeing each other naked continually since Eve was created. They would hardly suddenly become embarrassed in each other's presence. (Source -- Nudity as mentioned in the Bible)
Anyways, I'm not really here to debate.
I honestly find the whole thing completely fascinating. I don't know that I could ever take up the nudist lifestyle, but I certainly don't see anything wrong with it as long as you're not being sexually immoral by lusting after others.
[/FONT]
Upvote
0
Similar threads
