Nudism

[Natman]

Adam and Eve are perfect are we perfect?

Adam and Eve were not "perfect", just "immortal". Had they been "perfect", they would not have fallen to the temptation of the serpent. ONLY Jesus is the perfect "man".

Adam and Eve walked in the Garden and talked to god Face to face do we do this?

Many of God's people have walked and talk "face to face" with God. I am of course referring to Jesus Christ during His incarnation, as well as many Christophonies in the Old Testament.

Adam and Eve had no need to ask for forgiveness as they had never sinned is this the same for us?

So you're saying that willful disobedience to God's specific command not to eat from the tree of the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" was not a "sin"?

Adam and Eve never had a sinful thought or desire and obeyed god perfectly and always did what was right which pleased god do we do this?
In fact Adam and Eve had a perfect relationship with god do all christians have a perfect relationship with god?

What version of the Bible do YOU read?
The ENTIRE REASON we even NEED to be saved is because of Adam and Eve's sin against God. I would say their relationship was not perfect, and it was "not perfect" by "design". Had it been "perfect", their love for God would have been mere robotics. God knows that "real love" cannot exist if there is not the option to refuse to love.

Yes you are right if we were in the same situation as adam and eve, nudity would not be condemned but this is not the case which is why it is shameful.

Except for the fact that we no longer have immortal bodies, once we have accepted Jesus payment for our sin debt, we ARE in the same situation as Adam and Eve. To say otherwise is to refute the Gospel itself.

Then why dont you refute them again as i have read previous posts and you have failed to refute the majority.

Okay:

Revelation 3
Refers to the church at Laodicea's sin of complacency, not missing clothing.

From John Wesley's comentary...
"Gold purified in the fire - True, living faith, which is purified in the furnace of affliction. And white raiment - True holiness. And eyesalve - Spiritual illumination; the "unction of the Holy One," which teacheth all things."
(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

Isaiah 47
Refers to God lifting His hand of protection from Israel.
Verse 2 instructs them to prepare to travel for they will be taken captive and forcibly "stripped" of their defenses and their honor among nations.

From Geneva Study Bible...
"You will be brought to most vile servitude: for to turn the mill was the office of slaves.
The things in which she sets her greatest pride, will be made vile, even from the head to the foot.
I will use no humanity nor pity toward you."
(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

Lamentations 1:8
"Jerusalem has sinned greatly and so has become unclean. All who honored her despise her, for they have seen her nakedness; she herself groans and turns away."
"Nakedness" here refers to Jeruslem's sins against God, not missing clothing.
(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

Ezekiel 23
The story of two "adulterous" sisters, Oholah and Oholibah that had given themselves up to prostitution with men of every nation as a metephore of Israel's "prostituting" itself to other nations. "Nakedness" refers to the sin of embracing false gods and pagan rituals.
(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

Ezekiel 16
Same as Ezekiel 23, comparing Jeruslem's desire to mingle with other nations to "prostitution".
(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

Isaiah 20:4
This is not "willfull nakedness" (the point of this thread) but the result of being forcibly "stripped naked", exposed to the wrath of the capturing nation, as was common then aned even now. (I can refer to the recent terrorist invasion of the Russian School, Vietnam POW's, German concentration camps as an examples).
(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

Micah 1:11
Again, God has lifted His hand of protection form Israel leaving them exposed ("naked") to the wrathful hands of other nations.
(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)


Nahum 3:5
Talking about God's wrath against Ninevah for worshipping false gods.
Once again, God removes His hand of protection, leaving them "exposed" and without defense ("naked") against the wrath of neighboring nations

(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

Revelation 16:15
This is saying "Be prepared. Get your affairs in order NOW. Accept the covering of righteousness afforded by Christ Jesus' death on the cross this very moment, because the Lord could return at any time, like a thief in the night. If we have not yet accepted Jesus' salvation, we are exposed ("naked), God can see ALL of our sins (our "shame"), therefore we cannot hide from His eternal wrath, as He is Right and Just to punish us."

(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

If nakedness is good why does god threaten to show the nations their nakedness as surely if nakedness was good it could not be used as a punishment?

There is a HUGE difference between being "willfully naked" and being "stripped naked" by force. Even a nudist doesn't want to be "stripped naked". This may be comparable to a woman enjoying sex with her husband but not wanting to be raped.

Another Question Why is there not a single example of Christian naturism in the bible?

Adam and Eve.
Isaiah
Most of the Prophets
Saul
David dancing in the streets.
Solomon and the Shulamite romping in the orchard.
Peter fishing naked.
Jesus washing the disciples feet with only a towel wrapped around his waist, which he then uses to dry their feet.
Early baptisms were ceremonially and practically done in the nude to signify removing the old self. Some were even given clean white robes afterward.

Why has there never been a single civilisation that has ever been fully clothes free and constantly practised naturism as you claim that naturism being wrong is not written on the hearts of man?Yet history clearly disproves this in fact there are very few examples of civilisations that did practise naturism.

Tell that to the Aborigenies, the Ansazi, the Nigerians, the Incas, and of course the American Indians, all of which have lived for centuries "naked and unashamed"... until they encountered white man.


Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[JesseRaymondBassett]

In public yes. At your own home, no.

 

[Clarity]

Adam and Eve were not "perfect", just "immortal". Had they been "perfect", they would not have fallen to the temptation of the serpent. ONLY Jesus is the perfect "man".
So you're saying that willful disobedience to God's specific command not to eat from the tree of the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" was not a "sin"?
The ENTIRE REASON we even NEED to be saved is because of Adam and Eve's sin against God. I would say their relationship was not perfect, and it was "not perfect" by "design". Had it been "perfect", their love for God would have been mere robotics. God knows that "real love" cannot exist if there is not the option to refuse to love.
Except for the fact that we no longer have immortal bodies, once we have accepted Jesus payment for our sin debt, we ARE in the same situation as Adam and Eve. To say otherwise is to refute the Gospel itself.

Were Adam and Eve naked after the fall? No
The relationship we are talking about is the relationship before the FALL in Eden when nudity was appropriate not after the fall when it became inappropriate and we do not have the same relationship as Adam and Eve had with god before the fall when nudity was practised as all my assumptions were correct before the fall but not after.

(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

If Refutation means using the same statement every time and managing to explain it all away with a single sentence then i am not impressed.

Using your refutation method is self refuting:
Adam and Eve Being naked and unashamed refers to the fact that they had never sinned and so needed no covering for sin.
(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

You obviously dont understand what a metaphor is so here are three definitions.

Metaphor
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them

2.A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).

3.an expression which describes a person or object in a literary way by referring to something that is considered to possess similar characteristics to the person or object you are trying to describe:


eg to be naked and to worship other gods are similar in that they are both sinful/shameful.

 

[Clarity]

Definition of naturism
"Men and women (both married and unmarried) and their children being together completely naked for non-sexual social and recreational purposes."

Adam and Eve

Only were naked before the fall not after, they stopped practising naturism after the fall.

Isaiah

Was commanded by God to go naked did not go naked in other circumatances NOT naturism apart from when commanded by God. It was done as a sign to show Israel had rebelled against god not as a recreational activity.

Most of the Prophets

What are you talking about the vast majority are never recorded in the bible to have been naked.

Saul

There is a HUGE difference between being "willfully naked" and being "stripped naked" by force. Even a nudist doesn't want to be "stripped naked". This may be comparable to a woman enjoying sex with her husband but not wanting to be raped.

Saul was stripped by the spirit that took posession of him he did not do it willfully.

David dancing in the streets.

David was not naked although he did expose certain parts he afterwards admitted it was vile.

Solomon and the Shulamite romping in the orchard

If nudity occurs within marriage it is not sinful i do not see anything problematic about this.

Peter fishing naked

He was not naked the bible does not say he was naked although you assume this and it was for practical purposes which do not exist today as everyone has plenty of clothes.

Jesus washing the disciples feet with only a towel wrapped around his waist, which he then uses to dry their feet.

Again you are trying to twist scripture to justify nakedness. Jesus was clearly not naked.

Early baptisms were ceremonially and practically done in the nude to signify removing the old self.

This was for practical purposes and is not sinful.

Tell that to the Aborigenies, the Ansazi, the Nigerians, the Incas, and of course the American Indians, all of which have lived for centuries "naked and unashamed"... until they encountered white man.

Yes you can name 5 but dont forget there are literally thousands of other nations all of which wore clothes even in bible times. The vast majority easily 99.9% of civilisations have not practised naturism apart from for practical reasons showing that God has written this command on peoples hearts as even the majority of non christian civilisations have all worn clothes.


To be honest I begin to wonder why I am debating this as even if i prove to you nakedness is sinful you will refuse to accept it and so i have decided that this definitely, definetly is my last post.

 

[Archivist]

He [ Peter] was not naked the bible does not say he was naked although you assume this and it was for practical purposes which do not exist today as everyone has plenty of clothes.

To be honest I begin to wonder why I am debating this as even if i prove to you nakedness is sinful you will refuse to accept it and so i have decided that this definitely, definetly is my last post.

If you will read the Bible it does clearly say that Peter was naked when he was fishing. The verse has been quoted several times in this thread.

BTW, didn't you say that you had made your last post in this thread some time ago?

 

[Johnnz]

Clarity wrote "Yes you can name 5 but dont forget there are literally thousands of other nations all of which wore clothes even in bible times. The vast majority easily 99.9% of civilisations have not practised naturism apart from for practical reasons showing that God has written this command on peoples hearts as even the majority of non christian civilisations have all worn clothes.

Clarity has touched on a useful point.

For me the arguement is not about producing a naked society. It is about overturning the many negative values surrounding sexuality within much of the christian community. The views of christian naturists are most useful in this more fundamental issue.

Nudists challenge, rightfully I believe, the shame based approach of many christians. What first set me thinking was the recognition that many (almost all?) christian parents who had maintained every standard of christian sexual morality were highly uncomfortable with the innocent question of their children "Where did I come from?" Why was there shame when there had been no offense to cause shame?

If we accept all that Clarity and her supporters have said we must ask some important questions.

If the sight of naked bodies inevitably produce lust are professions such as doctors and nurses out of bounds for any comitted Christians?

If Christians can engage in these professions what secret do they have for preventing lust? An untold number of single people will eargerly await this reply.

Must Christians avoid art with nudity?

If all is well in the Christian community due to traditional sexual values that uphold shame as being positive, why are there so many threads on sexual matters on this forum and why is their readership far in advance of all other topics? Surely, these matters are being
dealt with adequately in local churches? But if not, perhaps something really is seriously astray.

Sensible Christian naturists will not advocate open nudity for society as a whole. What they do want from their Christian communities is:

Being able to participate in their chosen churches without risk of banishment if their views were known.
Being able to go undressed in appropriate social settings if those present can accept that. eg in the privacy of their own home with friends, visitors, appropriate public areas, such as designated clothing optional beaches.
To be able to participate in discussions on the pressing issues surrounding the eroticism of the female body in today's society. The mulitude of testimony to the non erotic nature of social nudism cannt be simply gainsaid.

Not much more can be said from either party than has already been posted. Now, it would be more useful for both parties to this debate to contribute to the above issues, rather than debating only a subset (howbeit an important one) of a much wider issue.

John
NZ

 

[Clarity]

If the sight of naked bodies inevitably produce lust are professions such as doctors and nurses out of bounds for any comitted Christians?
If Christians can engage in these professions what secret do they have for preventing lust? An untold number of single people will eargerly await this reply.

Again you are trying to use unavoidable necessary nudity to justify recreational nudity.If you kill someone in self defense then there is nothing wrong but if you murder someone in cold blood it is wrong the difference is in the first instance killing is a necessary evil while in the second it is not and is wrong. It is the same with nudity if it is required then it is fine but if it is done for sheer pleasure then it is a different matter.
Another example is jesus healing on a sunday it was right as it was necessary/unavoidable but it does not make all unecessary work on sunday right.

Sensible Christian naturists will not advocate open nudity for society as a whole.

So nudity is right for christians but wrong for non christians sounds like double standards to me. What makes it wrong for society as a whole? but right for certain individuals? What is the biblical basis for this?

Must Christians avoid art with nudity?

Yes pornography is wrong whether it is tasteful/artistic or not in my view.

If all is well in the Christian community due to traditional sexual values that uphold shame as being positive, why are there so many threads on sexual matters on this forum and why is their readership far in advance of all other topics?

I think it is because people are more concerned with sex than ever many due to the media which constantly bombards us with references to sexual activity and people also take sex more seriously than ever and think that it is important in a relationship but personally i think it has become too high a priority for most people. i think this has even happened in christian circles. Sex is also one of the more unclear/debatable issues in the bible. Some people who are doing sexual things that they have been told are wrong may come to the internet to try and find a biblical justification for their actions as there are supposedly biblical sites defending almost every kind of sexual activity on the internet even those that are clearly wrong.

Personally as a general rule when considering sex i always remember that the only place where the bible permits any sort of sexual activity (i use this in a broad sense including nudity/masturbation etc) is within marriage and in general i think that all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong unless the bible permits it. Although others take a different approach and say that unless a sexual activity is condemned in the bible then it is right. I also think that the bible saying that there is not to be a hint of sexual immorality among christians means that we should have very high sexual decency standards and if we are unsure if something sexual is right/wrong then you should do the sensible thing and not do it. The last post was supposed to be my last but John sent me a message asking me to return.

 

[Natman]

Were Adam and Eve naked after the fall? No
The relationship we are talking about is the relationship before the FALL in Eden when nudity was appropriate not after the fall when it became inappropriate and we do not have the same relationship as Adam and Eve had with god before the fall when nudity was practised as all my assumptions were correct before the fall but not after.

Clarity,

The whole point of this thread is to show that it was NOT God's decision to make nakedness "inappropriate" before or AFTER the fall. That decision was completely up to MAN, and has been a stumbling block in our relationship with God ever since.

If Refutation means using the same statement every time and managing to explain it all away with a single sentence then i am not impressed.

Using your refutation method is self refuting:
Adam and Eve Being naked and unashamed refers to the fact that they had never sinned and so needed no covering for sin.
(Misused metaphore)
(Irrelevant to the discussion)

You obviously dont understand what a metaphor is so here are three definitions.

Metaphor
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them

2.A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).

3.an expression which describes a person or object in a literary way by referring to something that is considered to possess similar characteristics to the person or object you are trying to describe:


eg to be naked and to worship other gods are similar in that they are both sinful/shameful.

Of the verses you listed, in each case, the metaphoric meaning of "naked" or "nakedness" had absolutely NOTHING to do with an "absense of clothing". Almost all of your verses refer to the "forced exposure" due to PRIOR sinfulness. The shame was not in the "nakedness", but in the unrepentent sin that is "forcibly being exposed". Most have to do with Israel's acceptance of pagan God's and rituals, metaphorically termed "adulterous".

The metaphoric equivalants of "nakedness" in these verses are "exposure", "openness", "unprotected-ness", "lacking", "without defense", "forcibly stripped" of goods or honor.

As such, all of the verses that you listed do not relate to "willful, physical nakedness" (lack of physical clothing-nudity/naturism) and are therefore "MISUSED METAPHORES". Also, since the topic is "nudity/naturism", they are all "IRRELVANT TO THE DISCUSSION".


As I have said, I have been through all of this over the past few years. I have stood on the other side of the fence and used the same arguments as Clarity and others, pouring over every instance of the words like "naked", "nakedness" and "clothed" in the Bible. I have read very carefully every bit of commentary on the "fall" and posed direct questions to the likes of Hank Hanegraff, RC Sproul, Dr. James Dobson and other respected theologians, all of which have stated that "there is nothing inherently sinful about non-sexual nudity".

What I have found are "Christians" that have read their own meaning into the Biblical text on an issue that is not actually addressed elsewhere beyond Genesis, in which God creates us "naked and unashamed", proclaiming it to be "very good".

The net affect of MAN's decision to completely abolish something that God created for our good can be compared to the net affects of "abolition" in the 1920's. God never said "DO NOT drink alcohol!" He said "DO NOT become drunk!" Abolition made ALL alcohol consumption illegal and resulted in far more harm than it was intended to cure, creating an entire underground dedicated to supplying liquor for high profits and with deadly force. Similarly MAN's attempt to completely cover the human figure has created a skewed view of the human body and God's design for it, actually enhancing the socially destructive pornography industry, and filling our hearts with shame for something in which there should never have been shame.

Also, have read the results of the studies on the affects of living emotionally, spiritually and physically open (naked), which I listed earlier in this thread, I am driven to learn as much as I possibly can in the hopes of revealing the truths on the matter, thereby reversing the trend that has driven us farther and farther from the close walk we cold have with God, the walk He intendded us to have in the first place... "naked and unashamed".

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[immersedingrace]

Clarity,

The whole point of this thread is to show that it was NOT God's decision to make nakedness "inappropriate" before or AFTER the fall.

Hmm....and here I thought "The whole point of this thread" was to answer this question:

Do you think public nudism is a sin?

not to "show that it was NOT God's decision to make nakedness 'inappropriate' before or AFTER the fall." Seems to me that the latter part is YOUR agenda.

With that said, how can the following be true:

As such, all of the verses that you listed do not relate to "willful, physical nakedness" (lack of physical clothing-nudity/naturism) and are therefore "MISUSED METAPHORES". Also, since the topic is "nudity/naturism", they are all "IRRELVANT TO THE DISCUSSION".

If the PURPOSE is to answer the OP, then the verses Clarity has been giving, can't POSSIBLY be irrelevant. Those verses support what he/she and I and other's believe to be true. You can't simply dismiss them as irrelevant because that's YOUR opinion, not the opinion, or belief of all of us here.

Of the verses you listed, in each case, the metaphoric meaning of "naked" or "nakedness" had absolutely NOTHING to do with an "absense of clothing". Almost all of your verses refer to the "forced exposure" due to PRIOR sinfulness. The shame was not in the "nakedness", but in the unrepentent sin that is "forcibly being exposed". Most have to do with Israel's acceptance of pagan God's and rituals, metaphorically termed "adulterous".

The metaphoric equivalants of "nakedness" in these verses are "exposure", "openness", "unprotected-ness", "lacking", "without defense", "forcibly stripped" of goods or honor.

Again, I'm going to repeat what a few of us have already stated. If nakedness were NOT shameful, then these metaphors would fall flat. Clarity has already defined metaphor:

{QUOTE=Clarity]Metaphor
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them

2.A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).

3.an expression which describes a person or object in a literary way by referring to something that is considered to possess similar characteristics to the person or object you are trying to describe[/QUOTE]

If you happen to have a DIFFERENT definition for metaphor, I'm sure I, and other's would be delighted to see it. If you can come up with an ANCIENT, BIBLICAL time frame definition, that would be even better.

I don't agree with everything Clarity has to say, but I do agree witht the basic premise that public nudity is wrong. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is what the OP was inquiring about.

Blessings

 

[Natman]

So nudity is right for christians but wrong for non christians sounds like double standards to me. What makes it wrong for society as a whole? but right for certain individuals? What is the biblical basis for this?

That is not what the poster said. HE said "Sensible Christian naturists will not advocate open nudity for society as a whole." In other words, it is impractical and implausible to believe that open nudity can quickly be acceptable especially after generations have come to think of it as shameful, regardless to whether nudity is in fact right or wrong. "Sensible Christian naturists" will practice nudity where it is practical and safe.

Yes pornography is wrong whether it is tasteful/artistic or not in my view.

My question is... "Do you view ALL images of the naked human form as "pornography""? What about images in most of the major churches in Europe and America, such as the Cystene Chapel, the Basilca etc? What about medical journals?

I think it is because people are more concerned with sex than ever many due to the media which constantly bombards us with references to sexual activity...

Review the studies I listed earlier and ask your self "why this is". The answer is staring you right in the face.

Personally as a general rule when considering sex i always remember that the only place where the bible permits any sort of sexual activity (i use this in a broad sense including nudity/masturbation etc) is within marriage and in general i think that all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong unless the bible permits it.

I stand in 100% agreement with you in this statement.
"Sex" withing marriage is "blessed" by God.
"Sex" outside of marriage is "condemned" by God.
But, then again, this is true regardless of the number of articles of clothing you have on.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

Hmm....and here I thought "The whole point of this thread" was to answer this question:

not to "show that it was NOT God's decision to make nakedness 'inappropriate' before or AFTER the fall." Seems to me that the latter part is YOUR agenda.

Okay. I should have phrased the "point" differently, but you understood what I was trying to say.

If the PURPOSE is to answer the OP, then the verses Clarity has been giving, can't POSSIBLY be irrelevant. Those verses support what he/she and I and other's believe to be true. You can't simply dismiss them as irrelevant because that's YOUR opinion, not the opinion, or belief of all of us here.

Again, if the topic is "nudity", meaning a "lack of clothing", then the verses listed ARE irrelvant in that they use metaphoric "nakedness" to refer to "forced exposure as a result of some PRIOR sinful activity". The activities mentioned in context of the listed verses are "sexual immorality in the form of fornication and sexual adultery", the "worship of pagan gods" or the "blending of pagan rituals with Jewish rituals", also metaphorically refered to as "spiritual adultery".

I have no conflict whatsoever with the definition of the word "metaphore" that Clarity provided. I AM in conflict with her example:

"to be naked and to worship other gods are similar in that they are both sinful/shameful".
​

To be "naked" is neither "sinful" nor "shameful" in and of itself. It is only "shameful" when we are "forced" to expose our sins or "forced" to expose our defenselessness or weakness. THAT is what the listed verses "metaphorically" point to... NOT an absense of clothing.


Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Johnnz]

Clarity,



You do have an amazing ability to squeeze an extreme conclusion out of what I have written. It does make for an interesting debate.



If we accept your argument that a doctor’s visit involves a moral situation analogous to killing in self defence then careers in medicine or health can never be seriously considered by committed Christians. No serious christian should enter a discipline that requires in extremis moral decisions from others. Even a visit to your local doctor can place you in a ‘necessary evil’ situation! Readers can judge that viewpoint.



And why is sheer pleasure wrong? Sheer pleasure at what is right is acceptable (I sincerely hope you do believe that). You statement contains a presupposition, previously stoutly argued by you, that any pleasure arising from nakedness outside of marriage is wrong, as must be ‘lustful’ That is not self evident and runs into problems of where to draw the line between normal and unhealthy sexuality. It also denies considerable personal testimony to the contrary.



Which brings us to art. So, any object containing a naked human body is pornographic. The world of classical art is forbidden territory for Christians. Art classes, museums and art galleries are out, as you never know what you might come across in any reference work. Figure classes are pure eroticism thinly disguised. As a further blow to those wanting a career in medicine, what about all those textbook illustrations, let alone actual photographs of the ‘forbidden zones’? Study with passion (i.e. lust) I suppose.



My comment relating to Christian nudists was merely to speak from within the christian family. I am not assuming common assumptions or values from non Christian nudists, many of whom are opposed the views such as yours which they see as brain dead fundamentalism. As Christians we have the common ground of biblical revelation and community relationship as members of God’s family.



You said “Sex is also one of the more unclear/debatable issues in the bible. Here we agree which is also why we disagree. My point has been that the matter is nowhere as clear cut as you believe. Accordingly, Christian nudists would welcome opportunity to participate in normal church life, as they are doing, but without having to be covert about their beliefs about nudity. Christians disagree on issues such as church government, the place of traditions versus the Bible, baptism, the role of women, the gifts of the spirit, and political involvement. On all these matters Christians can openly disagree. Even though Christians may separate into different doctrinal camps (denominations) around some issue, many do not, and yet they can co-exist openly within a local congregation.



John

NZ

 

[Archivist]

I guess that makes me a retarded monkey.

I'm going out for bananas...

 

[Johnnz]

Public nudity in an appropriate setting is not stripping. To walk naked down a public street is not what this discussion is all about. That is a straw man arguement.

John
NZ

 

[immersedingrace]

Public nudity in an appropriate setting is not stripping. To walk naked down a public street is not what this discussion is all about. That is a straw man arguement.

John
NZ

Are you 100% positive that you KNOW what the OP was asking when he asked this:

Do you think public nudism is a sin?

?

My understanding is that he was asking about PUBLIC nudism....to me, that mean's ANYWHERE in public. Now, having said that, let's define public:



exposed to general view (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=public)

and now let's define nudism:

the practice of going nude especially in sexually mixed groups and during periods of time spent at specially secluded places (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nudism)

Now, with those definitions, it seems to me that the OP was asking about ALL PUBLIC NUDISM. It amazes me that people keep trying to place THEIR own agenda and tell us what the OP meant. Even IF the OP MEANT only in specific areas, he/she should have SAID that. As it is, we each have the opportunity to discern WHAT was meant and many of us believe that even IN so called "appropriate settings" nudity is WRONG and a SIN.

The last couple of days I've been going through the bible looking at each reference to naked and reading commentaries, and so far (It's a slow process because this topic isn't my #1 life priority) I keep coming to the same conclusion: even IF many of the verses are metaphors for sin, weakness, etc. that just strengthens my position that public nudity is a sin. If it weren't, God would have used something that WAS a sin as a metaphor for those things.

blessings

 

[Shane Roach]

I keep coming to the same conclusion: even IF many of the verses are metaphors for sin, weakness, etc. that just strengthens my position that public nudity is a sin. If it weren't, God would have used something that WAS a sin as a metaphor for those things.

blessings

I keep coming back to this myself. I don't really find any room for the mystery that seems to be troubling people here. If nudity were not taboo, sensual, and sinfull, it seems to me it would have been clearer from context. I think the assumption is there on such a fundamental level that there is little sense questioning it.

We have references that it is best for women to dress "modestly". So, not only to get dressed to begin with, but to do so with modesty. The list goes on and on.

Anyhow, it's no mystery to anyone anymore where I fall on this issue. To me, nudity will remain a sin and I will continue to view with caution teachers who tell me otherwise.

 

[Shane Roach]

Clarity,



You do have an amazing ability to squeeze an extreme conclusion out of what I have written. It does make for an interesting debate.



If we accept your argument that a doctor’s visit involves a moral situation analogous to killing in self defence then careers in medicine or health can never be seriously considered by committed Christians. No serious christian should enter a discipline that requires in extremis moral decisions from others. Even a visit to your local doctor can place you in a ‘necessary evil’ situation! Readers can judge that viewpoint.



And why is sheer pleasure wrong? Sheer pleasure at what is right is acceptable (I sincerely hope you do believe that). You statement contains a presupposition, previously stoutly argued by you, that any pleasure arising from nakedness outside of marriage is wrong, as must be ‘lustful’ That is not self evident and runs into problems of where to draw the line between normal and unhealthy sexuality. It also denies considerable personal testimony to the contrary.



Which brings us to art. So, any object containing a naked human body is pornographic. The world of classical art is forbidden territory for Christians. Art classes, museums and art galleries are out, as you never know what you might come across in any reference work. Figure classes are pure eroticism thinly disguised. As a further blow to those wanting a career in medicine, what about all those textbook illustrations, let alone actual photographs of the ‘forbidden zones’? Study with passion (i.e. lust) I suppose.



My comment relating to Christian nudists was merely to speak from within the christian family. I am not assuming common assumptions or values from non Christian nudists, many of whom are opposed the views such as yours which they see as brain dead fundamentalism. As Christians we have the common ground of biblical revelation and community relationship as members of God’s family.



You said “Sex is also one of the more unclear/debatable issues in the bible. Here we agree which is also why we disagree. My point has been that the matter is nowhere as clear cut as you believe. Accordingly, Christian nudists would welcome opportunity to participate in normal church life, as they are doing, but without having to be covert about their beliefs about nudity. Christians disagree on issues such as church government, the place of traditions versus the Bible, baptism, the role of women, the gifts of the spirit, and political involvement. On all these matters Christians can openly disagree. Even though Christians may separate into different doctrinal camps (denominations) around some issue, many do not, and yet they can co-exist openly within a local congregation.



John

NZ

I'm not particularly impressed with "classical" art in its nudism. There is, of course, a lot of "classical" art that also contains clothing, or subjects entirely out of the realm of painting the human figure. I don't think art would have suffered much if people had practiced more selectivity in painting nudes. Still, all in all, a person who is painting a nude rarely does it where people are going to walk by. So, Christians who disagree with me about this I do not view with too much suspicion.

However, medicine requires the patient to expose their wounds. There is no mystery here as to why the nudity occurs or why it is necessary, and therefore why it wouldn't be a sin. This sort of example really points out nicely for me where the entire "confusion" comes from. Argument ad-absurdem or whatever you want to call it, it simply comes from a seeming inability to make proper discernments or distinctions. I don't think there's perhaps any risk in going to hell for not understanding these sorts of things, but it is for this reason that I am always at great pains to evaluate what sort of person it is that is teaching something regarding God. Lacking a certain measure of discernment, such that pornography is then compared to medicine, is a huge red flag as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Shane Roach]

As a last word, Since I am busy and will likely not be able to answer reponses if they come up, I will add that anyone who actually cares what I think about this can pm me. Also, as a parting thought, The Bible has a lot to say about living in ballance, and that while this world will never be entirely sin-free, and we should therefore practice a certain measure of tolerance towards sin, and especially not concern outselves overmuch with sin OUTSIDE the church, that there is also such a thing as separating ourselves from sin, and using the good sense God gave us to behave in ways the Bible refers to as "beyond reproach."

A discussion of the concept then of ballancing these issues might be handy here.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

The last couple of days I've been going through the bible looking at each reference to naked and reading commentaries, and so far (It's a slow process because this topic isn't my #1 life priority) I keep coming to the same conclusion: even IF many of the verses are metaphors for sin, weakness, etc. that just strengthens my position that public nudity is a sin. If it weren't, God would have used something that WAS a sin as a metaphor for those things.

Hello Immerced...

This thread just keeps going.

I too having been looking at this issue trying to find just three words concerning nudity.."though shalt not." I can't find it anywhere. God was very clear about what was prohibited and what was not. If being nude was something that God condemns, then wouldn't He tell us that very plainly? He had no problem telling us about other things that He disapproved of. Or are we saying (as humans) that God didn't do a adequate job? Are we (as humans) trying to fill in the gaps caused by God's oversight in this matter?

Remember the Pharisees tried to fill in the gaps by attaching Holiness to the "washing of hands" (Matt 16:15). Since Scripture in many cases uses the metaphor of dirt, or unclean as something that typifies sin or sinful, they thought that the external "dirtiness" was sinful and commanded men to wash their hands before meals. The Pharisees where right. There are many Scriptures that speak of dirt, uncleanliness, impurity all as sin. Purity is the avoidance of dirt. So in their understanding they were avoiding dirt (just as we're avoiding nudity because metaphors are used as it being shameful).

The whole time they were misunderstanding the principle behind the teaching..."He said " It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles the man, it's what comes out of his mouth, that's what makes him unclean," and "But things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make the man unclean. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery...." (Matt 16:15)

The avoidance of dirt, the avoidance of nudity it's the same principle...The Intent. It's a heart issue.

Almost as if we think God did not do a thorough job of warning us about everything sinful, we are compelled to devise regulations for every conceivable action and situation, impose those regulations on everyone around us, then measure "holiness" of "faithfulness" on the basis of those human regulations. It's hard for some of us (I include myself at times) to let Scripture speak (or not speak) to a certain issue. If God wasn't concerned about it enough to even comment on it...why should we? Because it's covered under Jesus' "law of Love" principle. That is what we now use as the law that governs our behaviour.

"Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore Love is the fulfillment of the law."(Rom. 13:10)

Blessings,
Eph. 3:20

 

[Natman]

Also, as a parting thought, The Bible has a lot to say about living in ballance, and that while this world will never be entirely sin-free, and we should therefore practice a certain measure of tolerance towards sin, ...

Shane,

I don't think we are supposed to be as "tolerant" of "sin" as we are to be "tolerant" and loving to the "sinner".

...using the good sense God gave us to behave in ways the Bible refers to as "beyond reproach."

I'm hoping this thread will help highlight what is and isn't "beyond reproach", Biblically, not socially.

Son-cerely,
Nate