Nudism

[Miss Shelby]

Miss Shelby- seeing as I stated forthright that I didn't know the Church's position, I think you should be satisfied in that I didn't get the quote from a church document. There are numerous sites with famous, inspirational, humorous, and/or though provoking quotes. It is simply a quote I stumbled upon while looking for something else. I found it interesting and wrote it down. Like I said its a quote. Had it been a snippet from a larger document I most likely would have quoted more of the document and given the source.

But do you understand that using someone's words in order to support a position usually requires that the person you are quoting would be in agreement with that position? You wouldn't want me to take something that you said out of context and use it in such a way that would make you appear to support something you did not? I don't think that I am out of line in asking you to provide it. In the future, it's probably a good idea, when taking a snippet of someone's words that you actually know the primary source and if you haven't read the entire literary work (whether it be a book or a document or what have you) that you at least have a generally understanding of what it is about.

Just so you know, I did a little investigation on my own and the quote was taken from a book entitled Love and Responsibility, focusing on the diginity of the human and teaching people how to better love themselves and God.


Michelle

 

[immersedingrace]

No. When the unjust law deliberately causes actual permanent physical harm to an innocent person, it is a sin not to break it.

You may question whether that definition qualifies Rosa Parks actions, but they sure qualify Corrie ten Boom's!

When one earns the "right" to make unjust laws by deceit, force, harassment, or other questionable means, such as Hitler, then I would argue, he had no right to make the laws in the first place. Making HIM the unlawful one, not Corrie ten Boom or the other jews subjected to his tyranny.

I still stand by my post despite any opposition that might come. I can't speak for other country's but in the US, in most places it is unlawful, and the laws have been around for many years through many different rulers, making them stand the test of time.

 

[Archivist]

When one earns the "right" to make unjust laws by deceit, force, harassment, or other questionable means, such as Hitler, then I would argue, he had no right to make the laws in the first place. Making HIM the unlawful one, not Corrie ten Boom or the other jews subjected to his tyranny.

I still stand by my post despite any opposition that might come. I can't speak for other country's but in the US, in most places it is unlawful, and the laws have been around for many years through many different rulers, making them stand the test of time.

So Washington, Franklin and our other founding fathers were sinning when they established a new nation rather than live under British rule? In stand by what I said aerlier--that one does not sin by breaking an unjust law.

In any event, this is off topic. If you want to discuss this further I would suggest that start a new thread.

 

[Shane Roach]

Last week I had psoted on this thread about St. Peter fishing nude. I had said that there was a Roman-era painting of men fishing nude. Mr. Roach challenged me on this. Therefore I qoute the following:

"Peter's example of nude fishing was used in the early churches for illustratve purposes. For example, the Basilica in Aquileia, was built on the remains of an early Christian church burnt to the ground by Attila the Hun in AD 452. The famous council of AD 381 was held in that early Christian church, and the mosaic floor of the basilica is the largest known paleo-Christian mosaic floor in Western Europe, measuring about 760 square meters. Interestingly, we find a mosaic of naked fishermen in a symbolic fishing scene. The fish represent unbelievers listening to the Gospel, while the fishermen stand for the Christians who are saving lost souls. The fishermen are naked in imitation of Peter."

I believe my objection was that I don't believe the biblical account shows that he is actually fishing nude, and I questioned the legitimacy of using Roman art to back the point that he was indeed fishing nude.

Classic art has a tendency towards nudity for its own sake that I was actually discussing with Miss Shelby earlier. In any event, thanks for the quote but I still don't think Peter fished nude, or that this quote supports the assertion.

 

[Archivist]

I believe my objection was that I don't believe the biblical account shows that he is actually fishing nude, and I questioned the legitimacy of using Roman art to back the point that he was indeed fishing nude.

Classic art has a tendency towards nudity for its own sake that I was actually discussing with Miss Shelby earlier. In any event, thanks for the quote but I still don't think Peter fished nude, or that this quote supports the assertion.

But, my original post never said "Roman art," it said "art from Roman times." Further the quote shows that this was clearly not "nudity for its own sake" but was, rather, a depiction of naked fishermen fishing as Peter had done.

Several versions of the Bible say that Peter was fishing nude. Art created about 200 years after Peter's death portrayed nude Christian fishermen catching lost souls in tribute to Peter. There are no Biblical verses saying that he did not fish while naked. Many of the verses that you cited earlier specifically deal with nudity in the temple, not nudity in a fishing boat.

Do you have ANY evidence, other than your own personal opinion, to show that Peter did not fish while naked?

 

[Miss Shelby]

Several versions of the Bible say that Peter was fishing nude.

Great, post the verses.

There are no Biblical verses saying that he did not fish while naked

We won't need those if you have verses that say that he did.


Michelle

 

[Shane Roach]

But, my original post never said "Roman art," it said "art from Roman times." Further the quote shows that this was clearly not "nudity for its own sake" but was, rather, a depiction of naked fishermen fishing as Peter had done.

Several versions of the Bible say that Peter was fishing nude. Art created about 200 years after Peter's death portrayed nude Christian fishermen catching lost souls in tribute to Peter. There are no Biblical verses saying that he did not fish while naked. Many of the verses that you cited earlier specifically deal with nudity in the temple, not nudity in a fishing boat.

Do you have ANY evidence, other than your own personal opinion, to show that Peter did not fish while naked?

Other than I have stated, that the translations you offered do not say he was nude, but merely stripped down to swim or some such, and the multitude of verses that have nothing to do with entering the temple, and the many that make it clear nudity is shamefull, and the fact that to this day few cultures practice nudity in public, and that I have never even so much as seen a deveout nudist out fishing naked (those fin spines are SHARP!), and that your statement that the artwork isn't using nudity for its own sake is on shaky ground unless the painter himself made a note of it somewhere that he thought Peter was really naked, and also I think the painter probably should have been there to make that statement with any authority to begin with, and other than that all porn involves naked people, and that people have been tested regarding physiological response and found to have responses to nudity, and aside from a whole world of other objections that you continually boil down to things like "there's no specific injunction that says it wasn't," or, "that's only your opinion" without ever really showing much of anything but your own opinion to reverse it, no. I'm sorry but your posts always seem to read as if this thread just started.... I really don't even remember what your exact positions are anymore. You'd need to address more than just finding a picture somewhere to convince me of much.

I would add this, however, about the discussion of laws and their legitimacy. If anyone here wants to make the argument than laws against public nudity are illegitimate, please do, otherwise the again-raised points regarding now Cory Ten Boom in addition to the holocaust and Rosa Parks are innapropriate in the extreme.

I did finally see one person break down and say they think Rosa Parks and others were sinning when they broke the laws, which I find some legitimacy for in some circumstances, and not in others. A Christian can find themselves in a deeply sinfull society, and keeping the peace inasmuch as it lies within our power is one of those things that we are told to do, but Jesus also "broke the law" so to speak, just by insisting on telling the truth. So I find the statement that any breaking of the law, or anything that an illegitimate authority calls a breaking of the law, becomes conscious sin on the part of the lawbreaker, a stretch.

That is, however, I think a whole separate topic.

 

[The Bellman]

Why do people walk about nude?

Many reasons. They find it more comfortable, more "free", and it's certainly more natural.

this is something that has been puzzling me for a while as i cannot see how nudity is better than being clothed and when i think about it sexual motives always spring to mind.

I'd suggest that that's your problem.

Lewis and Janda (1988) found a positive correlation between childhood exposure to nudity and adult sexual comfort. The authors point out, however, that some would see this as a reason to prevent childhood exposure to nudity, as their measures on comfort included acceptance of lifestyles that many would consider immoral or undesirable (such as premarital sex, or acceptance of homosexuality).

No doubt some would see this as a bad thing; fortunately, the vast majority of people think that tolerance is, in general, a good thing.

Even if naturism is permissable we also have to ask the question is it beneficial and not just is naturism not wrong? we also need to ask is naturism right? is it the best and most prudent thing to do? and i think the answer to this is that it is not.

Two issues here. Is naturism wrong? You haven't demonstrated that it is. Secondly, is it beneficial? Why does it have to be beneficial? Is wearing yellow shirts "beneficial"? Or wearing baseball caps? You have to show it's harmful; it's not up to others to show it's beneficial.

Perhaps it's not the best and most prudent thing to do; you haven't demonstrated that.

Someone has to be right? If two people hold opposite views about nudity one saying it is right and the other saying it is wrong they both cannot be right. Nudity is either right or wrong it cannot be both.

No, nobody has to be "right". People in favour of nudism aren't tyring to force everyone else to be nude. They are no more "right" or "wrong" than are people who like to wear baseball caps.

in which case your beliefs become meaningless and it leads to relative morality where everyone can pick and choose their own moral beliefs and there is no absolute truth and it leads to moral chaos. the bible is the only source from which we can determine whether something is right or wrong

Wake up. We HAVE "moral chaos". Everyone can and does pick their own moral beliefs. Amazingly, we somehow survive. Even christians can't agree on basic moral issues.

 

[The Bellman]

I am thinking of a scenario of a public restaurant. It affects me if I walk in there with my children and people are sitting their nude ordering lunch.

It doesn't affect you in the slightest. If you don't like it, don't look.

 

[The Bellman]

Being black and/or disabled is an unalterable fact. Being clothed is an option.

Being naked is an unalterable fact. We can cover it up, just like a black person could cover up their skin colour. No difference.

A well-mannered person will not behave in a way that needlessly irritates others.

So, a few decades ago, well-mannered black people would have shut up and not protested at the way they were being treated? Certainly, they irritated a OT of people, taking white's seats on busses and the like.

Many people do not like looking at naked people; they prefer to see people clothed.

And, decades ago, many people didn't like looking at black people. Even today, many people don't like looking at the disabled. So what?

It is unreasonable for these people to insist people in areas specifically set aside for nudism to beclothed, but it is reasonable for them to expect certain (if not most) public venues in this time/society/culture to be nudity free.

Except that those areas specifically set aside for nudism allow people to be clothed. Once again, nudists aren't insisting everyone be nude - they just want the freedom to be nude.

I don't know where you shop, but for most people shopping centers are places where we may reasonably expect not to see any naked people walking about.

And, a few decades ago, shopping centers are places where we may reasonably expect not to see any black people walking about. So what?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

The problem here is extremism. Our contemporary society is not comfortable with public nudity in public venues. It tolerates such nudity on occasion, but it isn't comfortable with it.

Since the cultural default is to be clothed, to willfully appear nude in a public venue where people would expect one to be clothed is an act of selfishness, of putting one's own desires above the desires of others.

So would deliberately gorging on bean so you could break wind loudly in public. There's no law against it, but it sure is rude!

There are lots of other things that society isn't comfortable with. Some have an ethical basis, some don't.

No nudist's quality of life will suffer because he/she is clothed in a public place. Comparisons to blacks are bogus: The naked person can quite easily change his/her status by donning clothing; blacks are unable to change their ethnicity as easily.

Believe me, if there was a type of dress that enabled blacks to pass for whites, then there would have never been any racial problems in the first place, right? Everybody would have dressed the same and that would've been that.

At the other end of the extreme, it's fruitless to try to claim every act of group nudity is inherently sinful. If you're visiting a nuclear power plant and there's a leak, you will be stripped to your skin and hosed down so fast your head will spin. Nothing sinful about that at all -- indeed, it will be a highly moral act since it may save your life.

A year or so back a girls school in Saudi Arabia caught fire and the girls -- fully dressed but not wearing burkhas -- attempted to flee the burning building but were forced by inside by the morality police, thus causing several dozen of them to die. That kind of nit-picky legalism is not moral: It's stupid and destructive.

Strike a balance, people...

 

[The Bellman]

The problem here is extremism. Our contemporary society is not comfortable with public nudity in public venues. It tolerates such nudity on occasion, but it isn't comfortable with it.

Agreed.

Since the cultural default is to be clothed, to willfully appear nude in a public venue where people would expect one to be clothed is an act of selfishness, of putting one's own desires above the desires of others.

Just as when the cultural default was for blacks to know their place and not go into white areas, for them to do so was an act of selfishness, of putting their own desires above the desires of others.

No nudist's quality of life will suffer because he/she is clothed in a public place.

Depends on your definition of "suffer". Would you say that no clothed person's quality of life would suffer because he/she is forced to be naked in a public place? It's a matter of freedom. Why does someone else's irritation trump my desire for freedom?

Comparisons to blacks are bogus: The naked person can quite easily change his/her status by donning clothing; blacks are unable to change their ethnicity as easily.

Comparisons to blacks are valid; black people can easily stay in black areas and avoid white areas (like white people's bus seats, for example).

Believe me, if there was a type of dress that enabled blacks to pass for whites, then there would have never been any racial problems in the first place, right? Everybody would have dressed the same and that would've been that.

Not at issue. The issue is freedom. Some people were offended by what blacks did in order to obtain freedom; yet I doubt you will say that the black people should not have done those things for the sake of not offending those people.

 

[Bare]

I agree with you Buzz. We should not be offensive and "in your face" about nudity. It's just too offensive in the cultural atmosphere, in most of western society.

I don't like it when the gay's are forcing their disgusting lifestyle upon me and my kids. Not that social nudity is anything to compare with that, but I like the idea that social nudists philosophy is restraint about shoving their veiws in others faces.

As a Christian, and a participant in nudists activities, I am very careful who I talk to about this private activity. It is because of the stigma that goes along with it. Because most of my peers are ignorant of social nudity as I was at one time.

 

[Shane Roach]

Depends on your definition of "suffer". Would you say that no clothed person's quality of life would suffer because he/she is forced to be naked in a public place? It's a matter of freedom. Why does someone else's irritation trump my desire for freedom?

This boils down once again, to me, to the assertion being made that nudity is truly not something related to sex, or that is not intrinsicly uncomfortable. Maybe it is for you, not a matter of sex, and maybe for you not uncomfortable, but for the vast majority of people, it seems that nudity of their own selves is uncomfortable, and other's nudity even more so.

Just to be sure, you are now asserting some level of discrimination as a nudist then?

 

[Miss Shelby]

Just as when the cultural default was for blacks to know their place and not go into white areas, for them to do so was an act of selfishness, of putting their own desires above the desires of others.[

Just for clarification, are you saying that your rights as nudist (or as a human who doesn't want to suppress his humanity with clothing)--are being suppressed because you are not allowed to run nude in every public domain in the land?

Michelle

 

[The Bellman]

I agree with you Buzz. We should not be offensive and "in your face" about nudity. It's just too offensive in the cultural atmosphere, in most of western society.

It's offensive only because we choose to make it so.

I don't like it when the gay's are forcing their disgusting lifestyle upon me and my kids. Not that social nudity is anything to compare with that, but I like the idea that social nudists philosophy is restraint about shoving their veiws in others faces.

No gays "force" their "disgusting lifestyle" upon anyone.

 

[The Bellman]

This boils down once again, to me, to the assertion being made that nudity is truly not something related to sex, or that is not intrinsicly uncomfortable. Maybe it is for you, not a matter of sex, and maybe for you not uncomfortable, but for the vast majority of people, it seems that nudity of their own selves is uncomfortable, and other's nudity even more so.

Once again, people are uncomfortable with it because that is what our society dictates. Other societies have different mores, and people there aren't uncomfortable with it.

Just to be sure, you are now asserting some level of discrimination as a nudist then?

Of course.

 

[The Bellman]

Just for clarification, are you saying that your rights as nudist (or as a human who doesn't want to suppress his humanity with clothing)--are being suppressed because you are not allowed to run nude in every public domain in the land?

Michelle

Yes.

 

[Bare]

Uh, I beg to differ with you Bellman, I know and have seen some gay people go out of their way to make sure that I have to face the issue, even if I have been outright against it, and especially when I do so. It's totally offensive.

Nudists on the other hand basically just mind their own business.

Michelle;

I think you and I are on the same page here, I don't think we should break the law and be nude just to make a point. There are places to be nude legally and that is where I choose to do so. If your not comfortable with social nudity, then that is something you know about yourself. It took me a year to talk my wife into trying it out. She is one of the most modest people you will know, and most devout to her faith. But when she tried it she says it was like being revealed the truth about something that society had been lying about to her for decades.

The big lie, is that nudity is equal to sex. It's a ball faced lie.

 

[The Bellman]

Uh, I beg to differ with you Bellman, I know and have seen some gay people go out of their way to make sure that I have to face the issue, even if I have been outright against it, and especially when I do so. It's totally offensive.

There is a big difference between having to face the issue and having a lifestyle forced upon you. In our society, everyone does have to face the issue, whether they like it or not; gays are an increasingly vocal part of the community. This, however, is far from them forcing their lifestyle on anyone.