Nudism

[immersedingrace]

Right. That is why this thread has gone on for so long.

Exactly!

We've been asking you to PROVE it SCRIPTURALLY, not based on YOUR OWN opinion.

Clarity and Shane Roach HAVE proven it scripturally. I see no reason to rehash those same scriptures. It is your OPINION that they haven't proven it. It's my opinion that they have. What's the difference? If that makes me a cultural Christian, then that makes everyone with a differing OPINION one also. We can hash this out ad nauseum, and still come down to you believing the bible supports public nudity and I will still believe it does not.

blessings

 

[Risen Tree]

^ This point precisely demonstrates why it is irrational to use no source but the Bible in this debate.

 

[Natman]

Exactly!


Clarity and Shane Roach HAVE proven it scripturally. I see no reason to rehash those same scriptures. It is your OPINION that they haven't proven it. It's my opinion that they have. What's the difference? If that makes me a cultural Christian, then that makes everyone with a differing OPINION one also. We can hash this out ad nauseum, and still come down to you believing the bible supports public nudity and I will still believe it does not.

blessings

I have shown in every case and verse presented so far, that it is not "nakedness" that is sinful, but the actions that led to specific cases of nakedness or metaphoric nakedness that were sinful.

I want you or someone to point out the verse(s) tha says "Thou shalt not be naked..." or "Thou shalt not expose your buttocks, or your genitals..."


Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[immersedingrace]

I have shown in every case and verse presented so far, that it is not "nakedness" that is sinful, but the actions that led to specific cases of nakedness or metaphoric nakedness that were sinful.

You BELIEVE you have shown this. Obviously, some of us disagree or we wouldn't still be carrying on this conversation.

I want you or someone to point out the verse(s) tha says "Thou shalt not be naked..." or "Thou shalt not expose your buttocks, or your genitals..."

It also doesn't say "Thou shalt not beat thy wife..." or "Thou shalt not beat thy children..." (and I'm not talking corporal punishment) but I hope we can all agree that that's "alluded to" in the bible.

My point: It does not have to say "Thou shalt not" or "Thou shalt" in order to be biblical.

blessings

 

[Shane Roach]

Shane,
A person may be arrested and charged with anything, at any time. The mere fact that an arrest occured means that there will be a "criminal record", whether or not charges are dropped later in court.

The police may charge you with murder of your next door neighbor, in which case they typically have a limited amount of time to release you or file charges. Even if they file charges, they have to prove in a court of law that you are guilty.

Son-cerely,
Nate

My unhderstanding is if you are acquitted your record is expunged, at least in America. At this point I have seen nothing that would make me believe that he got off on every single charge.

 

[Risen Tree]

You BELIEVE you have shown this. Obviously, some of us disagree or we wouldn't still be carrying on this conversation.

Right back at you.

It also doesn't say "Thou shalt not beat thy wife..." or "Thou shalt not beat thy children..." (and I'm not talking corporal punishment) but I hope we can all agree that that's "alluded to" in the bible.

My point: It does not have to say "Thou shalt not" or "Thou shalt" in order to be biblical.

blessings

Actually, both those points are direct corollaries of the following verses:

[bible]Ephesians 6:4[/bible]

[bible]Ephesians 5:25[/bible]

By contrast, no verse in the Bible has a corollary that says "thou shalt not be naked."

 

[Shane Roach]

I have shown in every case and verse presented so far, that it is not "nakedness" that is sinful, but the actions that led to specific cases of nakedness or metaphoric nakedness that were sinful.

I want you or someone to point out the verse(s) tha says "Thou shalt not be naked..." or "Thou shalt not expose your buttocks, or your genitals..."


Son-cerely,
Nate

Actualy, all you did that I saw was to repeat over and over that there was some misunderstanding of a metaphor. You have been called repeatedly to explain HOW the metaphor of nakedness is associated over and over again with sex and shame without nakedness itself being associated with the two, and have continually refused to address that issue.

Here's yet another example: "Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereupon." (Exodus 20:26)

Why would it be a problem that someone's nakedness be exposed on the altar if nothing shamefull existed in ones nakedness?

Also, to be more blunt about the misuse you have put the argument about metaphors, I would like to point out that the term phrases having to do with uncovering someone elses nakedness are not entirely euphamistic of sex. For example, in Leviticus 20:17 it is made clear that it is the very sight of ones sibling's nakedness that is in question here. The word "see" is used. Plus, there is the continually un-answered question as to how in the world "uncovered so and so's nakedness" can be a euphamism for sex if indeed sex and nudity are not intimately related to one another.

It isn't so much then that the Bible doesn't say not to run around naked, but that you simply ignore the context and underlying assumptions of the commands. Indeed, in order for there to be any such euphamisms at all it is entirely necessary to assume that, in general, people are to be clothed, else there would be no nakedness to uncover. One would often simply be naked already. There would be no way for such a metaphor to develop.

I hardly expect any real reply at this point, but just to make it abundantly clear, no, you have not addressed and disproven every reference to nudity that has been presented here, you have simply declared yourself the winner. And if, in your mind, you have won, then that's fine. But you will find that it is a singularly unconvincing tactic in arguments to simply repeat that you have proven something.

 

[Archivist]

Here's yet another example: "Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereupon." (Exodus 20:26)

Why would it be a problem that someone's nakedness be exposed on the altar if nothing shamefull existed in ones nakedness?

Actually the Old Testament set forth various requirements for the priests that did not apply to the population as a whole. To use your analogy, we are all sinning if we don't wear bells on our garments.

In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that specifically identifies nudity as a sin. We know, however, know that Peter fished nude and he was not chastized by Christ for doing so.

 

[Shane Roach]

Actually the Old Testament set forth various requirements for the priests that did not apply to the population as a whole. To use your analogy, we are all sinning if we don't wear bells on our garments.

In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that specifically identifies nudity as a sin. We know, however, know that Peter fished nude and he was not chastized by Christ for doing so.

No, we don't know that Peter fised nude. Secondly, this is not about priests, it is about worship prior to that, for anyone at all to approach the altar and expose their nakedness on it by going up on steps would have been wrong, because WHY? What is wrong with nakedness?

Once more the subject is entirely skirted. The fact is that there is an underlying assumption in every single use of nakedness in these verses that it is something shamefull, from the moment Adam and Eve clothed themselved in shame foreward. Dozens of examples have been given. No argument has yet even so much as been presented except the argument of simply refusing to discuss it.

 

[immersedingrace]

Actually, both those points are direct corollaries of the following verses:

Ephesians 6:4And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

By contrast, no verse in the Bible has a corollary that says "thou shalt not be naked."

First , many parents who beat their kids, BELIEVE that they ARE bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the LORD. Second, many husbands who beat their wives, BELIEVE that they ARE loving their wives as Christ loved the church. (I've worked with abused children and wives and their abusers. That's the common myth among many abusers. The children and the abused spouse is conditioned to believe that as well, in many cases. ) Just like you BELIEVE that those verses brought up by Clarity and Shane Roach do not forbid nudity.

Again, this can go round and round for eternity.

Blessings

 

[Shane Roach]

Actually the Old Testament set forth various requirements for the priests that did not apply to the population as a whole. To use your analogy, we are all sinning if we don't wear bells on our garments.

In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that specifically identifies nudity as a sin. We know, however, know that Peter fished nude and he was not chastized by Christ for doing so.

Looking once more at the verse in question regarding Peter, it says he put his coat ON, not took it off, in order to go to see Jesus, and the phrase "he was naked" does not mean nude, and is even alternately understood as simply that he had removed the coat he is now described as putting back on.

About the only reason anyone would assume he was fishing nude is if they already have a tendency to ignore the way the term nakedness is used throughout the Bible. Otherwise, the context gives plenty of clues as to the fact that he was simply fishing with his coat removed, not with every stitch of clothing removed. It's the same strange logic that has Jonathan supposedly stripping for David when actually he was giving David his weapons and belt. Hardly a more butch thing could be envisioned as a man giving his weapons to another during a struggle, yet constantly those who have strange ideas about nudity and sexuality read this as, in mid flight from his enemies, Jonathan pauses to give David a little peep show and good-bye hug or something.

It is all really quite ludicrous if one simply reads in context.... *shrugs*

 

[Risen Tree]

First , many parents who beat their kids, BELIEVE that they ARE bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the LORD. Second, many husbands who beat their wives, BELIEVE that they ARE loving their wives as Christ loved the church. I've worked with abused children and wives and their abusers. That's the common myth amnog many abusers. Just like you BELIVE that those verses brought up by Clarity and Shane Roach do not forbid nudity.

Again, this can go round and round for eternity.

Blessings

It is possible to believe something and be dead wrong about it. Common logic or common sense should effectively weed out those falsehoods.

 

[immersedingrace]

It is possible to believe something and be dead wrong about it. Common logic or common sense should effectively weed out those falsehoods.

Exactly! Hence, those who BELIEVE public nudity is OK, are DEAD WRONG! But, I'm fairly certain you knew I was going to say that, just as I am certain you will say the same goes for those who believe public nudity IS a sin

 

[Archivist]

Exactly! Hence, those who BELIEVE public nudity is OK, are DEAD WRONG! But, I'm fairly certain you knew I was going to say that, just as I am certain you will say the same goes for those who believe public nudity IS a sin

No, actually I said several pages ago that there are two sides to this issue and we should each respect each other's views. No one has to be seen as being "DEAD WRONG." However, I was shot down when I said that...

 

[immersedingrace]

No, actually I said several pages ago that there are two sides to this issue and we should each respect each other's views. No one has to be seen as being "DEAD WRONG." However, I was shot down when I said that...

My comment

Exactly! Hence, those who BELIEVE public nudity is OK, are DEAD WRONG! But, I'm fairly certain you knew I was going to say that, just as I am certain you will say the same goes for those who believe public nudity IS a sin

was addressed to this comment:

It is possible to believe something and be dead wrong about it.

My point being this: I believe one thing, the other guy believes the exact opposite. One of us is wrong. The reality is, we all BELIEVE something. We usually believe WE are right and the other guy is wrong. What really gets me, even more than the issue of public nudity or no public nudity, is when either side says the other side is somehow less a Christian just because they don't agree. I'm perfectly ok with someone disagreeing with me. The reality is, I might be wrong, but unless God convicts me that I'm in error, I'm going to continue to believe the way I do. I'm ok with the other guy believing the opposite of what I believe. This isn't one of those areas where God says "Thou shalt not..." loud and clear. I believe it's alluded to throughout the bible, but other's apparently see it differently. One day, we'll have this, and all our other questions, answered. I for one, can't wait until that day.

Blessings.

 

[crashedman]

You BELIEVE you have shown this. Obviously, some of us disagree or we wouldn't still be carrying on this conversation.

It also doesn't say "Thou shalt not beat thy wife..." or "Thou shalt not beat thy children..." (and I'm not talking corporal punishment) but I hope we can all agree that that's "alluded to" in the bible.

My point: It does not have to say "Thou shalt not" or "Thou shalt" in order to be biblical.

blessings

Hi,

What are you getting at? I agree that wife or girlfriend beating is definitely NOT Christ-like behaviour and having had lady friends who were beaten by their partners, my heart aches for women who are treated like this. I should know, because I was slapped right down for losing my temper with women when I was in my teens. These days, I prefer to simply keep my distance from women who display any sense of hostility towards me. It might be a radical approach, but I have since become a very calm and placid person.

I'd rather much walk away from an angry and/or aggressive woman these days rather than retaliate.

Judging by activities I have seen advertised on some profiles by a number of people who are into naturism and nudism, I have to admit that many of them are *NOT* Christ-like.

These are some of the interests a few of them have come up with after doing a good search on Yahoo! (I hope that it doesn't make you guys too sick, but I am being honest with what I found).

Married but looking
Breasts and Nipples
Masturbation
Kinki Kids
Cherry Poppin' Daddies
Fisting
All In The Family
Jump, Little Children
International Order of Rainbow for Girls
Kid Swingers
Flashing
Incest Survivors
Child porn crimes
Older men for younger women
Older women for younger men
Webcams
Picture Trading
Exhibitionism and Voyeurism
Bi-sexual
Polyamory
Tantra

Most of these things go against moral decency and the status quo, and a good number of nudists who list activities like this are being investigated by police in their municipalities.

What makes things even worse is when you have women who condone these behaviours, when they are the ones who should be exercising some control or justice over their partners behaviour. Most of these people tend to be men who are aged between 40 and 70, and women aged 18 - 25.

Not one of them seem to be into Christianity or other activities that are supposed to be natural or where social justice is concerned like Amnesty International, environmental affairs, self-healing, meditation or yoga, or exercise and diet. This is what I had hoped that the majority of nudists would be in support of (especially because the nudist movement in the white man's world was started by Christians in the first instance).

We basically know that people who are perpetrators of sexually abusive behaviour were abused themselves when they were younger and only feel that they should have the right to make the weak and vulnerable suffer due to what happened to them. As they say 'what goes around comes around'. As Christians, what can we do to help these people or actively witness to them?

I agree that Ralph Ovadal's bully-boy tactics are definitely not the way of Christ. Should Christians really go and minister to people at nudist communes, beaches or resorts if one of Jesus' messages was 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to others.'

There are Christians who go to prisons, army barracks, mental hospitals, and women's refuges to minister without any hesitation - but make mention nudist environments and they either laugh, or chicken out at the idea.

FWIW, Kinki Kids is actually a Japanese karaoke pop duo and the Cherry Poppin' Daddies are a rather brilliant 40's orientated jazz swing band whose fans are VERY much against anything that condones child sex abuse or anything related to it.


Crashedman

 

[immersedingrace]

What are you getting at?

I'm getting at this:

It does not have to say "Thou shalt not" or "Thou shalt" in order to be biblical.

Should Christians really go and minister to people at nudist communes, beaches or resorts if one of Jesus' messages was 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to others.'

There are Christians who go to prisons, army barracks, mental hospitals, and women's refuges to minister without any hesitation. Crashedman

I believe that Christians should "go into all the world..." I do not, however, believe that EVERY Christian is to go into ALL the world. Christians are called to different areas. Some are international evangelists, some are called to the prisons, some are called to mental hospitals, etc. HOWEVER, when they go into prisons, they don't commit crimes to get there. When they go into mental hospitals, they don't neccessarily have mental illness, etc. Therefore, those who go to nudist areas don't need to be nude. They need to be covered in prayer and have a real calling on their lives to do just that. I have some friends who made a point of going "bar hopping" in order to witness. They did not drink. They did not participate in dancing. They did not participate in the "pick ups" (although some of them were approached they used those opportunities to witness rather than hook-up). I am not comfortable in bars (I happen to think drinking is a sin). Therefore I would not be good at witnessing in those situations. Some of them were comfortable enough to go and witness. I'm sure there are some people (you perhaps?) who would feel called or be comfortable in witnessing in those places.

Blessings

 

[Shane Roach]

Heh heh. Here I come to a parting of the ways even with my fellow "conservative". As there will be married people naked in these places, one will simply be unable to keep from the sin of seeing the nakedness of people who the Bible tells us not to look at, even as the sons of Noah were not to look at him naked. It's not that accidental glances kill, from a point of view of sin, but rather the willfull ogling. And I think going into a situation that one knows full well is going to present the virtual impossibility of keeping from sin and at the same time trying to argue that it is merely passive sight of these naked people, whose nudity is reserved to their own spouses according to my understanding, doesn't really wash.

No, I think public nudity is clearly sinfull, and one way we witness to the world is by separating ourselves from those parts of it where sin is blatantly practiced. We witness sometimes best by example.

 

[Shane Roach]

Further clarification on uncovering nakedness:

If you look at Lev 18, you will see that while it does appear that the series of demands not to uncover nakedness is associated with sex, and even in places is a euphamism for it, it also is plain in some sections that we are speaking here clearly not of just not having sex, but of not going through even the first step of getting to sex, which is to expose ones nakedness. For example, verse 8 says not to uncover the nakedness of your father's wife, because "it is thy father's nakedness." Now obviously, if uncovering nakedness is to have sex with, then we would be saying that to have intercourse with your father's wide is to have your father's intercourse. It seems pretty clear to me, however, that we are speaking here of a nakedness that is supposed to be reserved to one's spouse, in this case, one's own father.

Further down, it makes it clear that one should not lie carnally with another's wife. Interestingly, it says nothing about uncovering her nakedness. I do not read this to say it is perfectly ok to strip her as long as one doesn't go on and have sex with her though...

Once more, I have to insist on a certain amount of just common sense and context being applied to these verses. I think taken as a whole they constitute a body of evidence against public nudity that should not be so lightly passed over as it seems they are being done here.

 

[Risen Tree]

I'm getting at this:


I believe that Christians should "go into all the world..." I do not, however, believe that EVERY Christian is to go into ALL the world. Christians are called to different areas. Some are international evangelists, some are called to the prisons, some are called to mental hospitals, etc. HOWEVER, when they go into prisons, they don't commit crimes to get there. When they go into mental hospitals, they don't neccessarily have mental illness, etc. Therefore, those who go to nudist areas don't need to be nude. They need to be covered in prayer and have a real calling on their lives to do just that. I have some friends who made a point of going "bar hopping" in order to witness. They did not drink. They did not participate in dancing. They did not participate in the "pick ups" (although some of them were approached they used those opportunities to witness rather than hook-up). I am not comfortable in bars (I happen to think drinking is a sin). Therefore I would not be good at witnessing in those situations. Some of them were comfortable enough to go and witness. I'm sure there are some people (you perhaps?) who would feel called or be comfortable in witnessing in those places.

Blessings

Would making what appeared to be a sexual advance on a girl who has a known habit of sleeping around, or letting a prostitute kiss and massage my feet, be a good witness?