Nudism

[Natman]

How do you reconcile what is written in the Old Covenant ?
Cover yourself , nakedness is an abomination / embarassment / humiliation

The Bible never calls "nakedness" an "abomination" (like some other activities we know).

It does however differentiate from being purposefully naked before God and forcibly made naked. Adam and Eve and the many Old Testament prophets were purposefuly naked before God, without shame or sin.

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


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



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


1 Sam 19:23-24 “And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah.24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?



2 Sam 6:14 “David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might, (an ephod is a loose apron that covers the torso, down to just above the groin).



2 Sam 6:20-23 ”… Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!" 21 David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD , who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD's people Israel-I will celebrate before the LORD . 22 I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor." 23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.”



Isaiah 20:2-4 “at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, "Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet." And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot. 3 Then the LORD said, "Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, 4 so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared-to Egypt's shame.”


If you go back and read some of the prior posts in this thread, you will find that "nakedness" is used frequently as a metaphore for exposure to the wrath of God, or to the wrath of an invading force.

Eze 16:39 And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare.


Eze 23:29 And they shall deal with thee hatefully, and shall take away all thy labour, and shall leave thee naked and bare: and the nakedness of thy whoredoms shall be discovered, both thy lewdness and thy whoredoms.

These are prophesies of God removing His hand of protection from Israel, leaving them exposed to their enemies.

Eze 18:7 And hath not oppressed any, [but] hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;


Eze 18:16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, [but] hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,

Here God is describing virtuous men who care for others by providing for their needs. The "naked" here are those that would desire some clothing, but have none. This verse does not imply that the "naked" are shameful or sinful, but that ther are in need of something they do not have.

Or the list in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 ... don't get naked with brother , cousin , mom , step mom .... etc.

"Uncover the nakedness of..." is an Old Testament figure of speech that means to "have sexual relations with...". Here the sin is not merely being naked, but having sex with particular forbidden relatives such as close family members or step-parents. Actually, considering the fact that most people in the O.T. lived in either one-room tents or one-room houses, it is highly probable that family members saw each other naked quite often.

Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

 

[Madcoil]

When reading these responses I got a flash-back from an earlier life...

Some guy told me; 'It's okay to be a jew, but only in the right place at the right time. Like this working camp. And right now.'
Of course, I was surprised that I could understand him because he was speaking in German...

It's okay to be a nudist as long as you're only a nudist under your bed in the middle of the night? It's only okay to be a christian as long as you're only a christian on sunday in church between 11 and 12.30?

If you can't handle the human body, then you have a problem. Because, and you better lean close to get in on this one, it's a mind-breaker, let me tell you... You're IN ONE!

 

[Natman]

When reading these responses I got a flash-back from an earlier life...

Some guy told me; 'It's okay to be a jew, but only in the right place at the right time. Like this working camp. And right now.'
Of course, I was surprised that I could understand him because he was speaking in German...

It's okay to be a nudist as long as you're only a nudist under your bed in the middle of the night? It's only okay to be a christian as long as you're only a christian on sunday in church between 11 and 12.30?

If you can't handle the human body, then you have a problem. Because, and you better lean close to get in on this one, it's a mind-breaker, let me tell you... You're IN ONE!

Man, what a great analogy! Thanks!

Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

 

[zauberkoenig]

Hello everybody; I just have found this website and am on one of my favorite issues on humanity ;What reallyis the fear and anxiety about being / looking at a nude human being ? (especially a Caucasian : Missionaries did show their congregation, including children, slides from East Africa and the Ivory Coast from 1900 to 1960)- - and nobody even bothered, behold stirred up. With Bible study and prayer 1960, shortly afterward with my wife to be we joined the "wild nudes" in the wilderness forests along the Danube down from Vienna for enjoying the summer heat and the water of the sidearms to swim.
This was illicit, but tolerated. Nowadays you have a spa /"Therme" everywhere, so once a week the year around we go to the sauna; the summer vacation is in croatia or Corse : Its a gorgeous feeling of freedom. But : As I reconsider, Man has a deep fear in himself to be naked, some have their strategies to overcome it, some places (!!) offer a feeling of security and decent, cultivated behaviour. And I still question what is
to look - to look at - like to look - to look with interest - to wishfully look -
to look with desire - to look with lust.
Ouit of a part we recognize, out of a part we prophesy - - ( I Cor 13 : 9)
- I am still questioning and am not at the limit of the part acessable for me/us.

Greetings Zauberkoenig.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Why are Christians so offended by God's own creation? Not a single one of us was born in a designer suit. Apart from that, sexual repression tends to add the lure of the forbidden to everything even remotely connected to sexuality. That's why the US of A manage to be absolutely offended by nudity in movies, but at the same time produce more porn than any other country. The same happened in Victorian England: Since wives were expected to be virtuous to the point of utter frigidity (remember, even a bared TABLE leg was considered obscene, and trousers were called "unmentionables"), husbands kept mistresses to relieve their natural desires.

What's more, I noticed that nobody feels even remotely raunchy or indecent on a nudist beach -except for the Peeping Toms lurking nearby - and THEY are always dressed.

 

[Shane Roach]

CHristians are not offended by God's creation. We simply do not buy into thinly veiled attempts to trivialize sensuality and worldly behavior.

As for the quote above implying the ephod is some sort of attire designed to stop just above the genitals, that is flatly untrue. The description of the priestly ephod is in Exodus 28. Included is the "robe of the ephod". The pretense that all the various references to the shame of nudity are explainable operates in a complete vaccuum of any explanation for the assumptions. For instance, I have already pointed out specifically on this thread befire that the references to not looking on the nude forms of ones relatives and certain other people is not exactly, precisely the same thing as having sex with them. Saying that that phrase is always a euphemism for sexual intercourse is merely an ungrounded assertion. No convincing explanation has yet been offered, for example, for why then it was such an offense for Noah's son to look upon him nude. There is an implication of the necessity of hiding ones nude form from Genesis on down that line, and no amount of accusing Christians of being somehow uniquely obsessed with the propriety of wearing clothes in public is going to explain away the fact that wearing clothes in public is practiced worldwide.

Running around naked in the open may feel good, but it is not a mystery why Christians should not participate in such behavior.

 

[Shane Roach]

To be very extra CLEAR about the ephod, the garment I have most often understood that David was wearing was something akin to a loin cloth, and not the priestly ephod at all. The most basic meaning of the word is a "girdle", usually meaning something worn around the waiste to gird the loins.

This is only about the thousandth attempt here to portray David as having flashed his privates in that verse, and absolutely none of them hold any water whatsoever. Michal's reference was simply to the fact that he was admitedly dancing around nearly naked like a "fool". Any Christian who has ever found themselves being mocked for their enthusiasm for the Lord knows full well that you needn't do anything so drastic as dance half naked in the streets to suffer the sort of barbs David was having to deal with here. The point of that verse is not that he was totally nude, but that being faithfull to God cost David in his personal relationships, but that his deep and heartfelt emotion for the Lord was nothing for him to be ashamed of.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

CHristians are not offended by God's creation. We simply do not buy into thinly veiled attempts to trivialize sensuality and worldly behavior.

You know, I've been to several nude beaches, and I can assure you that nudity in itself is not necessarily erotic at all. In fact, certain clothes (miniskirts, etc.) can be far more suggestive and sensual than the "naked truth".
Of course, nakedness CAN be immensely erotic, but it's not the default. I've never heard of a single person who has been aroused by a Greek statue. Well, except for John Ashcroft, perhaps, who had to veil the statue of Justice to spare himself from feelings of embarassment...

Any Christian who has ever found themselves being mocked for their enthusiasm for the Lord knows full well that you needn't do anything so drastic as dance half naked in the streets to suffer the sort of barbs David was having to deal with here.

The society David lived in was not a secular one. Nobody would have mocked a person who expressed his religious fervour back then. It was an integral part of their daily life.

 

[Natman]

To be very extra CLEAR about the ephod, the garment I have most often understood that David was wearing was something akin to a loin cloth, and not the priestly ephod at all. The most basic meaning of the word is a "girdle", usually meaning something worn around the waiste to gird the loins.

This is only about the thousandth attempt here to portray David as having flashed his privates in that verse, and absolutely none of them hold any water whatsoever. Michal's reference was simply to the fact that he was admitedly dancing around nearly naked like a "fool". Any Christian who has ever found themselves being mocked for their enthusiasm for the Lord knows full well that you needn't do anything so drastic as dance half naked in the streets to suffer the sort of barbs David was having to deal with here. The point of that verse is not that he was totally nude, but that being faithfull to God cost David in his personal relationships, but that his deep and heartfelt emotion for the Lord was nothing for him to be ashamed of.

That is a real stretch.

Every definition of an "ephod" I have found indicates that it is a short (groin length), sleeveless, outer coat designed to cover the chest and back, held in place by a belt or sash around the waist, usually worn OVER a tunic for ornamental purposes.

The rebuke presented by Michal, daughter of Saul, indicated David had exposed more than mere "foolish behavior".

2 Sam 6:20 (NIV)

"...Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"

(NKJV)
'And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, "How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" '

(AMP)
"And [his wife] Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, How glorious was the king of Israel today, who stripped himself of his kingly robes and uncovered himself in the eyes of his servants' maids as one of the worthless fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!"

​

Son-cerely,

Nate

 

[an7222]

Do you think public nudism is a sin?

Nudism is all about culture and social contract. There's nothing immoral about it!

 

[immersedingrace]

Every definition of an "ephod" I have found indicates that it is a short (groin length), sleeveless, outer coat designed to cover the chest and back, held in place by a belt or sash around the waist, usually worn OVER a tunic for ornamental purposes.

This would be the definition that I've found as well. However, as you mentioned, it goes OVER a tunic, or as I've found, a robe. SO, it would be ASSUMED and UNDERSTOOD that David was NOT indeed naked as if he had on the EPHOD, he ALSO had on the robe that went UNDERNEATH! The robe underneath would not need to be mentioned as the instructions for wearing of the EPHOD were given elsewhere and a blue robe, such as the picture you've attached, would have been worn UNDER it.

Blessings

 

[Shane Roach]

You know, I've been to several nude beaches, and I can assure you that nudity in itself is not necessarily erotic at all. In fact, certain clothes (miniskirts, etc.) can be far more suggestive and sensual than the "naked truth".
Of course, nakedness CAN be immensely erotic, but it's not the default. I've never heard of a single person who has been aroused by a Greek statue. Well, except for John Ashcroft, perhaps, who had to veil the statue of Justice to spare himself from feelings of embarassment...


The society David lived in was not a secular one. Nobody would have mocked a person who expressed his religious fervour back then. It was an integral part of their daily life.

These sorts of statements might seem convincing if you were talking to someone who had not been to a few nude beaches of his own. There is one in Austin which has an entire section devoted to the alternative lifestyle crowd, and the one I went to in Greece likewise had a reputation for attracting homosexuals. The one in Greece I withnessed a man and woman engaging in some light foreplay. I'm sorry, but I don't buy your statement.

There are nudist communities that are supposedly set up so that children can go too, but those are an entirely different thing as far as I can tell, and frankly I think they need to be looked into. Anyone who would take their child someplace where no one wears clothes is in need of a wake up call as far as I am concerned, Christian or non-Christian.

 

[Shane Roach]

That is a real stretch.

Every definition of an "ephod" I have found indicates that it is a short (groin length), sleeveless, outer coat designed to cover the chest and back, held in place by a belt or sash around the waist, usually worn OVER a tunic for ornamental purposes.

The rebuke presented by Michal, daughter of Saul, indicated David had exposed more than mere "foolish behavior".

2 Sam 6:20 (NIV)


"...Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"

(NKJV)
'And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, "How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" '

(AMP)
"And [his wife] Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, How glorious was the king of Israel today, who stripped himself of his kingly robes and uncovered himself in the eyes of his servants' maids as one of the worthless fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!"


​

Son-cerely,


Nate

Not one of your various examples shows David to be naked, but rather uncovered in some undefined sense, and that you find some sort of difficulty with my supposedly stretched definition of the ephod which simply comes straight out of the concordance.

All this to defend a single incident in the Bible, the context of which would make it quite clear that nudity just in general would be totally unacceptable even if dancing in front of the Ark of the Covenant was accepted. Or did Michal just make it up on the spot that only shameless foolish people expose themselves in public?

And all these examples you continually suggest are just examples of nudity being a metaphor for people who are somehow oppressed. If nudity was perfectly acceptable, then the rich would wander around nude except for their jewels. The poor would work nude. There would be no context in which your assertion that it is somehow metaphorical could stand up. People would just be nude and no one would think anything of it, so it would not work as a metaphor for anything out of the ordinary. You have been called on this numerous times, offered no explanation for your belief, and just fallen back on rewriting a handfull of verses like this one to supposedly proove your point and cast some sort of aspersions on Christians or western culture for having some sort of hangups when in fact people wear clothes in public all over the face of this earth.

None of this is making any sense whatsoever to me, and perhaps more fundamentally, I can't see how it makes sense to you. I mean, in the vast majority of cases, one can at least understand the outlook of those on another side of a discussion. I have a fairly good understanding of the abortion issue from both sides, for example. There is the whole health and welfare of the woman to consider and the rather nebulous question of when life begins. But this, not unlike the homosexuality issue, or the issue where some argue premarital sex isn't really a sin, I simply cannot fathom it. It may not be wrong from a non-Christan ethical standpoint, but to argue that the Bible has nothing to say about these things, or that Christians are just misunderstanding something, is not something that even really has much room for confusion about it as far as I have ever been able to see.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

These sorts of statements might seem convincing if you were talking to someone who had not been to a few nude beaches of his own. There is one in Austin which has an entire section devoted to the alternative lifestyle crowd, and the one I went to in Greece likewise had a reputation for attracting homosexuals. The one in Greece I withnessed a man and woman engaging in some light foreplay. I'm sorry, but I don't buy your statement.

There are nudist communities that are supposedly set up so that children can go too, but those are an entirely different thing as far as I can tell, and frankly I think they need to be looked into. Anyone who would take their child someplace where no one wears clothes is in need of a wake up call as far as I am concerned, Christian or non-Christian.

These comments are passing strange, in that author C.S. Lewis, in his book, "The Great Divorce," paints a intruiging, imaginary picture of Heaven, in which he describe's all Heaven's inhabitant's as naked. This must surely be a correct concept, for if the original state of man was unclothed, and that was God's "best effort," then full redemption must bring us back to that original "very good" state.

Eph.3:20

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Not one of your various examples shows David to be naked, but rather uncovered in some undefined sense, and that you find some sort of difficulty with my supposedly stretched definition of the ephod which simply comes straight out of the concordance.

All this to defend a single incident in the Bible, the context of which would make it quite clear that nudity just in general would be totally unacceptable even if dancing in front of the Ark of the Covenant was accepted. Or did Michal just make it up on the spot that only shameless foolish people expose themselves in public?

And all these examples you continually suggest are just examples of nudity being a metaphor for people who are somehow oppressed. If nudity was perfectly acceptable, then the rich would wander around nude except for their jewels. The poor would work nude. There would be no context in which your assertion that it is somehow metaphorical could stand up. People would just be nude and no one would think anything of it, so it would not work as a metaphor for anything out of the ordinary. You have been called on this numerous times, offered no explanation for your belief, and just fallen back on rewriting a handfull of verses like this one to supposedly proove your point and cast some sort of aspersions on Christians or western culture for having some sort of hangups when in fact people wear clothes in public all over the face of this earth.

None of this is making any sense whatsoever to me, and perhaps more fundamentally, I can't see how it makes sense to you. I mean, in the vast majority of cases, one can at least understand the outlook of those on another side of a discussion. I have a fairly good understanding of the abortion issue from both sides, for example. There is the whole health and welfare of the woman to consider and the rather nebulous question of when life begins. But this, not unlike the homosexuality issue, or the issue where some argue premarital sex isn't really a sin, I simply cannot fathom it. It may not be wrong from a non-Christan ethical standpoint, but to argue that the Bible has nothing to say about these things, or that Christians are just misunderstanding something, is not something that even really has much room for confusion about it as far as I have ever been able to see.

The Song of Solomon has some of the most erotic poetry we will find in ancient literature and delivered to us by the Holy Spirit. The issue of whether we interpret the book literally or allegorically is irrelative. That God would use erotic language in either case says something about God that we must consider carefully.

Consider this scene: "Come back, come back O Shulammite; come back that we might gaze at you! Why should you gaze at the Shulammite, as at the dance of Mahanaim," (6:13). In 7:16 the girl is wearing nothing but shoes, for the boy's description of her whole body moves from feet to head. Admiring her navel refers to her vulva according to the Interpreter's Bible. In the context the girl is dancing (thus the shoes), and the people call to her "come back" or as we would say "encore," so they can continue to look at her body. As the girl dances the dance of Mahanaim, she is evidently either totally naked or covered only with a sheer see thru garment, for the lover sees her whole body, and describes it in detail (7:1-9). Not only he, but also a number of onlookers watch this nude dance, and he teases them by asking, "why are you looking at the Shulammite while she dances?" (6:13) The Hebrew word for "lok" or "gaze" in this verse means "to contemplate with pleasure" (Strong's 2372). He knows that they look for the same reason he looks. The girl is exceptionaly beautiful and her figure is "lovely." As she finishes her dance they beg her to return so that they can continue to look at her. The Interpreter's Bible Commentary says that this was some special dance apparently performed in the nude. The Pulpit Commentary says the dancing girl may have worn clothing of a light texture through which the details of her body and breast could be seen, "according to the mode of dancing done in the East." The girl was dancing in such fashion that her breast were visible and described as a perfectly matching pair, "two young roes that are twins." The girl had breasts like "towers"- and this was a major factor that caused the man to delight in her, (8:10).

If God speaks this way about nakedness and sexuality why is it wrong for us to do so? If God sees all this as clean, beautiful, desirable and even "holy" how can we view it as dirty and in need of hiding?God recorded this girl's nude dance and the reaction of all those who observed it, in a setting which overtly pronounces His approval of the whole scene. We must conclude that dancing nude for others to see and watching someone dance nude and to "contemplate with pleasure" what we see, is acceptable to God.

Studying the Holy Spirit inspired language of this book forces us to reconsider the validity of all of our presumptions, opinions and convictions about things sexual. We can see from the Song of Solomon that there is nothing about the body and its sexual organs, or using those organs for thier created purpose, that is dirty enough or "unseemly" enough for God to hesitate to write a book about it for all the world to read and understand. God's attitude toward sex is the correct attitude towards sex. This is Holy Spirit inspired writing which includes people watching another person (someone's wife!) dance in a most revealing way. But there is no censure. No call for repentance. Nothing at all describes this as bad in anyway. No fornication.

If we can accept this book as being inspired by God Himself and that its sexual content is not shameful, unholy or in any other way foreign to God's character, then we are in a better position to understand God's true attitude towards sex. God made sex. God made sex enjoyable. God made human bodies. God made them beautiful to look at. God also created men and women such that we experience automatic sexual reaction to the naked bodies of others. God sees this as good. And it is all in harmony with His essentially Holy nature. There is no dirt connected with human nakedness. A naked body is not inherently "dirty." All dirt exist in human minds.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Natman]

This would be the definition that I've found as well. However, as you mentioned, it goes OVER a tunic, or as I've found, a robe. SO, it would be ASSUMED and UNDERSTOOD that David was NOT indeed naked as if he had on the EPHOD, he ALSO had on the robe that went UNDERNEATH! The robe underneath would not need to be mentioned as the instructions for wearing of the EPHOD were given elsewhere and a blue robe, such as the picture you've attached, would have been worn UNDER it.

Blessings

That is not what the scriptures say in context. It says that David wore a linen ephod and had "stripped himself of his kingly robes", exposing himself to his slave girls like a "vulgar" or "worthless shameless" fellow. It is difficult to "expose" youself wearing "kingly" robes unless you hoist them up purposefully like a flasher. That would probably be considered "lewd".

I believe that if David were wearing anything else, even the ephod would not have been mentioned. It would have merely said David danced like a fool.


Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Shane Roach]

These comments are passing strange, in that author C.S. Lewis, in his book, "The Great Divorce," paints a intruiging, imaginary picture of Heaven, in which he describe's all Heaven's inhabitant's as naked. This must surely be a correct concept, for if the original state of man was unclothed, and that was God's "best effort," then full redemption must bring us back to that original "very good" state.

Eph.3:20

As has been mentioned repeatedly on this thread, we are not yet in a state of full redemption. Also, scripture that addresses specifically what we will be like when we are with God says that it is not yet clear what we will be, but that we will be like Him. I enjoy Mr. Lewis' writings in general, though it has been a while since I have read the book in question I think, if indeed I have read it at all. I would be surprised if he were in support of nudism.

Just to be clear, though, Mr. Lewis has no more idea what heaven will be like than you or I.

 

[Shane Roach]

The Song of Solomon has some of the most erotic poetry we will find in ancient literature and delivered to us by the Holy Spirit. The issue of whether we interpret the book literally or allegorically is irrelative. That God would use erotic language in either case says something about God that we must consider carefully.

Consider this scene: "Come back, come back O Shulammite; come back that we might gaze at you! Why should you gaze at the Shulammite, as at the dance of Mahanaim," (6:13). In 7:16 the girl is wearing nothing but shoes, for the boy's description of her whole body moves from feet to head. Admiring her navel refers to her vulva according to the Interpreter's Bible. In the context the girl is dancing (thus the shoes), and the people call to her "come back" or as we would say "encore," so they can continue to look at her body. As the girl dances the dance of Mahanaim, she is evidently either totally naked or covered only with a sheer see thru garment, for the lover sees her whole body, and describes it in detail (7:1-9). Not only he, but also a number of onlookers watch this nude dance, and he teases them by asking, "why are you looking at the Shulammite while she dances?" (6:13) The Hebrew word for "lok" or "gaze" in this verse means "to contemplate with pleasure" (Strong's 2372). He knows that they look for the same reason he looks. The girl is exceptionaly beautiful and her figure is "lovely." As she finishes her dance they beg her to return so that they can continue to look at her. The Interpreter's Bible Commentary says that this was some special dance apparently performed in the nude. The Pulpit Commentary says the dancing girl may have worn clothing of a light texture through which the details of her body and breast could be seen, "according to the mode of dancing done in the East." The girl was dancing in such fashion that her breast were visible and described as a perfectly matching pair, "two young roes that are twins." The girl had breasts like "towers"- and this was a major factor that caused the man to delight in her, (8:10).

You mistake the context it seems, going back and forth as you do. The description of her that appears to be of a woman nude or scantily clad is not related to the portion, which comes BEFORE it, of many people observing her.

If God speaks this way about nakedness and sexuality why is it wrong for us to do so? If God sees all this as clean, beautiful, desirable and even "holy" how can we view it as dirty and in need of hiding?God recorded this girl's nude dance and the reaction of all those who observed it, in a setting which overtly pronounces His approval of the whole scene. We must conclude that dancing nude for others to see and watching someone dance nude and to "contemplate with pleasure" what we see, is acceptable to God.

A: see again, she is not dancing naked publicly. It's rather a scandal, as you are now basically implying that nude bars are more or less things that we should visit on Sunday after communion I guess. Your interpretation is way off and your attitude is frankly frightening to me if it is even mildly tolerated in your church.

Studying the Holy Spirit inspired language of this book forces us to reconsider the validity of all of our presumptions, opinions and convictions about things sexual. We can see from the Song of Solomon that there is nothing about the body and its sexual organs, or using those organs for thier created purpose, that is dirty enough or "unseemly" enough for God to hesitate to write a book about it for all the world to read and understand. God's attitude toward sex is the correct attitude towards sex. This is Holy Spirit inspired writing which includes people watching another person (someone's wife!) dance in a most revealing way. But there is no censure. No call for repentance. Nothing at all describes this as bad in anyway. No fornication.

God's attitude towards nakedness, as I have pointed out and as has been repeatedly dodged and skirted here, was to provide Adam and Eve with clothes, to repeatedly refer to nakedness as shamefull, to forbid a lot of people from even so much as viewing one another nude, to curse Noah's son for not averting his gaze respectfully when Noah was drunk and nude in his tent, and many other telling references such as a comment in Genesis not to go up by steps to an altar of God lest someone's nakedness be exposed upon the altar. Really, God's attitude towards public nudity could hardly be more clear. God's attitude towards sex is likewise clear, in that it is to be between a man and a woman in the context of marriage, and is not for public spectacle. No one here is trying to guilt trip people about sex in general, but there is a time and a place for sex, and in public is not it.

If we can accept this book as being inspired by God Himself and that its sexual content is not shameful, unholy or in any other way foreign to God's character, then we are in a better position to understand God's true attitude towards sex. God made sex. God made sex enjoyable. God made human bodies. God made them beautiful to look at. God also created men and women such that we experience automatic sexual reaction to the naked bodies of others. God sees this as good. And it is all in harmony with His essentially Holy nature. There is no dirt connected with human nakedness. A naked body is not inherently "dirty." All dirt exist in human minds.

Eph. 3:20

If we read this book instead of skipping back and forth and patchworking together a scene that doesn't exist in it, there is nothing here that is incompatible with what has been said repeatedly by those defending the simple, common sense understanding that we not run around flaunting ourselves naked in public. Such behavior is described in quite harsh terms in the New Testament.

[bible]2 peter 2:17-22[/bible]

 

[Shane Roach]

There is something quite bizarre going on here in that every time I correct my post for the Bible verse, the word "implying" is somehow corrupted or goes back to a previous mispelling or something. Just a little something interesting in case a tech sort of person happens on this thread...

Really weird.

(Ok I fixed it all in one post and it stuck finally. Not sure why it was going back and destroying the edit of the spelling though when I would re-fix the bible quote.)

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Just to be clear, though, Mr. Lewis has no more idea what heaven will be like than you or I.

I whole heartedly agree! Wow, I never thought I'd see the day!

Smile Shane Roach.

Have a nice night.

Eph. 3:20