Nudism

[Natman]

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.

Magisterium,

I concur with your logic right up to the last two paragraphs.

Adam and Eve's eyes were opend to the fact that they "knew" they had sinned against God, and so, tried to hide themselves. God tempered His justice with grace by "providing" coverings for protection from the now fallen world, a world that would now be hostile to man. It wasn't a need for "concealment", but a need for "protection".

Also, as a Christian naturist, I am acknowledging a renewed relationship with God the Father through God the Son; that, although my physical body is not "perfect" as Adams was before the fall, my relationship IS.

I do not see this "inherent" shamefulness in our "nature" other than that which has been put upon us by other "men". This is evidenced in the fact that children do not display a sense of shame about their bodies until their parents teach it to them. Also, natives that live their lives naked are not ashamed until they encounter "civilized" people who foist their own standards upon them.

I am not ashamed of my "imperfect" body (or anyone else's) because I recognize that it is God's creation and that it is only a temporary vessel until the time it is also made new and imperishable. It is sad that because of our fallen state and the fallen state of the world that we must age, experience pain and suffering, and eventually endure a physical death. But I am not ashamed of any of this because it is all part of God's plan of redemption. Instead, I rejoice when I encounter people that have lived a long life and have the wisdom, the wrinkles, the gray hair and the battle scars to show it.

No. I have not "closed myself off to salvation and redemption". I have embrassed it completely by acknowledging that Jesus' blood is sufficient to cover ALL my sins and to renew my relationship with God, as promised, so that, even when I am fully clothed, I am "naked and unashamed".

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

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.

Gen 9:20-25
"20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [1] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

'Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.' "

There is FAR more going on than having Ham simply "see" his father naked.
"When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him..."

Once he found his father, Ham did not leave right away. The word "saw" in the original text (H7200 ra'ah (raw-aw')) literally means "gazed upon with satisfaction." Ham did more than just see his father and leave.

Many commentaries state that Ham probably committed a "sexual" perversion against his father and that is why the curse is directed at Ham's seed (his grandson Canan).

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.

If you read ONLY that single verse, out of context of all the other verses in the surrounding chapters, I would have agreed with you. But when you read everything, it is obvious, and biblical commentary confirms, that the verses deal directly with sinful forms of marriage or sexual relations.

If I take your interpretation, "That is, basically, you're not supposed to look at family members nude, period.", thenyou would be sinning when you changed your baby's diaper, or gave them a bath, or cared for your elderly or infirmed parents or children, or visa-versa.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Shane Roach]

Gen 9:20-25
"20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [1] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

'Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.' "

There is FAR more going on than having Ham simply "see" his father naked.
"When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him..."

Once he found his father, Ham did not leave right away. The word "saw" in the original text (H7200 ra'ah (raw-aw')) literally means "gazed upon with satisfaction." Ham did more than just see his father and leave.

Many commentaries state that Ham probably committed a "sexual" perversion against his father and that is why the curse is directed at Ham's seed (his grandson Canan).


If you read ONLY that single verse, out of context of all the other verses in the surrounding chapters, I would have agreed with you. But when you read everything, it is obvious, and biblical commentary confirms, that the verses deal directly with sinful forms of marriage or sexual relations.

If I take your interpretation, "That is, basically, you're not supposed to look at family members nude, period.", thenyou would be sinning when you changed your baby's diaper, or gave them a bath, or cared for your elderly or infirmed parents or children, or visa-versa.

Son-cerely,
Nate

What Ham had done to him was to see him naked and drunk and go and show his brothers, not molest him. You have to go and invent an entire different story to look at it as you do. Furthermore, where did you get this little vignet about the word "saw"? It appears to be the same word used over and over that means to see something.

I've never seen a commentary that made reference to Ham doing something further to his father either.

In any event, the point is here that this incident is similar to the ones being forbiden in Leviticus, and as far as I can see your argument that something more was done is just an total invention to boot.

As for seeing the babies naked, it is probably my fault for not being painstakingly clear. I am not trying to do away entirely with the sexual connotations of the nudity involved.

I mean, so far I have to ignore the fact that God gave Adam and Eve clothes, ignore that the Bible is saying here repeatedly not to uncover certain people's nude forms, ignore that similar language was used in a story with Noah that for all appearances is all about merely seeing someone nude and not being respectfull enough to turn away or cover them, ignore that clothes were worn habitually at the time, ignore the comment about uncovering nakedness on an altar to the Lord prior to the Levitical code, ignore that many, many porn magazines print pictures that are nothing else other than naked people, ignore that I know for a fact that a lot of men find this arousing, pretend that most people don't find nudity arousing, ignore the repeated association throughout the Bible of nudity and shame, and finally ignore just my basic conscience concerning how to behave in a way that is modest and shows a good example for the faith.

That is a lot to ignore, for me.

 

[Natman]

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.

Unfortunately, that isn't so.

I have a friend who's neighbors thought he was physically abusing (beating) his teenage child. He went to court and all charges were dropped. However, the record of his accusal, including a mug shot, are still on record and have been used against him in his bid for political office.

If you get charged, whether or not your are proven guilty, there is a record.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

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

There are lots of negative comments pertaining to the affects of well meaning "Christians" "going into the world".

From another forum, I got permission to reprint the following true story by a fellow Christian naturist pastor...

"I have a lot of friends that are missionaries, many in tropic climates. This one family (Married couple with two children a boy 11, and girl 8) was back in the States for vacation and raise founds to continue their work. There were staying at our home for about two weeks. They would speak at other churches but were housed in our home.

The rule is we do not display our nudism on guest nor insist anyone to be nude at our home.

I was trying to remember the robe for showers and at appropriate times. I only slept nude while we had company.

One night we were talking about the chill in the air, early fall. Kurt and Susan were not use to the cold. We turned the furnace on for their comfort. I asked, "What do you guys do when it gets nearly a 100 with no electric?" Susan without hesitation answered, "We go nude." My wife looked and I looked at each other trying to hold back our laughter. Susan immediately blushing, said, "We see naked natives all day every day. Kurt and I don't feel it is a sin for them to be nude, so why should we act like it is?"

"Good point," I said. My wife nodded her consent as I started, Kurt and Susan, we agree wholeheartedly. In fact we spend much of our leisure time nude. We find nothing sinful with it and enjoy the freedom that Christ gives us."

We talked for several hours about their experiences. How the natives were suspicious of them and avoided talking to them. Then when the children were bathing in a tub in the yard, a native couple talked to them. They discovered that because they were always dressed (as missionaries are suppose to be) the natives thought they were deranged. They prayed about it. They decided to try an experiment, Kurt was going to go nude the following day and try to talk to some of the men. It worked! Susan joined him the following day. Slowly but studiedly the natives accepted them and was willing to listen to what they had to say. Several have accepted Christ and the little hut they us for Services is occupied every Sunday.

We talked about our practice of going nude at home when we didn't have guess.
Kurt volunteered, that the kids were not looking forward to their visit to the States because of the clothes compulsion. Kurt and Susan had the guest room and the children were sleeping on the couch and an air mattress in the living room.

To shorten this story, Kurt and Susan decided that even though it was much to cool for them to be outside nude that it would be nice to be able to relax around the house nude.
That evening when we all was getting ready for bed, Susan told the children they didn't have to wear their pajamas if they didn't have want to. My trip to the shower was robe-less.

The following morning we all had our corn flakes and toast without clothes. So the remainder of their visit was clothing optional for all. Mostly we opted to not wear them.

Again once nudity is out in the open it is surprising how many will accept it. Not everyone thinks it is for them but they don't see anything is wrong with it.

Naturally in Christ
[Name witheld]"

​

Another story told of six missionaries who were summarily killed because the native saw their dress as threatening.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[immersedingrace]

We talked for several hours about their experiences. How the natives were suspicious of them and avoided talking to them. Then when the children were bathing in a tub in the yard, a native couple talked to them. They discovered that because they were always dressed (as missionaries are suppose to be) the natives thought they were deranged. They prayed about it. They decided to try an experiment, Kurt was going to go nude the following day and try to talk to some of the men. It worked! Susan joined him the following day. Slowly but studiedly the natives accepted them and was willing to listen to what they had to say. Several have accepted Christ and the little hut they us for Services is occupied every Sunday.

I'm sure that many drug addicts would prefer you smoke a little weed or do a line of coke with them before witnessing. A prostitute would prefer that you partake of her particular service before you witness. Doesn't make it right. There are other ways of getting around going nude. I'm fairly certain that not all missionaries have ended up going nude simply because they had a slow time of getting the natives to open up.

Another story told of six missionaries who were summarily killed because the native saw their dress as threatening.

That truly is sad, but still not a screaming endorsement for going nude.

Blessings

 

[FadingWhispers3]

I'm sure that many drug addicts would prefer you smoke a little weed or do a line of coke with them before witnessing. A prostitute would prefer that you partake of her particular service before you witness. Doesn't make it right.

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ' law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." 1 Corinthians 9:20

You tell 'em Paul!

 

[immersedingrace]

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ' law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." 1 Corinthians 9:20

You tell 'em Paul!

I guess you're saying it's OK to smoke weed and prostitute yourself to witness?

Blessings

 

[FadingWhispers3]

I guess you're saying it's OK to smoke weed and prostitute yourself to witness?

Regarding your questions, I would not do either. There are reasons for this. The body is a temple of God. In the first case, the Word of God tells me not to become drunk but to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I take that to mean I should not subject my brain or body to harmful substances knowingly. In the second case, prostitution deflies the body and soul of all participants. Why should someone who has become free desire to enslave himself/herself again?

Please do not draw hasty conclusions. I think thou doth protest too much. K? Thx.

 

[Natman]

I'm sure that many drug addicts would prefer you smoke a little weed or do a line of coke with them before witnessing. A prostitute would prefer that you partake of her particular service before you witness. Doesn't make it right. There are other ways of getting around going nude. I'm fairly certain that not all missionaries have ended up going nude simply because they had a slow time of getting the natives to open up.

The story is not an endorsment to get wasted or do anything un-natural or against God's will.

1 Cor 6:9-10 "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

It just points to the fact that these current-day natives were comfortable and unashamed of their nudity. They were so comfortable with it as to be uncomfortable around and suspicious of people that are dressed. My guess is that their reaction is similar to how we would react talking to someone wearing a mask, thinking "What are you hiding?"

The point is that God is STILL making us "naked and unashamed". We are born naked and unashamed of our bodies until some other human tells us we should be. In North America, that happens at an early age. In Europe, it may or may not happen. In some African and South American cultures it never happens.

Every culture has moral and ethical rules. All are aware of property rights, social structure and familial needs. Most acknowledge a superior being. ("I have written my laws on your hearts.") The desire to hide our bodies is not inate, but imposed, not by God, but by (some) societies.

If you're uncomfortable being naked, wear cloths. If you're not, don't. If you're ashamed of your body, God's creation, hide it. If your not, don't.

Gen 1:27 "God created man is His own image ... “



Gen 2:25 “and they were naked and felt no shame ...”



Gen 1:31 “and God saw ALL that He had made, and it was very good."



1 Tim 4:4 "EVERYTHING created by God is good and NOTHING is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving...”



Isa 5:20 “but woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."

Mt 6:25-34 Jesus says, "Why do you worry about clothes? The body is MORE IMPORTANT than clothes."



1 Cor 6:19-20 God says, "Do you not know that YOUR BODY is the temple of God's Holy Spirit, who is in you? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. Therefore, honor God WITH YOUR BODY."

*** 1:15 "To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure."

Acts 10:15 "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Rom. 14:14 "...I am fully convinced that NOTHING is unclean of itself. But if someone considers something unclean then for him it is unclean."

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[immersedingrace]

The story is not an endorsment to get wasted or do anything un-natural or against God's will.

Sounded like an endorsement to go nude...to my understanding...that IS against God's Will

It just points to the fact that these current-day natives were comfortable and unashamed of their nudity. They were so comfortable with it as to be uncomfortable around and suspicious of people that are dressed.

And just a few generations ago, many of the "modern day natives" (and I'm not talking specific to your example) thought it OK to eat one another! That is, if it's not still happening today.

The desire to hide our bodies is not inate, but imposed, not by God, but by (some) societies.

Says you.

Gen 1:27

"God created man is His own image ...

Yep. I believe I said that I wasn't ASHAMED of my body, in a former post.

Gen 2:25

“and they were naked and felt no shame ...”

No one's arguing that before the fall, that Adam and Eve felt no shame.

Gen 1:31

“and God saw ALL that He had made, and it was very good."

Again, not hearing anyone say it wasn't good.

1 Tim 4:4

"EVERYTHING created by God is good and NOTHING is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving...”

I'm thankful for my life. Thankful for the breath I receive daily. And yea, thankful for my body

Isa 5:20

“but woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."

Works both ways.

Mt 6:25-34 Jesus says,

"Why do you worry about clothes? The body is MORE IMPORTANT than clothes."

Again, don't recall anyone saying that the body was unimportant.

1 Cor 6:19-20 God says,

"Do you not know that YOUR BODY is the temple of God's Holy Spirit, who is in you? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. Therefore, honor God WITH YOUR BODY."

yep, I KNOW my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. We obviously have a different understanding of what that means.

1:15

"To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure."

I'll let the teeth marks on my tongue fester a while because I refuse to respond to this very obvious opinion that I, and other's who believe public nudity is a sin, are corrupt.

Acts 10:15 "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

You haven't PROVEN that God made PUBLIC NUDITY clean

Rom. 14:14

"...I am fully convinced that NOTHING is unclean of itself. But if someone considers something unclean then for him it is unclean."

So, you're convinced that NOTHING is unclean of itself? Good for you.

Blessings

 

[jesusfreak3786]

I think if there was no lust in the world it would be widely practiced, But knowing that other poeple are lusting over your body is pretty darn sick if you ask me.

 

[Archivist]

Sounded like an endorsement to go nude...to my understanding...that IS against God's Will

The question of whether public nudity is against God's will has been the whole purpose of the thread. Scripture has been offered on BOTH sides of the issue.

Since scripture can be interpretated both ways on this issue I have twice said that we should simply agree to disagree. Why do you want to insist on your view being the only view rather than recognizing this?

 

[yak]

I must agree with jesusfreak3786. Lust is what makes nudism wrong either by me or someone else. Personally my wife and I would be nudist if there was any where convenient to go.

I had a conversation with a missionary in Germany that had a heated discussion because, with native born pastors, he drank coke and not beer. Coke has sugar and caffiene both useless to the body. So whos point of view is wrong. No he did not start drinking beer he simply started drinking water. What I am tring to say is cultures have different view points on many issues who are we to change them, unless it breaks on of the ten commandments.

 

[Natman]

I think if there was no lust in the world it would be widely practiced, But knowing that other poeple are lusting over your body is pretty darn sick if you ask me.

The studies listed in prior posts (dated Sept 20th) as well as the personal experiences of hundreds of thousands of naturists would indicate that "lust" would be substantially reduced if naturism were more widely practiced.

The fact that those in Western societies rarely see a live naked body, and that the only images of naked people routinely seen are from air-brushed or digitally altered pornography books, films or websites, causes us to think that nakedness is only equated to sexual activity or sexual arousal.

The naked natives referred to in the recent post probably do not have the same propensity toward lusting after someone they happen to see naked because they are accustomed to seeing uncovered breasts and genitals all of the time.

Also, I would wager to say (just a figure of speech) the they have alot less insecurities about their identities.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[plmarquette]

In Genesis 3:21 God clothed Adam and Eve. If being nude were okay, this would have been unnecessary. That's a very brief point, but it's all I've got time for now .

prior to the sin they were clothed in God's glory [ like the glowing face of moses ] , when the glory lifted due to sin , God covered their nakedness ...

Let me ask a second question :
What is the reason for nakedness ?
1. to do some rays / work on tan in private or with spouse
2. to draw attention to your figure
3. to make others drool
4. to advertise your assets and availability

 

[Risen Tree]

5. Comfort.
6. Freedom.
7. Hygene.
8. Convenience.
9. Athletic purposes (many warm-weather sports, particularly swimming, are most efficiently done in the nude)

 

[Natman]

prior to the sin they were clothed in God's glory [ like the glowing face of moses ] , when the glory lifted due to sin , God covered their nakedness ...

Let me ask a second question :
What is the reason for nakedness ?
1. to do some rays / work on tan in private or with spouse
2. to draw attention to your figure
3. to make others drool
4. to advertise your assets and availability

This is a beautiful concept. Unfortunately, it's not scriptural.

The biggest reason my wife and I like to be naked is "comfort", especially working in the heat and humidity of Houston. There is nothing worse that clingy, soggy, smelly clothing while working in the yard, garden or around the house. Plus, it makes clean-up a breeze... just grab the hose or step right into the shower, no muss, no fuss, no "locker-room-odor".

The next reason is that we definitely feel closer to God when we are not only spritually naked, but physically naked, as God creates us. Our most relaxing times are sitting naked on our garden swing, in the midst of God's beautiful flowers (He has blessed my wife with a green thumb), reading our Bibles, studying and praying.

It's not "Heaven on Earth" or even "Paradise", but it is as close as we can get in this fallen world.

There are plenty of other pratical reasons to be naked. Hygene probably tops the list because we are not creating the perfect breeding ground for germs and bacteria. They can't stand to much oxygen or ultra-violet light. Also consider the time saved in not selecting clothing in the morning.


Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Shane Roach]

I guess you're saying it's OK to smoke weed and prostitute yourself to witness?

Regarding your questions, I would not do either. There are reasons for this. The body is a temple of God. In the first case, the Word of God tells me not to become drunk but to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I take that to mean I should not subject my brain or body to harmful substances knowingly. In the second case, prostitution deflies the body and soul of all participants. Why should someone who has become free desire to enslave himself/herself again?

Please do not draw hasty conclusions. I think thou doth protest too much. K? Thx.

I got pretty much the same message from it a the previous poster. You might consider being a little more clear, rather than assuming others are drawing "hasty" conclusions.

 

[Johnnz]

The debate continues, although it is largely talking past each other.



I have been musing on two issues. I wonder how many of those opposing nudity have bothered to go the some of the sites mentioned and actually acquaint themselves with some of the interesting material that is available, especially from christian orientated sites. Or is it a case of ‘don’t let the facts interfere with my opinions?’ I consider it highly disrespectful to argue against any matter if I am not familiar with the facts and arguments put forward by its adherents. Basic courtesy, as well as humility is involved. Humility derives from awareness that I might just not have the whole picture.



Then, there is this fervent debate to justify a shame based moral position. I suspect that the willing defence of the ‘clothes only’ position is an expression of Christians’ in particular, and society’s in general deep unease about much of human sexuality. If our bodied are the temple of God’s Spirit, why do we not hear much more about obesity caused by poor eating and exercise habits? We know that obesity is a causative factor in many diseases. Is gluttony no longer a sin even though it harms the body?



For me, the debate rather proves a point. Christians have real issues with sexual matters.



John
NZ