- Aug 4, 2012
- 7,730
- 3,462
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Methodist
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Abby was an idiot.Abby (from 1970): "It certainly is a good way to satisfy the girls' curiosity as to what boys look like in appropriate surroundings ... . However, the boys should also enjoy the experience of playing and being in the presence of the girls completely naked, but given how boys usually will doff all clothes in haste and without care when at he town swimming hole, I'm guessing your son won't require too much pressure to comply with your sister's rule."
I'm not going to express an opinion here directly. I think the key word here is "appropriate". This is inherently subjective.
If you let moralizing bureaucrats eat tax dollars, they will eventually want to impose Commissars for Correct Bathing Suit Design and Birthday Suit Compliance, grimly abetted by CNN correspondents claiming a hotline to judges wanting to be popular with hysterical viewers.
I'll just copy & paste my response from the topless thread - I don't like the idea of "requiring" anyone, boys or girls, to take their clothes off outdoors. That infringes on an individual's sense of privacy and agency over their own body. I'm also not really understanding how the girls seeing their naked (post-puberty) brothers' bodies is helpful to them. It's one thing if these are small children under age 6, it's quite different when these kids are over 12 years old. I just don't get it.
Another issue I have with this is no matter how "private" you think your property is, there can be someone watching. I would err on the side of caution and make sure my children are appropriately clothed when outdoors.
I don't see why one person's right to satisfy their curiosity trumps another person's right to privacy. No one should have to be made uncomfortable or humiliated just because someone else is "curious".
So the idea that if you want to swim competitively for your highschool, and that required you to swim in the nude, you should not be a competitive swimmer? (assuming you did not want your stuff to be seen)I agree with you that no one, male or female, should be required to go naked against his or her will. That should be an individual choice regardless of the person's sex.
Do you remember Paul writing this?To think public nudity (whether on private property or not) is alright for anyone over the "age of accountability".
No, I said " no one, male or female, should be required to go naked against his or her will." That means the school needs to change its policy.So the idea that if you want to swim competitively for your highschool, and that required you to swim in the nude, you should not be a competitive swimmer? (assuming you did not want your stuff to be seen)
Can you give me a chapter and verse that there are 66 books in the Bible, or that uses the word "Trinity" or "Bible" or "Sunday School" or a lot of other things that we recognize as true. No, the "age of accountability" is not found in any verse, but simply understood.Are you sure the "standard of godliness" you cling to would have been understood by the first century readers of the gospels and Paul's letters?
Or has it been steeped in 1900 years of legalism?
I can't speak for all first century readers or 21st century readers.
I am not speaking of "legalism" that has been fostered upon Christians throughout 1900 centuries, that is a legalism of man's own ideas and preferences. I am speaking of what God reveals to be His standard of
morality, whether it is covered in the OT (law of Moses and the prophets),
or the NT in Jesus day which was still under the law, or in the NT epistles
during the time of the church.
Can you give me a chapter and verse where it says such an age actually exists?
Yes, and participation in the games was closed to women.Do you remember Paul writing this?
1 Corinthians 9:25
Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
Which "games" was he writing about? The Olympics. Instead of gold medals, Laurel wreaths were placed on the heads of the champions in each sport. And in those games, everyone competed in the nude.
This Dear Abby advice column from 1970 was posted recently in another thread. It describes a situation where a mother forced her puberty-aged sons to swim nude in the presence of their sisters (and apparently in the presence of anyone else who was present) "to satisfy the girls' curiosity as to what boys look like." At the same time the mother forbid her teenage daughters from swimming nude in the presence of their brothers because "girls require more privacy than boys." Abby not only agreed with the mother doing this, but also encouraged the letter-writer to do the same with her son.
I know that boys in some high schools and YMCAs were at one time required to swim nude, but it is my understanding that did not occur in mixed company. However, I think that has largely become a thing of the past in most places, and that even open showers have been eliminated in most public places.
I would also note that this apparently occurred on private property so there was no concern of violating public nudity laws.
This advice was given almost 50 years ago. Was this good advice on the part of Dear Abby then? Would it be good advice today? Is it fair to require that a teenage boy swim nude in mixed company if he does not want to do so while forbidding teenage girls from doing the same if they would want to swim nude?
Oh, lovely. So we are to follow the standards of the ungodly, multi-god/polytheistic Greeks! Paul used the illustration of the Olympics as a comparison of rewards, not that we are under the same reward system, for theirs was temporary and our are eternal. Paul was in no way advacating (sic?) or approving, or suggesting in any way that we follow the nudity of the Olympics!!!!Do you remember Paul writing this?
1 Corinthians 9:25
Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
Which "games" was he writing about? The Olympics. Instead of gold medals, Laurel wreaths were placed on the heads of the champions in each sport. And in those games, everyone competed in the nude.
No - because there are not 66 books in the bible. 22 books in the OT, 27 in the NT.Can you give me a chapter and verse that there are 66 books in the Bible,
that is the problem, too many things "understood" with little or no scriptural backing.the "age of accountability" is not found in any verse, but simply understood.
, and it is seen as a shameful thing that God had to kill innocent animals to provide coats of skin to cover them with,
My point was, Paul said nothing about the competition being "ungodly." That it was done by the Greeks was understood since Corinth is in Greece. He registered no objection to the nudity.Oh, lovely. So we are to follow the standards of the ungodly, multi-god/polytheistic Greeks! Paul used the illustration of the Olympics as a comparison of rewards, not that we are under the same reward system, for theirs was temporary and our are eternal. Paul was in no way advacating (sic?) or approving, or suggesting in any way that we follow the nudity of the Olympics!!!!
thank you. I was going to mention that earlier but got sidetracked.This is something you added to the word. The bible gave no mention of killing any animals. There are messages that could be lost if one take your additions as fact. Hence the warnings about adding to the word.
I think it depends on the person....I was never one to walk around naked.....to this day, with children and wife....i never leave my bathroom undressed.... In College dorms, I never leave my shower stall undressed......and did not like for a roommate to walk around in a towel. So as a child, being forced to do anything nude probably would have been the worse thing anyone could have done..... But I can see this boosting the confidence of someone, if it is started early. But I would not be one to make someone clothes if they wanted to be naked, or make someone undress if they want to be clothes... everyone should be made to feel comfortable with whatever feels right to them...in this situation.This Dear Abby advice column from 1970 was posted recently in another thread. It describes a situation where a mother forced her puberty-aged sons to swim nude in the presence of their sisters (and apparently in the presence of anyone else who was present) "to satisfy the girls' curiosity as to what boys look like." At the same time the mother forbid her teenage daughters from swimming nude in the presence of their brothers because "girls require more privacy than boys." Abby not only agreed with the mother doing this, but also encouraged the letter-writer to do the same with her son.
I know that boys in some high schools and YMCAs were at one time required to swim nude, but it is my understanding that did not occur in mixed company. However, I think that has largely become a thing of the past in most places, and that even open showers have been eliminated in most public places.
I would also note that this apparently occurred on private property so there was no concern of violating public nudity laws.
This advice was given almost 50 years ago. Was this good advice on the part of Dear Abby then? Would it be good advice today? Is it fair to require that a teenage boy swim nude in mixed company if he does not want to do so while forbidding teenage girls from doing the same if they would want to swim nude?
I am glad that you look for scriptural backing (Acts 17:11). We don't want to be following things that are not "scriptural", but there are many good things that we can have that are not mentioned in the Scriptures at all, let alone with chapter and verse (Bibles, Bible computer programs, computers, electronics, electronic recording and broadcasting of the Scriptures, etc., etc.).No - because there are not 66 books in the bible. 22 books in the OT, 27 in the NT.
But I can give you chapter and verse that we divide up the OT incorrectly.
You can divide up the Bible into whatever number of groupings you want. That was, and is not my point. My point is that we can refer to things such as the "age of accountability" as a recognized (at least by many) idea, whether it is stated in the Bible or not. There are a number of things that exist and are good, right, and true, though they are not mentioned in the Bible. Theology is not mentioned in the Bible, nor the phrases "quiet time" or "devotions", yet these are good things that people understand and recognize.
that is the problem, too many things "understood" with little or no scriptural backing.
But those "things" should NEVER become doctrine.but there are many good things that we can have that are not mentioned in the Scriptures at all, let alone with chapter and verse
If the Bible included everything that God figured we should be able to understand without having to write it all down, the Bible would be way too big for us to have it in one book as we do today (John 21:25). I don't think that God in Genesis 3:21 would have us believe that He provided "coats of skin" without having killed animals to do this, would you?This is something you added to the word. The bible gave no mention of killing any animals. There are messages that could be lost if one take your additions as fact. Hence the warnings about adding to the word.
I like to also leave as an option, the largest and most important organ on the human body.....Since God exists outside of time, He could have taken a skin from an animal killed at eh Temple well after Moses died. Or He could have just created a leather garment out of thin air.
Paul didn't have to register an objection to the nudity, God had already done that for him in such Scriptures as Leviticus 18. Paul didn't register a lot of other objections about the Greeks in 1 Co 9:25. That was not his point or objective in that passage; but his lack of objection is not his condoning their nudity or any of the other things that were ungodly about them.My point was, Paul said nothing about the competition being "ungodly." That it was done by the Greeks was understood since Corinth is in Greece. He registered no objection to the nudity.
Human reasoning. I do not know if He killed an animal or not. It does not say so it DOES NOT MATTER. It should never be elevated beyond personal opinion.I don't think that God in Genesis 3:21 would have us believe that He provided "coats of skin" without having killed animals to do this, would you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?