Nudism

[lawtonfogle]

I thought it said undergarments.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

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 .

There is nothing sinful about being naked. God clothed Adam and Eve after they became ashamed of their nakedness. It is the sense of shame that serves as the reason why clothing exists.

 

[Toboe]

Do you think public nudism is a sin?

I don't know about the sin part but I'm fine with public nudity.

 

[Johnnz]

There is nothing sinful about being naked. God clothed Adam and Eve after they became ashamed of their nakedness. It is the sense of shame that serves as the reason why clothing exists.

The story in Genesis is often poorly understood. The words 'naked and unashamed' refer to the couple's relationship wirh God. After they had sinned they were afraid of him, not ashamed of their nakedness, just as children are afraid long before they are caught. Their own covering was not adequate. It was a self help effort at salvation. God clothed them with skins. Restoration required sacrifice. It trivialises the story to focus on clothing clothing. Here we have the beginning of the great drama of redemption of which we are part.

All virtue or moraility is based in the character of God. Moral law expresses who God IS. I find it inconceivable to view shame as a moral virtue, as if shame is part of God's nature and will exist in heaven. It belongs only to our fallen world.

If shame at human nakedness is right, then we do have an odd situation in Genesis. Adam and Eve were husband and wife, with no one else around. Is the Bible really teaching that married couples should never see each other naked. Surely that is very clearly taught if you accept that the story is about clothing and not mankind's broken relationship with God?

John
NZ

 

[Harlan Norris]

After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they knew they were naked. They were ashamed. God told them to leave the garden and God gave them skins to wear, to hide their nakedness. Nakedness has it's place, Public is not it.

 

[Miss Shelby]

I don't know about the sin part but I'm fine with public nudity.

I wonder if you will still feel that way in say ten maybe fifteen years when you're the parent of young daughters, and you take them into a public restaurant for a nice dinner, and Joe Nudist comes walking by with his stuff hanging out and swinging around? And perhaps the contagious rash on his rear end and or genita area is visible? And this is all permissable because of the tolerant mindset that we should just all accept public nudity as a 'live and let live' issue?

Michelle

 

[Miss Shelby]

There is nothing sinful about being naked. God clothed Adam and Eve after they became ashamed of their nakedness. It is the sense of shame that serves as the reason why clothing exists.

This is all well and good except that you forget that a change occured after Adam and Eve sinned. It's called the fall of humanity and it means that all of us have become weakened as a result of it. So the reason that since that time, clothing has been necessary is to help us out a bit, so it's not so easy to give into the temptation of sexual sin. Jesus wore clothes, and when He walked the earth He never said it was okay to practice public nudity.

Michelle

 

[MQTA]

There is nothing sinful about being naked. God clothed Adam and Eve after they became ashamed of their nakedness. It is the sense of shame that serves as the reason why clothing exists.

and so if you don't feel shame while nude you are one of The Other People

 

[Johnnz]

The nature of God's kingdom is purity from within. For some one with a pure heart another person will never be seen in sexual terms, clothed or unclothed. Wcan see how Jesus dealt with outward versus inner holiness. These verses are very well known.

Matt 5:28-30

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. NIV



These verses form part of a collection of Jesus’ sayings in what is known as ‘The Sermon on the Mount’. In His teaching Jesus contrasts the outward definitions of holiness held by the religious leaders and the true nature of God’s standards. The religious leaders scrupulously avoided any appearance of moral failure by maintaining strict adherence to various ‘laws’. In those verses Jesus was saying that outward conformity can mask an inner corruption.



The word ‘lust’ means ‘to desire with the intention of’. There were some religious leaders who took a very liberal view of marriage. A wife could be divorced for almost any petty misdemeanour, including a man taking a fancy to a more attractive woman. Thus, Jesus was saying to those people “Your beliefs are wrong. Marriage was never instituted by God to be such a casual arrangement. So, when you see another woman and decide ‘I want her to become my next wife’ you are committing adultery already. That is not a valid ground to cancel a marriage.



On this understanding, it is not lust when a guy has an erection, or even a little fantasy (“What a great body she has”) at the sight of a naked woman. That is just stimulus-response. Of course that sexual arousal can lead onto something that is wrong, but not necessarily. Lust involves a willingness and intent, whether opportunity arises or not to engage in immoral behaviour.



Jesus goes on with his theme by dramatically using a reductio ad absurdum argument. “If holiness is matter of not doing something, in this case adultery, why don’t you go ahead and take out your eyes and cut off your hands? Then you could not sin. Behold, instant holiness!” This is an important principle. Righteousness is an inner condition of the heart. Maimed people can still lust.



If we can see what real righteousness is, the issue of clothing becomes redundant, as does all those exhortations and techniques for avoiding lust, such as bounced eyes or modest dressing. Are Muslim men free from lust because you can’t see very much of a Muslim women? Each person has something of the image of God in their essential being. I must never misuse or abuse that. I am responsible for becoming a man with whom a woman feels safe, whether she is clothed or unclothed, dressed modestly or seductively. This is what inner holiness requires.


Of course many will not see themselves as sufficiently mature to trust themsleves with public nudity. That's OK, but reconsidering what our goal is for sexual purity really should be may be a worthwhile issue to ponder.

John
NZ

 

[Miss Shelby]

Did Jesus wear clothes?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I wonder if you will still feel that way in say ten maybe fifteen years when you're the parent of young daughters, and you take them into a public restaurant for a nice dinner, and Joe Nudist comes walking by with his stuff hanging out and swinging around? And perhaps the contagious rash on his rear end and or genita area is visible? And this is all permissable because of the tolerant mindset that we should just all accept public nudity as a 'live and let live' issue?

Yes, it is permissible (or should be) and yes, we should just all accept public nudity as a 'live and let live' issue.

 

[Johnnz]

This is all well and good except that you forget that a change occured after Adam and Eve sinned. It's called the fall of humanity and it means that all of us have become weakened as a result of it. So the reason that since that time, clothing has been necessary is to help us out a bit, so it's not so easy to give into the temptation of sexual sin. Jesus wore clothes, and when He walked the earth He never said it was okay to practice public nudity.

Michelle

It is easy to overlook what Jesus taught about the source of evil - our hearts. Can we assume that Muslim men are sexually purer because their women are heavily covered?

That Jesus wore clothes is a bit of a red herring. In what I have read by nudists, secular and Christian, I have never come across anyone advocating a clothes free society What most nudists, and particularly those who are christian are most concerned about are two central issues - breaking the nude=sin association, and disagreeing with the shame based values that so many have to human sexuality.

It is so important that Christians are more honest about sexual issues. If our sexual values were really healthy why does this situtation exist?

Some sections of the Christian community are not at ease with human sexuality. Many church members have had more than one sexual partner, and many were not virgins before they married. Many parents are ill equipped to give sex education to their children and many fail to do so. Few churches provide good instructional programmes and material for sex education for parents to use. Many Christian teenagers are sexually active. They are often confused about sexual issues, and struggle with masturbation, sexual thoughts and physical arousal. Many experience guilt, confusion with their patterns of ‘repentance’ and re-indulgence, simply ‘turn off’ from traditional values, or just give up on church and/or God. Many teenagers are unable to discuss sexual issues with adults, especially church leaders. The naked female body has enormous allure for teenage males, who then become guilty about the voyeuristic practices. This forum is a good source of material to substantiate what I have written. There is more interst in sexual topics that any other. And, there is far too much confusion, guilt, depair and ignorance within our single membership to blithely retreat into moralisms that just don't connect with so many sincere Christians. I have long held that our shamed based values derived from the Genesis story are hugely responsible for this very sad state of affairs within the christian family.


And, just a note about Jesus wearing clothes. It was quite common for both baptiser and baptised to be naked. Naked baptisms were part of some sections of the church for at least the first four centuries.


John
NZ

 

[lawtonfogle]

The problem is not that nude equals sin, because it does not. But being nude because you want attention is equal to sin. Also, being nude leads to lust which equal sin. And then we have the fact that some of us are convicted that walking around nude is a sin for us to commit, and to look at someone like that also is a sin. So why should are view not be passed on to our kids.

Also, the fact remains that Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness. This leads to the fact that unless we are innocent, then shame free sin free nakedness cannot be acheived.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Also, being nude leads to lust which equal sin.

No, it doesn't. It may, for some - that's their problem. Women wearing stilletos may lead me to lust...so should women be stopped from wearing them?

 

[aggie03]

No, it doesn't. It may, for some - that's their problem. Women wearing stilletos may lead me to lust...so should women be stopped from wearing them?

Nudity cannot be put on the same level as stilleto heals.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Nudity cannot be put on the same level as stilleto heals.

Why not? They are both the same - something someone can wear (or not wear) without harm either way. They can both promote 'lust'. Why can't they be put on the same level?

 

[aggie03]

You are dealing with a lack of covering and then a type of shoe. I believe that you would be very hard pressed to find any principle from the Scriptures dealing with shoes, while I beleive that the Bible is abundantly clear that public nudity is not acceptable.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You are dealing with a lack of covering and then a type of shoe. I believe that you would be very hard pressed to find any principle from the Scriptures dealing with shoes, while I beleive that the Bible is abundantly clear that public nudity is not acceptable.

What the bible says in relation to this particular area is irrelevant. The claim was that nudity can cause people to lust. I replied that so can stilleto heals. Both of those claims are, I would think, correct. Now, as regards this particular area, why can the two not be compared?

 

[levi501]

this just in... people are attracted to and sometimes lust over other people.

 

[Johnnz]

Re the stilletto heels arguement. What was said was that something other than nudity can also cause sexual arousal, which is true. Style ofclothing, posture, gestures etc can all be used to send out a sexual signal. And of course, over the last couple of hundred years long hair, necks, feet, knees, women in short skirts, wearing nylon stockings, high heels, swimsuits (one piece) and trousers have all been erotic symbols in their time.

And in societies where bare breasts were normal, they have now become erotic through exposure to western values.

As I said earlier, its really back to the heart, not externals.

John
NZ