Nudism

[Shane Roach]

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

Smile Shane Roach.

Have a nice night.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Shane Roach]

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

ephod: (insert hebrew spelling and pronunciation here) probably of foreign derivation. A GIRDLE; specifically (i.e. in the specific cases where it is most often referred to in the Bible as a priestly garment) THE ephod or high-priest's shoulder-piece; also gen. an image:--ephod

The fundamental definition is of a girdle, that is, something that girds, or wraps around, something else. It is no more a word specific to the priestly ephod than "shirt" means the shirt Michael Jackson wore when doing the ideo for "Bad" every time you see it..

I mean really....

The reason it gets mentioned is because, as can clearly be seen from the context of the story, running around half naked was not generally accepted, despite numerous attempts on this thread to try to imply that it is.

 

[Natman]

ephod: (insert hebrew spelling and pronunciation here) probably of foreign derivation. A GIRDLE; specifically (i.e. in the specific cases where it is most often referred to in the Bible as a priestly garment) THE ephod or high-priest's shoulder-piece; also gen. an image:--ephod

The fundamental definition is of a girdle, that is, something that girds, or wraps around, something else. It is no more a word specific to the priestly ephod than "shirt" means the shirt Michael Jackson wore when doing the ideo for "Bad" every time you see it..

I mean really....

The reason it gets mentioned is because, as can clearly be seen from the context of the story, running around half naked was not generally accepted, despite numerous attempts on this thread to try to imply that it is.

You are confusing two separte items. The descriptions I have found of an ephod (or efod) in dicate that it consisted of two pieces of fabric, with shoulder straps, designed to cover the chest and back. It was held in place by a girdle. It was not a girdle itself. Some descriptions have it ending at the waist, while others have it extending as far as the hips.

FROM Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: eph·od
Pronunciation: 'e-"fäd, 'E-"fäd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, from Hebrew EphOdh
1 : a linen apron worn in ancient Hebrew rites; especially : a vestment for the high priest
2 : an ancient Hebrew instrument of priestly divination

From The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
ephod

Sacred linen garment worn by the high priests of Israel. It was in two parts—one covering the back, one the front of the body to the hips—and was fastened at the shoulders by two clasps of onyx on which were engraved the 12 tribal names, six on each. The vestment was held in at the waist by a twined linen girdle of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet; on the ephod was the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim, hung by golden chains and rings. The priest was adorned in this fashion to symbolize the presence of God with his people. The ephod was somehow used for divination. It is mentioned in numerous passages in the Bible.



From Easton's Bible Dictionary

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ephod [N] http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/SmithsBibleDictionary/smt.cgi?number=T1413

something girt, a sacred vestment worn originally by the high priest (Exodus 28:4), afterwards by the ordinary priest (1 Samuel 22:18), and characteristic of his office (1 Samuel 2:18,28; 14:3). It was worn by Samuel, and also by David (2 Samuel 6:14). It was made of fine linen, and consisted of two pieces, which hung from the neck, and covered both the back and front, above the tunic and outer garment (Exodus 28:31). That of the high priest was embroidered with divers colours. The two pieces were joined together over the shoulders (hence in Latin called superhumerale) by clasps or buckles of gold or precious stones, and fastened round the waist by a "curious girdle of gold, blue, purple, and fine twined linen" (28:6-12). The breastplate, with the Urim and Thummim, was attached to the ephod.

​

Son-cerely,
Nate
[/font]

 

[Natman]

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.

Actually, CS Lewis is well known throughout the Christian community as an atheist-turned great Christian Apologist, who had a wonderous zeal for life. He is also known as a man who readly grasp naturism and displayed it in many of his writings.

“A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might be equally “modest,” proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell may be chaste (or equally unchaste).” CS Lewis


In his book "Perelandra" about space travel, a traveler from earth discovers that the people he encounters are nude, a symbol of their perfection. In this setting only those who need to be ashamed of themselves wear clothes.

I believe he is stating his case for the derailment of God's design by His own people when he writes "Yet could it be possible, in the long run, to wear clothes without learning modesty, and through modesty lasciviousness?"
- C. S. Lewis in "Perelandra"


Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Eph. 3:20]

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.

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.

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 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]

There is no patchwork exegesis here, everything is in context. The "friends" are in SOS 6:13 "Come back that we might gaze at you." (or encore), they desire to see her. The Lover's reply, "Why do you gaze at the Shulamite..."(6:13b) And then he immediatly goes on to describe that which they were looking at..her body. He knows why they desire to look, it's the things he's describing in chapter 7. The entirity of chapter 7 is his description of that which they said they wanted to gaze at. The "beloved" and the "friends" answer in chapter 8. Are we to suppose that the "friends" and "beloved" ran out of the room for the entirity of chapter 7 while he was describing his lover's body and then ran back into the room so they could comment in chapter 8? It is one continuous dialouge.

This is the kind of stretching that must be done to fit the "God is against nakedness" mentality. Do we suppose that Noah cursed Ham and his lineage forever for a glance at Noah's nakedness? How does that curse fit that crime?

The curse is a direct reflection of the nature of the sin. For a curse to be justifiable, Noah should either have cursed Ham's eyes because he ogled at his nakedness, or cursed his brain (mental faculty) for he made light of his nakedness. And, if Ham had forced himself upon Noah when Noah was drunk, then a curse upon Ham's reproductive organ would be justified. Remember the Word says: "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exod.21:23-25). In the end, we have Noah's curse directly impacting Ham's reproduction in his son Canaan which points to some kind of sin that was sexual in nature. This fits exactly with the Biblical definitions we are given for terms that are used within that time period, which is what Natman has been commenting on all along...

" Uncover his nakedness This is a euphenism for sexual relations." (John MacAurther Study Bible)

"In Hebrew usage "nakedness" is often a euphenism for sexual relations (cf. Lev. 18). This usage helps to explain the incident as Gen. 9:20-27, where Ham apparently took advantage of his father's drunken state and had sexual realtions with him." (Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, pg. 746)

" Uncover his nakedness in Lev. 18 and 20 refers to incest. It also refers to the results of incest, ie. bringing shame upon the aggrieved party." (International Standard Bible Encylopedia, vol.3 pg. 480)

Shane, I respect your opinion and I enjoy our conversations, but you seem to be clumping all instances together where someone is naked and something bad happens, and then building a "God is against nakedness" position. Many "things" are allowed and can be corrupted, it does not make that "thing" corrupt. Eating is allowed but can turn to gluttony, eating does not become the crime only the excess. Drinking is allowed, but excess it becomes immoral, thus drinking itself is not a crime. Wealth is allowed but not greed, thus being wealthy is not a crime and being greedy is immoral. Dancing is allowed, but dancing that might lead one to immorality is not allowed. Nakedness is allowed, but not nakedness that leads to immorality.

The nakedness itself is not immoral, it's ammoral. Nudity has no moral quality. Something must be added to it to make it immoral. What is immoral is what breaches love for God or love for man. Nudity does not offend God, He created it. It was His "very best" design. Nudity breaches love for man when we force that nudity upon somebody, (which is something that I don't think anybody on this thread is proposing), or when we use that nudity with the intention to entice one into sexual sin. Thus the nakedness itself is not what's sinful, it's what we add to it that makes it so. It is this "human" addition that is sinful. The nakedness itself is not sin.

Sin itself is a heart issue as desribed in the NT, (Mt.5:28,15:18,Lk. 6:45, Acts 5:3, Acts 8:21) or the "intention when it comes to sinful acts.". The opposite of a sinful heart is a heart for God, or our "intention for God"“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart "(Mt 22:37, Mk.12:30,33,Lk. 10:27 ),"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,"(Mt 6:21, Lk. 12:34), "I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart." (Acts 13:22), "But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart,"(1Sa 13:14), "He committed all the sins his father had done before him; his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his forefather had been."(1Ki 15:3)

See, the "intention" or "heart issue" is what determines the sinfulnes if this activity, not the activity itself.

-Eph. 3:20

 

[Natman]

There is no patchwork exegesis here,...
-Eph. 3:20

EXCELLENT post Eph.

WOW!

Son-cerely devoted to Christ,
Nate

 

[plmarquette]

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 ... “

at this point talking about adam the spirit .... adam the humus man made in genesis 2
Gen 1:31 “and God saw ALL that He had made, and it was very good."
is there a difference between , innocents that are naked [ kids ] , preadolescent and DeJavu dancers ?

Gen 2:25 “and they were naked and felt no shame ...”
did not know what naked was , or why should be otherwise ...innocent before the fall

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?
God commanded him to , as a sign of the disgrace , occupation , and humiliation to come , not to work on his tan or " free willie "

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). basically in our venarcular , he took off his shirt and tee shirt .... still had his outer cassock (ephod) and loin cloth on ... naked to his
wife... [ not properly dressed v's undressed ]

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.”
see above ^ he wasn't buck naked... took off his shirt ...


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.”
God said to do so .... as a prohecy ...to make a point , not as a new
commandment ... go ye and get naked ... party on


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.

also used for without his anointing / protection / security ... not the subject of this thread ... " as a christian , in good standing , is it good or evil to
run around in public in your birthday suit ? " If you and the missus live on 40 acres in the middle of nowhere and want to do your yard work in your bj's fine... not attracting attention to yourself , not tempting others , not violating nudity , in the " context " of our faith

These are prophesies of God removing His hand of protection from Israel, leaving them exposed to their enemies.
.... yeh Deuteronomy 28.1-6 blessing & 28.7-16 the curse ; 1,2 kings ; 1,2 chronicles ; 1,2 samuel ; joshua ; judges ... sin = punishment ...

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.
then why does Paul state that creation declares the necessity of a creator , and those who do not know him are without excuse ; most of those heathen nations don't know anybetter ... don't count ; many cover the differential and expose the transmission ... as they come to christ ... conviction of the Holy Spirit kicks in ..

"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.
so you do not look at a woman , undress her with your eyes , imagine the coming attractions , prior to the event ?

amen I say to you , he who dwells on a sin in his mind is guilty of the sin for what you dream about , you eventually do ... +/-

Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

to the best of my knowledge the only men not influenced by naked women are gay ones , and the only women not influence by naked men are lesbians
and though your intentions may be pure , you may be causing some one else to stumble [ occasion of sin for them ].... catch 22

for what it is worth ..

 

[Natman]

to the best of my knowledge the only men not influenced by naked women are gay ones , and the only women not influence by naked men are lesbians
and though your intentions may be pure , you may be causing some one else to stumble [ occasion of sin for them ].... catch 22

for what it is worth ..

There are many societies throughout the world that operate everyday in the nude or nearly nude (of course there were a lot more before Victorian missionaries converted them). The men in those societies see naked girls and women all of the time without even a single thought of lust or sex. Most have stricter prohibition against improper sex than most western societies.

The truth is that if you spent a single day in and among one of the societies or at a nudist (not hedonist) venue, you would come to realize that "nudity" does not equal "lustuous thoughts" or "sex", just "comfort" and "unpretensiousness".

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Bohemian]

Do you think public nudism is a sin?

Lust is a sin, nakedness is not.

 

[Shane Roach]

You are confusing two separte items. The descriptions I have found of an ephod (or efod) in dicate that it consisted of two pieces of fabric, with shoulder straps, designed to cover the chest and back. It was held in place by a girdle. It was not a girdle itself. Some descriptions have it ending at the waist, while others have it extending as far as the hips.

FROM Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary



Main Entry: eph·od
Pronunciation: 'e-"fäd, 'E-"fäd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, from Hebrew EphOdh
1 : a linen apron worn in ancient Hebrew rites; especially : a vestment for the high priest
2 : an ancient Hebrew instrument of priestly divination

From The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
ephod

Sacred linen garment worn by the high priests of Israel. It was in two parts—one covering the back, one the front of the body to the hips—and was fastened at the shoulders by two clasps of onyx on which were engraved the 12 tribal names, six on each. The vestment was held in at the waist by a twined linen girdle of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet; on the ephod was the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim, hung by golden chains and rings. The priest was adorned in this fashion to symbolize the presence of God with his people. The ephod was somehow used for divination. It is mentioned in numerous passages in the Bible.



From Easton's Bible Dictionary

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ephod [N]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/SmithsBibleDictionary/smt.cgi?number=T1413

something girt, a sacred vestment worn originally by the high priest (Exodus 28:4), afterwards by the ordinary priest (1 Samuel 22:18), and characteristic of his office (1 Samuel 2:18,28; 14:3). It was worn by Samuel, and also by David (2 Samuel 6:14). It was made of fine linen, and consisted of two pieces, which hung from the neck, and covered both the back and front, above the tunic and outer garment (Exodus 28:31). That of the high priest was embroidered with divers colours. The two pieces were joined together over the shoulders (hence in Latin called superhumerale) by clasps or buckles of gold or precious stones, and fastened round the waist by a "curious girdle of gold, blue, purple, and fine twined linen" (28:6-12). The breastplate, with the Urim and Thummim, was attached to the ephod.




​

Son-cerely,



Nate
[/font]

I am confusing nothing. The definition I got is for ephod. Your definitions are for the specific ephod referred to as the priestly garment. As I pointed out, all ephod's are not the same as that specific one. There is absolutely no indication he was flashing his gentials.

I notice one of your references states that the priestly ephod is the one David is wearing, yet it does not in the actual verse state such.

The bottom line is the girdle is either part of the ephod or else an ephod is another word for girdle. There is absolutely still, no matter how you twist this around. any indication he was dancing around totally nude, nor that if he was that it was normally acceptable.

Had David cared to dance exposing himself he could easily have just stripped naked. Your interpretation continues to strain the verse to the absurd.

 

[Shane Roach]

There is no patchwork exegesis here, everything is in context. The "friends" are in SOS 6:13 "Come back that we might gaze at you." (or encore), they desire to see her. The Lover's reply, "Why do you gaze at the Shulamite..."(6:13b) And then he immediatly goes on to describe that which they were looking at..her body. He knows why they desire to look, it's the things he's describing in chapter 7. The entirity of chapter 7 is his description of that which they said they wanted to gaze at. The "beloved" and the "friends" answer in chapter 8. Are we to suppose that the "friends" and "beloved" ran out of the room for the entirity of chapter 7 while he was describing his lover's body and then ran back into the room so they could comment in chapter 8? It is one continuous dialouge.

If it is one continuous dialogue, you are stuck saying that the friends stayed when they went into her mothers house to watch them make love (SoS 8:1-3). I find your exegesis continually more strained with every post.

This is the kind of stretching that must be done to fit the "God is against nakedness" mentality. Do we suppose that Noah cursed Ham and his lineage forever for a glance at Noah's nakedness? How does that curse fit that crime?

The punishment would hardly fit the crime in the world's eyes even if he had done something further. It seems pretty clear to me it was all about being disrespected.

The curse is a direct reflection of the nature of the sin. For a curse to be justifiable, Noah should either have cursed Ham's eyes because he ogled at his nakedness, or cursed his brain (mental faculty) for he made light of his nakedness. And, if Ham had forced himself upon Noah when Noah was drunk, then a curse upon Ham's reproductive organ would be justified. Remember the Word says: "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exod.21:23-25). In the end, we have Noah's curse directly impacting Ham's reproduction in his son Canaan which points to some kind of sin that was sexual in nature. This fits exactly with the Biblical definitions we are given for terms that are used within that time period, which is what Natman has been commenting on all along...

Aside from being stretched to the absurd, one need only apply the concept that sin commited in the mind is the same as the actual sin to make even your extreme interpretation fit.

" Uncover his nakedness This is a euphenism for sexual relations." (John MacAurther Study Bible)

"In Hebrew usage "nakedness" is often a euphenism for sexual relations (cf. Lev. 18). This usage helps to explain the incident as Gen. 9:20-27, where Ham apparently took advantage of his father's drunken state and had sexual realtions with him." (Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, pg. 746)

" Uncover his nakedness in Lev. 18 and 20 refers to incest. It also refers to the results of incest, ie. bringing shame upon the aggrieved party." (International Standard Bible Encylopedia, vol.3 pg. 480)

Here like your predecessor you refuse to follow through with any explanation of why exposing ones nakedness is at the same time both a euphamism for sex and yet not so lewd that one would consider it innapropriate for public exposure. If nakedness is so closely tied to sex that to mention even so much as seeing ones akedness means to have sex with them by implication, then the further implication is that it would be innapropriate behavior in public.

Shane, I respect your opinion and I enjoy our conversations, but you seem to be clumping all instances together where someone is naked and something bad happens, and then building a "God is against nakedness" position. Many "things" are allowed and can be corrupted, it does not make that "thing" corrupt. Eating is allowed but can turn to gluttony, eating does not become the crime only the excess. Drinking is allowed, but excess it becomes immoral, thus drinking itself is not a crime. Wealth is allowed but not greed, thus being wealthy is not a crime and being greedy is immoral. Dancing is allowed, but dancing that might lead one to immorality is not allowed. Nakedness is allowed, but not nakedness that leads to immorality.

Well, public nakedness surely seems to lead to immorality in any possible, common sense setting that I can imagine.

The nakedness itself is not immoral, it's ammoral. Nudity has no moral quality. Something must be added to it to make it immoral. What is immoral is what breaches love for God or love for man. Nudity does not offend God, He created it. It was His "very best" design. Nudity breaches love for man when we force that nudity upon somebody, (which is something that I don't think anybody on this thread is proposing), or when we use that nudity with the intention to entice one into sexual sin. Thus the nakedness itself is not what's sinful, it's what we add to it that makes it so. It is this "human" addition that is sinful. The nakedness itself is not sin.

It seems to me that a: public nudity by definition is forcing the nudity on others, and that b: the assumption that nudity is not something that more or less automatically entices one towards sin is a stretch. See the continuous references to a handfull of backwards cultures that wear few if any clothes being used to legitimize nudism despite the fact that the vast majority of cultures worldwide do not allow for it? See the implication that western societies spread this habit of being clothed despite the fact that clothing seems to have sprung up all over the world and in almost all cultures? There are reasons for such things, and I have yet to read a rational explanation for that coming from those who keep insisting that public nudity is ok. Especially for those who insist public nudity in the presence of children, such as at some nudist colonies, would be ok, I say that is a sad and extreme form of this sin.

Sin itself is a heart issue as desribed in the NT, (Mt.5:28,15:18,Lk. 6:45, Acts 5:3, Acts 8:21) or the "intention when it comes to sinful acts.". The opposite of a sinful heart is a heart for God, or our "intention for God"“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart "(Mt 22:37, Mk.12:30,33,Lk. 10:27 ),"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,"(Mt 6:21, Lk. 12:34), "I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart." (Acts 13:22), "But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart,"(1Sa 13:14), "He committed all the sins his father had done before him; his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his forefather had been."(1Ki 15:3)

See, the "intention" or "heart issue" is what determines the sinfulnes if this activity, not the activity itself.

-Eph. 3:20

Sin is a heart issue coupled with a knowledge and understanding issue. Once one has been introduced to the concept of sexual cleanliness and clothing, one no longer can fall back on the concept that one had no idea of sin, therefore sin not being imputed. The difference between other OT issues and nudity or sexual sin is that the NT specifically states that even if the law were to allow it, sexual sin should still not be allowed within the church. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that public nudity would be excluded from sexual sins.

 

[Shane Roach]

There are many societies throughout the world that operate everyday in the nude or nearly nude (of course there were a lot more before Victorian missionaries converted them). The men in those societies see naked girls and women all of the time without even a single thought of lust or sex. Most have stricter prohibition against improper sex than most western societies.

The truth is that if you spent a single day in and among one of the societies or at a nudist (not hedonist) venue, you would come to realize that "nudity" does not equal "lustuous thoughts" or "sex", just "comfort" and "unpretensiousness".

Son-cerely,
Nate

This is really nothing but yet another of your assertions that seems to come from nowhere.

 

[Shane Roach]

From Easton's Bible Dictionary

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ephod [N]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/SmithsBibleDictionary/smt.cgi?number=T1413

something girt, [/font]​

From your own set of definitions. See also the altnernate, "an image" that I already gave you. "Ephod" is not a word that only refers to the garment you keep referring back to.
​

 

[The Bellman]

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.

And I know a beach here in Sydney (not nude) which is known for attracting homosexuals. And on a beach here I witnessed a man and a woman engaging in some light foreplay.

Sorry, but isolated incidents aren't at issue. What is at issue is whether the environments promote this sort of thing. They don't.

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.

Yes, there are a large number of nudist communities, particularly in Europe, which cater for families. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that the children of these families suffer in any way, and I find the implication above regarding taking children to them incredibly narrow-minded. Putting children in an environment where nudity is commonplace can only be good for them - it will help prevent them from adopting the baseless nudity taboo that you evidence, which so many have.

 

[Natman]

This is really nothing but yet another of your assertions that seems to come from nowhere.

This come from the various reports on the subject mentioned earlier in this thread as well as common knowledge available in any anthropology textbook and other sources such as "National Geographic Magazine".


Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

From your own set of definitions. See also the altnernate, "an image" that I already gave you. "Ephod" is not a word that only refers to the garment you keep referring back to.
[/indent]

True only if you take it out of context.

For some reason, you like to be very selective in your material and continually take things out of context. This is a technique used by many Christians and non-Christians alike to get the Bible to say whatever they want it to, "good" or "bad".

The context of the verses obviously are about David dancing about exposing himself to his maidens in an "un-gentlemanly" manner and being rebuked by his wife.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Salsa_1960]

From a Christian point of view-- yes. We're told not to do anything that would cause another Christian to stumble in his/her faith. Though we can't always make that decision (not knowing what another person's weakness might be), exposure to nudity would cause most people to lust.

1 Cor. 8:9
But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.

Romans 14:19-21 (on the topic of eating food that has been sacrificed to idols)
[19] So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another. [20] Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean, it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. [21] It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble.

 

[The Bellman]

Well, public nakedness surely seems to lead to immorality in any possible, common sense setting that I can imagine.

Please support this. Can you cite any instances of where public nakedness has led to 'immorality'?

It seems to me that a: public nudity by definition is forcing the nudity on others, and that b: the assumption that nudity is not something that more or less automatically entices one towards sin is a stretch. See the continuous references to a handfull of backwards cultures that wear few if any clothes being used to legitimize nudism despite the fact that the vast majority of cultures worldwide do not allow for it? See the implication that western societies spread this habit of being clothed despite the fact that clothing seems to have sprung up all over the world and in almost all cultures? There are reasons for such things, and I have yet to read a rational explanation for that coming from those who keep insisting that public nudity is ok. Especially for those who insist public nudity in the presence of children, such as at some nudist colonies, would be ok, I say that is a sad and extreme form of this sin.

Firstly, public nudity is not forcing the nudity on anyone; the only way to do that would be to force everyone to be nude, which nobody is advocating. You have claimed that nudity is something that more or less automatically entices on toward sin, but have not supported this claim in any way.

Sorry, it's not a 'handful of backwards cultures'. Many advanced cultures throughout history have legitimized nudism in various situations - modern examples include Sweden (mixed bathing).

 

[Natman]

Sorry, it's not a 'handful of backwards cultures'. Many advanced cultures throughout history have legitimized nudism in various situations - modern examples include Sweden (mixed bathing).

In fact, MOST of western Europe and the Balkins, much of the African continent, Korea, Japan, parts of Australia and New Zealand, the Caribbean and Virgin Islands, much of South America, even many states in the United States allow for some degree of normal public nudity, particularly California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Shane Roach]

True only if you take it out of context.

For some reason, you like to be very selective in your material and continually take things out of context. This is a technique used by many Christians and non-Christians alike to get the Bible to say whatever they want it to, "good" or "bad".

The context of the verses obviously are about David dancing about exposing himself to his maidens in an "un-gentlemanly" manner and being rebuked by his wife.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Which, at the very least, refutes any point you have about it being generally acceptable to be nude in public, and at the most moderate, indicates that it is you, and not I, that is taking this out of the overall context in which nudity is discssed in the Bible.