T
The Bellman
Guest
The difference here is that smoking is actively harmful to the health of the smoker and those around him. Nudity is not.Buzz Dixon said:
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Nudism
- Thread starter forgivensinner
- Start date
Correct me if i am wrong...but isnt the question whether or not nudism is a sin? not socially acceptable? multiple sexpartners is socially acceptable in some cirlces does not remove it from the sin category. social acceptanceis not the standard of whether or not something is a sin...so why dont we just consult the bible and see if it is a sin according to the bible
Upvote
0
T
The Bellman
Guest
I'll tell it to them anytime. Being naked isn't harmful. Over-exposure to the sun is. By your logic water is dangerous and should be banned, since people drown.Buzz Dixon said:
Upvote
0
T
The Bellman
Guest
We tried that. As always, even the christians couldn't agree. Funny that...all these christians have the word of god in their book...and they still can't agree on what's right and wrong.mjiracek said:
Upvote
0
i want to debate the claim that modesty=nudity. The fact is that nudity cannot be modest if it is described as shameful in the bible as modesty and shame are mutually exclusive as something that is shameful cannot also be modest. I also want you to notice that chaste is one of the synonyms(has a similar meaning) of modesty as this is defined as
There is also the fact that nudity is in our culture and society is not a sign of modesty and is in no way modest and i doubt that this is going to change and all the examples you give of where nudity is modest seem to come from uncivilised and unchristian societies. I also am unable to see sufficient reason as to the benefits of practising naturism.
"A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for The Lord your God detests anyone who does this." (Deuteronomy 22:5)
Assuming god supports nudity why does he give a command about woman wearing mens clothing as this makes no sense if he intended us to be naturists.
1 Timothy 6
7For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.
Food and clothing are seen as the only two essential things that the apsotle needed for contentment ie.clothing is seen as a necessity not optional.
I would also like to point out that there is not a single example of naturism in the bible i.e. someone wlking about naked out of there own freewill and choosing to walk about naked among other people.
in the bible around 99.9% of the people are wearing clothes and we should follow the example of the vast majority and wear clothes if in doubt. Nowhere in the bible does it say or show by example that naturism is accpetable but it does show that naturism is wrong as shown by the command to be modest and the verse about parts of the body being unpresentable that everyone keeps ignoring and avoiding.
1 corinthians 12
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,
this verse clearly shows naturism is wrong.
Upvote
0
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yes, however the question here is not "do people find public nudity to be offensive." The question is whether or not public nudity is a sin.Buzz Dixon said:
Upvote
0
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Clarity,
What is the source of your definitions? You cannot simply look at modern dictionary and apply the definitions to the Bible.
What is the source of your definitions? You cannot simply look at modern dictionary and apply the definitions to the Bible.
Upvote
0
And again, to deliberately and needlessly offend people is a sin.Archivist said:
I think the difference here is between "public" nudity and "group" or "social" nudity. Public nudity to me implies being nude in public venues, while the latter would (un)cover nudist camps, naturists resorts, the ol' swimmin' hole, etc.
People who are gonna get upset over the latter are gonna get upset of the latter concept, not so much the act itself. People who get upset over the former are more likely to be upset over a specific act (a streaker, for instance) than the concept since in our culture nudity in public venues is unacceptable and highly unlikely.
Upvote
0
Eph. 3:20
Well-Known Member
Wow...we've run the gammut on this topic.
I've tried to read through most of these pages to get a overall perspective of the opinions.
Many have a difficult time accepting Scripture passages that include nudity. It has been discussed (at length) that David paraded around "uncovered". Some say that "he had a his ephod on" and he wasn't naked. It should be noted that the word "uncovered" is translated from a Hebrew word meaning to "denude" (Strong's 1540). It is used of Noah when he was "uncovered" in his tent (Gen. 9:21 See note below). It is used repeatedly in Lev. 18:6-19 in reference to uncovering one's sexual organs. It doesn't seem the Holy Spirit has a problem with the use of human nakedness in Scripture in symbolism or in actuality. If we must go through each passage to show where nakedness is used symbol (representing something else) or literally then we can.
______________________________
Concerning the Noah passage:
"In Hebrew usage, "nakedness" is often a euphemism for sexual relations (Lev. 18). This usage helps to explain the incident of Gen. 9:20-17, where Ham apparently took advantage of his father's drunken state and had sexual realtions with him." (Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, pg. 746) For this he is cursed. If seeing his father naked and remarking about it to his brothers is his offense, then any condemnation of nakedness based on this incident must conclude that it is shameful and worthy of cursing a child if he/she should see a parent naked and say anything about it.
_____________________________
Now we are throwing Scriptures around,not considering context, like spiritual bean bags. We can do this all day and never get anywhere until we "uncover" the underlying Biblical principles on which these teachings are built.
I believe (and I might be wrong) that most can agree that nudity is not inhrently sinful..that is to say that nudity at its core, without anything added is not considered a sin by God....am I correct in that assumption?
If you feel this is wrong, then it would be sinful to change your clothes, take a shower etc...I think we can agree that kind of logic is absurd.
So we must ask ourselves at what point or what must enter into it to make it a sin? What enters into a thing, to make what is inherently good, and turn it into something that is evil. If nakedness between Adam and Eve was God's original plan, their rebellion did not change God's goodness into sinfulness. The awakening of human conscience, the awarness of sin, the shame of guilt, etc. cannot transform an inherently moral condition into a immoral condition. If nakedness itself is not immoral or sinful then acts of sin cannot make it so. Just as the act of eating too much may cause one to sin through gluttony, the act of eating is not thereby made sinful. Drinking wine is acceptable, but drinking too much and becoming habitually drunk is sinful. The sin of drunkenness does not make it a sin to merely drink wine.
Man's sin does not transform the nature of any of God's creation. But sin does place all of God's creation in a less than ideal condition. Sin changes man's ability to relate to God's creation in total innocence. Sin becomes a matter, in most instances, of using God's "very good" creation in wrong ways and for wrong purposes. Apart from the sinful use of nakedness, nakedness itself is no more sin now than when it was originally created.
Public nudity is not inherently sinful now any more than it was in Eden. The question of whether it is socially acceptable is another matter. Men's and women's spiritual character is not defined by their physical appearance. Godliness is not a factor of how much clothing one wears.
There's a Biblical principle here and it's the same principle that can be applied to other things sexual or otherwise: Sex acts are condemned because they in some way hurt other people. We must abide by Jesus' "Law of Love" as our guiding principle.
Like eating meat sacrificed to idols, the "thing" itself is innocent and can be indulged by an informed believer. But to do so in a way that hinders the faith of a uninformed saint is forbidden. There is nothing inherently sinful about a redeemed sinner being naked, indoors or outdoors. What makes it sinful is the purpose of the nakedness, and it's effects upon other's.
If the purpose of nakedness is to entice into sexual sin (like the adulterous harlots), then nakedness is a sin.
If the purpose of nakedness is to expose anyone against their will for sexual exploitation, then it is sin.
If the purpose of nakedness is to "rub people's nose in it" by flaunting nakedness in the face of a society where it is unacceptable (and against the law), then it is sin.
If the effect of nakedness upon others is to hinder their conscience and cause them to sin, then nakedness is a sin.
But, if the purpose of nakedness is to enjoy the normal state of God's original creation, and to enjoy the freedom of being in the open air, under the brilliant sun, unhindered and unhidden by clothing, then it is not a sin.
And if the effect has no negative bearing on the lives of others, then it is not a sin.
There is no law that exist in God's word that makes public nudity sinful. Since God did not condemn nakedness as such, even in fallen man, but condemned only it's misuses, then God does not forbid the practice of nudity in those situations where it can be enjoyed without harming the conscience of another person.
I've tried to read through most of these pages to get a overall perspective of the opinions.
Many have a difficult time accepting Scripture passages that include nudity. It has been discussed (at length) that David paraded around "uncovered". Some say that "he had a his ephod on" and he wasn't naked. It should be noted that the word "uncovered" is translated from a Hebrew word meaning to "denude" (Strong's 1540). It is used of Noah when he was "uncovered" in his tent (Gen. 9:21 See note below). It is used repeatedly in Lev. 18:6-19 in reference to uncovering one's sexual organs. It doesn't seem the Holy Spirit has a problem with the use of human nakedness in Scripture in symbolism or in actuality. If we must go through each passage to show where nakedness is used symbol (representing something else) or literally then we can.
______________________________
Concerning the Noah passage:
"In Hebrew usage, "nakedness" is often a euphemism for sexual relations (Lev. 18). This usage helps to explain the incident of Gen. 9:20-17, where Ham apparently took advantage of his father's drunken state and had sexual realtions with him." (Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, pg. 746) For this he is cursed. If seeing his father naked and remarking about it to his brothers is his offense, then any condemnation of nakedness based on this incident must conclude that it is shameful and worthy of cursing a child if he/she should see a parent naked and say anything about it.
_____________________________
Now we are throwing Scriptures around,not considering context, like spiritual bean bags. We can do this all day and never get anywhere until we "uncover" the underlying Biblical principles on which these teachings are built.
I believe (and I might be wrong) that most can agree that nudity is not inhrently sinful..that is to say that nudity at its core, without anything added is not considered a sin by God....am I correct in that assumption?
If you feel this is wrong, then it would be sinful to change your clothes, take a shower etc...I think we can agree that kind of logic is absurd.
So we must ask ourselves at what point or what must enter into it to make it a sin? What enters into a thing, to make what is inherently good, and turn it into something that is evil. If nakedness between Adam and Eve was God's original plan, their rebellion did not change God's goodness into sinfulness. The awakening of human conscience, the awarness of sin, the shame of guilt, etc. cannot transform an inherently moral condition into a immoral condition. If nakedness itself is not immoral or sinful then acts of sin cannot make it so. Just as the act of eating too much may cause one to sin through gluttony, the act of eating is not thereby made sinful. Drinking wine is acceptable, but drinking too much and becoming habitually drunk is sinful. The sin of drunkenness does not make it a sin to merely drink wine.
Man's sin does not transform the nature of any of God's creation. But sin does place all of God's creation in a less than ideal condition. Sin changes man's ability to relate to God's creation in total innocence. Sin becomes a matter, in most instances, of using God's "very good" creation in wrong ways and for wrong purposes. Apart from the sinful use of nakedness, nakedness itself is no more sin now than when it was originally created.
Public nudity is not inherently sinful now any more than it was in Eden. The question of whether it is socially acceptable is another matter. Men's and women's spiritual character is not defined by their physical appearance. Godliness is not a factor of how much clothing one wears.
There's a Biblical principle here and it's the same principle that can be applied to other things sexual or otherwise: Sex acts are condemned because they in some way hurt other people. We must abide by Jesus' "Law of Love" as our guiding principle.
Like eating meat sacrificed to idols, the "thing" itself is innocent and can be indulged by an informed believer. But to do so in a way that hinders the faith of a uninformed saint is forbidden. There is nothing inherently sinful about a redeemed sinner being naked, indoors or outdoors. What makes it sinful is the purpose of the nakedness, and it's effects upon other's.
If the purpose of nakedness is to entice into sexual sin (like the adulterous harlots), then nakedness is a sin.
If the purpose of nakedness is to expose anyone against their will for sexual exploitation, then it is sin.
If the purpose of nakedness is to "rub people's nose in it" by flaunting nakedness in the face of a society where it is unacceptable (and against the law), then it is sin.
If the effect of nakedness upon others is to hinder their conscience and cause them to sin, then nakedness is a sin.
But, if the purpose of nakedness is to enjoy the normal state of God's original creation, and to enjoy the freedom of being in the open air, under the brilliant sun, unhindered and unhidden by clothing, then it is not a sin.
And if the effect has no negative bearing on the lives of others, then it is not a sin.
There is no law that exist in God's word that makes public nudity sinful. Since God did not condemn nakedness as such, even in fallen man, but condemned only it's misuses, then God does not forbid the practice of nudity in those situations where it can be enjoyed without harming the conscience of another person.
Upvote
0
Eph. 3:20
Well-Known Member
I think much needs to be said about "why God made clothes." This was touched on breifly as a arguement in favor of clothing. But we passed over the real relevance of this part of the garden story. There is a greater meaning behind the words that many of us miss.
Adam and Eve had never seen another living creature of any variety wearing clothes, so they had no context for thinking that something was wrong for not wearing clothes. It was not their bodies that fell, but their souls. It was their realization that they were unable to hide from their shame and guilt from eachother and from God. It was the natural reaction of a moral creature to personal recognition of wrongdoing. Guilt in their soul produced the effort to hide themselves as persons.
What they are inside is now fully "exposed" (ie. naked) and the shame is too great to bare. They are not ashamed their flesh is naked. Nothing about their sin had to do with naked flesh. Nothing about their sin had to do with naked sex organs. They are ashamed that their soul and all it's intentions are naked before each other and God and they are compelled to hide-in the only way they could think of at the time- to put something artifical around them and hide among the trees. People that have been exposed in wrongdoing do the same today by putting on dark glasses, hiding from view not wanting to be "exposed" etc...
The clothing provided by God required a animal (Gen. 3:9) think sacrifice. The Bible nowhere implies that the "fig leaf" aprons were insufficient clothing. This is man's guesswork and has zero authority. They were to be expelled from the garden into the harsh environment unlike the mild and healthful state of the garden. Thus clothing becomes a practical issue and not a moral one.
"Adam and Eve had to understand that man's effort to cover the consequence of his sin is never enough. Man cannot hide his sin or his guilt. Only God can do so. God's way of dealing with sin, guilt and shame is always the same-sacrifice of a innocent victim as substitute. God Himself gave Adam and Eve proper covering for their guilt by providing a sacrifice for them. As they left the garden they wore on their back the constant reminder of the consequence of their sin. No clothing of their own making could possibly have taught them this lesson. Nor could anything but substitute sacrifice provide the cancellation of that penalty of death "in the day thou eatest." By slaying animals on their behalf, God provided "salvation" for them from His announced penalty of death, and by making clothes for them of the animal hides, He taught them that the only covering for sin is blood sacrifice, and only God can provide it." (Philo Thelos, Divine Sex)
"Now for the first time, blood was shed, and it was shed by God Himself. To use the skins of animals, it was necessary to slay them. This God did and it would be difficult to find a more simple object lesson to show us that it would take the death of the Saviour, the Son of God, to clothe us in righteousness which is not our own, but which comes from Him by virtue of His atoning death." (Donald Gray Barnhouse, Genesis, a Devotional Commentary)
"This verse (3:21), gives us a typical picture of a sinner's salvation. It was the first gospel sermon, preached by God Himself, not in words, but in symbol and action..It was the initial declaration of the fundamental fact that "without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." It was a blessed illustration of substitution-the innocent dying in stead of the guilty." (Arthur Pink, Gleaning in Genesis)
This has direct correlation with the NT passages which tell us to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, that is "His perfect sacrifice."
The compulsion to clothe themselves is not necessarily anything more deeply significant than the normal human reaction of humans, even today, who are emabarrassed when attention is drawn to them. Their nakedness was the physical symbol of their siritual vulnerability and their attempt at clothing was an attempt to insulate themselves from the knowing of, and being known by others, especially God.
I hope this helps us to build a proper framework with which to view these text and this subject as a whole. The Genesis passage was not so much a declaration that God wanted us to wear clothes, but that only sacrifice could atone for our guilt.
Blessings,
Eph. 3:20
Adam and Eve had never seen another living creature of any variety wearing clothes, so they had no context for thinking that something was wrong for not wearing clothes. It was not their bodies that fell, but their souls. It was their realization that they were unable to hide from their shame and guilt from eachother and from God. It was the natural reaction of a moral creature to personal recognition of wrongdoing. Guilt in their soul produced the effort to hide themselves as persons.
What they are inside is now fully "exposed" (ie. naked) and the shame is too great to bare. They are not ashamed their flesh is naked. Nothing about their sin had to do with naked flesh. Nothing about their sin had to do with naked sex organs. They are ashamed that their soul and all it's intentions are naked before each other and God and they are compelled to hide-in the only way they could think of at the time- to put something artifical around them and hide among the trees. People that have been exposed in wrongdoing do the same today by putting on dark glasses, hiding from view not wanting to be "exposed" etc...
The clothing provided by God required a animal (Gen. 3:9) think sacrifice. The Bible nowhere implies that the "fig leaf" aprons were insufficient clothing. This is man's guesswork and has zero authority. They were to be expelled from the garden into the harsh environment unlike the mild and healthful state of the garden. Thus clothing becomes a practical issue and not a moral one.
"Adam and Eve had to understand that man's effort to cover the consequence of his sin is never enough. Man cannot hide his sin or his guilt. Only God can do so. God's way of dealing with sin, guilt and shame is always the same-sacrifice of a innocent victim as substitute. God Himself gave Adam and Eve proper covering for their guilt by providing a sacrifice for them. As they left the garden they wore on their back the constant reminder of the consequence of their sin. No clothing of their own making could possibly have taught them this lesson. Nor could anything but substitute sacrifice provide the cancellation of that penalty of death "in the day thou eatest." By slaying animals on their behalf, God provided "salvation" for them from His announced penalty of death, and by making clothes for them of the animal hides, He taught them that the only covering for sin is blood sacrifice, and only God can provide it." (Philo Thelos, Divine Sex)
"Now for the first time, blood was shed, and it was shed by God Himself. To use the skins of animals, it was necessary to slay them. This God did and it would be difficult to find a more simple object lesson to show us that it would take the death of the Saviour, the Son of God, to clothe us in righteousness which is not our own, but which comes from Him by virtue of His atoning death." (Donald Gray Barnhouse, Genesis, a Devotional Commentary)
"This verse (3:21), gives us a typical picture of a sinner's salvation. It was the first gospel sermon, preached by God Himself, not in words, but in symbol and action..It was the initial declaration of the fundamental fact that "without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." It was a blessed illustration of substitution-the innocent dying in stead of the guilty." (Arthur Pink, Gleaning in Genesis)
This has direct correlation with the NT passages which tell us to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, that is "His perfect sacrifice."
The compulsion to clothe themselves is not necessarily anything more deeply significant than the normal human reaction of humans, even today, who are emabarrassed when attention is drawn to them. Their nakedness was the physical symbol of their siritual vulnerability and their attempt at clothing was an attempt to insulate themselves from the knowing of, and being known by others, especially God.
I hope this helps us to build a proper framework with which to view these text and this subject as a whole. The Genesis passage was not so much a declaration that God wanted us to wear clothes, but that only sacrifice could atone for our guilt.
Blessings,
Eph. 3:20
Upvote
0
Yes, in my opinion, it is. We are taught "do not put a stumbling block in front a blind man". In other words, do not lead a person to sin. Lust is a sin, and whether that is our intention or not, nudity causes lust. Modesty is a wonderful thing. We are taught that the more holy something is, the more covered it is. For example, our books in the shul with contain the Torah reading and the Haftorah reading, are left out for all to see. But the Torah scroll, which is considered holier is covered behind the ark. The same goes with people. People are very special and holy, and are to be covered because of this, so as others may respect the person in a holy way. Clothing, and not ANY clothing--MODEST clothing--is what should be worn at all times. I would never ever go somewhere where public nudity was allowed.forgivensinner said:
Upvote
0
T
The Bellman
Guest
And, of course, it's a sin for a woman to even show her face in public - because women's faces can cause lust, too. Back to the idea of blaming the woman because someone else lusts. That's THEIR problem, not hers.jewishprincess613 said:
And, of course, in societies all around the world and all through time, nudity was not seen as "lust provoking". It tends to be viewed as such in our society precisely because it is so "bad".
I have no idea even to respond to this. Wearing clothing helps others "respect the person in a holy way"? What rubbish. As is the idea that "the more holy something is, the more covered it is".jewishprincess613 said:
Upvote
0
However outward clothing should reflect the inward state of a man and this is what it means by dressing modestly.
Ezekiel 7
They will put on sackcloth and be clothed with terror. Their faces will be covered with shame and their heads will be shaved
In the bible the wearing of sackcloth was a sign of grief and mourning and clothes were used as an outward expression of the inward state. This was the same for priests who had certain dress that was worn to represent their inward devotion to god.
2 Corinthians 5
Our Heavenly Dwelling
1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Not only is nakedness always associated with shame in the bible but clothing is associated with salvation and notice how being naked is again depicted as being undesirable as it says we do not wish to be unclothed ie the writer would not of his own free will walk about naked as naturists do as it is better to be clothed.
Galatians 3
Sons of God
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Again clothes are associated with those who have been saved ie being clothed is like becoming a christian and this is more evidence that being clothed is desirable and biblical.
Isaiah 61
10 I delight greatly in the LORD ;
my soul rejoices in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
Again being clothed is likened to being saved.
John 19
The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe
Again clothing is a symbol reflecting that jesus really was a king.
1 Corinthians 15
53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."[1]
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?
Again clothing is symbolistic of what is happening.
1 Corinthians 11
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved.
Here the fact that the woman wears a covering symbolises the headship/authority of men over woman.
When Isaiah was commanded to preach naked his nakedness was a sign to show the people how they had rebelled against god.
The way christians dress outside should be a sign of their inward state and we also need to remember that being naked symbolises shame and rebellion against god as shown by isaiah and saul (remember saul had rebelled against god by trying to kill david and his nakedness symbolises this) and in other passages i listed in previous posts (see page 25 for verses) and so for a christian to go around naked would symbolise that they had rebelled against god which is completely inappropriate and false. Our clothing should reflect the fact that we are christians and should be modest so as it does not cause others to lust and we should not judge others by what they wear (unless it is immodest or offensive) but by their deeds.
The bible clearly shows that there is nothing wrong with a woman showing her face in public but the bible also says that women should dress modestly as woman can easily dress in a more modest less provocative way that will not tempt men and the bible does not go to such an extreme as you are suggesting.
Upvote
0
No it's not.The Bellman said:
People can think others are attractive without lusting. Generally, a modestly clad body is given the right kind of attention, and is looked upon in a better way. It's fact.The Bellman said:
I didn't blame the one. I said one (not just women) should not cause other people to lust (ie.sin). If you are CAUSING someone to lust, then you are JUST AS GUILTY as the one who is lusting. Whether you agree or not, is beside the point.The Bellman said:
It's BOTH of their problems. People SHOULD be able to waltz around in whatever they want to and be looked upon in the same way, but that is not the case. Therefore, if someone is going to go out dressed like a hooker, or a thug, etc, then they are going to have to deal with the consequences. Yes, it is there problem as well, but people do not need to provoke sin. The provoker is just as guilty as the provokee.The Bellman said:
Doesn't matter. It is NOW and THIS is the time era and society we are referring to, are we not?The Bellman said:
No, it is viewed as such because or society is sex obsessed, and because of that fact, nudity IS lustful. Naked people are seen by the vast majority of people in a lustful manner. It may be unfortunate but that's the way it is. And because that's the way it is, then nudity is not a good idea!The Bellman said:
Then don't!The Bellman said:
Not "wearing clothes"! Wearing MODEST clothes. And it's true. Women AND men are giving the better KIND of attention when dressed modestly, whether you want to accept that fact or not.The Bellman said:
Please have the maturity of someone your age and refrain from calling my beliefs rubbish. I don't think yours are all that great either, but I refuse to sink as low as that.The Bellman said:
That is my religious belief, and will CONTINUE to be so. Like it or not. And NO it is NOT rubbish! You sir, are very rude!The Bellman said:
Upvote
0
Bare i think you are being a hypocrite you complain of how people try and force their lifestyles on you then say you spent a year trying to force naturism upon your wife, if your wife didn't want to do it then you shouldn't have kept trying to persuade her for a year.
Upvote
0
Eph. 3:20
Well-Known Member
Oh Clarity.......
First, let me say thank you for you insights. I can see that you're honestly trying to put forth a arguement for that which you believe.
But, I think you have overlooked some things and there might be some things to consider. I will not debate you verse by verse because there is too much here. I will try to give you some principles and hopefully the issues will take care of themselves.
First, dont misinterpret what I said. I am not saying that we have the priviledge to run around naked wherever we want. I think if you review my previous post you will see this is not what I'm saying. I believe a thorough reading of the Scriptures will reveal it does not advocate nudity nor does it condemn it because it is a inherenlty non-moral issue. It is condemned only when it is misused.
Second, everything must be interpreted by the context in which it is placed. We cannot simply pull out the word "clothed" and make that to mean that Scripture desires us to be clothed. This is bad exigesis. Also the cultural conditions must be considered (as in the 1 Tim. passage), because those issues might not have the exact same relevance or Paul might have been addressing a particular incident which might not have application to our present day situation.
Third, It is a spiritaully dangerous practice to get to a position by which we internally or externally judge others by their clothing or manner of dress. Or that we establish the "morality" of a person by what they wear. This is what the Pharisees in Jesus' day would have done. By doing this the most annointed are the one's parading themselves dressed in fine robes and crowns for all of mankind to see. When we start to establish rules for dress and the like, we become legalist. Legalism's laws heap up regulations for every trviality imaginable, most of which have no bearing on true morality or ethics. Under legalism morally indifferent things are made to be immoral by statute.
Jesus charged the Pharisees and Scribes of "invalidating the word of God by your traditions which you handed down, and you do many such things as that." (Mk. 7:13)Each of the multitude of purely human regulations carried the same authority as actual Divine Law prohibiting theft, murder etc.. This system breeds nothing but bondage, guilt, hopelessness, shame and cursing.
Christ set us free to from law, and placed us under His rule of grace, and equipped us to govern ourselves by His Law of Love.
No. To dress modestly as in (1 Tim. 2:9, 1 Pet. 3:3) has nothing to do with how much or how little clothing one wears. It has to do specifically with "orderly" clothing. The Greek word is "kosmois" meaning "orderly" in regard to how women appear in public worship. That Paul is not discussing the amount of clothing, but the nature of clothing is demonstrated by his prohibition of "braided hair, gold, pearls, costly garments," and then stating that her clothing is to be "good works" (1 Tim. 2:10). This purpose is to avoid vanity, pride and other improprieties. Extravagant dress is generally worn to produce envy or to draw attention to oneself. Spirituality and good taste as conductive to worship, is Paul's point. To press this verse into service to forbid women to wear tight clothing, shorts, sleeveless dresses, pants, swimsuits etc, is to abuse Scripture.
This is a symbolic use clothing as terror, surley you're not suggesting we are not to be "clothed" with terror. We must distinguish when Scripture uses a metaphor. This passage speaks nothing to the issue of morality or immorality of nudity.
No. Nakedness is not always associated with shame. A reading of the previous posts will reveal this. Many times it is symbolized shame, but to say that it is always is untrue.
Again, this is a symbolic reference to atoning death of Jesus on our behalf. This is what I spoke of in my previous post, that we are to "put on the righteousness of Christ"
This can hardly be called a passage that endorses clothing. Clothing is not the subject matter at all..They were mocking Him..After they put the robe on Him, they struck Him in the face!
No. It was a prophecy of doom against Egypt. To "expose one's nakedness" was to leave one without any covering or defense. He was not telling them that they must repent and wear clothes!
Be careful my friend. You should have left out that last part of your comment. Scripture repeatedly tells us that we do not have the ability to judge the intent of the heart of another believer, it is simply impossible. We leave that judgement to God. A person may dress in a manner that may be innappropriate to you, but they thought it to very appropriate. We are not called to be the fashion police..this is far removed from the gospel message of Christ and on the damning road to legalism.
I suggest you prayerfully consider this type of theolgy.
Blessings,
Eph. 3:20
First, let me say thank you for you insights. I can see that you're honestly trying to put forth a arguement for that which you believe.
But, I think you have overlooked some things and there might be some things to consider. I will not debate you verse by verse because there is too much here. I will try to give you some principles and hopefully the issues will take care of themselves.
First, dont misinterpret what I said. I am not saying that we have the priviledge to run around naked wherever we want. I think if you review my previous post you will see this is not what I'm saying. I believe a thorough reading of the Scriptures will reveal it does not advocate nudity nor does it condemn it because it is a inherenlty non-moral issue. It is condemned only when it is misused.
Second, everything must be interpreted by the context in which it is placed. We cannot simply pull out the word "clothed" and make that to mean that Scripture desires us to be clothed. This is bad exigesis. Also the cultural conditions must be considered (as in the 1 Tim. passage), because those issues might not have the exact same relevance or Paul might have been addressing a particular incident which might not have application to our present day situation.
Third, It is a spiritaully dangerous practice to get to a position by which we internally or externally judge others by their clothing or manner of dress. Or that we establish the "morality" of a person by what they wear. This is what the Pharisees in Jesus' day would have done. By doing this the most annointed are the one's parading themselves dressed in fine robes and crowns for all of mankind to see. When we start to establish rules for dress and the like, we become legalist. Legalism's laws heap up regulations for every trviality imaginable, most of which have no bearing on true morality or ethics. Under legalism morally indifferent things are made to be immoral by statute.
Jesus charged the Pharisees and Scribes of "invalidating the word of God by your traditions which you handed down, and you do many such things as that." (Mk. 7:13)Each of the multitude of purely human regulations carried the same authority as actual Divine Law prohibiting theft, murder etc.. This system breeds nothing but bondage, guilt, hopelessness, shame and cursing.
Christ set us free to from law, and placed us under His rule of grace, and equipped us to govern ourselves by His Law of Love.
Clarity said:
No. To dress modestly as in (1 Tim. 2:9, 1 Pet. 3:3) has nothing to do with how much or how little clothing one wears. It has to do specifically with "orderly" clothing. The Greek word is "kosmois" meaning "orderly" in regard to how women appear in public worship. That Paul is not discussing the amount of clothing, but the nature of clothing is demonstrated by his prohibition of "braided hair, gold, pearls, costly garments," and then stating that her clothing is to be "good works" (1 Tim. 2:10). This purpose is to avoid vanity, pride and other improprieties. Extravagant dress is generally worn to produce envy or to draw attention to oneself. Spirituality and good taste as conductive to worship, is Paul's point. To press this verse into service to forbid women to wear tight clothing, shorts, sleeveless dresses, pants, swimsuits etc, is to abuse Scripture.
This is a symbolic use clothing as terror, surley you're not suggesting we are not to be "clothed" with terror. We must distinguish when Scripture uses a metaphor. This passage speaks nothing to the issue of morality or immorality of nudity.
No. Nakedness is not always associated with shame. A reading of the previous posts will reveal this. Many times it is symbolized shame, but to say that it is always is untrue.
Again, this is a symbolic reference to atoning death of Jesus on our behalf. This is what I spoke of in my previous post, that we are to "put on the righteousness of Christ"
This can hardly be called a passage that endorses clothing. Clothing is not the subject matter at all..They were mocking Him..After they put the robe on Him, they struck Him in the face!
No. It was a prophecy of doom against Egypt. To "expose one's nakedness" was to leave one without any covering or defense. He was not telling them that they must repent and wear clothes!
Be careful my friend. You should have left out that last part of your comment. Scripture repeatedly tells us that we do not have the ability to judge the intent of the heart of another believer, it is simply impossible. We leave that judgement to God. A person may dress in a manner that may be innappropriate to you, but they thought it to very appropriate. We are not called to be the fashion police..this is far removed from the gospel message of Christ and on the damning road to legalism.
I suggest you prayerfully consider this type of theolgy.
Blessings,
Eph. 3:20
Upvote
0
Just to clarify
In the passages i quoted clothing is always symbolic i.e the way those described are dressed represents something else
eg
Wearing sackcloth represents grief and mourning for a sin committed against god.
Woman wearing a covering symbolises the headship/authority of men over woman
the crown of thorns and robe of jesus represent the fact that he is a king
Being clothed is often a symbol of being saved
Being naked is a sign of sin, rebellion against god and shame in all cases( see my post on page 25 for verses to back this up) except in genesis with adam and eve and i would ask you to come up with more places where it does not represent these things.
In the bible the clothing is sometimes used as an outward appearence that represents an inward condition and one of the times that this occurrs is with nudity.
From this we can say that a christian is only ever permitted to god naked as a sign of of sin, rebellion against god and shame as in the bible nakedness only ever occurrs when these things are present.(see my post on page 25)
E.G. In isaiah he is naked as a sign of gods anger against his people as they have rebelled against him and that gods wrath is directed against them.
Saul also rebelled against god and his nakedness is a sign of this.
In both these cases the common denominator is that nakedness occurred when people had rebelled against god.
Adam and eves nudity is the exception as it symbolises their innocence and purity which was destroyed when sin entered the world.
In our sinful world christians who have read the bible will associate nudity with shame, rebellion against god and sin just like the bible does and so wont want to be naturists.
In the passages i quoted clothing is always symbolic i.e the way those described are dressed represents something else
eg
Wearing sackcloth represents grief and mourning for a sin committed against god.
Woman wearing a covering symbolises the headship/authority of men over woman
the crown of thorns and robe of jesus represent the fact that he is a king
Being clothed is often a symbol of being saved
Being naked is a sign of sin, rebellion against god and shame in all cases( see my post on page 25 for verses to back this up) except in genesis with adam and eve and i would ask you to come up with more places where it does not represent these things.
In the bible the clothing is sometimes used as an outward appearence that represents an inward condition and one of the times that this occurrs is with nudity.
From this we can say that a christian is only ever permitted to god naked as a sign of of sin, rebellion against god and shame as in the bible nakedness only ever occurrs when these things are present.(see my post on page 25)
E.G. In isaiah he is naked as a sign of gods anger against his people as they have rebelled against him and that gods wrath is directed against them.
Saul also rebelled against god and his nakedness is a sign of this.
In both these cases the common denominator is that nakedness occurred when people had rebelled against god.
Adam and eves nudity is the exception as it symbolises their innocence and purity which was destroyed when sin entered the world.
In our sinful world christians who have read the bible will associate nudity with shame, rebellion against god and sin just like the bible does and so wont want to be naturists.
Upvote
0
Eph. 3:20
Well-Known Member
Clarity said:
Your taking OT "specific" symbolic concepts and applying them to our present day "overall" situation. Their "sin" had nothing to do with being naked! That would be equal to God calling the Nation of Israel an Adulteress, "as symbol" but we could never have sex again in the "overall" context. Or, a drunkard (as symbol) to say that we can never drink again. And from the text you cited, we are to derive that God does not want us naked? When I take of my clothes to take a shower or to change, I personally do not associate my nakedness to shame. Because my nakedness is inherently not sinful.
The fact remains, No Scripture exist that calls nudity a sin. God legislates against what He does not permit. Everything else is permitted. I believe you are dangerously close in making up religious rules of conduct, where God has not.
A righteous person will do nothing that harms the conscience and faith of another. We must not give up liberty; we must stand fast in it. But we must control its use by loving others. If we can enjoy our liberties in ways that do not spiritually harm less informed people, then we have God's exhortation to do so and thereby take full advantage of the "freedom for which Christ set us free."
All I can tell you is what God says within His written word...how you apply that to your life is between you and him. "I know and am convinced in the Lord that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Rom. 14:14)
Eph. 3:20
Upvote
0
Similar threads
