Nudism

[Buzz Dixon]

Why is being nude in an environment where most people would be more comfortable if everyone was clothed another thing? Why should I not be allowed to be naked in such an environment?

Because you're needlessly irritating people who don't wish to be irritated. That's ill-mannered, immoral, rude, and sinful even if it wasn't specifically illegal.

 

[BigToe]

Um I guess I wonder the same thing Bell- I don't understand why you being nude would be irritating to others other than the fact they personally don't like it. I guess its a case where the dominant culture gets to say what is so and no one else can ask questions.

 

[The Bellman]

Because you're needlessly irritating people who don't wish to be irritated. That's ill-mannered, immoral, rude, and sinful even if it wasn't specifically illegal.

How is my being nude "irritating" people? And if it is, why is their "irritation" more important than my comfort? On the same basis, should we stop black people from walking around because of racists who might be "irritated" by their presence? Should we stop the disabled appearing in public because of those who might be "irritated" by them? Should we stop people wearing loud sports coats because of people who might be "irritated" by them?

 

[immersedingrace]

Instead of simply agreeing you started making statements like "what IS illegal and done anyway is sinful" in an effort to show that you initial statement was right. The problem is that you were wrong again because there have been and still are many unjust laws, and it is NEVER sinful to break an unjust law. I was in no way comparing Rosa Parks to going nude--the point was that, as I just said, it isn't sinful to braek an unjust law.
QUOTE]

Actually, YES, breaking an "unjust law" IS a sin. There are other ways Rosa Parks (and anyone else who is victim to an unjust law) could have gotten her point across that wouldn't have been breaking the law. I for one am glad she DID get her point across, and I'd probably have done the same in her situation. Doesn't mean it was the "sinless" way to do it. The only time it's not a sin to break a law, is when that law goes against the bible, eg, being told we're not allowed to pray, or to publicly worship.

As for nudity in public, which I believe was the original post, in the US in most places it is a sin BECAUSE it's against the law. We're instructed to follow the law of our land.

We're also instructed not to do that which would cause another to stumble. If we KNOW that nudity causes a significant number of people to sin, then we shouldn't go around nude in public for THAT reason alone...no matter what the law says. Yes, I'm aware that some men and women are aroused no matter what another is wearing, but the MAJORITY of people, from my experience, wouldn't fall into that category.

 

[Ryal Kane]

How is my being nude "irritating" people? And if it is, why is their "irritation" more important than my comfort? On the same basis, should we stop black people from walking around because of racists who might be "irritated" by their presence? Should we stop the disabled appearing in public because of those who might be "irritated" by them? Should we stop people wearing loud sports coats because of people who might be "irritated" by them?

This is certianly an interesting philisophical point. How far is too far and where do you draw the line?There's an awful lot that falls into this catagory. Should someone be allowed to play tremendously loud music which annoys others? How is it different from someone wearing gaudy clothing (or gaudy lack of clothing) which distracts?
It's all a mateer of perspective I suppose.

Ryal Kane

 

[Clarity]

Why do people walk about nude?
this is something that has been puzzling me for a while as i cannot see how nudity is better than being clothed and when i think about it sexual motives always spring to mind.

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." (Ephesians 5:3)

If christians go to clubs where everyone walks about naked is there not a hint of sexual immorality and will not outsiders think that they do it out of lust or for sexual reasons which would harm their christian testimony.

also when you consider that nudity is considered a sign of shame in normal cicumstances in the bible should christians be practising naturists?


I took a look at www.themarriagebed.com site and found


Quote:

About 40% of nudists are swingers quoted on the site and i also noticed
Where single men are welcome they outnumber the women at least 3 to 1, often more (10 to 1).

There seems to be a clear link between naturism and sex and i cannot accept that naturism leads to less lust. In fact what naturism does is desensitize people about nudity so the sexual organs of the body are no longer afforded any special respect and this in turn leads to a more permissive attitude towards sex as people no longer have any inhibitions about being naked contrast this where naturism is not practised and the sexual organs are treated with reverence in this case people will be less willing to take of their clothes and have sex as nudity is seen as not being acceptable. I also found the following statistic on a pro naturism site.

Lewis and Janda (1988) found a positive correlation between childhood exposure to nudity and adult sexual comfort. The authors point out, however, that some would see this as a reason to prevent childhood exposure to nudity, as their measures on comfort included acceptance of lifestyles that many would consider immoral or undesirable (such as premarital sex, or acceptance of homosexuality).


1 corinthians 6
12"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

Even if naturism is permissable we also have to ask the question is it beneficial and not just is naturism not wrong? we also need to ask is naturism right? is it the best and most prudent thing to do? and i think the answer to this is that it is not.

 

[Archivist]

Because you're needlessly irritating people who don't wish to be irritated. That's ill-mannered, immoral, rude, and sinful even if it wasn't specifically illegal.

This can cover a lot of situations. The Amish would probably say that you are "needlessly irritating" them by driving past their farms in an automobile. Does that make driving an automobile "ill-mannered, immoral, rude, and sinful?" I certainly don't think so.

 

[Archivist]

Actually, YES, breaking an "unjust law" IS a sin. There are other ways Rosa Parks (and anyone else who is victim to an unjust law) could have gotten her point across that wouldn't have been breaking the law.

I disagree. How else were the African-Americans to have gotten their point across without breaking the law? They were prevented from voting by poll taxes and literacy tests. If they couldn't do it with the power of the vote, how else could gaining civil rights have been achieved?

I stand by my statement--it is not a sin to break an unjust law.

BTW, I guess you see Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and our other Founding Fathers as "sinners" because they revolted against Bristish rule. I suppose that they should have just paid their taxes and accepted second-class status.

 

[Clarity]

1 Corinthians 12v23
and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it,

This is a reference to the fact that there are parts of our body that are unpresentable and these are the same ones that god gave adam and eve animal skins to cover as they are to be treated with special modesty and this is the clearest passage against nudity.


1 Peter 3
1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,

It should not be your outward appearence that men notice most which they certainly will if you are naked or dressed temptingly but your good works are to be more noticable than your outward appearence.

Like I said, if you find public nudity to be wrong- don't do it. That doesn't mean that others wont arrive at a different conclusion. And it doesn't make your conclusion right and theirs wrong, just as theirs isn't right and yours wrong.

Someone has to be right? If two people hold opposite views about nudity one saying it is right and the other saying it is wrong they both cannot be right. Nudity is either right or wrong it cannot be both.
It reminds me of a quote about relativism i heard recently
" you can believe whatever you want as long as you dont believe it to be the truth"
in which case your beliefs become meaningless and it leads to relative morality where everyone can pick and choose their own moral beliefs and there is no absolute truth and it leads to moral chaos. the bible is the only source from which we can determine whether something is right or wrong and after studying it i have come to the conclusion that the bible teaches nudity is shameful and that the body has parts that are unpresentable and it would be bad for my christian testimony and there is also the added danger of lust. We also have to consider that our nudity may cause others to lust especially non christians who have no inhibitions about lust and in order to show true love to these people i think that christians should not practise nudity.

 

[Archivist]

1 Corinthians 12v23
and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it,

This is a reference to the fact that there are parts of our body that are unpresentable and these are the same ones that god gave adam and eve animal skins to cover as they are to be treated with special modesty and this is the clearest passage against nudity.


1 Peter 3
1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,

It should not be your outward appearence that men notice most which they certainly will if you are naked or dressed temptingly but your good works are to be more noticable than your outward appearence.



Someone has to be right? If two people hold opposite views about nudity one saying it is right and the other saying it is wrong they both cannot be right. Nudity is either right or wrong it cannot be both.
It reminds me of a quote about relativism i heard recently
" you can believe whatever you want as long as you dont believe it to be the truth"
in which case your beliefs become meaningless and it leads to relative morality where everyone can pick and choose their own moral beliefs and there is no absolute truth and it leads to moral chaos. the bible is the only source from which we can determine whether something is right or wrong and after studying it i have come to the conclusion that the bible teaches nudity is shameful and that the body has parts that are unpresentable and it would be bad for my christian testimony and there is also the added danger of lust. We also have to consider that our nudity may cause others to lust especially non christians who have no inhibitions about lust and in order to show true love to these people i think that christians should not practise nudity.

The verses that you cited do not, however, say that public nudity is a sin. Scripture has been posted elsewhere in this thread that shows a differing view.

You said that "nudity is either right or wrong it cannot be both." Why? Why can't those Christians who don't see it as a sin be permitted to practice nudity while those who see it as a sin wear clothing?

BTW, there is a new thread on this topic in Philosophy & Morality: "Nudism--can we agree on the real issues."

 

[Miss Shelby]

Um I guess I wonder the same thing Bell- I don't understand why you being nude would be irritating to others other than the fact they personally don't like it. I guess its a case where the dominant culture gets to say what is so and no one else can ask questions.

I'm still interested in knowing where you found the Pope's quote. Since you used it to support a position that I know he himself wouldn't support, I would like to read it in context. Any chance you could provide us with that?

Thanks again,

Michelle

 

[Miss Shelby]

I don't see how me (for example) going nude in public is "imposing my beliefs on others". I'm not telling anyone else THEY have to go nude.

I am thinking of a scenario of a public restaurant. It affects me if I walk in there with my children and people are sitting their nude ordering lunch.

Michelle

 

[Archivist]

I am thinking of a scenario of a public restaurant. It affects me if I walk in there with my children and people are sitting their nude ordering lunch.

Michelle

If it would offend you, just don't look.

Actually if nudity became an accepted part of our culture eventually we would all get to the point where we wouldn't pay much attention to it.

 

[Archivist]

Last week I had psoted on this thread about St. Peter fishing nude. I had said that there was a Roman-era painting of men fishing nude. Mr. Roach challenged me on this. Therefore I qoute the following:

"Peter's example of nude fishing was used in the early churches for illustratve purposes. For example, the Basilica in Aquileia, was built on the remains of an early Christian church burnt to the ground by Attila the Hun in AD 452. The famous council of AD 381 was held in that early Christian church, and the mosaic floor of the basilica is the largest known paleo-Christian mosaic floor in Western Europe, measuring about 760 square meters. Interestingly, we find a mosaic of naked fishermen in a symbolic fishing scene. The fish represent unbelievers listening to the Gospel, while the fishermen stand for the Christians who are saving lost souls. The fishermen are naked in imitation of Peter."

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am thinking of a scenario of a public restaurant. It affects me if I walk in there with my children and people are sitting their nude ordering lunch. Michelle

People who support public nudity typically don't insist that nudity happen everywhere. Of course there should be restrictions on nudity for health, sanitary, or safety reasons, but this still leaves many possibilities open.

Personally, I favor letting the government and private individuals and organizations set aside public areas (beaches, parks, etc) that permit nudity, as long as the area is reasonably out of sight so that no one who simply happens to be passing by will be an unwilling participant.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

How is my being nude "irritating" people? And if it is, why is their "irritation" more important than my comfort? On the same basis, should we stop black people from walking around because of racists who might be "irritated" by their presence? Should we stop the disabled appearing in public because of those who might be "irritated" by them? Should we stop people wearing loud sports coats because of people who might be "irritated" by them?

Being black and/or disabled is an unalterable fact. Being clothed is an option. A well-mannered person will not behave in a way that needlessly irritates others.

Many people do not like looking at naked people; they prefer to see people clothed. It is unreasonable for these people to insist people in areas specifically set aside for nudism to beclothed, but it is reasonable for them to expect certain (if not most) public venues in this time/society/culture to be nudity free.

I don't know where you shop, but for most people shopping centers are places where we may reasonably expect not to see any naked people walking about.

It's also reasonable not to expect to hear loud music blaring frm boom-boxes in malls. It's reasonable to ask people playing such music to eaither turn it off or leave the area even though they have the right to listen to such music as loudly as they like in other venues.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Actually, YES, breaking an "unjust law" IS a sin.

No. When the unjust law deliberately causes actual permanent physical harm to an innocent person, it is a sin not to break it.

You may question whether that definition qualifies Rosa Parks actions, but they sure qualify Corrie ten Boom's!

 

[Buzz Dixon]

This can cover a lot of situations. The Amish would probably say that you are "needlessly irritating" them by driving past their farms in an automobile. Does that make driving an automobile "ill-mannered, immoral, rude, and sinful?" I certainly don't think so.

If the Amish paid for the roads all by themselves, yes, it would be.

The Amish pay only for a portion of the roads, and then in common with other tax-payers. The other tax-payers have the right to use them.

Sidenote on the Amish: They say their behave as they do so as not to draw attention to themselves. If they don't want to draw attention to themselves, why are they driving horse buggies? Get a mini-van like everybody else!

 

[BigToe]

Miss Shelby- seeing as I stated forthright that I didn't know the Church's position, I think you should be satisfied in that I didn't get the quote from a church document. There are numerous sites with famous, inspirational, humorous, and/or though provoking quotes. It is simply a quote I stumbled upon while looking for something else. I found it interesting and wrote it down. Like I said its a quote. Had it been a snippet from a larger document I most likely would have quoted more of the document and given the source.

 

[Archivist]

If the Amish paid for the roads all by themselves, yes, it would be.

The Amish pay only for a portion of the roads, and then in common with other tax-payers. The other tax-payers have the right to use them.

Sidenote on the Amish: They say their behave as they do so as not to draw attention to themselves. If they don't want to draw attention to themselves, why are they driving horse buggies? Get a mini-van like everybody else!

Using your line of reasoning, the nudists pay for a portion of the sidewalks and use them in common with everyone else, so shouldn't they have the right to go nude on them.

BTW, the reason the Amish don't use cars isn't because they don't want attention to themselves.