Nudism

[immersedingrace]

I'm also concerned about the sexualised nakedness in the popular media used to sell unrelated products such as football and food, especially the stuff that is designed to reach a younger target audience.


Crashedman

Oh my goodness...I think we agree on something here :o

 

[morningstar2651]

Nudity...3 times out of 4, I'm nude while posting on this message board.

There are laws against nudity in public though.

 

[crashedman]

They are legislated by humans, not God.

 

[Dekan Tom]

[/QUOTE] Prior to the fall of man, nakedness wasn't sinful, but when when man fell, nudity became shameful.....Adam and Eve attempted to cover (the own works) their spiritual nakedness with aprons made of fig leaves, but this was inadequate and God graciouly covered (a picture of the atonement) them with robes. Clothing is a symbol of our righteousness and salvation; nudity is a symbol of our spiritual nakedness. [/QUOTE]I think your brief is a fairly common interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. One problem with this interpretation is that it not reinterated in scripture. There are Christians who are so scandalized about nudity that they are prepared to condemn others to Hell, or at least excommunication, only on the basis of social nudity or immodesty.

As someone pointed out to me, when Adam told God that they hid from him because they were naked, they were actually wearing their fig leaf aprons. Other than asking, "Who told you you were naked?", God doesn't address the nudity issue. So, frankly, I don't know what God intended when He clothed them; tho I do agree with you that God evidently killed animals to make the coats of skin as the first shedding of blood for atonement and through Christ, the remission of our sins.

One problem that I have with the common intrepertation is that Adam and Eve were married; so stating that we should not be naked with others except our spouses does not follow from the text. In fact, I don't see what exactly follows from the text. Must we wear skins of animals for our clothing because that is the type of clothing God provided? It would seem that the skins God provided would have been very uncomfortable. Should we wear uncomfortable clothes to remind us that we are sinful? If we have acepted Christ's sacrifice for our sins, are we, in fact, sinners who are under the law? Does clothing transcend the law?

Does clothing transcend culture and economic situation? Are impoverished families living in small houses or huts in trouble with God if family members see each other naked at times because they can't avoid doing so?

There are too many unanswered questions with this issue for me to accept that we should be inherently ashamed of our nude bodies. When I grew up I was required to take daily showers during PE in school. I was initially embarassed, but quickly got over it. Is nudity amoung others of the same sex a sin?

Well, these are some of my questions with this issue to which I don't find definitive answers in scripture. I think for the most part it is an issue of culture with no inherent sin or shame.

Tom

 

[Dekan Tom]

Oh, but it is. Peter would not have fished nude because of the scriptured I have mentioned earlier regarding the long list of people who are not to be seen naked. Heck, there was a curse involved in well nigh accidentally seeing Noah naked, wasn't there?

Hi Shane,
I believe you may be referring to the Levitical laws?? You did not give your reference. If so, you are the only person I have "met" who did not understand these were laws against incest, not nudity. I believe most if not all of the newer translations are more clear about this fact than is the KJV.

Tom

 

[Soc12]

I wish I could walk around naked all day. The problem is that if I did that, then I would be making all of the female population (and most of the male as well) sin, because no one can resist lusting over this....

 

[Natman]

I wish I could walk around naked all day. The problem is that if I did that, then I would be making all of the female population (and most of the male as well) sin, because no one can resist lusting over this....

I would say almost the same thing...

"I wish I could walk around naked all day. The problem is that if I did that, then I would be making all of the female population (and most of the male as well) sick"
​

Just kidding. Actually, although my body is not perfect, I think it is average for a guy my age. If we were accustomed to seeing everyday people naked and unashamed, as God creates us, most people would NOT be driven to lust. Statistics further up in the thread bare that out.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Dekan Tom]

Instead of simply agreeing you started making statements like "what IS illegal and done anyway is sinful" in an effort to show that you initial statement was right. The problem is that you were wrong again because there have been and still are many unjust laws, and it is NEVER sinful to break an unjust law. I was in no way comparing Rosa Parks to going nude--the point was that, as I just said, it isn't sinful to braek an unjust law.
QUOTE]

Actually, YES, breaking an "unjust law" IS a sin. There are other ways Rosa Parks (and anyone else who is victim to an unjust law) could have gotten her point across that wouldn't have been breaking the law. I for one am glad she DID get her point across, and I'd probably have done the same in her situation. Doesn't mean it was the "sinless" way to do it. The only time it's not a sin to break a law, is when that law goes against the bible, eg, being told we're not allowed to pray, or to publicly worship.

Tom: Just to be precise, I heard that Rosa Parks was actually sitting in the first row of the "Black" section of the bus. As more white people got on the bus than there were White seats for, the bus driver asked Rosa to vacate her seat in the Black section so a white person could sit there. I don't know if there was another seat in the Black section for Rosa to sit in or not. When Rosa refused to obey the driver, the driver had her arrested.

As for nudity in public, which I believe was the original post, in the US in most places it is a sin BECAUSE it's against the law. We're instructed to follow the law of our land.

Tom: I think this is a key point, and I think I agree with it at least generally, i.e., if a person breaks a non-Biblical law with no compelling reason, I would generally agree that the action violates God's stated wishes and would be a sin. But my understanding of whether actions are sinful or not goes to motivation. In the first case of wilful disobedience of a law, if there was a compelling reason, e.g., running out of burning house while nude, I do not think that is a sin. [BTW, you may remember about a year ago that in Saudi Arabia, the morality police did not allow girls to escape a school that was on fire, causing the girls to burn to death, because they were not wearing their head scarves.] Therefore, if a Christian is speeding on the interstate, say going 65 is a 55 zone, they are sinning, unless there is a compelling reason like taking someone to hospital with a life-threating emergency. And futher, if a person is speeding without a compelling reason, they are sinning just the same as a person going nude in public. If you agree that "sin is sin", then there is no degree of difference in the sin.

We're also instructed not to do that which would cause another to stumble. If we KNOW that nudity causes a significant number of people to sin, then we shouldn't go around nude in public for THAT reason alone...no matter what the law says. Yes, I'm aware that some men and women are aroused no matter what another is wearing, but the MAJORITY of people, from my experience, wouldn't fall into that category.

Tom: So the writer agrees that a Christian speeding on the interstate which may incite others to also speed, OR may damage his/her Christian witmess to weaker Christians (perhaps a passenger in his/her car), is being a stumbling block to other Christians in their committment to Christ. Now specifically, I am of the school that puts the sin of lust entirely on the "luster." Note the 10th commandment on this. The commandment does not say for one's neighbor to not marry a beautiful wife, or not to have nice, perhaps lavish, possessions, e.g., to drive a Ford Focus instead of a Lexus 430; or to only wear costume jewelry. So it seems to me that God realizes that there will always occasions for lusting if a person is inclined to do so. Now if a Christian drives a Lexus and tries to talk other Christians into buying one when he should know that the others cannot afford a Lexus, I think that would be a sin.

Tom: Just a point of clarification, "stumbling" is a strong word. It does not mean being offended or questioning some action; it means leading a person to renounce their faith. So my above example of speeding leading to stumbling is probably overstated; but so also the example of being a nudist leading someone to stumble is overstated.

 

[SnoopyDances]

its not a big deal. everyone has the same thing. there are males, and then there are females, everyone has seen both. really it is a dumb thing to argue over. people shouldnt find it offensive because it is the person themselves, their body, and gods creation, and somehow that is supposed to be public indecency? it is pretty dumb i think. Some friends and I went streaking at our homecoming football game and we had to wear masks so we wouldnt get in trouble. there shouldnt be anything wrong with it.

 

[Dekan Tom]

1 Corinthians 12v23
and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it,

This is a reference to the fact that there are parts of our body that are unpresentable and these are the same ones that god gave adam and eve animal skins to cover as they are to be treated with special modesty and this is the clearest passage against nudity.

Hi Clarity, The above scripture is part of a teaching on the importance of each individual member of the body of Christ; it is not a teaching on parts of the physical body. Paul uses an analogy to make his point, but this passage does not translate well into English. If, as you say, "there are parts of our body that are unpresentable and these are the same ones that god gave adam and eve animal skins to cover as they are to be treated with special modesty and this is the clearest passage against nudity.", then tell me which members of the body of Christ are unpresentable and to be hidden from view? The text states that God gives greater honor to members that lacked it, but it does not state that there are members which are to be hidden. Tom

 

[crashedman]

So what about Matthew 6: 24-29?

A fellow on the rec.nude newsgroup has been debating this verse as to why people who find nakedness disgusting or immoral should repent and become naturists because Jesus tells us not to worry about clothes.

Regarding 'unpresentable' parts, this was more to do with people as a collective body, not bits of human anatomy.

Apart from naturists and nudists, most people do not particularly find penises to be attractive or sightly parts of the human body and all too often a woman's bare breasts are seen this way too (although this paradigm is beginning to change slowly).

Having said that, it is the principle of the matter that is at stake here: breasts are designed to provide nourishment and nurturing and not intended for men to lust after. They cannot hurt or damage people in the long run.

On the other hand, penises are often seen in a negative light. Whilst they play an important part in the human anatomy in releasing urine and for impregnating women, they can also do harm.

They can carry diseases like syphilis and gonorrhea - both of which are very unsightly and unpleasant conditions. They are also used to inflict pain on others such as being used in acts of rape and child sex abuse.


Crashedman

 

[Shane Roach]

Hi Shane,
I believe you may be referring to the Levitical laws?? You did not give your reference. If so, you are the only person I have "met" who did not understand these were laws against incest, not nudity. I believe most if not all of the newer translations are more clear about this fact than is the KJV.

Tom

No, but as I have pointed out numerous times, not all of the references to "expose the nakedness of" have anything to do with incest, and in any event for the phrase "expose the nakedness of" to have the sexual connotation necessary to view it as a metaphor for actual sex, getting naked has to be closely associated with sexual relations, which is exactly why it is improper to wander around naked in public. It's lewd and immoral.

 

[Shane Roach]

Hi Clarity, The above scripture is part of a teaching on the importance of each individual member of the body of Christ; it is not a teaching on parts of the physical body. Paul uses an analogy to make his point, but this passage does not translate well into English. If, as you say, "there are parts of our body that are unpresentable and these are the same ones that god gave adam and eve animal skins to cover as they are to be treated with special modesty and this is the clearest passage against nudity.", then tell me which members of the body of Christ are unpresentable and to be hidden from view? The text states that God gives greater honor to members that lacked it, but it does not state that there are members which are to be hidden. Tom

Here again you dodge the painfully obvious. Yes, it is clear the passage is a metaphor, but it is a metaphor that makes no sense whatsoever without the common and plain understanding that people are not to wander around nude because of modesty. The concept of wearing clothes is a given.

 

[Saturn]

Do you think public nudism is a sin?

As a male, I will say that I would get disgusted looking at nude men or unattractive nude women, so as such, I would want laws against it. But, I am okey with setting parts of parks and beaches aside for nudists, as long as the area is sufficiently concealed from view.

Regards.

 

[crashedman]

Hey, did anyone in the UK see that documentary called "Diary of a Teenage Nudist" at all?

It's by an 18-year-old girl called Bianca Badham whose parents raised her into this way of life.

She claims that there are some sex pests who target naturist groups, but they are very much the minority compared to the majority of them who are really nice, considerate people.

It seems to me that a number of British naturists got in a flap about it, most of it directed at the COGs.


Crashedman

 

[crashedman]

No, but as I have pointed out numerous times, not all of the references to "expose the nakedness of" have anything to do with incest, and in any event for the phrase "expose the nakedness of" to have the sexual connotation necessary to view it as a metaphor for actual sex, getting naked has to be closely associated with sexual relations, which is exactly why it is improper to wander around naked in public. It's lewd and immoral.

That is a load of poo-poo. So you think that the Aborigines, American Indians and Carribean people for example were a load of sex maniacs because they went around nude in front of each other?

Do you see having communal showers as a means of sexual relationships? How about being strip searched on a plane or participating in a Spencer Tunick photo shoot?

I've gone naked for many non-sexual reasons. Charity races, art, relaxation, sport, comfort, media attention of the naturist cause - you name it.

As for sexual intercourse, no I haven't done it yet. Only if God gives me an audible command that everyone can hear for me to do so then yes I will.


Crashedman

 

[Natman]

It's been a while since anyone commented on this topic.

I can't believe that NO ONE is interested in being naked as God designed us to be.

I am aware of a certain pastor in Australia that is starting a Christian-Naturist church. Not to mention the up coming opening ceremonies for Natura Christian Naturist Community and Fellowship in Hudson Florida. I know the leaders of both groups to be strong Christians and I pray for their complete success and God's blessings upon their ministries.

Son-cerely,
Nathan Powers

 

[one love]

A person's body is not a sin. There is nothing wrong with someone showing off their body in public...unless it is a guy, then that is totally disgusting and inappropriate.

 

[lawtonfogle]

For all the Christians in here, the point is that Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness as long as they were sinless. In a culture where nakedness is closely tied into sexual things, then it is wrong. If, like in Native Ameircans, you were raised in a culture, then there would be no problem with it. As for getting naked with other people, such as a shower, I do not use them, and will not. If a teacher tried to make me, well lets just say they are glad that they do not.

As for being stripped search, I will offer to go though whatever scanner again, and will then request identification papers, ect. to prove they are real guards, then a warrant that says I need be searched. I would make sure that they waste alot of time in trying to search me.

 

[hotuchas]

Do you think public nudism is a sin?

David danced before the Lord Naked