Nudism

[hakrev]

Weird thought: Is it okay for a buncha blind people to practice group nudity so long as they keep their hands to themselves?

I mean, if you're blind, and you're with a buncha other blind people, who's gonna know?!?!?

lol, I would like to vote for you as the plucky comic relief! BLIND PEOPLE NAKED...HAHAHAH

 

[The Bellman]

Ultimately the issue regarding nudity isn't about eroticism, but about God commanding us to cover the body.

And exactly where does God do this?

 

[silky anteater]

When God covered Adam and Eve, the big issue wasn't eroticism, but rather their shame associated with being cognizant of the spiritual nakedness resulting from sin. Yes, nudity subsequently could be associated with eroticism, but this wasn't the issue in Garden. The knowledge of their sin transformed "good nakedness" into stinging, humiliating shame.

1 Timothy 2:9 says that women should adore themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety. Shamefacedness denotes a state of mind or attitude for one to be concerned about modesty and to dress modestly. It indicates a sense of shame, a shrinking from passing the boundaries of propriety.

Christian modesty is the inner self-govermnent, rooted in a proper understanding of one's self before God, which outwardly displays itself in humility and purityfrom a genuine love for Jesus Christ, rather than in self-glorification or self-advertisement. Christian modesty will not publicly expose itself in sinful nakedness.

And exactly where does God do this?

 

[The Bellman]

When God covered Adam and Eve, the big issue wasn't eroticism, but rather their shame associated with being cognizant of the spiritual nakedness resulting from sin. Yes, nudity subsequently could be associated with eroticism, but this wasn't the issue in Garden. The knowledge of their sin transformed "good nakedness" into stinging, humiliating shame.

1 Timothy 2:9 says that women should adore themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety. Shamefacedness denotes a state of mind or attitude for one to be concerned about modesty and to dress modestly. It indicates a sense of shame, a shrinking from passing the boundaries of propriety.

Christian modesty is the inner self-govermnent, rooted in a proper understanding of one's self before God, which outwardly displays itself in humility and purityfrom a genuine love for Jesus Christ, rather than in self-glorification or self-advertisement. Christian modesty will not publicly expose itself in sinful nakedness.

So the answer to my question is, apparently, nowhere. Nowhere in the bible does god tell anyone they should be clothed, rather than naked.

 

[The Bellman]

It seems a popular position in this thread that nudity in and of itself is not wrong, but rather it is wrong when/if it leads others into sin (eg., lust).

I'd like to point out that this kind of thinking is what has led to the practice in some cultures of forcing women to cover their bodies entirely, with only their eyes showing. There, too, the idea is that seeing a woman's body - any part of it - can lead men to sin, so we'd better cover it all up.

The flaw in this thinking is "blaming" the innocent for the sins of the guilty. It's unfair and, in the end, insulting to those who commit the sins. If I see someone naked and it causes me to lust, the fault is mine, not the naked person's. Forcing them to dress so that I don't lust is insulting to me because it says that I can't control myself, that I have to have temptation removed because I am incapable of refraining from sinning. It's the same kind of thinking that blames a rape victim for her own rape - because she dressed provocatively, and "everybody knows" men can't control themselves. She had it coming.

Obviously, it's a big slippery slope. What if I say that seeing women's legs causes me to lust? Better cover them up...make short skirts illegal. And shoulders make me lust, too...so ban those tops that show shoulders. And, of course, bikinis are right out of the question.

The error, as I say, lies in penalising those who have done no wrong for the sins of those who have.

 

[silky anteater]

This scripture discusses that the body should be modestly covered. I don't see what the problem is.

"Received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily whether those things be so." Way to go Bereans!!

1 Timothy 2:9 says that women should adore themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety. According to the Hebrew, shamefacedness denotes a state of mind or attitude for one to be concerned about modesty and to dress modestly. It indicates a sense of shame, a shrinking from passing the boundaries of propriety.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

This scripture discusses that the body should be modestly covered. I don't see what the problem is.

It hinges on how one defines modesty (and, no, I'm not trying to go off on a semantics argument). Most women in 2004 dress for church in a manner that would have gotten them arrested for indecent exposure in 1904. Does that mean they're immodest or that society's concept of modesty has changed?

Even the African and South American Indian tribes that go around virtually naked have concepts of modesty, they just don't involve apparel.

 

[The Bellman]

This scripture discusses that the body should be modestly covered. I don't see what the problem is.

"Received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily whether those things be so." Way to go Bereans!!

The issue is where God instructs us to dress (ie., to not be nude). He doesn't do so in Genesis.

 

[aggie03]

The issue is where God instructs us to dress (ie., to not be nude). He doesn't do so in Genesis.

Well, the Old Covenant and the laws therein weren't given yet. God did however given Adam and Eve an example to follow when He covered them.

Genesis 3:21 ASV And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them.

And again, as has been shown already, God gave instructions in 1 Timothy 2.

 

[The Bellman]

Well, the Old Covenant and the laws therein weren't given yet. God did however given Adam and Eve an example to follow when He covered them.

Genesis 3:21 ASV And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them.

But he did that AFTER Adam and Eve were embarassed that they were naked; God didn't say "You're naked, quick, cover up!" He said "You're embarassed? Okay, here, use this to cover yourself." Doesn't sound like god was that fussed about them being naked.

And again, as has been shown already, God gave instructions in 1 Timothy 2.

In 1 Timothy, he gives instructions as to HOW we should dress, not THAT we should dress. It's a fine line, but it's quite distinct. To give another example, he gives many directions as to HOW we are to treat slaves; but he doesn't anywhere say THAT we should have slaves. See the difference?

 

[aggie03]

But he did that AFTER Adam and Eve were embarassed that they were naked; God didn't say "You're naked, quick, cover up!" He said "You're embarassed? Okay, here, use this to cover yourself." Doesn't sound like god was that fussed about them being naked.

He did that after they had eaten the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It seems that after they had eaten that fruit they had a new knowledge - a knowledge which led them to cover themselves.

They were correcting a problem. Since they now had knowledge of good and evil, it makes sense that if they tried to fix something then it was something that wasn't right.

Also, God replaced the clothing that they were already wearing. After they ate the fruit, they clothed themselves. God found them in the garden, and even while they had this first set of clothes on that they had made for themselves, He calls them naked and then gives them a second set of clothes.

In 1 Timothy, he gives instructions as to HOW we should dress, not THAT we should dress. It's a fine line, but it's quite distinct. To give another example, he gives many directions as to HOW we are to treat slaves; but he doesn't anywhere say THAT we should have slaves. See the difference?

Doesn't it stand logically that if I tell you to dress modestly, that there will be dressing involved?

 

[The Bellman]

He did that after they had eaten the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It seems that after they had eaten that fruit they had a new knowledge - a knowledge which led them to cover themselves.

They were correcting a problem. Since they now had knowledge of good and evil, it makes sense that if they tried to fix something then it was something that wasn't right.

Also, God replaced the clothing that they were already wearing. After they ate the fruit, they clothed themselves. God found them in the garden, and even while they had this first set of clothes on that they had made for themselves, He calls them naked and then gives them a second set of clothes.


Doesn't it stand logically that if I tell you to dress modestly, that there will be dressing involved?

Does it stand logically that if I tell you how to treat slaves, there will be slave-owning involved? Yet few Christians today would cite the biblical verses about how to treat their slaves as evidence that god wants us to own slaves.

 

[Johnnz]

Bbellman "But he did that AFTER Adam and Eve were embarassed that they were naked; God didn't say "You're naked, quick, cover up!" He said "You're embarassed? Okay, here, use this to cover yourself." Doesn't sound like god was that fussed about them being naked"

Read a bit more carefully. The record reads that they hid from God. There is no mention of bodily shame or embarrassment, or that their clothing was given becasue of those emotions.

In fact, since Adam and Eve were a couple, a "shame at nakedness" interpretation would require that married couples never saw each other naked. Back to sex under sheets and in the dark? This is the most literal interpretation of the shame based arguement.

John
NZ

 

[The Bellman]

Bbellman "But he did that AFTER Adam and Eve were embarassed that they were naked; God didn't say "You're naked, quick, cover up!" He said "You're embarassed? Okay, here, use this to cover yourself." Doesn't sound like god was that fussed about them being naked"

Read a bit more carefully. The record reads that they hid from God. There is no mention of bodily shame or embarrassment, or that their clothing was given becasue of those emotions.

In fact, since Adam and Eve were a couple, a "shame at nakedness" interpretation would require that married couples never saw each other naked. Back to sex under sheets and in the dark? This is the most literal interpretation of the shame based arguement.

John
NZ

I suggest that you read a bit more closely.

Genesis 3:
[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
[8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
[9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
[10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Adam and Eve tried to clothe themselves; God didn't tell them to. Adam told God that "I was afraid, because I was naked." Nowhere does God tell them that it's wrong to be naked - that it is wrong is all Adam and Eve's idea.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

God knew they were naked from the moment He created them and had no problem with it.

Once they realized they had sinned, they became aware of their nakedness.

God only saw fit to clothe them after they became aware of good and evil.

The nudity in and of itself is not what is evil, it's the attitude shown towards it.

 

[Johnnz]

I have read it pretty closely.

They were afraid of God - that's why they hid. They were not embarrassed with each other. That word is not in the text. Their clothing was a human effort to cover their wrong. God covered them with skins, the first ever sacrifice to restore a broken relationship.

John
NZ

 

[The Bellman]

I have read it pretty closely.

They were afraid of God - that's why they hid. They were not embarrassed with each other. That word is not in the text. Their clothing was a human effort to cover their wrong. God covered them with skins, the first ever sacrifice to restore a broken relationship.

John
NZ

They were afraid BECAUSE they were naked. The fear was theirs; their nudity was THEIR issue, not God's. It appears he didn't care.

 

[Johnnz]

Bellman,

Thanks for your comments

Let's give a bit more detail on my exegetical base.

Christians base their opposition to public nudity primarily from the account of Adam and Eve clothing themselves. I wish to offer an exposition of that passage that corrects some common misinterpretations of it.



We believe in the fall, an historic event when creation in our universe was severely fractured. Mankind became estranged from its Creator. Nature itself underwent massive dislocation. Disease, climate extremes, earthquakes and many other natural phenomenon entered into our world. It was a profound movement away from our original created state. Nature became flawed at its deepest level, affecting every aspect of life on earth.



There was a threefold separation, between God and mankind,(spiritual) between man and man, (social) and between man and nature (environmental). The most final consequence of the Fall, as it is known, is death. The entire intellectual, emotional and physical nature of mankind was affected. We age, we become physically and psychologically unhealthy, we inflict great suffering on each other. It is my understanding that the Fall introduced all that we experience negatively into the daily experiences of mankind. It is also my understanding of Scripture that Jesus has begun a radical process of redemption that will find its completion in a totally recreated world.



I believe that our sense of shame derives from that event, along with all other of our negative emotions. Our experiences of guilt or shame occur when we acknowledgement that we have done something wrong. Shame occurs in a fallen world. It would be unknown in a world of innocence. It must never be the basis on which we establish a moral value. All moral values have their origin in the nature of God. However, shame is not to be undervalued. It acts as a useful and necessary deterrent within a fallen society, restraining many wrong actions.



The standard exegesis of Genesis has been that shame entered into the relationship between man and woman at the Fall. It goes like this.



After they had disobeyed God Adam and Eve were ashamed in the presence of each other and so put on fig leaves. God then saw their shame, and gave them something better – the skin of an animal, thereby protecting their modesty. God thus established his attitude towards human nakedness by deliberately clothing the couple in more substantial garments than they had made for themselves. So, we too should also remain clothed, to avoid shame arsing from the sight of another naked body of the opposite sex.



There are some problems for all Christians, not just naturists in this interpretation. Firstly, The biblical record states Gen 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. After eating the forbidden fruit the couple became aware that something had changed. Gen 3:8-11 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."



It is important to note that Adam was afraid because of his nakedness, not ashamed. There is no textual basis to read shame as the primary emotion felt by Adam, and presumably Eve, because she also had hidden from God. Therefore, it is unjustified to use this text as the basis for ascribing our own feelings of shame of being naked as the proper response for Christians. The couple were not ashamed of their nakedness before the Fall; they were afraid after it.

The most significant problem with the traditional interpretation is to take it really literally. Since Adam and Eve were a married couple, yet they correctly felt shame at their nakedness before each other, the passage in Genesis thus teaches us that it is wrong for a husband and wife to see each other naked. God covered Adam and Eve to protect them from shame with each other, as there were no other people present to be ashamed of. Is this what we you believe should be taught in our churches?



And, if shame at nakedness is divinely proscribed there are further issues for us according to this story. Some men and some women are ashamed to be naked in same sex company. Therefore, should not same sex nakedness also be forbidden?


In my humble opinion, it is a real sadness that the great themes of creation, redemption and re-creation that are expressed consistently from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 have been reduced to a debate about human clothing.

I have other exegetical material to support my view that the clothing was God directed. Let's ee what happens to this post. Please note I am not advocating the naturst cause in these replies. I am concerned with correctly understanding of Scripture

John
NZ

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Another question: At what point are we nude?

Transparent clothes = nudity?

A loin cloth?

An itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny yellow polka dot bikini?

I'm reminded of a joke that's a tad risque but should be clean enough for this discussion (apologies if it isn't):

A mother tells her daughter on her wedding day, "Always preserve some mystery in your marriage. Never let your husband see you entirely undressed."

The daughter marries and goes on her honeymoon. When the couple comes back, the son-in-law takes the mother aside and asks if there's any insanity in their family.

Startled, the mother says no and asks why.

"Because your daughter never takes off her hat!"

 

[Shane Roach]

They were afraid BECAUSE they were naked. The fear was theirs; their nudity was THEIR issue, not God's. It appears he didn't care.

There's a fairly extensive list of folk whose nakedness we are not to see, including among others anyone elses spouse. Like it or not, nakedness is attached to sex. Running around naked, African tribalisms and Pacific islander dream paradises notwithstanding, causes problems in that regard.

Look around you. It's not as if Christian nations are the only ones with ideas about wearing clothes, or that taking them off has sexual connotations.

This is probably one of my less important issue types of threads. Honestly except for people with a fetish for exposing themselves, few people even want a world where everyone walks around in no clothes. I suppose it might tend to make people a little more health conscious in their diet and exercise.......