Nudism

[Shane Roach]

I don't know of anyone that is suggesting Revelations 3 is referring to a person, but the phrase is "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked."

Based on this verse alone I can see clearly that nakedness is associated with shame and poverty. You have not even begun to answer the question I put to you, and I am not sure at this point whether it is that you don't understand the question or what the problem is, but this is not an auspicious start.

I will hit the high points again. As you point out, the phrase "uncover their nakendness" is translated properly as "to have sex with". Now the original words are indeed "to uncover their nakedness." So what I have asked is, how, seeing as you continually insist that there is no direct tie to nudity and sex, is it that the mere mention of uncovering ones nakedness has the same effect as for example, saying in modern terms "sleep with" someone? I mean, we all understand that when someone says, "are you two sleeping together?" they are not curious as to what your rest habits are. Neither is this phrase only accidentally associated with having sex, "uncover the nakedness."

Likewise all the examples you keep giving, the connotation here is that nakedness is a handy metaphor, that is, a word used to symbolize, for shame. I am not suggesting that they all speak of literal nakedness, though if I have time I will go more thoroughly through your list, but rather than all the examples are using nakedness as a symbol of shame. It is this, and not the idea that they are indeed symbolic, at least some of them, that I am asking about.

Please, explain yourself, and your ideas, and do not inundate me with dozens of examples, many of which do not even begin to address my question, if you want me to understand your position?

 

[markie]

Do you think public nudism is a sin?

No, lust is a sin. Nudism can promote lust or it doesn't have to, Adam and Eve were naked before the fail and they were not ashamed. It is only after the fall that they became ashamed. You can live a Christian life whether you are naked or not. If we believe that Jesus died for our sins, which is in fact Adams sin because he started it all, there is no reason to think that nudity is a sin. The breaking of the law is a sin because governments were instituted by God. Romans 13:1 says Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. so I wouldn't go around naked unless I was in a nudist camp or just in my own home but it is not a sin to do it under those circumstances. I didn't read the word public, it depends on where you are as to if it's a sin or not. In a nudist colony or on a nude beach it would not be sinful.

 

[Risen Tree]

I suppose if that was what I had said, it might be true, perhaps, but I think I have specifically clarified twice now that all liberty is to be exercised with love, and have provided the Biblical verses to explain that.

Yeah, but you're still shifting the goalposts around. Either liberty and love are opposites or complementary. Feel free to take whichever stance you want; just try to stand by it unless you're genuinely changing your mind.

Actually it does. The OT clearly states the foreigner is to be treated as justly as the Jew, and the erasure of all of race as a consideration is clear in the NT as well. Still, your example, even if it were true, seems to have nothing to do with anything I have said.

Racial equality is not expressly mentioned in the NT. The spirit of Paul's words advocate it, but not the letter.

I've yet to see anything to indicate that nudity was common, and have seen numerous references in the Bible to the shame of nudity, the explanations for which that supporters of public nudity have given having fallen very short in my opinion.

I've yet to see a single verse in the Bible that says that the Earth revolves around the sun, and I have seen numerous references in the Bible to a flat Earth.

First, I am not sure that is true, and secondly, so what if it is? We are told, as I have already pointed out, to avoid even the appearance of evil, and to consider the conscience of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

That the equation of nudity and sex is cultural has been clarified many times throughout this thread. The only "evidence" against this fact would be particular interpretations of particular scriptures.

I don't know exactly why it is so bad, I just read a lot in the Bible about not feeding the lusts of the flesh, and about the works and deeds of the flesh passing away. Perhaps that is something we could all concentrate more on. I think it starts though with concentrating on things that are more spiritual and turning ones back on the sensual. This is not to say that all pleasure is bad. The Bible, unlike ascetic religions, does not advocate self denial simply for its own sake. Still, there is an identifiable thread throughout the Bible regarding the difference between worldly and spiritual concerns.

Cultural context. Paul appeals to the beliefs of the day that we should focus on the abstract, not the concrete. Think of the allegory of the cafe that basically states the opposite of WYSIWYG. This was a powerful tenet of thought back then.

I am not sure what I did or did not imply, but what I can tell you from what I have experienced both on nude beaches and in speaking to people here and elsewhere, that the general percentage of people that feel the need to expose themselved in public have ideas about sex and love and so forth that I find far distanced from what is Biblical. I'll confess, I didn't read your link. If there is something specific there you think I ought to know, post it or maybe pm it to me. I am not interested in going to a nudist website and being exposed to the very thing I have experienced in the past and that I am sitting here saying I find very suspicious to be taught as if it were a Christian value.

1. Reread it. It contains no nudity. I won't post anything like that here.

2. It seems to me that nudism is not for you. That's okay. Nudism is not for everyone. For me, the experience was very anticlimatic, if not downright boring. I never had this spiritual high or intense relief that so many have claimed to experience. Perhaps it was because I was already comfortable with my body image and didn't have many steps on the ladder to climb down, so to speak.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think you will find any Biblical verses that tell me that I must accept any teaching that is offered, or that refraining from exercising my liberty out of concern for others is going to get me into trouble?

This:

I think the concept of Christian liberty is being used a lot nowadays outside its original purpose, which was simply to remove the barriers errected by some that certain people absolutely could not be Christian without certain cultural trappings of the Jewish religion being adopted. There were people blocking the entrance to the family of Christ by false teachings, not people suggesting that we should behave with modesty in love.

Stands as a fine argument in favor of naturism.

 

[Shane Roach]

Yeah, but you're still shifting the goalposts around. Either liberty and love are opposites or complementary. Feel free to take whichever stance you want; just try to stand by it unless you're genuinely changing your mind.

I don't think that they are either necessarily complementary or opposed. Rather, love definse what truly is liberty and what is actually slavery to a different set of values, as is suggested in the scripture, that one cannot serve two masters.

Racial equality is not expressly mentioned in the NT. The spirit of Paul's words advocate it, but not the letter.

I've yet to see a single verse in the Bible that says that the Earth revolves around the sun, and I have seen numerous references in the Bible to a flat Earth.

I'm pretty lost about the point you're making here. A lot of things are not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

That the equation of nudity and sex is cultural has been clarified many times throughout this thread. The only "evidence" against this fact would be particular interpretations of particular scriptures.

This sounds an awful lot like, "I don't agree with your interpretation, therefore it is wrong." There is absolutely no answer to the questions I posed in this response, if indeed it was your intention to even try. I have used this example before, but let me see if I have used it with you. I took a design class, and in that class we were asked to use black and white contruction paper, use one as the background and cut a shape out of the other, and paste them together to suggest "floating". With little exception, people used black background, white shape, the shape was rounded off, not sharp edged, and they tended to be placed in the upper right hand corner of the black background. There are reasons for every single one of these features. White is a "lighter" seeming color than black. Soft edges are more similar to balloons or clouds than sharp ones. And, the upper right hand placement, as it turns out, has to do with the direction in which people read. Cultures who read right to left tend to place the shape on the upper left rather than the upper right. obviously being placed on the upper half of the page relates to "up".

It is for reasons very similar to this that, despite whatever proof you may think you have, if you look all around the world you will find example after example of nudity being closely related to sex. You will never find scientific "proof" of such things, but neither will you convince me to ignore what seems very obvious.

I'm sorry, but the statement that the thing has been proven except for specific interpretations of certain verses doesn't sound even marginally true, or even proveable.

Cultural context. Paul appeals to the beliefs of the day that we should focus on the abstract, not the concrete. Think of the allegory of the cafe that basically states the opposite of WYSIWYG. This was a powerful tenet of thought back then

1. Reread it. It contains no nudity. I won't post anything like that here.

I think rather you might want to post your own thoughts on it. I'm simply not going to chase down various quotes. I don't really know what you are getting at concerning Paul. Besides, I have never heard of the allegory of the cafe!

2. It seems to me that nudism is not for you. That's okay. Nudism is not for everyone. For me, the experience was very anticlimatic, if not downright boring. I never had this spiritual high or intense relief that so many have claimed to experience. Perhaps it was because I was already comfortable with my body image and didn't have many steps on the ladder to climb down, so to speak.

I doubt it is "for" anyone. It is just another experience in life. Solomon experimented in many such things. It doesn't necessarily condemn one to hell, and one does grow in wisdom, it seems, from experiences, but one can also learn from the experiences of others, and I dare say I have yet to see anything to suggest this behavior to a Christian as anything but a harmfull step back from what the Bible tries to express as far as not abusing our liberty or as Romans puts it, not to simply sin so that grace may abound.

Finally, as I mentioned before, though you seem to find my words somehow support naturism, the knife in this instance doesn't cut both ways, as I am only suggesting that a person do exactly as the Bible teaches us where issues of liberty are concerned, and that is to place our liberty in subjection to love, and that not to unbelievers, who it has been pointed out can find fault with anything a believer might do, but rather to place liberty in subjection to the concience of the weaker brother. And even there, that would only apply if public nudity is not a sin, while I still see it as a form of fornication, because I simply do not accept the arguments you and others have made that it has nothing to do with sex.

So to summarize, it seems not to matter, as whether it is sin or merely cultural, it is still a bad thing to do.

 

[Natman]

I don't know of anyone that is suggesting Revelations 3 is referring to a person, but the phrase is "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked."

Based on this verse alone I can see clearly that nakedness is associated with shame and poverty.

So what you are saying is "being poor is shameful". "Being blind is shameful". "Being afflicted (wretched) is shameful".

You have not even begun to answer the question I put to you, and I am not sure at this point whether it is that you don't understand the question or what the problem is, but this is not an auspicious start.

I will hit the high points again. As you point out, the phrase "uncover their nakendness" is translated properly as "to have sex with". Now the original words are indeed "to uncover their nakedness." So what I have asked is, how, seeing as you continually insist that there is no direct tie to nudity and sex, is it that the mere mention of uncovering ones nakedness has the same effect as for example, saying in modern terms "sleep with" someone? I mean, we all understand that when someone says, "are you two sleeping together?" they are not curious as to what your rest habits are. Neither is this phrase only accidentally associated with having sex, "uncover the nakedness."

The phrase "uncover the nakedness of..." is what's known as an "euphemism". It is a "figure of speech" of the time and culture. A common example of a current euphemism is "It's raining cats and dogs". When we hear that expression, we do not expect to be hit in the head by any flying felines. We know that it means it is raining very hard. Similarly the example YOU gave, "sleeping with someone", does not conjure the image of two people snoring in the same bed, but two people involved in another, more personal activity that also cause heavy breathing.

Likewise all the examples you keep giving, the connotation here is that nakedness is a handy metaphor, that is, a word used to symbolize, for shame. I am not suggesting that they all speak of literal nakedness, though if I have time I will go more thoroughly through your list, but rather than all the examples are using nakedness as a symbol of shame. It is this, and not the idea that they are indeed symbolic, at least some of them, that I am asking about.
Please, explain yourself, and your ideas, and do not inundate me with dozens of examples, many of which do not even begin to address my question, if you want me to understand your position?

You are incorrect in your assertation and understanding of the metaphore. "NAKEDNESS" is a metaphore for "EXPOSURE", not "SHAME". It is the exposure that results from God removing His hand of protection as a RESULT of shameful activity, not the shameful activity itself.

BTW, the examples I gave came from Clarity in an attempt to tie "nakedness" as in a lack of clothing, to shame or sin.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

Markie,

You are correct. As Christians, we should accept the jurisdiction of the man's law, under God's law.

A point of interest is that there are really very few places in the United States where it is unlawful to be "merely naked", even in a public place. Most states and municipalities require "lewd" activity to accompany "nakedness" in order to called "breaking the law".

Son-cerfely,
Nate

 

[Shane Roach]

So what you are saying is "being poor is shameful". "Being blind is shameful". "Being afflicted (wretched) is shameful".

No. Where on earth did you get that?

I was drawing on further context clues from the verse: "Because thou sayest, 'I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing,' and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and blind, and naked..."

If you have some alternative understanding of this verse, let me know, but in the context, under the circumstances, it seems that yes, that is exactly how it is meant. Obviously if the circumstances were different, then the shame likewise might be different. I don't see anyone here arguing that no one should ever be naked. What is being discussed is the proper times and circumstances for it. Public nudity appears to be inordinately associated with shame, for something which you insist is pure and wholesome. The natural question then is why would there be any problem with it if there weren't something underlying nudity? Why, for example, do we have it associated here with wretched poverty? If there's nothing unusual or wrong with nudity, then the rich and poor alike could go around naked.

I don't know how this fairly simple point seems to be continually skirted, no matter how many times or in how many ways different people present it here.

The phrase "uncover the nakedness of..." is what's known as an "euphemism". It is a "figure of speech" of the time and culture. A common example of a current euphemism is "It's raining cats and dogs". When we hear that expression, we do not expect to be hit in the head by any flying felines. We know that it means it is raining very hard. Similarly the example YOU gave, "sleeping with someone", does not conjure the image of two people snoring in the same bed, but two people involved in another, more personal activity that also cause heavy breathing.

Precisely. So how is it again some argue that nudity was common in those days and had no connotation of sexuality?

You are incorrect in your assertation and understanding of the metaphore. "NAKEDNESS" is a metaphore for "EXPOSURE", not "SHAME". It is the exposure that results from God removing His hand of protection as a RESULT of shameful activity, not the shameful activity itself.

All I can tell you is I did not get that from the scriptures for reasons I have repeatedly attempted to make clear to you. Nor indeed am I at all confused as to why most people I know still feel pretty strongly that running around naked is not just some innocent passtime. I will not follow the teachings of those who cannot seem to grasp this rather fundamental idea or concept, is all I can tell you. I don't trust the reasoning.

 

[Shane Roach]

Markie,

You are correct. As Christians, we should accept the jurisdiction of the man's law, under God's law.

A point of interest is that there are really very few places in the United States where it is unlawful to be "merely naked", even in a public place. Most states and municipalities require "lewd" activity to accompany "nakedness" in order to called "breaking the law".

Son-cerfely,
Nate

Uh, yeah. Once again,

 

[Shane Roach]

You are incorrect in your assertation and understanding of the metaphore. "NAKEDNESS" is a metaphore for "EXPOSURE", not "SHAME". It is the exposure that results from God removing His hand of protection as a RESULT of shameful activity, not the shameful activity itself.


Son-cerely,
Nate

It occurs to me that even if you were correct, which I still don't think you are, in your interpretation here, I would still have to wonder why shamefull activity would result in one being unwillingly exposed if that exposure were not a bad thing?

There's really just no way to interpret it without it coming back to that, no matter which direction you attempt to come at it.

But I happen to still believe that it is in and of itself shamefull for reasons of it being associated with original sin and sex, i.e. fornication. Just my two cents.

 

[Risen Tree]

Erm, why do brute facts confuse you, Shane?

BTW I'll get to your response of my previous post when I get a chance to. It's getting late out here on the East Coast.

 

[crashedman]

Hi Shane,

It is for reasons very similar to this that, despite whatever proof you may think you have, if you look all around the world you will find example after example of nudity being closely related to sex. You will never find scientific "proof" of such things, but neither will you convince me to ignore what seems very obvious.

I've seen nudist videos of families and young people doing completely normal, non-sexual things. I'm not saying that sex doesn't exist, but rather they aren't so hung up about life or their bodies to the degree that most Americans are. The boys don't leer at the girls or have the 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink-ay-ay' attitude to sex that is applauded by the old Monty Python and Carry-On films.

I have been to nude beaches and clubs and from what I have largely seen and heard, sex is furthest thing from their minds. The men don't go around sporting erections and the clubs don't really have any sex-related games or activities.

Their policy is: don't do anything at our places that you wouldn't do in other environments just because the people are naked.

By contrast, it is always what the person is wearing that defines sex appeal a lot more.

At the clubs that I have been to, we tended to talk about politics, music, places to go to, people in the movement and people to keep a watch out for.

"I doubt it is "for" anyone. It is just another experience in life. Solomon experimented in many such things. It doesn't necessarily condemn one to hell, and one does grow in wisdom, it seems, from experiences, but one can also learn from the experiences of others, and I dare say I have yet to see anything to suggest this behavior to a Christian as anything but a harmfull step back from what the Bible tries to express as far as not abusing our liberty or as Romans puts it, not to simply sin so that grace may abound."

What the naturist organisations are essentially saying is that they accept people of all different body shapes and sizes and all ages (although in my area the new naturist resorts that are popping up are not catering for people under 18).

There are some people that I would definitely *not* advise to partake in it. For instance: a man who is having problems with his wife, or having problems with his sex life should not treat a naturist place as an answer to his problem.

Females rarely ever go alone, and those who do tend to be either part of a married couple or the daughter of the members.
Added to that, albinos should definitely avoid it for sure!

There philosophy of nudism that 'every body is beautiful' is a double-edged sword that both non-nudist Christians and atheists agree alike is quite dodgy.

This is definitely not the case as we know that from childhood we do have definitions as to what constitutes a beautiful and ugly body. Is it any wonder that we do not see naked bodies of children or those seen in magazines like Playboy or Men's Health as 'disgusting'? They are kept well preserved, and look fit and strong.

These definitions are not conditioned into us, they are a part of our intellectual genetic makeup. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this.

The majority of naturists (at least in America) tend to have bodies that the majority perceive as being 'ugly'. When you mess with definitions, you can end up with a pretty warped perception of reality which is what I feel some Christians on the rec.nude newsgroup have fallen into.

For instance we have one Christian man who does not have any distinctions as to what constitutes a beautiful and ugly body - he believes it is from what is inside the heart of the person that does and physical appearances mean nothing.

Another believes that Adam & Eve did sin and God only gave them clothes for protection, but the death of Jesus has given us the grace for every human to enjoy it. Ironically, he is now coming under fire from a poster who has recently appeared on the group due to his past behaviour at one of the parks where he photographed some patrons and published their photos on the Net without consent.

There is yet another guy who believes naturism is about 'crotch exposing' and claims that nudist kids are more sexually precocious than textile kids. He is one very disturbed individual who claims to have run two strip clubs (one that employed a 10-year-old girl as a dancer and felt she was safer in that environment than a family nudist club), and that little girls get excited by the sight of his erections.

I know naturists who have been into it for years or raised that way and even if they might have had some bad experiences with their lives (like every one of us does), they haven't turned their back on it.

"Finally, as I mentioned before, though you seem to find my words somehow support naturism, the knife in this instance doesn't cut both ways, as I am only suggesting that a person do exactly as the Bible teaches us where issues of liberty are concerned, and that is to place our liberty in subjection to love, and that not to unbelievers, who it has been pointed out can find fault with anything a believer might do, but rather to place liberty in subjection to the concience of the weaker brother. And even there, that would only apply if public nudity is not a sin, while I still see it as a form of fornication, because I simply do not accept the arguments you and others have made that it has nothing to do with sex."

If this is so, then Christians should apply that to the eating of meat and drinking wine (or alcohol) as well.

I am a Christian, but I have also found that some can be incredibly insensitive to those people whose religions forbid animal slaughter and meat eating. There are definitely health reasons for being a vegetarian and vegan, together with a growing social conscience about animal cruelty and exploitation and the impact that it has on the environment. Believers should in no way advocate planetary abuse and exploitation of lesser creatures - and unfortunately I have known Christian men who harbour such attitudes.

Secondly, you have to understand what the word fornication actually means. It is simply a mistranslation of the word 'porneia' - a form of sacred harlotry practised by Roman pagan cults that don't exist today.

Restrictions against nakedness were never preached by Jesus, but by the Roman Emporer Constantine who wanted Christianity to become the religion of the State.

In short, Christian nudists tend to have an outlook by selecting the very basic teachings of Jesus but dismissing puritans as being modern day Pharisees.


Crashedman

 

[Shane Roach]

Erm, why do brute facts confuse you, Shane?

BTW I'll get to your response of my previous post when I get a chance to. It's getting late out here on the East Coast.

All I can say is I dare you to go around naked all the time and remind the police that it's not illegal when they arrest you.

 

[Shane Roach]

Secondly, you have to understand what the word fornication actually means. It is simply a mistranslation of the word 'porneia' - a form of sacred harlotry practised by Roman pagan cults that don't exist today.

It appears the root of the word evolved from something akin to selling. If you actually had some sort of explanation for this assertion I would be interested. The rest of your post only serves to reinforce my skepticism about nudism, though I do appreciate your willingness to express the other side of the coin concerning the practice with me rather than hide it and make me look it up. I understand you believe these examples to be the minority and I can respect your opinion there, though I do not share it.

Interesting post overall. I might remind you, however, that Jesus did not teach against having sex with animals either, nor against human sacrifice. Just because a specific practice does not find its expression in the very words of Christ doesn't mean we can't look and see that it is still not proper, ok?

That particular argument, "Christ didn't teach (fill in the blank)," is getting rather tired to me.

 

[Shane Roach]

If this is so, then Christians should apply that to the eating of meat and drinking wine (or alcohol) as well.

Again, totally lost me...

 

[Natman]

It occurs to me that even if you were correct, which I still don't think you are, in your interpretation here, I would still have to wonder why shamefull activity would result in one being unwillingly exposed if that exposure were not a bad thing?

There's really just no way to interpret it without it coming back to that, no matter which direction you attempt to come at it.

But I happen to still believe that it is in and of itself shamefull for reasons of it being associated with original sin and sex, i.e. fornication. Just my two cents.

Okay. Another example:
When you were a child, if you did something wrong, your parents might have forcibly spanked you on your bare bottom. Was it the "spanking" or the "exposing" of your bottom that was shameful? No. Rather, it was whatever you did to warrant the spanking that was shameful. In these verses, "nakedness" is the RESULT, not the cause of shame.

Referring to your comments on "uncover the nakedness...", although it is necessary to be naked or partially naked in order to have sexual relations, it is not necessary to have sexual relations to be naked.
One does not necessitate the other.

To state that nakedness, even social nakedness, is sinful because it leads to sexual immorality would be ths same as saying "eating" leads to obesity (sinful gluttony) so "eating" is sinful. Yes, it does sometimes. But one does not necessitate the other.

The vast majority of those I have talked to involved in "naturism" do not equate nakedness to sex with anyone (not even their spouse). They prefer to be naked, alone or socially, because they are simply more comfortable or find it more practical.

For example, wearing a swim suit a the beach is very uncomfortable for me because it traps sand, mites and sometimes tiny jellyfish against my body. I usually end up with a rash where my suit and sand have rubbed against me. Without the suit, the sand and other creatures usually float away. Here in the south, the summer heat and humidity cause my clothing to become saturated in sweat in minutes. It is FAR more comfortable to work with fewer or no clothes at all to allow my body to cool itself the way God designed it.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

There is a man called the "naked rambler" that recently hiked across England. He was arrested several times, but no charges could ever be levelled against him.

In the seventies, the "naked guy" attended Berkley. After the initial shock, most people just ignored him. The officials tried over and over again to have him arrested, but could not.

Every year, there are several "naked runs", "naked bike rides", "nude olympics" and similar events held around the US and in other countries, in public places, in which thousands of people participate, naked - LEGALLY.

Just for grins, I looked up the "nudity" statutes for all fifty states. Most states require lewdness or sexual conduct in addition to nudity to constiture an offense. Arkansas, Indiana and Tennessee apear to completely outlaw nudity except in the presence of a spouse. Some state laws are too vague or broadreaching to be defensable in a court of law.

This is a list of state statutes and requirements for an offense...

Alabama Sec. 13A-6-68: Lewdness
Sec. 13A-12-130: Lewdness, affrontal, intended insult
Alaska Sec. 11.41.460: Intentional Insult
Arizona 13-1402: Intentional Insult
Arkansas *** Sec. 5-68-204. You may not be nude in Arkansas in the presence of
any person of the opposite sex who is not your spouse
California Sec. 314: Lewdness
Colorado 18-7-302: Intentional Affront
Connecticut Sec. 53a-186: Lewdness, Sexual Intercource
Delaware Title 11 Sec. 764 & 765: Intentional affront
Florida Ch. 800.03: Vulgar or Indecent manner
Georgia 16-6-8: Sexual Intercource, Lewdness
Hawaii 707-734: Intentional Affront
Idaho 18-4116: Lewdness, Intentional affront
Illinois 720 ILCS 5/11-9: Lewdness
Indiana *** 35-45-4-1: Sexual Conduct, Lewdness
Iowa 709.9: Lewdness, Intentional Affront
Kansas KSA 21-3508: Lewdness
Kentucky 510.150: Intentional Affront
Louisiana 14:106: Lewdness, Intentional Affront
Maine Title 17-A: Sexual Conduct, Intentional Affront
Maryland Common Law. ???
Massachusetts Common Law. ???
Michigan * Sec. 750.335a: UNDEFINED
Minnesota 617.23: Lewdness
Mississippi Sec. 97-29-31: Lewdness
Missouri 566.093: Intentional Affront
Montana 45-5-504: Lewdness, Intentional Affront
Nebraska 28-806: Sexual Conduct, Intentional Affront, Lewdness
Nevada 201.21: Lewdness
New Hampshire 645:1: Sexual Conduct, Lewdness, Intentional Affront
New Jersey 2C:14-4: Lewdness, Intentional Affront
New Mexico*** 30-9-14 ???
New York 245.00: Lewdness, Intentional Affront
N. Carolina*** Sec. 14-190.9: ???
North Dakota Sec. 12.1-20-12.1: Intentional Affront, touching yourself
Ohio Sec. 2907.09: Intentional Affront
Oklahoma 21-1021: Lewdness, Intentional Affront
Oregon 163.465: Sexual Conduct, Lewdness
Pennsylvania Title 18 Sec. 3127: Intentional Affront
Title 18 Sec. 5901: Lewdness"
Rhode Island Sec. 11-45-1: Intentional Affront
South Carolina Sec. 16-15-130: Maliciousness
South Dakota 22-24-1: Intentional Affront
Tennessee*** 39-13-511: ???
Texas Title 9 Sec. 21.08: Lewdness, Intentional Affront
Title 9 Sec. 42.01: Intentional Affront
Utah 76-9-702: Sexual Conduct, Lewdness, Intentional Affront
Vermont Ch. 59, Sec. 2601: ???
Virginia 18.2-387 Lewdness (Obsenity)
Washington RCW 9A.88.010: Lewdness (obsenity), Intentional Affront
West Virginia 61-8-9: Intentional Affront
Wisconsin Sec. 944.20: Sexual Conduct, Lewdness
Wyoming 6-4-201: Sexual Conduct, Lewdness

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Risen Tree]

All I can say is I dare you to go around naked all the time and remind the police that it's not illegal when they arrest you.

The fact that public nudity is illegal in the States (save for women being allowed to go topless in New York) has zero bearing on its morality.

 

[Risen Tree]

I don't think that they are either necessarily complementary or opposed. Rather, love definse what truly is liberty and what is actually slavery to a different set of values, as is suggested in the scripture, that one cannot serve two masters.

I give. We're stuck in the mud on this particular issue, and I don't see how we can get out of it.

I'm pretty lost about the point you're making here. A lot of things are not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

Shane, the bottom line is that the Bible is not a code of conduct for every facet of life. You and the anti-nudists are attempting to conjure up Biblical ideologies that simply do not exist.

This sounds an awful lot like, "I don't agree with your interpretation, therefore it is wrong." There is absolutely no answer to the questions I posed in this response, if indeed it was your intention to even try. I have used this example before, but let me see if I have used it with you. I took a design class, and in that class we were asked to use black and white contruction paper, use one as the background and cut a shape out of the other, and paste them together to suggest "floating". With little exception, people used black background, white shape, the shape was rounded off, not sharp edged, and they tended to be placed in the upper right hand corner of the black background. There are reasons for every single one of these features. White is a "lighter" seeming color than black. Soft edges are more similar to balloons or clouds than sharp ones. And, the upper right hand placement, as it turns out, has to do with the direction in which people read. Cultures who read right to left tend to place the shape on the upper left rather than the upper right. obviously being placed on the upper half of the page relates to "up".

That's an interesting analogy, and I appreciate the read. There's just one problem with it: using it in this case is apples and oranges. It simply does not fit the situation.

It is for reasons very similar to this that, despite whatever proof you may think you have, if you look all around the world you will find example after example of nudity being closely related to sex. You will never find scientific "proof" of such things, but neither will you convince me to ignore what seems very obvious.

Got it for you right here:

• Marilyn Story, in the Journal of Psychology, Vol. 118, first Half,
  Sept. 1984, "Comparisons of Body Self-Concept between Social Nudists & Nonnudists"
• Marilyn Story, in Jour. of Social Psychology, 1979, 108, 49-56 "Factors
  Associated w/More Positive Body Self-Concepts in Preschool children"
• Robin Lewis & Louis Janda, in The Relationship Between Adult Sexual
  Adjustment & Childhood Experiences Regarding Exposure to Nudity,
  Sleeping in the Parental Bed, &Parental Attitudes Toward Sexuality, Arch. of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 17, No.4, 1988
• Marilyn Story in "A Comparison of Social Nudists & Non-nudists on
  Experience w/Various Sexual Outlets" Journ. of Sex Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp 197-211, May 1987

If you want something to click on and read for yourself, you may do so here. http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~timm/personal/n/research.html. There is a TON of evidence in this site, which I invite you to read for yourself and decide whether nudism really isn't as bad as you paint it out to be. There are no pictures on this page; I take no responsibility for any nudity in any links external to that website.

I'm sorry, but the statement that the thing has been proven except for specific interpretations of certain verses doesn't sound even marginally true, or even proveable.

I'm using objective science here, not subjective interpretations and opinions. The facts speak for themselves.

I think rather you might want to post your own thoughts on it. I'm simply not going to chase down various quotes. I don't really know what you are getting at concerning Paul. Besides, I have never heard of the allegory of the cafe!

Already done, to an extent. Show me a little more open-mindedness on your part, and I will be able to elaborate more on the personal side of this issue. As it stands, I can't do that yet until we can sort through the brute facts.

I doubt it is "for" anyone. It is just another experience in life. Solomon experimented in many such things. It doesn't necessarily condemn one to hell, and one does grow in wisdom, it seems, from experiences, but one can also learn from the experiences of others, and I dare say I have yet to see anything to suggest this behavior to a Christian as anything but a harmfull step back from what the Bible tries to express as far as not abusing our liberty or as Romans puts it, not to simply sin so that grace may abound.

Apples and oranges, and opinion stated as fact.

Finally, as I mentioned before, though you seem to find my words somehow support naturism, the knife in this instance doesn't cut both ways, as I am only suggesting that a person do exactly as the Bible teaches us where issues of liberty are concerned, and that is to place our liberty in subjection to love, and that not to unbelievers, who it has been pointed out can find fault with anything a believer might do, but rather to place liberty in subjection to the concience of the weaker brother. And even there, that would only apply if public nudity is not a sin, while I still see it as a form of fornication, because I simply do not accept the arguments you and others have made that it has nothing to do with sex.

So to summarize, it seems not to matter, as whether it is sin or merely cultural, it is still a bad thing to do.

Do you believe that taking a shower is an inherently sexual activity?

 

[crashedman]

Dear Rising Tree,

I give. We're stuck in the mud on this particular issue, and I don't see how we can get out of it.

Quite simple. Do nudists serve more than one master? I doubt it. Some of them are referred to as 'Sun-worshippers' or 'Sunlovers' and give their obeisances to Ra (ancient sun god). From Jesus' perspective he was talking about obedience to God and to money.

What makes nudism a confusing thing for many Christians is the 'tribal' aspect. There have been societies that do not use or rely on money for their security or happiness. They live off the land and the sea for their food and share the food with all the tribal members. Not one being goes without.

Becoming a nudist and also a Christian helped me to change my outlook on money and materialism. I don't understand why I need a lot of money to be happy, or a swanky car or 4WD or a caravan to be 'happy'.

Shane, the bottom line is that the Bible is not a code of conduct for every facet of life. You and the anti-nudists are attempting to conjure up Biblical ideologies that simply do not exist.

Well, why does the book of Leviticus still exist in the Bible? Is it for purely historical purposes, or does its injunctions still serve as being valid where health and moral issues as we know them exist? This is what you and I have to debate others on who enforce body shame and negative attitudes towards sexuality on us and on society in general.

<list snipped>

Already done, to an extent. Show me a little more open-mindedness on your part, and I will be able to elaborate more on the personal side of this issue. As it stands, I can't do that yet until we can sort through the brute facts.

The Brute fact is that naturism is not about public orgies, streaking, pornographic behaviour or violent sexual activities. I have not witnessed these things occurring at the nudist places I have visited, neither has anyone ever tempted me to instigate such behaviour.

Do you believe that taking a shower is an inherently sexual activity?

That's not what he's talking about, and I'm sure you know that.

He's talking about mixed gender social nakedness in environments away from showers and bedrooms. He is asking you whether going to nude beaches and clubs is behaviour that is characteristic of a typical Christian - especially when we are in a movement that has largely Pagan and atheist attitudes and origins. What makes a Christian nudist somehow 'better' or more 'enlightened' than a Pagan nudist for example?

I never got any sexual buzzes from being in the shower or seeing my penis as a teenage boy or young man.

In fact, I was brought up to believe that sex was 'dirty' and right at an age where boys my age were starting to get interested in it, the AIDS virus started to make headway into mainstream awareness and that got me really worried.

You might be interested to know that today I'm doing a newspaper interview about Christianity and nudism for my local rag 'Northern News' after a reporter stumbled across my Yahoo! group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brisbane-Christian-Naturists

It's rather low on content at the moment, but you are most welcome to join if you wish.


Crashedman

 

[Shane Roach]

Okay. Another example:
When you were a child, if you did something wrong, your parents might have forcibly spanked you on your bare bottom. Was it the "spanking" or the "exposing" of your bottom that was shameful? No. Rather, it was whatever you did to warrant the spanking that was shameful. In these verses, "nakedness" is the RESULT, not the cause of shame.

Referring to your comments on "uncover the nakedness...", although it is necessary to be naked or partially naked in order to have sexual relations, it is not necessary to have sexual relations to be naked.
One does not necessitate the other.

To state that nakedness, even social nakedness, is sinful because it leads to sexual immorality would be ths same as saying "eating" leads to obesity (sinful gluttony) so "eating" is sinful. Yes, it does sometimes. But one does not necessitate the other.

The vast majority of those I have talked to involved in "naturism" do not equate nakedness to sex with anyone (not even their spouse). They prefer to be naked, alone or socially, because they are simply more comfortable or find it more practical.

For example, wearing a swim suit a the beach is very uncomfortable for me because it traps sand, mites and sometimes tiny jellyfish against my body. I usually end up with a rash where my suit and sand have rubbed against me. Without the suit, the sand and other creatures usually float away. Here in the south, the summer heat and humidity cause my clothing to become saturated in sweat in minutes. It is FAR more comfortable to work with fewer or no clothes at all to allow my body to cool itself the way God designed it.

Son-cerely,
Nate

In the example being used, it appears that the nudity itself was shamefull. The person thought they needed nothing, but yet they lacked clothing, apparently considered a basic necessity for some reason or other. No one was getting a spanking. Again, the association of nudity with shamefullness over and over is a reasonable context clue as far as I am concerned.