Nudism

[Eph. 3:20]

There is absolutely no evidence that David exposed his genitils in the story being quoted. Never once is it mentioned. It specifically says he was girded with a linen ephod. What Michal said would be the same even if he went through the streets partially nude, and the very fact she found it disgusting speaks volumes about what the expectations were. She was thinking of status while he was rejoicing in the Lord, that's the point, not that it is a good thing to expose ones self nude in public. When Noah was seen nude by his very own son, it was considered an act of disrespect.

Your use of Isaiah is particularly unfortunate to your cause, as it specifically mentions the shame of having ones buttocks uncovered. Hardly a call for more public nudity.......

I'm deeply dissapointed in this. I had gained such a high regard for you after that post about marriage and divorce! This is just sloppy.

I find no references for any of these assumptions, only a stringing together of ideas. The ideas are, no doubt, attractive to Bellman, but they don't even pass the most minimal inspection in context.

Shane...

Out of respect for you and your opinion of my previous post, I went back and carefully considered my previous statements.

I can honestly say that I do not believe my examination of this text to be "sloppy."

I provided a historical context and tried to paint a verbal picture of the Israelite cultural and landscape as they entered into the land of Caanan. I gave alternate examples of Moses "not" wearing such for the Lev/Exodus passages.

In my example of King David (2 Sam. 6: 20), it's purpose was to show that nakedness was not the moral scourge we are lead to believe it is. I gave three variant translations from three different sources that demonstrated that he "showed himself" to the maidens along the parade route. I hardly believe he only revealed his stomach. The final word on the text reveals that Michal was cursed and David was not.

I gave Scripture references and concordance references with definitions.

Here are two more variations of that same passage:

"...disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would." (New International Version)

"...uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows uncovers himself." (New King James Version)

That's a total of five versions of that same text that show that David "uncovered himself" before the maidens. I cannot see how you do not understand the implications of this and hold the postition that he did not expose his private parts. Again, our modern day response would probably be that of Michal, in that it was one if disgust and thought it to be "reprehensible." Perhaps we should consider the outcome of that passage and note that it was David that was blessed and Michal that was cursed, before we make our final judgment.

My example of Isaiah was to show that nudity was not uncommon in Israel. It was not to "string" along some unconnected text. One must ask"Did God command Isaiah to commit what (normally) is a sin, in order to prove His point with Israel?" Woe to that man. While public nudity may not have been a everyday occurence (outside of the three years of Isaiah), there is no proof from Scripture that they considered nudity a sin. There is certainly no Divine law that makes it so.

My intent was not to favor the position of "Bellman" or anybody else for that matter. It is to look objectivly at Scripture to the best of my ability. If that happens to come against your current long held positions, then so be it. Perhaps that's a good thing. We all must be challenged, at some point, to defend that which we believe. To say that my exegesis was "sloppy" is inaccurate.

It is a demonstrable fact that no Scripture exists that calls fourth God's judgment on humans being naked whether alone or before other humans. No law exist in God's book that makes public nudity sinful. The test is easy for anyone to take: Simply read through the Bible and find such a law. It does not exist.

That is not to say that all nakedness is condoned. There are some occasions where nakedness is forbidden (Preist must wear undergarments when ministering to the crowd below. Exposing for the purpose of enticing to adultery (married prostitutes who appear naked in public). There is a law against exposing other's nakedness against their will, for the purpose of selfish enjoyment (getting someone drunk, then undressing them for sexual self exploitation). But there is no law against being naked, even in public. Our own "human opinions" are irrelevant.

I repeat from some of my other post. "God's laws that prohibit our sexuality, do so because they in some way harm other people." Nakedness becomes shameful and sinful only when it is misused.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Morality remains constant, people don't listen and never have in many cases to what God considers moral.

So women should dress today to cover as much of themselves as First Century Judean women? Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[Archivist]

Shane...

I can honestly say that I do not believe my examination of this text to be "sloppy."

My intent was not to favor the position of "Bellman" or anybody else for that matter. It is to look objectivly at Scripture to the best of my ability. If that happens to come against your current long held positions, then so be it. Perhaps that's a good thing. We all must be challenged, at some point, to defend that which we believe. To say that my exegesis was "sloppy" is inaccurate.

It is a demonstrable fact that no Scripture exists that calls fourth God's judgment on humans being naked whether alone or before other humans. No law exist in God's book that makes public nudity sinful. The test is easy for anyone to take: Simply read through the Bible and find such a law. It does not exist.

That is not to say that all nakedness is condoned. There are some occasions where nakedness is forbidden (Preist must wear undergarments when ministering to the crowd below. Exposing for the purpose of enticing to adultery (married prostitutes who appear naked in public). There is a law against exposing other's nakedness against their will, for the purpose of selfish enjoyment (getting someone drunk, then undressing them for sexual self exploitation). But there is no law against being naked, even in public. Our own "human opinions" are irrelevant.

I repeat from some of my other post. "God's laws that prohibit our sexuality, do so because they in some way harm other people." Nakedness becomes shameful and sinful only when it is misused.

Eph. 3:20

Eph 3:20,

Your original post and this follow-up were both well researched and well reasoned. I think that perhaps you hit a nerve with the person calling it "sloppy" which is why he addressed it in this manner. It is most certainly not sloppy and is, in fact, an excellent analysis of this topic.

 

[Shane Roach]

Shane...

Out of respect for you and your opinion of my previous post, I went back and carefully considered my previous statements.

I can honestly say that I do not believe my examination of this text to be "sloppy."

I provided a historical context and tried to paint a verbal picture of the Israelite cultural and landscape as they entered into the land of Caanan. I gave alternate examples of Moses "not" wearing such for the Lev/Exodus passages.

In my example of King David (2 Sam. 6: 20), it's purpose was to show that nakedness was not the moral scourge we are lead to believe it is. I gave three variant translations from three different sources that demonstrated that he "showed himself" to the maidens along the parade route. I hardly believe he only revealed his stomach. The final word on the text reveals that Michal was cursed and David was not.

I gave Scripture references and concordance references with definitions.

Here are two more variations of that same passage:

"...disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would." (New International Version)

"...uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows uncovers himself." (New King James Version)

That's a total of five versions of that same text that show that David "uncovered himself" before the maidens. I cannot see how you do not understand the implications of this and hold the postition that he did not expose his private parts. Again, our modern day response would probably be that of Michal, in that it was one if disgust and thought it to be "reprehensible." Perhaps we should consider the outcome of that passage and note that it was David that was blessed and Michal that was cursed, before we make our final judgment.

My example of Isaiah was to show that nudity was not uncommon in Israel. It was not to "string" along some unconnected text. One must ask"Did God command Isaiah to commit what (normally) is a sin, in order to prove His point with Israel?" Woe to that man. While public nudity may not have been a everyday occurence (outside of the three years of Isaiah), there is no proof from Scripture that they considered nudity a sin. There is certainly no Divine law that makes it so.

My intent was not to favor the position of "Bellman" or anybody else for that matter. It is to look objectivly at Scripture to the best of my ability. If that happens to come against your current long held positions, then so be it. Perhaps that's a good thing. We all must be challenged, at some point, to defend that which we believe. To say that my exegesis was "sloppy" is inaccurate.

It is a demonstrable fact that no Scripture exists that calls fourth God's judgment on humans being naked whether alone or before other humans. No law exist in God's book that makes public nudity sinful. The test is easy for anyone to take: Simply read through the Bible and find such a law. It does not exist.

That is not to say that all nakedness is condoned. There are some occasions where nakedness is forbidden (Preist must wear undergarments when ministering to the crowd below. Exposing for the purpose of enticing to adultery (married prostitutes who appear naked in public). There is a law against exposing other's nakedness against their will, for the purpose of selfish enjoyment (getting someone drunk, then undressing them for sexual self exploitation). But there is no law against being naked, even in public. Our own "human opinions" are irrelevant.

I repeat from some of my other post. "God's laws that prohibit our sexuality, do so because they in some way harm other people." Nakedness becomes shameful and sinful only when it is misused.

Eph. 3:20

As I said in the first post regarding these exact same verses, taking off your clothes down to a loin covering and cavorting in the streets is quite enough to provoke the words of Michal. There is no indication in any of the texts you are showing that he took off the last of his clothing (the ephod) and exposed his genitals.

The shame of nudity in your example with Isaiah mirrors the shame Adam and Eve appear to have felt. I'm not going to be drawn into an ongoing debate on whether your note was sloppy. If you think that analysis would stand up in an open debate where the people judging it were in any way famailiar with logic and argumentation, that's your choice. All I can say is as I said before, it is very light on actual examples of your point, depending largely on assumptions with no real support about the circumstances you are bringing up.

Have a good day!

 

[Shane Roach]

I have more respect for women who dress as they feel comfortable, with no regard to what others say is "moral".

All I can tell you is total nudity is not comfortable to the vast majority of women.

 

[Shane Roach]

My example of Isaiah was to show that nudity was not uncommon in Israel. It was not to "string" along some unconnected text. One must ask"Did God command Isaiah to commit what (normally) is a sin, in order to prove His point with Israel?" Woe to that man. While public nudity may not have been a everyday occurence (outside of the three years of Isaiah), there is no proof from Scripture that they considered nudity a sin. There is certainly no Divine law that makes it so.

THis is perhaps the most bizarre assumption you are making. Yes, God commanded his prophet to do something that was totally shocking to the culture to make a statement about shame. That is the whole point. Saying that nudity was not a sin only goes back to your trying to ignore the passages I pointed out last time with assertions, again totally unsupported, that those commands were strictly for purposes of worship, which if anyone wants to read them they can tell it had nothing to do with worship but sex and propriety.

Trot out the actual verses if you like. I don't think anyone who isn't already entirely sold out to the view that nudity isn't a sin will be able to resist the temptation to see them as a long list of people who are not to be seen nude at all, even in private, much less out in public.

The entire subtext of every verse that seems to address nudity is one of shamefulness and sin except in those circumstances where it is somehow necessary or within the context of marriage.

 

[Archivist]

All I can tell you is total nudity is not comfortable to the vast majority of women.

Since you are not a woman, how do you know this?

I would guess--as a man I couldn't be certain--that this would be an accurate statement for American women. However, I'm not sure that it is correct for women world wide.

BTW, please define "vast majority." Are you describing 51%, 75% or 99%?

 

[Shane Roach]

Since you are not a woman, how do you know this?

I would guess--as a man I couldn't be certain--that this would be an accurate statement for American women. However, I'm not sure that it is correct for women world wide.

BTW, please define "vast majority." Are you describing 51%, 75% or 99%?

It wasn't a scientific statement. Go out and talk to some women. Ask them how they would like it if they could just go naked all the time. Ask them if they would if they could.

Even on these famous "topless" beaches you are all so fond of bringing up, a lot of the women still wear their tops.

I'll give you another generalized statement that you can try to dissect and act as if it has no bearing. Nudity = vulnerability. Therefore, most people aren't interested.

 

[Miss Shelby]

So women should dress today to cover as much of themselves as First Century Judean women? Inquiring minds want to know...

If they want to, sure. I usually try to err on the side of modesty. Doesn't it say something about that in the Bible?

Anway, what do you think? Do you think that since, over the years, society has socially accepted more scantily clad women as a-okay that we should continue to push the envelope until we're all naked?

Michelle

 

[Archivist]

It wasn't a scientific statement. Go out and talk to some women. Ask them how they would like it if they could just go naked all the time. Ask them if they would if they could.

Even on these famous "topless" beaches you are all so fond of bringing up, a lot of the women still wear their tops.

I'll give you another generalized statement that you can try to dissect and act as if it has no bearing. Nudity = vulnerability. Therefore, most people aren't interested.

In other words, this is your opinion only, not a proven fact.

Please note, I'm not saying that you are wrong. However, if it is only opion please identify it as such.

 

[Shane Roach]

In other words, this is your opinion only, not a proven fact.

Please note, I'm not saying that you are wrong. However, if it is only opion please identify it as such.

Yup.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

If they want to, sure. I usually try to err on the side of modesty. Doesn't it say something about that in the Bible?

Anway, what do you think? Do you think that since, over the years, society has socially accepted more scantily clad women as a-okay that we should continue to push the envelope until we're all naked?

Michelle

Fair enough, but where does the line get drawn? Excusing laborers, people working in specific jobs, etc., here's the common breakdown for your average moral person:

First Century Judea = ankles okay
19th Century America = ankles not okay for females, okay for men
21st Century America = ankles okay

First Century Judea = legs not okay
19th Century America = legs not okay
21st Century America = legs okay

First Century Judea = arms not okay for women, okay for men
19th Century America = arms not okay for women, okay for men
21st Century America = arms okay

First Century Judea = necks not okay for women, okay for men
19th Century America = necks not okay for women, okay for men
21st Century America = necks okay

First Century Judea = hair not okay for women, okay for men
19th Century America = hair okay (but more commonly covered), okay for men
21st Century America = hair okay

First Century Judea = upper torsos not okay
19th Century America = upper torsos not okay
21st Century America = upper torsos not okay for women, okay for men

First Century Judea = form fitting garments okay
19th Century America = form fitting garments not okay for women, okay for men
21st Century America = form fitting garments okay

First Century Judea = male facial hair mandatory
19th Century America = male facial hair common and nearly universal
21st Century America = male facial hair common but not universal

First Century Judea = long hair for women mandatory
19th Century America = long hair for women mandatory
21st Century America = long hair for women optional

Now, in your opinion, which era is more moral than the other?

And which era's standards are you most likely to dress?

 

[BigToe]

Obviously the moral of this story is that if you feel sinful and shameful while nude- you shouldn't be a nudist. However, if you are able to be nude and not be tempted sexually or otherwise, then nudism would be ok.

Remember, everything is permisible, not all is beneficial. And what is right for one is not right for all. So because Bob wants to be a conservatively clothed man does not mean Bill cannot be a nudist. They are different people, have different values, different struggles, different talents....

 

[Miss Shelby]

Fair enough, but where does the line get drawn?

I would draw the line at public nudity.

Now, in your opinion, which era is more moral than the other?

Which one was most vocal about opposing public nudity?

And which era's standards are you most likely to dress?

I've always liked those old Victorian style dresses.

Michelle

 

[seebs]

Please do not give me Old Testament examples of slavery because, with the exception of the Israelites, it was not the same thing as slavery in the United States before the civil war.

They had two kinds, one of which had the essential quality of lifelong ownership extending to children. It was only other Hebrews who went free...

 

[Miss Shelby]

They had two kinds, one of which had the essential quality of lifelong ownership extending to children. It was only other Hebrews who went free...

Really? I thought it was situations where the slave was indebted to the slave owner and worked off the debt.

Michelle

 

[Shane Roach]

Obviously the moral of this story is that if you feel sinful and shameful while nude- you shouldn't be a nudist. However, if you are able to be nude and not be tempted sexually or otherwise, then nudism would be ok.

No...

What the Bible says rather clearly is that people are to wear clothes in public. Period. Only of you rationalize away the dozens of verses that say not to uncover this or that person's nakedness, the assumption being, they are then to be covered at all other times, do you get to the point you have just leaped pell mell over to.

 

[The Bellman]

All I can tell you is total nudity is not comfortable to the vast majority of women.

Because our society has decreed that it is not suitable.

 

[The Bellman]

No...

What the Bible says rather clearly is that people are to wear clothes in public. Period. Only of you rationalize away the dozens of verses that say not to uncover this or that person's nakedness, the assumption being, they are then to be covered at all other times, do you get to the point you have just leaped pell mell over to.

No, it doesn't, nor have you been able to demonstrate where it does.

 

[Kam_Islash]

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 .

It wasnt that being naked wa sbad, its that they would have caught their deaths of cold or been sunburned. God simply gave them the gift of being able to protect themselves from the elements.

///