Modesty among clothing and other areas

[MyChainsAreGone]

can you prove the assertion that God did not make man visual. I am just asking, because I can probably pull half a dozen medical journals proving that men have a mental disposition to that.

The visual conditioning of men is very real... and there's no doubt that more than "half a dozen" medical journals and a gazillion pastors will confirm that "men are visual." The conditioning is so pervasive as to seem to be "natural."

But logically, the notion that men are created that way absolutely falls apart under any reasonable and thoughtful analysis...

Let's start with the theological part... (and I'm not going to reference the address of every scripture here since I'm going to assume that you'll know the inferences that I'm making to specific scriptures. If you are unsure, please ask and I'll provide the scripture address that I'm referencing)

• God is a Trinity... a plurality expressed as a Unity.
• God is Love... which actually logically requires Him to be a plurality of some sort, because otherwise in eternity past, God would not have had an object for His love.
• God made men and women in His image. To adequately image God, mankind had to be a plurality.
• God Designed Sexual union (become one flesh) to be the way that mankind can image a plurality expressed as a unity.
• The unity of the Godhead is a relational unity... the "motivation" for that unity is Love (relational), not "visual" or anything else.
• The unity of man and woman--to accurately portray the unity of the Godhead--is based not on visual, but relational
• God does NOT expect us to unite physically with every woman we see, but only with the one with whom we have the God-established marriage covenant.
• It is inconsistent (or worse) to suggest that God created men to be motivated to sexual union visually when the unity of the Godhead is 100% relational.

Biblical reasoning (the starting point)

• We have to start with the fact that the Bible never tells us that men are visually aroused.
  • The bible never tells them that they can only see their own wives' bodies.
  • The bible never tells them to limit what they see in order to contain their lustful responses.
  • The Bible never tells them which body parts they cannot see without igniting impure passions.
  • The bible never tells women that the cannot allow any man but their own husband to see their bodies.
  • The Bible never prescribes hiding anything from sight in order to control covetousness/lust... of any type.

More biblical reasoning...

• God calls us as men to "rejoice" (sexually) "in the wife of your youth"... for all our days.
  • That means that if a man is only aroused visually, then when our wives gain weight or get droopy or lose a breast or become wrinkled and withered through life, her visual sexual appeal to us may become completely lost.
  • It means that by the time we are old, we had BETTER be transferred to "relational" sexual arousal, else we'll be unable to function sexually!
  • It means that if it's right for a man who is old, it is right for a man who is young.
  • It means that our wives' exclusive claim to our sexual interests can be maintained throughout her life and even grow stronger as we age... not grow weaker.
  • Now doesn't that sound more like God's way?
• Lust = Covetousness. The OT uses the word Hebrew word translated "covet" when it describes lust. The NT uses the Greek word for "Lust" when writers quote the 10th commandment.
  • The 10th commandment itself forbids both the coveting of a neighbor's house (covetousness) and the coveting of a neighbor's wife (lust).
  • Would anyone suggest that the way to overcome coveting would be to eliminate all visual exposure to the object of the exposure?
    • Must I build a hedge to hide my neighbor's house? Should I demand that HE build a head to hide his house? Should I build my own house completely separated from my neighbor's house... so far away that I can never see it and be tempted to covet it? I know of no one suggesting such and idiotic idea. The answer to covetousness is contentment and gratitude. It is not in treating my neighbor's house as the problem.
    • Would anyone suggest that the way to overcome lust would be to eliminate all visual exposure to her or her body? Must I turn my eyes away from her to avoid the temptation? Must I demand that she cover her body so that I can control my lust? Must I refuse to be in a neighborly relationship with my neighbor's wife--if she happens to be young, beautiful, and shapely--in order to prevent my own lust? I know of no passage of scripture suggesting such and idiotic idea. The answer to lust is contentment and gratitude. It is not in treating my neighbor's wife--or her body--as the problem.
  • But that's exactly what the church today has done... we treat the sight of a woman as the problem and excuse the man's lustful response as a "God-Given" response.
    • If a trait is God-Given, then it must be a good thing. But is it a good thing for every man to have sexual responses to every woman who's skin he happens to observe?
• Jesus told us in Mark 7 that nothing outside a man can defile him by going into him.
  • Jesus listed a bunch of sins that come from within a man... including a number of sins associated with sexual impurity.
  • Sexual impurity is NEVER a result of something outside of a man... so whether he eats it (food) or sees it (a shapely woman), if he has an impure response, then the sin has been revealed, for it was already within his heart.
    • Limiting what we see will NEVER correct the impurity in our hearts.
    • If there's not impurity in our hearts, then what we see will NOT create and impure response!
• God is NEVER the source of "temptation" for any man (James 1).
  • Yet... if God made women's bodies to be an "automatic" sexual arousal for men when they ever see any woman's body, then it suggests that God's handiwork--amazing and gorgeous handiwork--actually IS the source of temptation for men.

Practical reasoning...

• By what mechanism to we train doctors to have the ability to "shut off" their visual-arousal reflex as soon as they strap on a stethoscope? When home with their wife, the visual kicks in, but in the office with a patient, no such issue, right?
  • The fact is that there is no training or "reconditioning" that doctors undergo in order to squelch the visual-arousal response. They simply treat patients as persons... fully deserving of dignity and honor and respect and of NOT being sexually objectified... even if they are fully exposed to their doctor.
  • Furthermore, if a doctor has access to see their patients naked and they are irresponsible with that access (i.e. use it for sexual gratification), we revoke that doctor's license to practice and literally throw him in jail!
  • Such a response is totally unfair if the guy was only responding "the way God made him."
• Artists who draw/paint/photograph the nude for artistic (not inappropriate contentographic) purposes are regularly exposed to the unclad human form (male and female) with absolutely no sexual response. How is that even possible? It's possible because they have rejected and eliminated the visual-arousal response in their own lives... and they can then see the person and honor their physical beauty (which is actually God's artistry) without besmirching it with impure thoughts and responses.
• Morticians routinely prepare our dead loved ones for burial... meaning that they are literally exposed to and handling the unclad bodies of men and women all the time. But if one allowed himself to get sexually aroused by the sight of those female bodies, we would most assuredly call him a pervert... and never use his services again! Is that fair? If men are naturally "visually aroused"?
• Pavlovian conditioning is VERY real! It works on dogs, and it works on humans.
  • • If the ONLY time a man EVER sees a woman's nude form is when he is actively pursuing sexual arousal...
    • If the message we tell our young men from before the time that they even know what sex is that seeing a woman's body unclothed is forbidden... and a sexual sight...
    • If we constantly demand that women keep their body parts covered to prevent men from "automatically" lusting after them...
    • If every man has been told time and again that the female form is sexually alluring... and his every response to ever seeing it has been sexual in nature...
  • THEN, that man will be so thoroughly conditioned to have a sexual response to the sight of a woman's nude form that he will ASSUME that it's completely natural... especially since every other guy he knows has the same experience/responses.
  • And it also means that the only sure way to break the conditioning is learn how to disassociate the bell (nudity) from the food (sexual arousal). It requires the renewing of our minds. It requires embracing the truth (NOT visually aroused) that will then set us free.
    • And that's why we teach at our MyChainsAreGone website that changing how you view the human form IS the answer to lust and inappropriate content addiction.

You might want to read this article...

The Renewed View of the Body​

Also, from a medical and pastoral perspective, one of the authors at MCAG spent a lot of years as an obstetric nurse AND as a pastor. Here's his story about having to deal with the nakedness of women on an almost daily basis:

My View of Nakedness​

And here is that pastor's rebuttal of the "Men are Visual" myth...

A Dangerous Male Myth -- Men are Visual​

 

[createdtoworship]

The visual conditioning of men is very real... and there's no doubt that more than "half a dozen" medical journals and a gazillion pastors will confirm that "men are visual." The conditioning is so pervasive as to seem to be "natural."

But logically, the notion that men are created that way absolutely falls apart under any reasonable and thoughtful analysis...

Let's start with the theological part... (and I'm not going to reference the address of every scripture here since I'm going to assume that you'll know the inferences that I'm making to specific scriptures. If you are unsure, please ask and I'll provide the scripture address that I'm referencing)

• God is a Trinity... a plurality expressed as a Unity.
• God is Love... which actually logically requires Him to be a plurality of some sort, because otherwise in eternity past, God would not have had an object for His love.
• God made men and women in His image. To adequately image God, mankind had to be a plurality.
• God Designed Sexual union (become one flesh) to be the way that mankind can image a plurality expressed as a unity.
• The unity of the Godhead is a relational unity... the "motivation" for that unity is Love (relational), not "visual" or anything else.
• The unity of man and woman--to accurately portray the unity of the Godhead--is based not on visual, but relational
• God does NOT expect us to unite physically with every woman we see, but only with the one with whom we have the God-established marriage covenant.
• It is inconsistent (or worse) to suggest that God created men to be motivated to sexual union visually when the unity of the Godhead is 100% relational.

Biblical reasoning (the starting point)

• We have to start with the fact that the Bible never tells us that men are visually aroused.
  • The bible never tells them that they can only see their own wives' bodies.
  • The bible never tells them to limit what they see in order to contain their lustful responses.
  • The Bible never tells them which body parts they cannot see without igniting impure passions.
  • The bible never tells women that the cannot allow any man but their own husband to see their bodies.
  • The Bible never prescribes hiding anything from sight in order to control covetousness/lust... of any type.

More biblical reasoning...

• God calls us as men to "rejoice" (sexually) "in the wife of your youth"... for all our days.
  • That means that if a man is only aroused visually, then when our wives gain weight or get droopy or lose a breast or become wrinkled and withered through life, her visual sexual appeal to us may become completely lost.
  • It means that by the time we are old, we had BETTER be transferred to "relational" sexual arousal, else we'll be unable to function sexually!
  • It means that if it's right for a man who is old, it is right for a man who is young.
  • It means that our wives' exclusive claim to our sexual interests can be maintained throughout her life and even grow stronger as we age... not grow weaker.
  • Now doesn't that sound more like God's way?
• Lust = Covetousness. The OT uses the word Hebrew word translated "covet" when it describes lust. The NT uses the Greek word for "Lust" when writers quote the 10th commandment.
  • The 10th commandment itself forbids both the coveting of a neighbor's house (covetousness) and the coveting of a neighbor's wife (lust).
  • Would anyone suggest that the way to overcome coveting would be to eliminate all visual exposure to the object of the exposure?
    • Must I build a hedge to hide my neighbor's house? Should I demand that HE build a head to hide his house? Should I build my own house completely separated from my neighbor's house... so far away that I can never see it and be tempted to covet it? I know of no one suggesting such and idiotic idea. The answer to covetousness is contentment and gratitude. It is not in treating my neighbor's house as the problem.
    • Would anyone suggest that the way to overcome lust would be to eliminate all visual exposure to her or her body? Must I turn my eyes away from her to avoid the temptation? Must I demand that she cover her body so that I can control my lust? Must I refuse to be in a neighborly relationship with my neighbor's wife--if she happens to be young, beautiful, and shapely--in order to prevent my own lust? I know of no passage of scripture suggesting such and idiotic idea. The answer to lust is contentment and gratitude. It is not in treating my neighbor's wife--or her body--as the problem.
  • But that's exactly what the church today has done... we treat the sight of a woman as the problem and excuse the man's lustful response as a "God-Given" response.
    • If a trait is God-Given, then it must be a good thing. But is it a good thing for every man to have sexual responses to every woman who's skin he happens to observe?
• Jesus told us in Mark 7 that nothing outside a man can defile him by going into him.
  • Jesus listed a bunch of sins that come from within a man... including a number of sins associated with sexual impurity.
  • Sexual impurity is NEVER a result of something outside of a man... so whether he eats it (food) or sees it (a shapely woman), if he has an impure response, then the sin has been revealed, for it was already within his heart.
    • Limiting what we see will NEVER correct the impurity in our hearts.
    • If there's not impurity in our hearts, then what we see will NOT create and impure response!
• God is NEVER the source of "temptation" for any man (James 1).
  • Yet... if God made women's bodies to be an "automatic" sexual arousal for men when they ever see any woman's body, then it suggests that God's handiwork--amazing and gorgeous handiwork--actually IS the source of temptation for men.

Practical reasoning...

• By what mechanism to we train doctors to have the ability to "shut off" their visual-arousal reflex as soon as they strap on a stethoscope? When home with their wife, the visual kicks in, but in the office with a patient, no such issue, right?
  • The fact is that there is no training or "reconditioning" that doctors undergo in order to squelch the visual-arousal response. They simply treat patients as persons... fully deserving of dignity and honor and respect and of NOT being sexually objectified... even if they are fully exposed to their doctor.
  • Furthermore, if a doctor has access to see their patients naked and they are irresponsible with that access (i.e. use it for sexual gratification), we revoke that doctor's license to practice and literally throw him in jail!
  • Such a response is totally unfair if the guy was only responding "the way God made him."
• Artists who draw/paint/photograph the nude for artistic (not inappropriate contentographic) purposes are regularly exposed to the unclad human form (male and female) with absolutely no sexual response. How is that even possible? It's possible because they have rejected and eliminated the visual-arousal response in their own lives... and they can then see the person and honor their physical beauty (which is actually God's artistry) without besmirching it with impure thoughts and responses.
• Morticians routinely prepare our dead loved ones for burial... meaning that they are literally exposed to and handling the unclad bodies of men and women all the time. But if one allowed himself to get sexually aroused by the sight of those female bodies, we would most assuredly call him a pervert... and never use his services again! Is that fair? If men are naturally "visually aroused"?
• Pavlovian conditioning is VERY real! It works on dogs, and it works on humans.
  • • If the ONLY time a man EVER sees a woman's nude form is when he is actively pursuing sexual arousal...
    • If the message we tell our young men from before the time that they even know what sex is that seeing a woman's body unclothed is forbidden... and a sexual sight...
    • If we constantly demand that women keep their body parts covered to prevent men from "automatically" lusting after them...
    • If every man has been told time and again that the female form is sexually alluring... and his every response to ever seeing it has been sexual in nature...
  • THEN, that man will be so thoroughly conditioned to have a sexual response to the sight of a woman's nude form that he will ASSUME that it's completely natural... especially since every other guy he knows has the same experience/responses.
  • And it also means that the only sure way to break the conditioning is learn how to disassociate the bell (nudity) from the food (sexual arousal). It requires the renewing of our minds. It requires embracing the truth (NOT visually aroused) that will then set us free.
    • And that's why we teach at our MyChainsAreGone website that changing how you view the human form IS the answer to lust and inappropriate content addiction.

You might want to read this article...

The Renewed View of the Body​

Also, from a medical and pastoral perspective, one of the authors at MCAG spent a lot of years as an obstetric nurse AND as a pastor. Here's his story about having to deal with the nakedness of women on an almost daily basis:

My View of Nakedness​

And here is that pastor's rebuttal of the "Men are Visual" myth...

A Dangerous Male Myth -- Men are Visual​

due to time contraints I will just mention the first error I came across and that was your first conclusion you made, you quoted a bunch of verses as support, but then your conclusion did not follow your premises, this is known as the formal fallacy or fallacy of non sequitur. The verses are true, and your conclusion may be true, but your conclusion does not logically relate to your premises or verses before it. Let me post the conclusion that I disagree with:

• It is inconsistent (or worse) to suggest that God created men to be motivated to sexual union visually when the unity of the Godhead is 100% relational.

no one here has suggested that motivation for sex always has to be because of visual lust based emotion. It can be relational for sure. But for instance what is the point of a wife using lingerie, if sex was all about emotion and relation? So for sure both are important, one is not more important than the other. But we were talking about lust. And lust is from visually or mentally imagining something you desire. It could be wealth, it could be a woman, it could be a car. But the point is that being visual is not a sin, it is not a result of the fall. Being visual just means you use your eyes, and they are important to you. Lust however is a sin, so when the Bible says "he that looks with lust upon a woman has committed adultery." The point is that you can think about a relationship with your wife, or future wife to correct the situation, but a more immediate solution is simply to turn away. Turn your eyes. This is way faster than using relation to refrain from sin. When joseph was tempted by potiphars wife He didn't think about his future wife (an egyptian) and thus meditate on that relationship, He ran away physically. It's okay to do what you are saying, but in all practicality men's brains don't think that way, it's not natural for them to think relationally over physically. They can do it, but it takes practice and work. And because it takes work, most won't do it. I will just tell you now. In Josephs situation this would have never have worked. Imagine a woman unclothing in front of you and grabbing you. I would high tale it out of there. I wouldn't meditate on my relationship with my wife, I would literally run out. That is what Joseph did, and I think that is the best solution. But later on if you are still visually stimulated by that memory, you can then use your relationship to replace those thoughts, preferably with your own marriage bed images in your mind.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you have an argument, fine. I respect your convictions.

But follow the example of Jesus who presented His arguments with, “It is written...”

Do you have a position?

Show me chapter and verse.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

If you have an argument, fine. I respect your convictions.

But follow the example of Jesus who presented His arguments with, “It is written...”

Do you have a position?

Show me chapter and verse.

You know, I wish you followed this admonition in your own assertions.

Just because you started this discussion doesn't mean that you are exempt from the requirement.

And remember that the burden of proof is on the positive assertion, not the negative.

In other words, if you claim the Bible teaches "modesty"... and that the "modesty" the bible teaches is for women to keep their bodies covered from men's eyes (besides their own husband), then by all means, start with "It is written...." That is the "positive" assertion... and therefore it is the one which requires support and defense.

You have quoted some passages that do not support your conclusion (you have posted NOTHING except the "non sequitur" you accused me of). But you have not even come close to proving anything from God's Word alone. You have instead suggested that providing OTHER men's opinions (in the form of commentaries) is "proof" enough... but by your own measure ("It is written..."), those commentaries fail the test.

• Where is the command that we keep our bodies covered?
• Where is the description of which body parts require covering? (why are faces and hands OK to be seen, but not breasts?)
• Where is there any command that a man never allow himself to see a woman's natural form?
• At what age must a son cease to see his own mother's breasts?
• Where is the "exception" provided for medical professionals?

You said once that I had to "disprove modesty using the bible." That's not true... because my assertion has been the negative... that the bible does NOT teach "modesty" as you define it. There is NO scripture that supports it. Period. No other biblical "disproof" is really possible... let alone necessary.

BUT, what I CAN to do "disprove" modesty is to demonstrate how ANY verses you may provide to support your assertion are actually being misinterpreted or mis-applied. That's something I'm happy to do, because I know that I can do it conclusively from ANY verse you may offer in support of your position. I "know" that because I've already done it... with every verse I've EVER heard supporting "modesty."

I used to believe as you believe... because that's what I'd always been told. But when I subjected the "modesty" notions to honest evaluation according to "It is written," I discovered that every single verse I'd ever heard to support "modesty" crumbled to dust. Not a single one survived.

So... give me your best and most "incontrovertible" support for your position, and I'll show you why it doesn't mean what you now think it means.

 

[createdtoworship]

You know, I wish you followed this admonition in your own assertions.

Just tell me exactly what statement I didn't show in the Bible. I revealed modesty etc. I think you wanted me to say where does the bible ask about what skirt length we should wear, and I replied to that too, so I think this is a red herring to avoid answering the questions I asked of your positive statements.

Just because you started this discussion doesn't mean that you are exempt from the requirement.

I have fully met this requirement in my mind, you will have to tell me where I missed it and we can revisit it and perhaps tell you which post I answered it.

And remember that the burden of proof is on the positive assertion, not the negative.

this is not always the case for you are mostly correct. I notice when I disagreed with a positive statement in your last post, you did not reply to it for 3-4 days. Meaning, it's easier to ask questions than it is to answer them.

In other words, if you claim the Bible teaches "modesty"... and that the "modesty" the bible teaches is for women to keep their bodies covered from men's eyes (besides their own husband), then by all means, start with "It is written...." That is the "positive" assertion... and therefore it is the one which requires support and defense.

It is written to "serve others" and "love others above our selves' and "not to put a stumbling block before others." So there is three, do I need more? It is also written "a woman without discretion is like a jewel in a pigs nose." Need I post more, again I have posted these ad nauseam. So please don't act like this is our first discussion you have literally been talking to me about this issue for pages.

You have quoted some passages that do not support your conclusion (you have posted NOTHING except the "non sequitur" you accused me of). But you have not even come close to proving anything from God's Word alone.

Things like "not stumbling others" you disagree with the Bible on?

You have instead suggested that providing OTHER men's opinions (in the form of commentaries) is "proof" enough... but by your own measure ("It is written..."), those commentaries fail the test.

Sir because you have no commentaries that think nude beaches are moral, you then transfer that lack of evidence over to me? I have commentaries to prove interpretations, because I post many verses to back up my claims over and over, then you say my interpretation is wrong, so I post commentaries and then that is not good enough because they are not the word of God. Now read the last few sentences slowly again, and see the circular form of argument you are using. It's all circular reasoning.

• Where is the command that we keep our bodies covered?
• Where is the description of which body parts require covering? (why are faces and hands OK to be seen, but not breasts?)
• Where is there any command that a man never allow himself to see a woman's natural form?
• At what age must a son cease to see his own mother's breasts?
• Where is the "exception" provided for medical professionals?

You said once that I had to "disprove modesty using the bible." That's not true... because my assertion has been the negative... that the bible does NOT teach "modesty" as you define it. There is NO scripture that supports it. Period. No other biblical "disproof" is really possible... let alone necessary.

BUT, what I CAN to do "disprove" modesty is to demonstrate how ANY verses you may provide to support your assertion are actually being misinterpreted or mis-applied. That's something I'm happy to do, because I know that I can do it conclusively from ANY verse you may offer in support of your position. I "know" that because I've already done it... with every verse I've EVER heard supporting "modesty."

I used to believe as you believe... because that's what I'd always been told. But when I subjected the "modesty" notions to honest evaluation according to "It is written," I discovered that every single verse I'd ever heard to support "modesty" crumbled to dust. Not a single one survived.

So... give me your best and most "incontrovertible" support for your position, and I'll show you why it doesn't mean what you now think it means.

I have answered this at least three times, so when you reply to this post regarding your life works on modesty, and how I came up with an error in it in a few minutes and prove that positive statement, then we can move on, because all one need to do is rewind a few posts to see how I have already answered all of this, but I will literally repost it for you and find it all for you, if you simply reply to my rebuttal of your online documents here is the post: Modesty among clothing and other areas

 

[Darkhorse]

Sir because you have no commentaries that think nude beaches are moral, you then transfer that lack of evidence over to me?

Here are some commentaries regarding the morality of nude beaches, and nudity in general:


The Biblical Naturist

The Biblical Naturist: Squeamish Translating – Prologue

The Biblical Naturist: Naturist by Biblical Conviction??? — [Part 1]


The Writings of Pastor Jeff Bowman / Jeffrey S. Bowman

Social Nudity / Naturism: Repy to Rodney Stearns - Liberty and Grace

Stumbling over the Issue of Stumbling Christians and causing others to sin


Naked & Unashamed...The Bible on Nudity


No they weren't written by the early church fathers or famous Christian theologians, but they were written by professing Christians (some of them pastors) who present intelligent Bible-based expositions.

You will probably dismiss them as being "not true Christians" with "seared consciences", but others reading here may benefit from their knowledge.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here are some commentaries regarding the morality of nude beaches, and nudity in general:


The Biblical Naturist

The Biblical Naturist: Squeamish Translating – Prologue

The Biblical Naturist: Naturist by Biblical Conviction??? — [Part 1]


The Writings of Pastor Jeff Bowman / Jeffrey S. Bowman

Social Nudity / Naturism: Repy to Rodney Stearns - Liberty and Grace

Stumbling over the Issue of Stumbling Christians and causing others to sin


Naked & Unashamed...The Bible on Nudity


No they weren't written by the early church fathers or famous Christian theologians, but they were written by professing Christians (some of them pastors) who present intelligent Bible-based expositions.

You will probably dismiss them as being "not true Christians" with "seared consciences", but others reading here may benefit from their knowledge.

Well one would expect commentaries to come from a reputible source, that is inherent. Can you vouch for the quality of their credentials? A pastor teacher does not need to have a degree, God can ordain who He pleases, but there will be fruit and a reputation that follows said ordination. For example many pastors are just good with logic and have the gift of teaching. But successful ministries always follow an ordination that is blessed by God. Does the person who wrote these articles, if they don't have a degree do they have a successful ministry? If not I would call them spurious. Some things for example have what I call viral content. It's not necessarily true, but the content goes viral because of shock affect. Fake news does this. And people arbitrarily make up fake content for shock value and click bait. So that is why I ask about a successful ministry behind these articles authors. If they are just writting online content, there could be another motive. It may not be a ministry at all, they could just be writting for shock value to get clicks or money from books. Never the less having said that, if you decide you wish to remain in this debate and wish to defend your cause, (you don't want to go down without a fight). Then by all means read the content of those articles and pick your top three reasons from the Bible why nude beaches are Biblical. And we can talk about it. So at this point I assume this content is successfully refuted, because I cannot fathom any reputable scholar putting his reputation on the line as a minister saying "nude beaches are moral."

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Well one would expect commentaries to come from a reputible source, that is inherent. Can you vouch for the quality of their credentials? A pastor teacher does not need to have a degree, God can ordain who He pleases, but there will be fruit and a reputation that follows said ordination. For example many pastors are just good with logic and have the gift of teaching. But successful ministries always follow an ordination that is blessed by God. Does the person who wrote these articles, if they don't have a degree do they have a successful ministry? If not I would call them spurious. Some things for example have what I call viral content. It's not necessarily true, but the content goes viral because of shock affect. Fake news does this. And people arbitrarily make up fake content for shock value and click bait. So that is why I ask about a successful ministry behind these articles authors. If they are just writting online content, there could be another motive. It may not be a ministry at all, they could just be writting for shock value to get clicks or money from books. Never the less having said that, if you decide you wish to remain in this debate and wish to defend your cause, (you don't want to go down without a fight). Then by all means read the content of those articles and pick your top three reasons from the Bible why nude beaches are Biblical. And we can talk about it. So at this point I assume this content is successfully refuted, because I cannot fathom any reputable scholar putting his reputation on the line as a minister saying "nude beaches are moral."

Now that is a COMPLETE cop-out.

Ad hominem. Don't even bother with the argument presented... just attack the credentials of the authors.

I don't give a rip about your "credentials," or mine, or anyone else's... because plenty of people with plenty of credentials are plenty wrong plenty of time.

Show me God's Word. Show me clearly why it means what you are telling me that it means. Subject your reasoning to critical analysis and challenge. And when that happens, the one with the clearest and most consistent exegesis is the one to go with... NEVER the one with only the best credentials!

If there are arguments made on those sites, then refute the arguments... don't dispute the credentials of the authors.

 

[createdtoworship]

Now that is a COMPLETE cop-out.

Ad hominem. Don't even bother with the argument presented... just attack the credentials of the authors.

Sir take it however you wish, say that I completely copped out as you have said. Then at least do the honor I did for you and quote and paste your favorite three arguments from those links. But I bet you didn't even read them. I would bet you money that you didn't, you just assumed they were correct. Well, sir......do yourself a favor, read them to see if you even agree with them. Then copy your favorite arguments and quote them here, with a citation to the website. That sir is proper debate.

I don't give a rip about your "credentials," or mine, or anyone else's... because plenty of people with plenty of credentials are plenty wrong plenty of time.

Sorry sir, I am not really at this point posting for your benefit but for others reading here, that they will realize I refuted your online works, and continue to do so, relatively easily.

Show me God's Word. Show me clearly why it means what you are telling me that it means. Subject your reasoning to critical analysis and challenge. And when that happens, the one with the clearest and most consistent exegesis is the one to go with... NEVER the one with only the best credentials!

I can quote for the forth or fifth time, if you want. But you will probably just ignore it again. For now, please reply to my critical analysis of your online documents to keep this discussion going, if you cannot reply to it, I will assume your documents are without evidence. Is that what you want everyone here to think?

If there are arguments made on those sites, then refute the arguments... don't dispute the credentials of the authors.

Sir the burden of proof as you yourself said, lies in the one making the argument. IF I use a site, I cut and paste from that site what I want to use, I don't just use a text wall of links and say, here .....read it. There is a debate tactic that people use when they cannot make a good solid case for a thing. They will overwelm their opponent with text walls of information, and due to our normal ability to be short on time, they will give up. But I know what you are doing, and I telling everyone here that this is what you are doing. If you post five or six links you wish us to use, then read them yourself, and pick your top three favorite arguments. IF you can't then your argument again fails. I will not do your homework for you.[/QUOTE]

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Well, Mr. @createdtoworship, it's clear to me that you have no ability to understand the nature of this discussion nor the appropriate rules of debate.

You seem to be totally unaware that your position is utterly without biblical support, and there's literally no way you will ever even consider changing your mind.

Evidently, you are ready and prepared to stand by your arguments and the methods by which you have made them. That's fine with me, because I think it's abundantly obvious to any observer that you have completely ignored the sound rebuttals I've given to you, and you have used only misinterpretations and misapplications of the Scriptures, and/or ad hominem attacks (towards me and others) to promote your own positions.

I will let your arguments stand as what they are. For my part, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to show you your glaring errors of logic and biblical exposition. I think it has become self-evident, quite frankly.

I too will stand by what I have written. Let others judge the relative merits of our arguments.

David

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, Mr. @createdtoworship, it's clear to me that you have no ability to understand the nature of this discussion nor the appropriate rules of debate.

You seem to be totally unaware that your position is utterly without biblical support, and there's literally no way you will ever even consider changing your mind.

Evidently, you are ready and prepared to stand by your arguments and the methods by which you have made them. That's fine with me, because I think it's abundantly obvious to any observer that you have completely ignored the sound rebuttals I've given to you, and you have used only misinterpretations and misapplications of the Scriptures, and/or ad hominem attacks (towards me and others) to promote your own positions.

I will let your arguments stand as what they are. For my part, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to show you your glaring errors of logic and biblical exposition. I think it has become self-evident, quite frankly.

I too will stand by what I have written. Let others judge the relative merits of our arguments.

David

so your giving up now? That is fine. Just let me know when you find a Bible verse that says nude beaches are good.

If you have an argument, fine. I respect your convictions.

But follow the example of Jesus who presented His arguments with, “It is written...”

Do you have a position?

Show me chapter and verse where walking around nude on beaches is acceptable. (after the fall)

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

so your giving up now? That is fine.

Nope not giving up.

I've given up on you, to be sure...

But for the sake of others who might be following along...

Just let me know when you find a Bible verse that says nude beaches are good.

God made a special point of pointing out the goodness of nudity at Creation. Genesis 2:25. "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."

Being naked and unashamed are literally God's original design for human culture. God made a specific point of telling us (post-fall) about that reality pre-fall.

Jesus affirmed Genesis 2:24 as the post-fall ideal for marriage (Matthew 19:3-6). Jesus is reminding the Pharisees that the Pre-fall human relationship is still the post-fall ideal. That applies to Genesis 2:25 as much as it does for Genesis 2:24.

Show me chapter and verse where walking around nude on beaches is acceptable. (after the fall)

After the fall? Why should that matter? Where did God rescind the goodness of the nakedness that he extolled in Gen. 2:25?

And for the record, Genesis 3:11 is a rebuke... when Adam and Eve were concerned about their nakedness, God knew that they had sinned... because the rejection of our nude bodies--which bear God' image--is literally the doctrine of demons (Who else but Satan could be the "who" of "Who told you that you were naked?").

And Genesis 3:21 doesn't say there's a "reversal" of God's position on nakedness. While the text doesn't tell us exactly why God gave them clothing, the context suggests that God provided clothing for protection from cold (no longer in the garden's idyllic environment) and protection (thorns and thistles)... both immediate results of the fall and curse. There's no command that they wear clothes after the fall. And there's no "modesty" requirement or purpose even hinted at in the text.

So... I have to turn the question back on you... where does God ever "reverse" His "pre-fall" declaration of the goodness of nudity?

------------

But... you want one for post-fall? I'll give you one.

1 Timothy 4:8 ... "for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come."

Do you see it?

You don't?

It's the first sentence... Bodily "discipline"... there's profit in it. Not as much as godliness (we can all agree on that) but the Bible literally affirms that there is benefit to physical exercise. Right?

Do you agree with that assertion? Exercise is good, right? This verse demonstrates it, right?

So that proves my point, doesn't it...

Wait... you're just reading it in English... it's hard to see there. Take a look at the Greek...

That word "discipline" ("exercise" in the KJV) comes from the greek word, gymnasia.

We get our English word "Gymnasium" from it... a place for exercise and sports. And gymnos is literally the Greek word for "naked." But do you know why this particular word was used? It's because all exercise in Paul's day was done without any clothing at all. Everyone knew it. Many must have engaged in such exercise... else the comment about it having some value would not make any sense! But rather than rebuke the practice, he reminded his hearers that godliness is even more valuable.

Naked exercise... good.

Post-fall nudity... acceptable.

You want post-fall? I'll give you another.

And then there's Hebrews 12:2 ... "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us..."

Get the picture.... "cloud of witnesses" = public sporting event... a race (like the Olympics).

You're the runner... so get ready to run. How?

By getting completely naked... "lay aside every encumbrance"... including that pesky loincloth (those things can so easily fall down and get tangled around the feet).

So... the writer of Hebrews is using the (good) example of naked runners as an illustration for single-minded commitment to living the Christian life.

Running a race naked ... good.

Post-fall nudity... acceptable.

You want post-fall? I'll give you yet another...

Isaiah 20:2 - "at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, 'Go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips and take your shoes off your feet.' And he did so, going naked and barefoot."

Here's a holy man--a prophet of God--who is commanded by God to go naked 24/7 for the space of 3 years. Good thing. Yes?

Should Isaiah have complained and told God that "God, I'm a holy man! I could never do THAT!!"? No. He just obeyed God... who had NOT just commanded that he sin.

So... did Isaiah ever go "to the beach" during those 3 years? Did he ever go to the river to bathe? Did he ever preach during those 3 years? Well, obviously, it was God's intention that people knew that he was going naked for 3 years... that was the point of the prophecy that he was illustrating! So, Isaiah was not cloistered away for 3 years for "modesty's" sake. He was openly nude for 3 years. Post-fall.

Naked life and ministry (in obedience to God)... good.

Post-fall nudity... acceptable.

There you have it... 4 biblical examples... 3 of them "post-fall" where running on the beach (or other forms of exercise), living, and serving God... are good and acceptable... naked.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope not giving up.

I've given up on you, to be sure...

But for the sake of others who might be following along...


God made a special point of pointing out the goodness of nudity at Creation. Genesis 2:25. "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."

Being naked and unashamed are literally God's original design for human culture. God made a specific point of telling us (post-fall) about that reality pre-fall.

Jesus affirmed Genesis 2:24 as the post-fall ideal for marriage (Matthew 19:3-6). Jesus is reminding the Pharisees that the Pre-fall human relationship is still the post-fall ideal. That applies to Genesis 2:25 as much as it does for Genesis 2:24.


After the fall? Why should that matter? Where did God rescind the goodness of the nakedness that he extolled in Gen. 2:25?

And for the record, Genesis 3:11 is a rebuke... when Adam and Eve were concerned about their nakedness, God knew that they had sinned... because the rejection of our nude bodies--which bear God' image--is literally the doctrine of demons (Who else but Satan could be the "who" of "Who told you that you were naked?").

And Genesis 3:21 doesn't say there's a "reversal" of God's position on nakedness. While the text doesn't tell us exactly why God gave them clothing, the context suggests that God provided clothing for protection from cold (no longer in the garden's idyllic environment) and protection (thorns and thistles)... both immediate results of the fall and curse. There's no command that they wear clothes after the fall. And there's no "modesty" requirement or purpose even hinted at in the text.

So... I have to turn the question back on you... where does God ever "reverse" His "pre-fall" declaration of the goodness of nudity?

------------

But... you want one for post-fall? I'll give you one.

1 Timothy 4:8 ... "for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come."

Do you see it?

You don't?

It's the first sentence... Bodily "discipline"... there's profit in it. Not as much as godliness (we can all agree on that) but the Bible literally affirms that there is benefit to physical exercise. Right?

Do you agree with that assertion? Exercise is good, right? This verse demonstrates it, right?

So that proves my point, doesn't it...

Wait... you're just reading it in English... it's hard to see there. Take a look at the Greek...

That word "discipline" ("exercise" in the KJV) comes from the greek word, gymnasia.

We get our English word "Gymnasium" from it... a place for exercise and sports. And gymnos is literally the Greek word for "naked." But do you know why this particular word was used? It's because all exercise in Paul's day was done without any clothing at all. Everyone knew it. Many must have engaged in such exercise... else the comment about it having some value would not make any sense! But rather than rebuke the practice, he reminded his hearers that godliness is even more valuable.

Naked exercise... good.

Post-fall nudity... acceptable.

You want post-fall? I'll give you another.

And then there's Hebrews 12:2 ... "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us..."

Get the picture.... "cloud of witnesses" = public sporting event... a race (like the Olympics).

You're the runner... so get ready to run. How?

By getting completely naked... "lay aside every encumbrance"... including that pesky loincloth (those things can so easily fall down and get tangled around the feet).

So... the writer of Hebrews is using the (good) example of naked runners as an illustration for single-minded commitment to living the Christian life.

Running a race naked ... good.

Post-fall nudity... acceptable.

You want post-fall? I'll give you yet another...

Isaiah 20:2 - "at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, 'Go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips and take your shoes off your feet.' And he did so, going naked and barefoot."

Here's a holy man--a prophet of God--who is commanded by God to go naked 24/7 for the space of 3 years. Good thing. Yes?

Should Isaiah have complained and told God that "God, I'm a holy man! I could never do THAT!!"? No. He just obeyed God... who had NOT just commanded that he sin.

So... did Isaiah ever go "to the beach" during those 3 years? Did he ever go to the river to bathe? Did he ever preach during those 3 years? Well, obviously, it was God's intention that people knew that he was going naked for 3 years... that was the point of the prophecy that he was illustrating! So, Isaiah was not cloistered away for 3 years for "modesty's" sake. He was openly nude for 3 years. Post-fall.

Naked life and ministry (in obedience to God)... good.

Post-fall nudity... acceptable.

There you have it... 4 biblical examples... 3 of them "post-fall" where running on the beach (or other forms of exercise), living, and serving God... are good and acceptable... naked.

so if you don't have post fall examples of nudity on the beach in the Bible, then I presume we are done?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

so if you don't have post fall examples of nudity on the beach in the Bible, then I presume we are done?

Sheesh...

I guess we're done right after you provide an example of God forbidding nudity on the beach.

Go ahead... I'm waiting.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sheesh...

I guess we're done right after you provide an example of God forbidding nudity on the beach.

Go ahead... I'm waiting.

sir you gave the example nudity on the beach was acceptable first. You can't reverse the burden of proof and say, "now proof it's not forbidden."

"Description of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear."

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

so if you cannot provide a bible verse that depicts the morality of walking around nude from the Bible, post fall (as we are currently in a post fall world), then we are done here.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Let the record show that after I gave 3 post-fall examples of public nudity that were both good and acceptable, @createdtoworship felt that because I had not given an example of nudity "on the beach" that I had failed to adequately answer his challenge.

God evidently allows prophets to prophesy naked... so long as they don't go to the beach.

Running in a race naked is fine... so long as they don't run along the beach.

Exercising naked at the local Greek "Gymnasium" is no problem... so long as the Gymnasium is not at the beach.

Yep. That's what we are supposed to believe. Because... you know... the bible doesn't use the word "beach!" See? Got it? Good!

 

[createdtoworship]

Let the record show that after I gave 3 post-fall examples of public nudity that were both good and acceptable, @createdtoworship felt that because I had not given an example of nudity "on the beach" that I had failed to adequately answer his challenge.

God evidently allows prophets to prophesy naked... so long as they don't go to the beach.

Running in a race naked is fine... so long as they don't run along the beach.

Exercising naked at the local Greek "Gymnasium" is no problem... so long as the Gymnasium is not at the beach.

Yep. That's what we are supposed to believe. Because... you know... the bible doesn't use the word "beach!" See? Got it? Good!

sir go ahead and humor us with your three examples in the Bible of public nudity.

Your posts are sort of long, so I apologize if I don't read all of them.

I have refuted your actual writings on your website, and you didn't reply to it. I asked three times for a reply. Nothing.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

sir you gave the example nudity on the beach was acceptable first. You can't reverse the burden of proof and say, "now proof it's not forbidden."

"Description of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear."

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

so if you cannot provide a bible verse that depicts the morality of walking around nude from the Bible, post fall (as we are currently in a post fall world), then we are done here.

Now THIS is priceless!!

@createdtoworship talking about "shifting the burden of proof!!"

Friend, I gotta say, I doubt anyone knows "shifting the burden of proof" better than you do!

So... let me explain why my response was sufficient...

The bible never forbids going nude at the beach. So... it's permitted. Period.

Unless of course you can demonstrate where the Bible actually DOES forbid going nude at the beach (which you can't)...

So, instead of giving you a response that you knew as well as I was not there in the bible, I gave you 3 good examples of people being nude in public where it was good and acceptable. The clear inference is that if it's not forbidden elsewhere (for prophets and athletes), then there's NO basis to claim that it's forbidden at the beach!

So... absent a specific declaration that going nude at the beach is wrong, you have to accept that the Bible doesn't forbid it at all.

As Chuck Swindoll said in his book "Grace Awakening" (page 167)... “Nothing that is not specifically designated as evil in Scripture is evil, but rather a matter of one’s personal preference or taste.”

No, that's not scripture, but it is a good summary of how to interpret the bible when it comes to discerning moral absolutes in the Bible.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

sir go ahead and humor us with your three examples in the Bible of public nudity.

Your posts are sort of long, so I apologize if I don't read all of them.

Don't let that stop you from replying, of course...

Just keep Proverbs 18:13 in mind when you do...

I have refuted your actual writings on your website, and you didn't reply to it. I asked three times for a reply. Nothing.

No, you didn't refute a thing on my website. You cast aspersions and made huge generalizations... but didn't identify a single point that you disagreed with. Try again... which page... which statements did you disagree with.

And do you seriously want me to go through and show you all the answers that I've given you that you didn't respond to? Seriously? It's a long list...

 

[createdtoworship]

Now THIS is priceless!!

@createdtoworship talking about "shifting the burden of proof!!"

Friend, I gotta say, I doubt anyone knows "shifting the burden of proof" better than you do!

So... let me explain why my response was sufficient...

The bible never forbids going nude at the beach. So... it's permitted. Period.

Unless of course you can demonstrate where the Bible actually DOES forbid going nude at the beach (which you can't)...

So, instead of giving you a response that you knew as well as I was not there in the bible, I gave you 3 good examples of people being nude in public where it was good and acceptable. The clear inference is that if it's not forbidden elsewhere (for prophets and athletes), then there's NO basis to claim that it's forbidden at the beach!

So... absent a specific declaration that going nude at the beach is wrong, you have to accept that the Bible doesn't forbid it at all.

As Chuck Swindoll said in his book "Grace Awakening" (page 167)... “Nothing that is not specifically designated as evil in Scripture is evil, but rather a matter of one’s personal preference or taste.”

No, that's not scripture, but it is a good summary of how to interpret the bible when it comes to discerning moral absolutes in the Bible.

Don't let that stop you from replying, of course...

Just keep Proverbs 18:13 in mind when you do...


No, you didn't refute a thing on my website. You cast aspersions and made huge generalizations... but didn't identify a single point that you disagreed with. Try again... which page... which statements did you disagree with.

And do you seriously want me to go through and show you all the answers that I've given you that you didn't respond to? Seriously? It's a long list...

sir you are getting heated in this debate. Please cool off or we will have to stop the debate short of the end. Again, please post your three verses indicating nudity is acceptible. If you cannot do that, then we are done here. You don't have to add commentary, I just would like to see which verses you "think" endorse public nudity.