Modesty among clothing and other areas

[TheDag]

Yes, I admitted that I had not read everything... but my assertion (zero biblical support) is what I stand by. And I gave evidence in my post...

• Does the OP author have positions on all the points I articulated? Yes.
• Does the Bible articulate any position on any of those points? No.

I invited the man to prove me wrong on any of those points. He has not even attempted to do so. I appreciate your attention to the points, but you have on each point either confirmed my assertion (not in the bible) or not offered any evidence contrary to that assertion.

Thanks for your kind words and pointing out a error I made.

However you say you were making the assertion that the bible is silent in response on those points. I'm not concerned what assertion you were or were not making. What concerns me is your possible false accusation. I do not believe the OP has stated a position on several of the points you listed. So I think it is reasonable for you to support your claim that he has.

I would be interested in your view of how people have sex without having their eyes open at some point. If you are unable to prove that then you have not refuted my point at all. You can not make assumptions when it suits you but ignore them when it doesn't. Other passages such as those in Songs of Solomon also suggests otherwise.

You claimed the OP said that we must always wear clothing. Can you provide evidence that they believe we must wear clothing in the shower? If not then as I said your point is irrelevant.

You can't say the bible does not say anything about those points when it is debateable. Concerning body parts i never claimed there was a consensus on which body parts should be covered. There also is no consensus on morality of murder yet that is still in the bible. If the bible says we cover certain body parts how do you then say the bible is silent on.

I would also be interested in hearing your views on Noah being naked & drunk. Without a doubt one of his sons knew it was shameful and covered his father. Yet you say the bible does not indicate this.

 

[TheDag]

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.”

That means the drug ICE is just a matter of personal preference because it is not specifically designated as evil in scripture. It is not mentioned at all in scripture. The bible doesn't mention so many things. However it does teach principles in the NT which is why we can say the bible covers ICE. However as Chuck Swindoll said it needs to be specifically designated. Sorry but that is wrong.

 

[TheDag]

I can see your a little upset, we'll all I can say is pray and read the Bible. But I won't continue discussions when they get heated. This is something you have to work out with the Lord. I have posted a half dozen verses about loving our neighbor and serving others. It is up to you if you want to follow them.

Sorry but this is an absolute cop out. There is nothing in the post I made which you quoted that shows I am upset. In fact I am not. I repeated a question about if you have followed a biblical instruction. One you refuse to answer. The reason people usually refuse to address it is because they don't want to admit to personal responsibility.

I am not the only one that has pointed out passage about stumbling blocks implies personal interaction. Another poster correctly pointed out that if you use that passage you are stating the activity is not sinful except to one who believes it is sinful. You said there had been no response from either of us. I hope that was an oversight on your part because the alternative is that it is an outright lie. fact is when you quote scripture you are quoting scripture with definitions you already have in mind for words not what is written in scripture. Just like when the NT says sexual immorality is wrong. It never fully defines sexual immorality in the NT. However in the OT it is defined hence we know what it means.

Please address points I made. If you don't want to that is fine. Its your choice. However don't insult me and show lack of integrity by pretending I'm getting heated and upset.

Sir so far the only source yiu quoted was from CS Lewis which I actually agreed with, other than that you have only posted your oppinion. We cannot see your personal bible study time, as we are not there, so you have to demonstrate it. And the fact that you don't want to prove that the Bible is completely silent on nudity sort of reveals you can't do it. But I could be wrong.

You can't prove something is not in the bible. You can only prove something is in there.

You also can not say a persons posts are long and so you didn't read them then make claims about those posts.

 

[jisaiah6113]

I have an opinion on this, living in a fairly large city. Washington DC is the capital of homosexuality on the East Coast and you see the Sodomy flag on residences, businesses, on liberal churches, and was even on the White House after Supreme Court decision.

I say that to say that DC is an immoral city. I have heard people mocking Jesus Christ in malicious and condescending ways on at least two occasions going to work, just overhearing it, when I wasn't looking for this.

I believe it is profoundly immoral for a woman to wear yoga pants in public. I believe it is immoral to wear anything in public that accentuates and shows off your figure. Man or woman. Especially women because unlike men, women are attracted most by what they hear and not what they see. So knowing that men are primarily stimulated by what they see also makes the majority of these women guilty of maliciousness against men. I believe it's all about the only thing that women (unregenerate, without Christ woman) has ever cared about: power. Eve was seduced by the promise of power, and women know that there are multiple avenues to power. Showing off their bodies is one way to power because it seduces the ones most likely to have the power: men.

The glory of a person is their face, through which the image of God should shine.

I have come to realize that I have opinions that are completely contrary to the accepted norm. Part of being an adult is that I accept this and embrace it. I don't have to preach it, but NO ONE has the right to tell me I can't believe it.

I believe that over 50% of the women in my city are harlots. They dress "to kill". Men's spirits that is. They have no regard for men, their hearts, or their struggles, yet they would protest and they often do if a man doesn't show them respect. I believe people who dress to entice others are an abomination. They are a liability to the planet and are like brute beasts.

Scripture says plainly that it is God's prerogative to make one vessel for Honor and another for dishonor. It also says that people who are proud, sexually immoral and presumptive in speaking evil against authority are like brute beasts, who are made to be caught and destroyed.

It doesn't matter whether the world we live in glorifies and normalizes sexual promiscuity, which is not just limited to the act but also the suggestion and innuendo of your clothing. I know that wearing such clothing is wrong. I know that a society that glorifies sodomy is doomed. I have a right to that opinion. No one is going to legislate that away and if they drag me away for it, at least I died with a pure conscience.

And yes, in a just world, I believe most all women would dress like conservative Muslim or Orthodox Jewish women. I can tell you that when I see a woman dressed in such a way to accentuate her face that she INSTANTLY has my respect. In a sea of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tiness, a self respecting woman really stands out.

I would not associate with, let alone go on a date, with a woman who is shameful enough to wear yoga pants in public, or any clothes that would show me exactly what she looks like naked. It's a sign of disrespect for her that she dresses that way, and it's disrespect period. I would also feel uncomfortable knowing that the exact contours of my wife's body would be known not only by me, but by every man walking the street. It would feel as though the sacredness that belongs to me is shared with every man. And it's a sign of her philosophy.

Yes, I probably do belong in a haredi or Amish community or whatever in terms of my philosophy about women's clothing. But I don't care and I'm not ashamed of my beliefs. As a man who sees and who is stumbled by thousands of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ty women daily, it angers me to see their lack of respect for men, for society, for themselves. I make no apology for saying it. At least 50% of the women in my city are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ty, based solely upon how they dress.

 

[Cross Over the Lake]

This is a long thread so if this has been sad previously sorry for the repeat.

As parents there is some obligation especially from fathers to remind their daughters that they are beautiful not just in the flesh but also God’s eyes. I think that the daughters have to go to more drastic measures to “feel” beautiful as they get older, but if they have been reminded they are beautiful their whole lives they might not be that way. Sometimes someone being criticized instead of lifted up can make the problem much worse.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry but this is an absolute cop out. There is nothing in the post I made which you quoted that shows I am upset. In fact I am not. I repeated a question about if you have followed a biblical instruction. One you refuse to answer. The reason people usually refuse to address it is because they don't want to admit to personal responsibility.

I am not the only one that has pointed out passage about stumbling blocks implies personal interaction. Another poster correctly pointed out that if you use that passage you are stating the activity is not sinful except to one who believes it is sinful. You said there had been no response from either of us. I hope that was an oversight on your part because the alternative is that it is an outright lie. fact is when you quote scripture you are quoting scripture with definitions you already have in mind for words not what is written in scripture. Just like when the NT says sexual immorality is wrong. It never fully defines sexual immorality in the NT. However in the OT it is defined hence we know what it means.

Please address points I made. If you don't want to that is fine. Its your choice. However don't insult me and show lack of integrity by pretending I'm getting heated and upset.


You can't prove something is not in the bible. You can only prove something is in there.

You also can not say a persons posts are long and so you didn't read them then make claims about those posts.

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 I have literally been talking to me about this issue for pages, feel free to read some of the posts you are not involved, with many of these replies at this point are just redundant.

 

[createdtoworship]

This is a long thread so if this has been sad previously sorry for the repeat.

As parents there is some obligation especially from fathers to remind their daughters that they are beautiful not just in the flesh but also God’s eyes. I think that the daughters have to go to more drastic measures to “feel” beautiful as they get older, but if they have been reminded they are beautiful their whole lives they might not be that way. Sometimes someone being criticized instead of lifted up can make the problem much worse.

YES! I believe letting children know their worth in Christ should be first and foremost. They should hear that from their parents. If parents gawk at them when they dress up for a party, then they will seek that attention less from outside sources, they will be content and not "needy for attention." I think immodesty stems from a "need for attention." That may not be satisfied at home from mom and dad.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have an opinion on this, living in a fairly large city. Washington DC is the capital of homosexuality on the East Coast and you see the Sodomy flag on residences, businesses, on liberal churches, and was even on the White House after Supreme Court decision.

I say that to say that DC is an immoral city. I have heard people mocking Jesus Christ in malicious and condescending ways on at least two occasions going to work, just overhearing it, when I wasn't looking for this.

I believe it is profoundly immoral for a woman to wear yoga pants in public. I believe it is immoral to wear anything in public that accentuates and shows off your figure. Man or woman. Especially women because unlike men, women are attracted most by what they hear and not what they see. So knowing that men are primarily stimulated by what they see also makes the majority of these women guilty of maliciousness against men. I believe it's all about the only thing that women (unregenerate, without Christ woman) has ever cared about: power. Eve was seduced by the promise of power, and women know that there are multiple avenues to power. Showing off their bodies is one way to power because it seduces the ones most likely to have the power: men.

The glory of a person is their face, through which the image of God should shine.

I have come to realize that I have opinions that are completely contrary to the accepted norm. Part of being an adult is that I accept this and embrace it. I don't have to preach it, but NO ONE has the right to tell me I can't believe it.

I believe that over 50% of the women in my city are harlots. They dress "to kill". Men's spirits that is. They have no regard for men, their hearts, or their struggles, yet they would protest and they often do if a man doesn't show them respect. I believe people who dress to entice others are an abomination. They are a liability to the planet and are like brute beasts.

Scripture says plainly that it is God's prerogative to make one vessel for Honor and another for dishonor. It also says that people who are proud, sexually immoral and presumptive in speaking evil against authority are like brute beasts, who are made to be caught and destroyed.

It doesn't matter whether the world we live in glorifies and normalizes sexual promiscuity, which is not just limited to the act but also the suggestion and innuendo of your clothing. I know that wearing such clothing is wrong. I know that a society that glorifies sodomy is doomed. I have a right to that opinion. No one is going to legislate that away and if they drag me away for it, at least I died with a pure conscience.

And yes, in a just world, I believe most all women would dress like conservative Muslim or Orthodox Jewish women. I can tell you that when I see a woman dressed in such a way to accentuate her face that she INSTANTLY has my respect. In a sea of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tiness, a self respecting woman really stands out.

I would not associate with, let alone go on a date, with a woman who is shameful enough to wear yoga pants in public, or any clothes that would show me exactly what she looks like naked. It's a sign of disrespect for her that she dresses that way, and it's disrespect period. I would also feel uncomfortable knowing that the exact contours of my wife's body would be known not only by me, but by every man walking the street. It would feel as though the sacredness that belongs to me is shared with every man. And it's a sign of her philosophy.

Yes, I probably do belong in a haredi or Amish community or whatever in terms of my philosophy about women's clothing. But I don't care and I'm not ashamed of my beliefs. As a man who sees and who is stumbled by thousands of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ty women daily, it angers me to see their lack of respect for men, for society, for themselves. I make no apology for saying it. At least 50% of the women in my city are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ty, based solely upon how they dress.

It is true that women can dress sexy and not even be thinking remotely about the sexual act, that is due to culture that deems it okay to "show off your bikini body." With the mentality of "if you have it, why not show it off?" Well you can do that with wealth too, but flaunting wealth is just as bad. But we also have to remember if all these women were harlots (and I don't think they are), that they wouldn't be in business if men were not paying for the services. So we men empower the immodesty in women. And it is basically our lack of leadership in the christian world, to not make a stand on these issues. To tell ladies that we stumble when we see immodesty, and that we all need to work together on a solution.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Thanks for your kind words and pointing out a error I made.

However you say you were making the assertion that the bible is silent in response on those points. I'm not concerned what assertion you were or were not making. What concerns me is your possible false accusation. I do not believe the OP has stated a position on several of the points you listed. So I think it is reasonable for you to support your claim that he has.

I hear your point.

But "Modesty" is not a new topic. And those who promote it do so without any accurate biblical support. and THAT was my point.

Or to be more to the point...

Modesty rules are unbiblical.

ALL of them.

It doesn't really matter who promotes them... or which particular rules or positions they have promoted.

I would be interested in your view of how people have sex without having their eyes open at some point. If you are unable to prove that then you have not refuted my point at all. You can not make assumptions when it suits you but ignore them when it doesn't. Other passages such as those in Songs of Solomon also suggests otherwise.

Dag, again, I thought I clarified this...

To say that God never said that spouses CAN see each other was to point out that it is an exception to the general nudity-taboo that everyone believes is in the Bible... so that neither the nudity that we prohibit nor the nudity that we allow is articulated in the Bible.

ALL "nudity-taboo" rules are unbiblical. God never tells us to be naked. God never tells us NOT to be naked. Clothing does not commend us to God. Being naked does not commend us to God. Clothing is no proof that we are close to God. A lack of clothing (even complete nudity) is no indication that we are not close to God.

You claimed the OP said that we must always wear clothing. Can you provide evidence that they believe we must wear clothing in the shower? If not then as I said your point is irrelevant.

Perhaps I should have included the phrase, "around other people." For that is what I intended. And even if unstated, the OP believes that, for he has utterly rejected the notion that social nudity could be practiced in a godly way.

You can't say the bible does not say anything about those points when it is debateable.

If you or anyone else believe the Bible teaches something when I have asserted that it does not, then I suppose that it could be considered "debatable"... but at that point, anyone is welcome to "debate" the point and show where they believe the Bible does teach that point. I'm open to correction, and I welcome the challenge.

Concerning body parts i never claimed there was a consensus on which body parts should be covered.

Actually, you kinda did... because you suggested that God just expected us to "know" which body parts to cover. My logic is this... If God didn't articulate something in His word and He just expects us to "know" it, then it follows that everyone would naturally have consensus on what it is we are supposed to just "know." Else the assertion that God expects to just know it is illogical.

God never tells us which way is north. And yet it is demonstrable that humankind has always been in consensus about that. That would be a fair assumption.

There also is no consensus on morality of murder yet that is still in the bible. If the bible says we cover certain body parts how do you then say the bible is silent on.

I don't follow you here.

If God has an opinion where there's no human consensus, then God articulates that position in the Bible.

And by the same token, if God does NOT have an opinion where there's no human consensus, then we must conclude that God does NOT have an opinion, and we must intentionally avoid claiming ANY position as being God's. Yet this is what has happened

I would also be interested in hearing your views on Noah being naked & drunk. Without a doubt one of his sons knew it was shameful and covered his father. Yet you say the bible does not indicate this.

You know, I used to always think the same thing as what you just articulated.

But then I read the passage again more clearly and carefully. And I realized that there's a lot more we do not know about this event than we do know.

Here are some conclusions that I've reached...

1. The passage in Genesis 9 is narrative. It really teaches nothing more than history. It tells a story. It does not presume to "teach" moral standards... there are literally no commands or assertions made in the account at all.
2. God is silent in the story. God never speaks in the account. Aside from inspiring the text (so we know that it is true), God never commends anyone nor condemns anyone. Therefore, it's difficult to know exactly what we are intended to learn from the passage.
3. We can see biblical principles illustrated in the story... since we know from the 10 Commandments that we are to "Honor your father and mother"... and we can discern that Ham failed to do so, but Shem and Jepheth did not. So... good for them!
4. The only thing we can be really sure about in this passage is when and how the Canaanites were "cursed." And that's helpful, because they figure into the story of Israel a LOT in the rest of the OT.

But does the passage teach us anything else conclusively? No it doesn't.

And we are left with some very significant questions that we can't answer

1. What were the customs and mores of the times?
2. What else (if anything) did Ham do?
3. What was Noah doing (besides being drunk)?
4. Why did Noah curse his grandson rather than the one who dishonored him?

So, I have concluded that we cannot reach any sort of moral conclusion about nudity/modesty from this passage.

I like to put it this way...

Narrative is not Imperative. Narrative without imperative is not normative.

A story (narrative) is just the account of an event... we cannot presume to create a command (imperative) of any sort only from a story. And if there's no command (imperative) articulated in the story, we must not presume that we are supposed to imitate (normative) any part of the story.

David

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

That means the drug ICE is just a matter of personal preference because it is not specifically designated as evil in scripture. It is not mentioned at all in scripture. The bible doesn't mention so many things. However it does teach principles in the NT which is why we can say the bible covers ICE. However as Chuck Swindoll said it needs to be specifically designated. Sorry but that is wrong.

You're not being reasonable, Dag.

There are many modern things that the Bible naturally does not address... but the bible does address the care of our bodies... and it does address the abuse of foreign substances in our bodies (alcohol) that we can legitimately apply to modern foreign substances (that's the "principles" thing you were saying).

We cannot create an artificial expectation that the Bible must directly address things that didn't exist when the bible was written.

But that is NOT the case with reference to the current discussion. Ever person who has ever lived has had to address the clothing of their own bodies. So for the Scriptures to be silent on that matter must be figured into our conclusion on the topic. Such an omission in the scriptures cannot be anything other than intentional.

That is the spirit in which Swindoll is correct.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Again, please post your three verses indicating nudity is acceptible.

Just read THIS POST...

 

[createdtoworship]

Just read THIS POST...

Sir I read that for the second time, I didn't see any verses (post fall) about nudity at all.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Sir I read that for the second time, I didn't see any verses post fall about nudity at all.

Then you are willfully blind and dishonest.

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.
​

1 Timothy 4:8 -

"for bodily gymnasia 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."​

Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines the Greek word this way:
γυμνασία - properly, the exercise of the body in the palæstra.

Look up what a palæstra was... Wikipedia summarizes it this way: (Also documented plenty of other places, like Palaestra & Gymnasium)
"... no gymnasium could exist without a palaestra." and "The palaestra essentially consisted of a rectangular court surrounded by colonnades with adjoining rooms. These rooms might house a variety of functions: bathing, ball playing, undressing and storage of clothes, seating for socializing, observation, or instruction, and storage of oil, dust or athletic equipment."

Gymnasia, which comes from the Greek word "gymnos" (meaning "naked") means "naked exercise."

That's the word that Paul used in the Greek.

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..."​

History is clear. They ran naked. And that's exactly what the writer of Hebrews was referring to.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then you are willfully blind and dishonest.

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.
​

1 Timothy 4:8 -

"for bodily gymnasia 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."​

Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines the Greek word this way:
γυμνασία - properly, the exercise of the body in the palæstra.

Look up what a palæstra was... Wikipedia summarizes it this way: (Also documented plenty of other places, like Palaestra & Gymnasium)
"... no gymnasium could exist without a palaestra." and "The palaestra essentially consisted of a rectangular court surrounded by colonnades with adjoining rooms. These rooms might house a variety of functions: bathing, ball playing, undressing and storage of clothes, seating for socializing, observation, or instruction, and storage of oil, dust or athletic equipment."

Gymnasia, which comes from the Greek word "gymnos" (meaning "naked") means "naked exercise."

That's the word that Paul used in the Greek.

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..."​

History is clear. They ran naked. And that's exactly what the writer of Hebrews was referring to.

ok so I saw one verse that mentioned nudity after the fall. Isaiah 20:2 And it comes after some researching into the context, that most likely Isaiah was not nude. See at the time he was mourning, so God commands to take off the outer garment of sackloth only. They had outer and inner garments, but if you were seen in your inner garmet it was like you were nude. Sort of like wearing your underwear to the store. I have some commentaries on it, but you will dismiss them. Because God has revealed special revelation to you that no one else has. Said no one ever. The rest of the verses you mention do not mention nudity but running a race. There is no evidence that races were run nude in those days. And even if they were, there is no evidence that the spiritualization of a spiritual race to be run, means we strip naked and run around physically speaking. This is just sheer nonsense.

 

[TheDag]

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?

What you need to do is address the points that were raised in response not just repeat the same thing. You have once again failed to address the point made in response. In fact I explained it in my post and you ignored the explanation. For this to stand as a passage justifying a blanket ban you need to explain why.
You also need to accept your responsibility. If you are weak you have a responsibility to ask for help in humility not demanding.
I can walk down the street or go to the beach and not have those problems. As i previously said short revealing clothing just isn't my thing. Loose ankle length skirts with patterns will have me turning my head.

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.

You failed to address the response to this passage as well. You decided that the passagewas talking about clothing and read that into it. For it to be valid you need to prove it is talking about the way you dress rather than the way one acts. The passage talks about putting a beautiful jewel on a creature that in the day was considered unclean and untouchable. Likewise a woman with loose morals has beauty wasted on them.

So please don't act like this is our first discussion I have literally been talking to me about this issue for pages, feel free to read some of the posts you are not involved, with many of these replies at this point are just redundant.

With all the passages you are quoting you already have a definition in your mind as to what is meant then you read the passage to gain support for your view rather than reading what is there to understand the true intent.

You also need to address what people say and listen. Not just be thinking of your responses instantly.

Sir I read that for the second time, I didn't see any verses (post fall) about nudity at all.

To read the bible and understand it you need to understand context. Context includes
who wrote it
who it was written to
culture of people it was written to
what was happening at the time

We see in Pauls letters he often says "Now to the matters you asked about". We don't actually have the questions but the answers are in response to specific questions. one needs to understand context to be able to understand what the questions might be. You keep ignoring the context.

 

[TheDag]

You're not being reasonable, Dag.

There are many modern things that the Bible naturally does not address... but the bible does address the care of our bodies... and it does address the abuse of foreign substances in our bodies (alcohol) that we can legitimately apply to modern foreign substances (that's the "principles" thing you were saying).

We cannot create an artificial expectation that the Bible must directly address things that didn't exist when the bible was written.

But that is NOT the case with reference to the current discussion. Ever person who has ever lived has had to address the clothing of their own bodies. So for the Scriptures to be silent on that matter must be figured into our conclusion on the topic. Such an omission in the scriptures cannot be anything other than intentional.

That is the spirit in which Swindoll is correct.

I am being perfectly reasonable. The statement was that it must explicitly state it. That does not mean going by principles that are taught. Drugs existed when Swindoll made the comment. Therefore he would have been aware of such things when teaching.

You give the example that the bible teaches none abuse of alcohol and that we can apply that to drugs. So from that I can conclude you are arguing that drugs are ok as long as they are not abused.

No it does not stand to reason bible must address a topic. What is the purpose of the bible? It doesn't tell us everything. It is just as reasonable to expect that people knew. Typical clothing in those days could mean they found no need to address 'skimpy' outfits.

A story (narrative) is just the account of an event... we cannot presume to create a command (imperative) of any sort only from a story. And if there's no command (imperative) articulated in the story, we must not presume that we are supposed to imitate (normative) any part of the story.

So we can throw the parables out then. After all that is exactly what the parables did.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

ok so I saw one verse that mentioned nudity after the fall. Isaiah 20:2 And it comes after some researching into the context, that most likely Isaiah was not nude. See at the time he was mourning, so God commands to take off the outer garment of sackloth only. They had outer and inner garments, but if you were seen in your inner garmet it was like you were nude. Sort of like wearing your underwear to the store. I have some commentaries on it, but you will dismiss them. Because God has revealed special revelation to you that no one else has. Said no one ever. The rest of the verses you mention do not mention nudity but running a race. There is no evidence that races were run nude in those days. And even if they were, there is no evidence that the spiritualization of a spiritual race to be run, means we strip naked and run around physically speaking. This is just sheer nonsense.

I repeat...

You are willfully blind and dishonest.

God's Word says that Isaiah went naked.

@createdtoworship says he wasn't actually naked.

Whom to believe... hmmm...

God directs Paul uses the Greek word that means "naked exercise" and affirms its goodness. Etymologically and historically undeniable.

@createdtoworship says "he's not talking about nudity."

Whom to believe... hmmm...

God directs the writer of Hebrews to reference an ancient (contemporary for the original audience) sporting event where races were run in front of huge crowds... naked... without condemning the practice. Historically undeniable. There's even ancient art evidence.

@createdtoworship says "There's no evidence there was actual nudity."

Whom to believe... hmmm...

Willfully blind. Willfully dishonest.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

A story (narrative) is just the account of an event... we cannot presume to create a command (imperative) of any sort only from a story. And if there's no command (imperative) articulated in the story, we must not presume that we are supposed to imitate (normative) any part of the story.

So we can throw the parables out then. After all that is exactly what the parables did.

Actually, you made my point...

Because parables are not told as historical accounts (narratives).

They are non-historical to start with, but even beyond that, they are delivered within an instructional context... literally related for the purpose of making a specific point about godly behavior. In other words, they are given specifically to give direction to people how they should live! That's the "imperative."

Parables are "narrative WITH imperative."

Sometimes the imperative is explicit ("go and do likewise"), but always implicit (by instructional context).

 

[createdtoworship]

I repeat...

You are willfully blind and dishonest.

God's Word says that Isaiah went naked.

@createdtoworship says he wasn't actually naked.

Whom to believe... hmmm...

God directs Paul uses the Greek word that means "naked exercise" and affirms its goodness. Etymologically and historically undeniable.

@createdtoworship says "he's not talking about nudity."

Whom to believe... hmmm...

God directs the writer of Hebrews to reference an ancient (contemporary for the original audience) sporting event where races were run in front of huge crowds... naked... without condemning the practice. Historically undeniable. There's even ancient art evidence.

@createdtoworship says "There's no evidence there was actual nudity."

Whom to believe... hmmm...

Willfully blind. Willfully dishonest.

commentators as well as my self unanimously believe no nudity was involved (in those two passages), I am not the one who is willfully blind here. Again most christian cults have a view that God has given them special knowledge of a thing that the church has been blind to all these ages. However from studying orthodox doctrine for over 20 years I attest to the saying "if it's true, it's not new. If it's new it's not true."

so again if we have an interpretation of a passage in a particular manner it helps to look outward, beyond ourselves and see...."Am I the ONLY one who views it this way?"

Since you admit to not using commentaries, I assume you are the only one that interprets these passages in this manner. So to me that is not good enough for public debate, and those arguments fall apart.

So at this point, I am concluding this discussion as you are getting heated because someone is disagreeing with your "special revelation" from God. However most people when they read those passages simply do not come to same conclusions you do. And again since you are unable or unwilling to research others views on this, you can only attest to your sole opinion regarding this passage.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Seriously, @createdtoworship, do you not see your own hypocrisy and duplicity?

You judge everything I say by the measure of "it is written," but your own statements completely do NOT reach that measure!

ok so I saw one verse that mentioned nudity after the fall. Isaiah 20:2

So... you admit that nudity IS "written"...

And it comes after some researching into the context, that most likely Isaiah was not nude.

So even though "it is written," you don't accept it? Exactly how would you expect God to describe it if Isaiah actually WAS completely nude? "Naked" means naked. That's the correct Hebrew word for complete nudity. It's the very same Hebrew word used to describe Adam and Eve before the fall!

Here you are actively contradicting the "it is written"... revealing that you are more committed to your preconceptions about nudity than you are to God's word.

See at the time he was mourning,

Not "written."

so God commands to take off the outer garment of sackloth only.

Not "written."

They had outer and inner garments,

Not "written."

but if you were seen in your inner garmet it was like you were nude. Sort of like wearing your underwear to the store.

Not "written."

There is no evidence that races were run nude in those days. And even if they were, there is no evidence that the spiritualization of a spiritual race to be run, means we strip naked and run around physically speaking.

Changing the goalposts again?

I never claimed that the Bible told us to "strip naked and run around physically." I've claimed that the Bible never forbids it.

You challenged me to show you in the bible where public nudity was "good" and/or "acceptable." And by THAT measure, I've delivered. 3 places where nudity was implicit inferred or explicitly mentioned... accepted and described in a positive light.