Nudism

[Archivist]

Great, post the verses.

Michelle

They have been posted before on this thread, but here they are again. This is from the New English Bible, John 21:

"Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, 'It is the Lord!' When Simon Peter heard this he wrapped his coat about him (for he had stripped) and plunged into the sea."

That Peter was actually naked is further proven by the church mosaic that I posted about earlier today. It dates from two centuries after Peter's death and depicts naked Christian fishermen catching fish, the fish representing the unbelievers. Just think, the people who built the church where the mosaic might have included the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of those who had heard the story from Peter himself!

 

[Archivist]

Other than I have stated, that the translations you offered do not say he was nude, but merely stripped down to swim or some such, and the multitude of verses that have nothing to do with entering the temple, and the many that make it clear nudity is shamefull, and the fact that to this day few cultures practice nudity in public, and that I have never even so much as seen a deveout nudist out fishing naked (those fin spines are SHARP!), and that your statement that the artwork isn't using nudity for its own sake is on shaky ground unless the painter himself made a note of it somewhere that he thought Peter was really naked, and also I think the painter probably should have been there to make that statement with any authority to begin with, and other than that all porn involves naked people, and that people have been tested regarding physiological response and found to have responses to nudity, and aside from a whole world of other objections that you continually boil down to things like "there's no specific injunction that says it wasn't," or, "that's only your opinion" without ever really showing much of anything but your own opinion to reverse it, no. I'm sorry but your posts always seem to read as if this thread just started.... I really don't even remember what your exact positions are anymore. You'd need to address more than just finding a picture somewhere to convince me of much.

I would add this, however, about the discussion of laws and their legitimacy. If anyone here wants to make the argument than laws against public nudity are illegitimate, please do, otherwise the again-raised points regarding now Cory Ten Boom in addition to the holocaust and Rosa Parks are innapropriate in the extreme.

I did finally see one person break down and say they think Rosa Parks and others were sinning when they broke the laws, which I find some legitimacy for in some circumstances, and not in others. A Christian can find themselves in a deeply sinfull society, and keeping the peace inasmuch as it lies within our power is one of those things that we are told to do, but Jesus also "broke the law" so to speak, just by insisting on telling the truth. So I find the statement that any breaking of the law, or anything that an illegitimate authority calls a breaking of the law, becomes conscious sin on the part of the lawbreaker, a stretch.

That is, however, I think a whole separate topic.

John 21 states that Peter had stripped while fishing. You can say all you want about how how he wouldn't have been naked because the sharp fish spines would hurt Peter's naked skin, but that doesn't rebute the plain meaning of the words. Further, if you have read the passage you know that they caught no fish until after they saw Jesus, so there were no sharp fish spines that night that could have injured a naked fisherman.

Further, remember that the church that houses the mosaic that I described was built about 200 years after Peter's death. As I said in my previous post, the people who built the church where the mosaic was located might have included the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of those who had heard the story from Peter himself!

We also have the story of David dancing before the people wearing only a loincloth. 2 Samuel 6 tells us that "he exposed his person in the sight of his servants slave-girls." David was not rebuked by the Lord for doing this.

Now our original post did not deal with going naked to a wedding, or to the mall or to the office. We are simply discussing whether it is sinful to go naked in public. Many of the verses that you have cited in this thread deal with expsoing oneself in the temple. Those are irrelevent in this discussion because many things that were not prohibited elsewhere were prohibited in the temple. The other verses that you cited may describe nudity in various instances as shameful, but nowhere does it say that nudity is sinful. My experience with the Bible is that when God wants to say what is sinful, He says it very clearly.

Some in this thread have pointed to scripture that requires that women dress modestly as prohibiting nudity. These are two entirely different things. Clothing does not equal modesty and in some African or Pacific Island cultures a naked individual would have in no way been seen as inmodest.

Mr Roach, you raise the issue of Rosa Parks and those who hid the Jews during World War II. Those heoric figures were brought up in response to a statement that it is sinful to break the law. In this thread they were never tied to nudity in any way, but were raised to show that it is never sinful to break an unjust law. By the way I am entirely with you on that issue but, like you, I think that it belongs in a seperate thread.

There has been much discussion about where nudity is appropriate. Plesae note that that was not the original purpose of this thread. We are simply discussing whether public nudity is, in and of itself, sinful. I obviously feel that it is not. At the same time, I believe that there is a time and a place for nudity. I would never get naked for a wedding (unless it was at a nudist park) or go to work naked. At the same time I believe that people should be able to go naked on a public beach, and that women should be able to go topless anywhere that men can go topless. That is, of course, a different issue and frankly I have gone on long enough. I await any responses.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

No gays "force" their "disgusting lifestyle" upon anyone.

You have obviously never seen an episode of OZ on HBO!

 

[BigToe]

This will be my last post.

Miss Shelby- I didn't say the Pope supported nudists. I said to think about his quote and found it interesting that nudity in itself wasn't immoral. So please, before you lecture me again, understand what it is I was saying before you put words in my mouth. Thanks, goodbye.

As for Oz..... raping someone is completely different so you best think about that before using that as evidence that someone forces their sexuality on another.

 

[The Bellman]

raping someone is completely different so you best think about that before using that as evidence that someone forces their sexuality on another.

Am I misunderstanding this, or did someone seriously compare raping someone with being naked around someone in terms of forcing sexuality on someone?

 

[Risen Tree]

The problem here is extremism. Our contemporary society is not comfortable with public nudity in public venues. It tolerates such nudity on occasion, but it isn't comfortable with it.

Since the cultural default is to be clothed, to willfully appear nude in a public venue where people would expect one to be clothed is an act of selfishness, of putting one's own desires above the desires of others.

So would deliberately gorging on bean so you could break wind loudly in public. There's no law against it, but it sure is rude!

Apples and oranges. Passing gas is inherently disgusting; the human body is inherently beautiful.

Are you saying that what is socially acceptable defines what is morally acceptable?

There are lots of other things that society isn't comfortable with. Some have an ethical basis, some don't.

See above.

No nudist's quality of life will suffer because he/she is clothed in a public place. Comparisons to blacks are bogus: The naked person can quite easily change his/her status by donning clothing; blacks are unable to change their ethnicity as easily.

Believe me, if there was a type of dress that enabled blacks to pass for whites, then there would have never been any racial problems in the first place, right? Everybody would have dressed the same and that would've been that.

You know something, I've never heard this comparison to separation by race, but I think it's a very good one. Because after all, anti-nudists make nudists keep to their own venues, to their own tiny, restricted worlds. Separate-but-equal is in no way equal.

At the other end of the extreme, it's fruitless to try to claim every act of group nudity is inherently sinful. If you're visiting a nuclear power plant and there's a leak, you will be stripped to your skin and hosed down so fast your head will spin. Nothing sinful about that at all -- indeed, it will be a highly moral act since it may save your life.

Well right. Modesty goes out the window when human lives are on the line.

A year or so back a girls school in Saudi Arabia caught fire and the girls -- fully dressed but not wearing burkhas -- attempted to flee the burning building but were forced by inside by the morality police, thus causing several dozen of them to die. That kind of nit-picky legalism is not moral: It's stupid and destructive.

Strike a balance, people...

aww, how horrible...

 

[Risen Tree]

I agree with you Buzz. We should not be offensive and "in your face" about nudity. It's just too offensive in the cultural atmosphere, in most of western society.

I don't like it when the gay's are forcing their disgusting lifestyle upon me and my kids. Not that social nudity is anything to compare with that, but I like the idea that social nudists philosophy is restraint about shoving their veiws in others faces.

As a Christian, and a participant in nudists activities, I am very careful who I talk to about this private activity. It is because of the stigma that goes along with it. Because most of my peers are ignorant of social nudity as I was at one time.

Forcing nudism on someone means forcing people to take their clothes off, which they do not do. Nudism is not for everyone, and if you're not up for it, no big deal. All they ask is for freedom to be themselves.

 

[Shane Roach]

Once again, people are uncomfortable with it because that is what our society dictates. Other societies have different mores, and people there aren't uncomfortable with it.


Of course.

From a strictly legal point of view, the right of communities to create moral standards and enforce them extends from the duty to keep the peace. It is well tested and completely accepted law.

In order to make any headway on that front, and y headway I mean with society in general, not me, you are going to have to take your assertion that it is merely a whimsical societal dictate and put some facts and figures behind that. Otherwise the government has as much right to dictate dress as they do loud music after dark in residential neighborhoods.

One can imagine a society with almost any set of values, but who is to say your nudist-related values are superior to those existing? You know?

 

[Shane Roach]

Apples and oranges. Passing gas is inherently disgusting; the human body is inherently beautiful.

I had to chuckle because one persons trash is another person's treasure in so many astounding ways. Some people find fecal matter sexually arousing for reasons I cannot even begin to fathom. This is why the tactic, "well, it's just societal and it's just opinion," really doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of matters like this. Opinion, at times, is as strong a force as fact.

You may not think public nudity is inherently disgusting, but I think most people do. I think that is the crux of the matter, really. When a large enough group of people over a long enough time continually get agravated over the same thing, the opinion gets to a point to where referring to it as "merely opinion" is just kind of wishfull thinking. Heck, you could get public nudity laws overturned tomorrow and the vast majority of people would a: continue to wear clothes and b: look down on those who did not.

 

[Risen Tree]

I had to chuckle because one persons trash is another person's treasure in so many astounding ways. Some people find fecal matter sexually arousing for reasons I cannot even begin to fathom. This is why the tactic, "well, it's just societal and it's just opinion," really doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of matters like this. Opinion, at times, is as strong a force as fact.

Apples and oranges. Also, the majority decides what is right and wrong?

You may not think public nudity is inherently disgusting, but I think most people do. I think that is the crux of the matter, really. When a large enough group of people over a long enough time continually get agravated over the same thing, the opinion gets to a point to where referring to it as "merely opinion" is just kind of wishfull thinking. Heck, you could get public nudity laws overturned tomorrow and the vast majority of people would a: continue to wear clothes and b: look down on those who did not.

There's nothing wrong with (a). Nudists do not force nudism on anyone. As for (b)...well, they'd hate to demand legal protection for just being themselves, but if that's what it comes down to, so be it.

 

[Shane Roach]

John 21 states that Peter had stripped while fishing. You can say all you want about how how he wouldn't have been naked because the sharp fish spines would hurt Peter's naked skin, but that doesn't rebute the plain meaning of the words. Further, if you have read the passage you know that they caught no fish until after they saw Jesus, so there were no sharp fish spines that night that could have injured a naked fisherman.

Further, remember that the church that houses the mosaic that I described was built about 200 years after Peter's death. As I said in my previous post, the people who built the church where the mosaic was located might have included the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of those who had heard the story from Peter himself!

We also have the story of David dancing before the people wearing only a loincloth. 2 Samuel 6 tells us that "he exposed his person in the sight of his servants slave-girls." David was not rebuked by the Lord for doing this.

Now our original post did not deal with going naked to a wedding, or to the mall or to the office. We are simply discussing whether it is sinful to go naked in public. Many of the verses that you have cited in this thread deal with expsoing oneself in the temple. Those are irrelevent in this discussion because many things that were not prohibited elsewhere were prohibited in the temple. The other verses that you cited may describe nudity in various instances as shameful, but nowhere does it say that nudity is sinful. My experience with the Bible is that when God wants to say what is sinful, He says it very clearly.

Some in this thread have pointed to scripture that requires that women dress modestly as prohibiting nudity. These are two entirely different things. Clothing does not equal modesty and in some African or Pacific Island cultures a naked individual would have in no way been seen as inmodest.

Mr Roach, you raise the issue of Rosa Parks and those who hid the Jews during World War II. Those heoric figures were brought up in response to a statement that it is sinful to break the law. In this thread they were never tied to nudity in any way, but were raised to show that it is never sinful to break an unjust law. By the way I am entirely with you on that issue but, like you, I think that it belongs in a seperate thread.

There has been much discussion about where nudity is appropriate. Plesae note that that was not the original purpose of this thread. We are simply discussing whether public nudity is, in and of itself, sinful. I obviously feel that it is not. At the same time, I believe that there is a time and a place for nudity. I would never get naked for a wedding (unless it was at a nudist park) or go to work naked. At the same time I believe that people should be able to go naked on a public beach, and that women should be able to go topless anywhere that men can go topless. That is, of course, a different issue and frankly I have gone on long enough. I await any responses.

Well, it is sinfull to break the law. We are told to be obedient to those who are n authority. Like so many things though, it is relative. This is why I think the comparison is so unwarranted. To compare people being killed because of their race and religion to being forced to *gasp* wear clothes so other people are not shocked and disgusted is miles and miles from the same league in my opinion.

In the Davidic verse, the part about exposing himself is a quote of someone chastising himself for his behavior, and says nothing about him removing the aforementioned loin cloth. The Peter verse I can save you the trouble of looking too close, as the King James itself says, "for he was naked". The problem is that the usage of the word "naked" can be literal r figurative, full or partial.

I'd be interested to see something about exactly what people wore at the time. But, just as a for example, I hardly think it is absolutely necessary to believe he had removed his shoes. Whatever else he may or may not have had on is not mentioned. I doubt from the context that has been pointed out relativelt recently here about the universal viewing of nakedness as shamefull throughout the OT that he was fully nude. I have yet to see any direct refutation of that attitude being the dominant one, only vague questionings and repeated use of the same 2 or 3 examples among dozens that make the attitude of the times pretty clear. I don't know much else to tell you. I just find the argument completely unconvincing.

 

[Shane Roach]

Apples and oranges. Also, the majority decides what is right and wrong?

Legally speaking, yes, especially lacking any evidence that the thing being outlawed is of any relative importance. Outlawing ones race is one thing - outlawing loud music after dark is quite another. I feel nudism falls much closer to the latter example than the former, don't you?

There's nothing wrong with (a). Nudists do not force nudism on anyone. As for (b)...well, they'd hate to demand legal protection for just being themselves, but if that's what it comes down to, so be it.

You simply asserting there is nothing wrong with something doesn't necessarily make it so. Millions upon millions of people over the course of centuries seem to disagree. Yes, there are some historical exxceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

People have just as much right to live in an atmosphere they find comfortable as nudists have to be comfortable. Since the two values are mutually exclusive, and roughly equal, in their moral authority, it seems giving the majority their will in this case is only appropriate, not some sort of violation of rights.

 

[Clarity]

Just to explain my position on relativism here is a quote from a book

Unfortunately the espousal of moral relativism has made it difficult to distinguish between preference claims (matters of opinion) and moral claims. Rather than struggling with arguments for and against a particular moral perspective people sometimes reduce the disagreement to a question of personal preference or subjective opinion. e.g whether parents have the right to boycott television programmes that they find offensive due to sexual content and are shown at a time of day when children are around. The usual reply is that if you dont like a particular program then you dont have to watch it . But does the person who says this really understand what they are saying?
These groups of parents are not merely saying they do not prefer these programs. In fact these citizens may be tempted to watch these programs, they may actually prefer these programs even though they are not good for them in the same way that one may prefer a chocolate bar even though they know it is not good for them.
To put it another way these citizens are saying something a bit more subtle and profound then their detractors are likely to recognise let alone admit: these programs convey messages and create a moral climate that will effect others especially children in a way that is adverse to the public good. Hence what concerns them is that you and your children will not change the channel. Furthermore it concerns these people that somewhere in america there is an unsupervised ten year old who is, on a consistent basis, watching late night HBO or listening to radio shock jock Howard Stern. Most of these people fear that their ten year olds who are not listening or watching such programs may have to interact socially with the aforesaid unsupervised ten year old. Others who do not have children are concerned for the declining moral health of their communities, which is sometimes manifested in an increasing level of rudeness, disrespect, immorality, crime or verbal and physical abuse.

There are in fact many educated and reasonable people who believe that such a community concern is justified, especially in light of what we know about how certain forms of entertainment and media effect people especially the young. Just as concern for peoples physical health has resulted in criticism and reprisals against tobacco companies, concern for peoples souls and spiritual health sometimes results in criticisms of and reprisals against different media. Thus such concerns can not be relegated to a question of ones personal preference. The real question is whether any community or social action is ever permissable and would best serve the public good. Moral relativists to be consistent must answer no.
Cosider also the debate over abortion rights. Many who defend a womans right to abortion (pro choice) sometimes tell those who oppose abortion rights (pro life) "if you don't like abortion then don't have one". The intent and effect of such rhetoric is to reduce the abortion debate to a mere preference claim. That is the objective moral rightness or wrongness (ie whether or not it involves killing an innocent human being) of abortion is declared without argument to be irrelevant. But this is clearly a mistake because those that oppose abortion do so because they believe that the fetus is a human person with a right to life and it is generally wrong both objectively and universally to violate a person's right to life. Thus when the pro lifer hears the pro choicer tell her if she doesn't like to have an abortion she doesn't have to have one it sounds to her as if the pro choicer is saying " if you dont like murder then dont kill any innocent persons"

the whole book can be downloaded from
http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/RELATIVISM.pdf
(right click save target as)


I think that people have been using relativism and preference claims to try and justify nudity. However the bible states that nudity is shameful in most circumstances although there are exceptions which it lists such as when commanded by god or moved by the spirit, or out of joy such as david did and david recognised that nudity was shameful in other circumstances

2 sam 6
21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD.
22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

I would also like to point out that david was not naked but had a linen ephod on and this is different from not having anything at all on. In all the examples given nudity was different from what naturists are trying to justify, as those examples given deal with short term nudity and the people did not walk around naked all the time eg david, isaish , saul but only did it for a short amount of time and how can you tell that because god did not condemn them for short term nudity that if they were practising naturists who done it regularly then god would do the same thing and not condemn them eg if isaiah walked about naked after the three years were up that god had commanded him to walk about naked would god have condemned him then? How can you tell he wouldn't have condemned him?

 

[Miss Shelby]

They have been posted before on this thread, but here they are again. This is from the New English Bible, John 21:

"Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, 'It is the Lord!' When Simon Peter heard this he wrapped his coat about him (for he had stripped) and plunged into the sea"

I looked through the thread and didn't find it sorry about that, I figured you had posted them. Thanks for doing it again.

I don't imagine that he would intentionally plunge into the sea with his clothes on. And the fact that he had something to strip off speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Michelle

 

[Archivist]

I looked through the thread and didn't find it sorry about that, I figured you had posted them. Thanks for doing it again.

I don't imagine that he would intentionally plunge into the sea with his clothes on. And the fact that he had something to strip off speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Michelle

Actually he was naked when he was in the boat. He wrapped his caot around him just before he jumped in the water.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Miss Shelby- I didn't say the Pope supported nudists. I said to think about his quote and found it interesting that nudity in itself wasn't immoral. So please, before you lecture me again, understand what it is I was saying before you put words in my mouth.

You obviously do not understand that it is not good form to take a smattering of someone's words, make them say what you want them to mean, and leave them in and internet discussion to speak in that manner without quoting the primary source. I was just pointing it out for you. He would not say that nudity is normal for the average joe in mixed company, which IS the position you support, as per your comments regarding the nudist restorts.

Thanks, goodbye.

Take care.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Archivist...he had stripped. That means he had something to take off. He was going swimming. I don't think that supports a position that he was naked all of the time, or even alot of the time.

Michelle

 

[Archivist]

Archivist...he had stripped. That means he had something to take off. He was going swimming. I don't think that supports a position that he was naked all of the time, or even alot of the time.

Michelle

No, he was working naked in the boat. He didn't put clothing on until he was about to jump in the water.

BTW, the King James version says "he was naked" rather than saying "he had stripped."

 

[BigToe]

Miss Shelby- Can you not understand that I simply said I thought the quote was interesting. I didn't say or try to claim he supported nudity in a public sphere at all. I found it interesting he said nudity itself was not immoral and that was the point I was debating. And furthermore- you don't know what I support regarding nudity in mixed sexes- I am not a nudist, nor do I walk around nude. I was simply providing back up for my position that nudity itself is not immoral including nudity in public.

And thats all I am saying. If you wish to discuss anything further with me please do so via PM.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

This morning I had breakfast with an old friend, and afterwards we went to a sidewalk coffee shop in order to enjoy cigars.

Now there is a form of behavior that is gradually being made more and more socially unacceptable. Now one is hard put to find any place in America other than private domiciles and clubs where smoking is permitted. Smoking is banned in many open air stadiums and near the entrance to many public buildings. In fact, in the People's Democratic Republic of Santa Monica, it's even against the law to smoke on the beach!

I can remember a time not to long ago when smoking was darn near omnipresent, and people lit up in movies and TV shows in a perfectly common manner. Heck, Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble once smoked cigarettes!

Now, if society has the right to deem smoking offensive (and no way can smoking on the beach be any sort of health hazard!), it has the right to deem other behavior offensive.

And don't get me started on ... France ...