Nudism

[immersedingrace]

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?

Very funny. I might be tired, but I'm not so tired I'd miss such an obvious attempt to trap me into saying something Jesus did was a sin . (though I'm tired enough to have atrocious spelling) If you were Jesus, I'd say go right ahead.

If your motives were pure, if you were covered in prayer, if you felt God calling you to it and had confirmation, if other's knew what you were doing, if you had no history of prostitution or other sexual sin and if this wouldn't be a stumbling block for you, then I'd say go ahead also.

I don't think I'd be able to do that, nor whould I be comfortable with my spouse, boyfriend, or fiance allowing it. With that said, I'd have to add, if you're not married, to the above stipulations.

Blessings

 

[sumerland3]

when adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil his next incounter with God he hid because he was naked. lol he HID from GOD because he was ashamed and God pretty much said well how did you know your not supposed to be naked then made him clothes, it was only adam and his wife, and he still needed clothes so yes nudism is so wrong.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

So nudism was OK prior to the fall?

 

[crashedman]

I think it's illegal. If someone is walking down the street nude they can be arrested for indecent exposure.

Michelle

Hi Michelle,

It depends on where you live. In Denmark for instance, it is not illegal to walk down the street in the nude as long as you are not causing any trouble like road blockages or soliciting publicly for sexual favours. Only two of the beaches there demand that people be dressed. As a matter of fact, there is a very low instance of rape and violent sex-crimes recorded.

A few Canadian states have introduced legislation for women to be able to walk the streets without shirts or tops on the biological understanding that 'nude' refers to an exposed derrier or genitals.

Not too many women do, but it is legal. A young lady called Gwen Jacobs first started the protest in 1991 because she argued it was too hot for her to wear a shirt. She won the case and became a folk heroine, but nobody knows where she is or what she is doing today.

I'm not exactly sure of how some American Caucasian Christians like Natman and Rising Tree (well assuming that they are white) started embracing social nudity. I believe that the influence came from showing a sense of respect for the living customs of some of the native American Indians like a few Quakers did.

But I think what we need to understand is what redeeming social and personal benefits there are in embracing nudism.

In the late 1960's, a few groups like Elysium Fields and the Esalen Institute introduced it as a form of self-healing and development with workshops on massage, relationship building and meditation, virtually all of which involved full on nudity of a non-sexual nature.



Crashedman

 

[Magisterium]

when adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil his next incounter with God he hid because he was naked. lol he HID from GOD because he was ashamed and God pretty much said well how did you know your not supposed to be naked then made him clothes, it was only adam and his wife, and he still needed clothes so yes nudism is so wrong.

Well, that's an interesting theological development. However, in Gn 2:25 we see that scripture says that:

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and yet they felt no shame".

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating nudism or even playing devil's advocate. I"m merely indicating the flaw in a weak argument (which I"m sure a nudism proponent would just as likely done if I hadn't)

That said, the problem with nudism (speaking from a Christian perspective) does in fact stem from the fall of man in the garden. This episode in the garden speaks more figuratively to the dignity of mankind while speaking literally to the nakedness of mankind. First we'll develop the former.

When we take into consideration Gn 2:25 we see that there is certainly an outward change which is external to Adam and Eve (not just an internal mental change) in that scripture says that "their eyes were opened". What happens here, is that man becomes aware of sin. Before this point, mankind only knows and does God's will. As a result, he enjoys a certain dignity through his relation to God. St. Thomas Aquinas states in his Shorter Suma, that it is not to be believed that there existed some magical fruit (in the literal sense) which posessed the ability to impart some special knowledge. This fruit is an allusion to the knowledge gained from experience. In this case, the experience was acting contrary to God's will. In the natural order, once somethingis learned, it can never be "unlearned". It may be forgotten for a time, but some remnant remains and it leaves an indellible mark so to speak on the mind of the knower. In like manner, the first act committed by man contrary to God's will resulted in experiencing a certain new knowledge. That new knowledge is called evil. Mankind from that point now would have within him, something which altered physical creation itself. This new knowledge served also to corrupt man's view of himself as well.

As for the whole nakedness thing, in the literal sense the shame is related to the new human condition. The human condition which is aware of its sin, seeks to conseal itself. Before the experience and gained knowledge of sin, mankind had nothing to be ashamed of. Sin changes all of that. As a result, human beings have a "natural" desire to cover themselves and feel a sense of violation when that cover is removed without their concent.

This desire to conceal all goes back to the fact that mankind was created for love. This purpose drives a desire for love within mankind and s sense of unhappiness when he does not receive it. Before the fall, mankind was flawless so to speak. In this way, man's intellectual, spiritual, and physical natures were completely loveable to one another and to God. When they sinned in act against God, suddenly their natures were tarnished by something contrary to God's god's will which was therefore unloveable. Aware of this new undesireable aspect of their being, they now seek to conceal (or clothe) their physical selves. Unfortunately, the knowledge which resided in their minds also changed them. This alteration gave birth to the mental feeling of fear. That fear stems from not wanting that unloveable part to be discovered. This is why Adam and Eve didn't simply clothe themselves and go marching right up to God like nothing happened. The change was not only outward, it was inward.

Finally we come to the modern idea of nudism. Again, from a Christian perspective, nudism is effectively a lie. By willfully ignoring the inherent shame in our sinful human nature, we close ourselves off to salvation and redemption. Nudism denies that shame and in turn effectively feigns the state of sinlessness which was posessed only before the fall.

In fact, God Himself clothed mankind after the fall, ironically in the skin of a reptile ("leather" Gn 3:21). This indicates that God Himself affirmed mankind's need for concealment.

 

[Shane Roach]

I'm not sure how anyone goes back to know whether or not there was a literal fruit or a literal Garden of Eden, but I think that understanding of the fall applies whether or not there was a literal fruit to be had. I remember there was also a tree of life, which the two were NOT forbidden to eat of, yet they chose the forbidden one. In fact, the reason they were shut off from Eden was to prevent eating from this tree now that they were in a state of knowledge.

Overall, I agree with this overall understanding, though, that Magesterium laid out.

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, that's an interesting theological development. However, in Gn 2:25 we see that scripture says that:

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and yet they felt no shame".

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating nudism or even playing devil's advocate. I"m merely indicating the flaw in a weak argument (which I"m sure a nudism proponent would just as likely done if I hadn't)

I don't see the supposed flaw here. He is quoting from after the fall, not before. It seems he is going along the same path you are with this logic....

 

[Magisterium]

I don't see the supposed flaw here. He is quoting from after the fall, not before. It seems he is going along the same path you are with this logic....

Well, it's not a flaw in that it's incorrect, only in that it leaves itself open for refutation and dismissal by not explaining the underlying conditions. It also implies a common misconception that mankind's nakedness was always something to be ashamed of, but man just didn't realize it until he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

 

[Archivist]

It depends on where you live. In Denmark for instance, it is not illegal to walk down the street in the nude as long as you are not causing any trouble like road blockages or soliciting publicly for sexual favours. Only two of the beaches there demand that people be dressed. As a matter of fact, there is a very low instance of rape and violent sex-crimes recorded.

A few Canadian states have introduced legislation for women to be able to walk the streets without shirts or tops on the biological understanding that 'nude' refers to an exposed derrier or genitals.

Not too many women do, but it is legal. A young lady called Gwen Jacobs first started the protest in 1991 because she argued it was too hot for her to wear a shirt. She won the case and became a folk heroine, but nobody knows where she is or what she is doing today.

I'm not exactly sure of how some American Caucasian Christians like Natman and Rising Tree (well assuming that they are white) started embracing social nudity. I believe that the influence came from showing a sense of respect for the living customs of some of the native American Indians like a few Quakers did.

But I think what we need to understand is what redeeming social and personal benefits there are in embracing nudism.

In the late 1960's, a few groups like Elysium Fields and the Esalen Institute introduced it as a form of self-healing and development with workshops on massage, relationship building and meditation, virtually all of which involved full on nudity of a non-sexual nature.

In the United States it is legal for women to go topless in New York and in the District of Columbia. Very few women take advantage of it, but technically they are not breaking the law if they go topless in these places.

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, it's not a flaw in that it's incorrect, only in that it leaves itself open for refutation and dismissal by not explaining the underlying conditions. It also implies a common misconception that mankind's nakedness was always something to be ashamed of, but man just didn't realize it until he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

I've never pretended to have full understanding of why the tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbiden, or whether the sin was in the tree or in the disobedience of the two. I do know that the same word "know" is the one that often gets used in relation to men and women, i.e. to "know in the Biblical sense," and that entailed in that word at the time is the implication of knowledge through experience.

Still, in Genesis, God confirms that their eyes were opened "as one of us, to know good and evil..." So the knowledge in and of itself must not be the sin, eh? The whole thing is rather complex to me, but the thing that is clear enough is that God confirmed it was a good idea to put on clothes by handing them some on their way out of the garden of Eden.

 

[crashedman]

Well, that's an interesting theological development. However, in Gn 2:25 we see that scripture says that:

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and yet they felt no shame".
As for the whole nakedness thing, in the literal sense the shame is related to the new human condition. The human condition which is aware of its sin, seeks to conseal itself. Before the experience and gained knowledge of sin, mankind had nothing to be ashamed of. Sin changes all of that. As a result, human beings have a "natural" desire to cover themselves and feel a sense of violation when that cover is removed without their concent.[/qquote]

Not all human beings do. People who are not Christians and are naturists argue that the Christians violated indigenous people by forcing them to adopt a Western style dress sense when previously they had no need for clothes, and they didn't have half the social hangups or crimes that the 'civilised' people did.

This desire to conceal all goes back to the fact that mankind was created for love. This purpose drives a desire for love within mankind and s sense of unhappiness when he does not receive it. Before the fall, mankind was flawless so to speak. In this way, man's intellectual, spiritual, and physical natures were completely loveable to one another and to God. When they sinned in act against God, suddenly their natures were tarnished by something contrary to God's god's will which was therefore unloveable.

This is what I've been getting from a lot of people when I came out with the fact that I am a nudist. It's like "Uggggghhh! Get away from me you freak!" or "Are you gay?". Worst of all it came from people who preach about unconditional love and acceptance of everyone. :-(

Our bodies are created in God's image, and she says it is VERY GOOD! She still probably does if babies come from her with no clothes on. Is that freaky? According to some kids at school when first learning about pregnancy, they were rather dumbfounded (in fact I wanted to be an obstetrician when I was a kid).

Aware of this new undesireable aspect of their being, they now seek to conceal (or clothe) their physical selves. Unfortunately, the knowledge which resided in their minds also changed them. This alteration gave birth to the mental feeling of fear. That fear stems from not wanting that unloveable part to be discovered. This is why Adam and Eve didn't simply clothe themselves and go marching right up to God like nothing happened. The change was not only outward, it was inward.

Strangely enough, fear is something that states in the Bible perfect love drives out. Children have no fear of being naked, and I haven't seen kids at nudist clubs react with fear to adults.

But does God want us to still be ashamed or be frightened of each other? What was the point of Jesus coming if not to restore humanity and the Earth back to that relationship with God that they had?

Finally we come to the modern idea of nudism. Again, from a Christian perspective, nudism is effectively a lie. By willfully ignoring the inherent shame in our sinful human nature, we close ourselves off to salvation and redemption.[/quoite]

There is no such thing as salvation or redemption - only justice. It doesn't exist in any other part of nature except as a figment of human thinking.

In fact, most people who get into nudism find it quite liberating

Nudism denies that shame and in turn effectively feigns the state of sinlessness which was posessed only before the fall.

In fact, God Himself clothed mankind after the fall, ironically in the skin of a reptile ("leather" Gn 3:21). This indicates that God Himself affirmed mankind's need for concealment.

These days we don't need to kill animals when we have hemp and plastic that does the job of keeping our skin insulated against the cold or rain.

We don't need concealment if we have Jesus. If he died to remove sin from the world, then why does body shame still exist?!


Crashedman

 

[Magisterium]

We don't need concealment if we have Jesus. If he died to remove sin from the world, then why does body shame still exist?!


Crashedman

In actuality, if Jesus removed sin from the world, why is there still sin?

As I explained, once someting is known, it can never be "unknown". For this reason, man still (even after obtaining salvation) still suffers from what is called concupiscence which is a tendency toward sin. This tendency toward sin must be overcome by grace. However, even with the receipt of that grace, mankind's physical being still tends to rebel. This rebellion is manifested in certain illicit desires. These desires are not generally a conscious decision on the part of the person, they originate in the physical nature and must be subjected to the person's higher spiritual nature.

Jesus' redemption saves and restores our soul. However, our physical nature continues to rebel and must be subjected to our higher redeemed nature. The curruption that the body inherits after physical death (decay) is the natural result of it's inherent corruption. After death, we receive a new body which is incorruptible. This body will be devoid of shame or imperfection. However, our current physical state remains currupt in this life. It is only the presence of our spirit which prevents corruption as long as we inhabit the body.

This understanding is undoubtedly what has led some in various religions to detest the physical, failing to see the remaining beauty of what God created.

However, it is intellectually dishonest to deny that the body is perfect in it's current state. We all age and eventually our bodies expel our spirits. we see this and it is clear. We slowly watch our bodies inheret corruption while we are still in them. Bones and muscles grow weaker and systems become ineffective until given sufficient time, all shut down despite the best efforts of man. To deny this obvious physical condition and assert that the current physical state of mankind is perfect is a theological fallacy.

The physical human body remains unspeakably beautiful and wonderful, but it still bears the inherent brokenness of sin and God in His wisdom chose to clothe man for his time on this earth.

 

[crashedman]

In actuality, if Jesus removed sin from the world, why is there still sin?

As I explained, once someting is known, it can never be "unknown". For this reason, man still (even after obtaining salvation) still suffers from what is called concupiscence which is a tendency toward sin. This tendency toward sin must be overcome by grace. However, even with the receipt of that grace, mankind's physical being still tends to rebel. This rebellion is manifested in certain illicit desires. These desires are not generally a conscious decision on the part of the person, they originate in the physical nature and must be subjected to the person's higher spiritual nature.

Then there is no such thing as salvation. As for illicit desires, do you mean the desire to get drunk or stoned? I am pretty much doing OK without the need to do so.

What many people (especially Christian teachers) teach is that sex is somehow an expression of operating from our 'lower spiritual nature'.

Jesus' redemption saves and restores our soul. However, our physical nature continues to rebel and must be subjected to our higher redeemed nature. The curruption that the body inherits after physical death (decay) is the natural result of it's inherent corruption. After death, we receive a new body which is incorruptible. This body will be devoid of shame or imperfection. However, our current physical state remains currupt in this life. It is only the presence of our spirit which prevents corruption as long as we inhabit the body.

Well, roll on after death then. But decay is a natural thing. With that said, clothes have not prevented corruption in the world.

This understanding is undoubtedly what has led some in various religions to detest the physical, failing to see the remaining beauty of what God created.

Exactly. This came about because of the Gnostic heresy, which still exists in many schools of thought today.

However, it is intellectually dishonest to deny that the body is perfect in it's current state. We all age and eventually our bodies expel our spirits. we see this and it is clear. We slowly watch our bodies inheret corruption while we are still in them. Bones and muscles grow weaker and systems become ineffective until given sufficient time, all shut down despite the best efforts of man. To deny this obvious physical condition and assert that the current physical state of mankind is perfect is a theological fallacy.

In what state? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are some people who believe that the physical effects of ageing are beautiful such as wrinkles and weather-beaten skin. Should we cover up old people's faces because the skin doesn't have that fresh, unblemished elasticity that it had when we were younger? I see this as being one of the most damaging attitudes of American society (which is increasingly affecting the British and Australian culture). Facelifts and laser surgery to take away wrinkles gives people the impression that 'Old is not good enough'.

With that said, I think the nudist organisations need to be redifining their 'every body is beautiful' philosophy to some extent. The majority of people who presently support the cause tend to be very overweight, middle-aged to elderly people. You would wonder why they seem to be so enthusiastic about it, when the people that the people we tend to want to see nude are rarely to never there.

Of course we all know that we die and the body expels the spirit. We disagree on where the spirit actually goes as far as our religions are concerned. But why should we be buried in a three piece suit? Job wrote "Naked I came from my mother's womb, naked shall I depart."

The order of nature is perfect, and it is not our right as human beings to interfere with it in any way. Man is the only species that has ever gone against nature.

The physical human body remains unspeakably beautiful and wonderful, but it still bears the inherent brokenness of sin and God in His wisdom chose to clothe man for his time on this earth.

Well tell me this: why doesn't God send clothes down out of the sky if people want to swim or skinnydip or exercise in the gym going "mmmhmmmhmmm, can you put THESE on first before you go in the water please"? Are you saying that nudists are all 'bad' or 'nasty' people because they accept their bodies the way they are and stuff what anyone else thinks or says about them?

If I want swimmers, I'll ask God to give me them, not Speedo or Dunlop or some other capitalist pig designer label run by human beings. God gives us rain, grain, fruits and vegetables and plants for the needs of every living creature on this planet.


Crashedman

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, roll on after death then. But decay is a natural thing. With that said, clothes have not prevented corruption in the world.

I never quite caught what you thought about age and corruption being part of the evidence that we are not once more in the same state as in Eden though.

 

[Natman]

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.

Leviticus 18:8 is pointing out a fact that we know very well today, that to have sex with someone is the same as havings sex with everyone that has preceeded you... in this case your father.

Using varying terms such as "uncover the nakedness of...", "see the nakedness of...", "lie down with...", "lies carnally with..." is a matter of writing style of the Levitical author. It is plain to see in the context (as well as from various comentaries) that they each refer to the act of "having sexual relations with...", not to merely being naked.

I do not see why this is so difficult for some to see.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Shane Roach]

Leviticus 18:8 is pointing out a fact that we know very well today, that to have sex with someone is the same as havings sex with everyone that has preceeded you... in this case your father.

Using varying terms such as "uncover the nakedness of...", "see the nakedness of...", "lie down with...", "lies carnally with..." is a matter of writing style of the Levitical author. It is plain to see in the context (as well as from various comentaries) that they each refer to the act of "having sexual relations with...", not to merely being naked.

I do not see why this is so difficult for some to see.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Probably because there are examples that are very clear where seeing someone naked was improper, and yet for some reason you assume that in other cases, even though the word for seeing is used, it is not the proper use.

It seems rather capricious logic to me.

 

[Natman]

In the United States it is legal for women to go topless in New York and in the District of Columbia. Very few women take advantage of it, but technically they are not breaking the law if they go topless in these places.

Based on an earlier post listing all of the state laws defining "indecent exposure", it is actually "technically" legal for men AND women to walk down the streets "naked" as a jaybird, in MOST states, as long as there is no "lewd" activity or "intentional affront" (purposful annoyance, harrassment or alarm).

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Shane Roach]

Based on an earlier post listing all of the state laws defining "indecent exposure", it is actually "technically" legal for men AND women to walk down the streets "naked" as a jaybird, in MOST states, as long as there is no "lewd" activity or "intentional affront" (purposful annoyance, harrassment or alarm).

Son-cerely,
Nate

Actually what appears to have happened is that when the laws were passed, going nude in public was well understood itself to be lewd, and now there are people flaunting that law, and so it is being slowly rewritten to include nudity in more conservative areas (like Berkely!??!) but being allowed in places like New York, at least for now.

The more people that go around naked, the more parents are going to have to deal with their children seeing it, and the less likely those laws will be able to be so lax in their enforcement. Right now, it seems, there is something of a tongue in cheek tolerance of it.

It may well develop into a full blown movement, but since there has been a little undercurrent of nudism for some time in a lot of different places and times, I believe it is likely just to ebb and flow a little, with most people preferring to have enforced codes of some sort concerning dress.

Another 2 cents from y.t.

 

[Natman]

Probably because there are examples that are very clear where seeing someone naked was improper, and yet for some reason you assume that in other cases, even though the word for seeing is used, it is not the proper use.

It seems rather capricious logic to me.

There is NO "capriciousness" involved. Leviticus 18 talks specificly about "improper sexual relations". Leviticus 20 talks specificaly about the punisment for sins including "improper sexual relations". Only when you take them out of context and cultural euphamistic style can you come to the conclusion you present.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Shane Roach]

There is NO "capriciousness" involved. Leviticus 18 talks specificly about "improper sexual relations". Leviticus 20 talks specificaly about the punisment for sins including "improper sexual relations". Only when you take them out of context and cultural euphamistic style can you come to the conclusion you present.

Son-cerely,
Nate

There is no cultural euphamistic style, however, that dictates that all references to seeing someone nude mean having sex with them. In the case of Noah, it is very clear that he was merely seen nude. Not only that, but in the case where you argue that the implication is that one is for all intents and purposes sleeping with their own father if they sleep with their father's wife makes no sense because it is already bad to sleep with a married woman to begin with. Rather, we are talking here about uncovering someone intimately, in a way that is reserved for that one person only. This series is full of reasons that have to do with other than sex, such as being a relative, and so it makes no sense then to just assume it is sexual intercourse alone.

So your cultural context filter is apparently a tad askew, is what I am explaining. In the examples, which I specifically quoted, I thought, it said "see the nakedness," not "uncover," tends to imply something that your interpretation doesn't take into account, yet which is supported elswhere in the Biblical stories. That is, basically, you're not supposed to look at family members nude, period.

How could such be accomplished if everyone were running around nude?

You are merely inventing the "cultural context" that excuses your interpretation. It does not demonstrably exist. In fact, in that same series of verses the phrase "lie carnally with" also gets used, so it's not as if they were entirely bashfull about mentioning the actual sex itself. They even get as graphic as to explain how not to lie with an animal. There is really no support for your interpretation.