Nudism

[Archivist]

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

Well said Eph. 3:20!

 

[The Bellman]

No it's not.

Of course it's not. But by your "logic", it should be.

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.

No, it's not fact. It's opinion. An opinion I disagree with, and which you cannot support.

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.

You can't cause someone to lust. The very idea is ridiculous. If I lust after someone because I see her face, then it's her fault as much as it is mine? Of course not. But you want to arbitrarily draw a line and say that people dressed "immodestly" (ie., what YOU think is "immodest") are at fault if others lust after them. Sounds like the old "she had it coming" defense for a rapist.

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.

It's not possible to "provoke" sin. If somebody sins as a result of merely seeing someone else, that is the sinner's problem. It's not the fault or the problem of the person who is merely walking around.

Doesn't matter. It is NOW and THIS is the time era and society we are referring to, are we not?

NOW and THIS is merely one society; its mores are not heavenly ordained or even the best set for human beings.

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!

No, it is viewed as such because our society decrees it to be so. One of the reasons our society has such an obsession with sex is precisely because of people like you who find there is something wrong or sinful with the human body.

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.

Wearing clothes YOU happen to think are modest. It's not true, nor can you support your claim that it is.

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.

It's neither immature nor sinking low to call something that you think is rubbish, rubbish. In my opinion, your beliefs are rubbish, and harmful rubbish at that. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, don't post your opinion.

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!

I know it is your religious belief, and I know it will continue to be so. So what? In my opinion it's rubbish, and harmful rubbish.

And yes, I can be very rude at times. In response to your posts, I have not been rude in the slightest.

 

[Archivist]

Jewishprincess613,

You ststed that going nude or dressing immodestly could cause others to lust, and that the one who causes the lust is equally guilty as the one who lusts.

Would you agree that owning a new, expensive BMW could cause others to be envious? Is the vehicle owner therefore guilty of causing others to sin? What about wearing nice clothing? In fact, using your reasoning, wearing clothing could possibly cause someone to sin just as much as not wearing clothing!

 

[Clarity]

Revelation 3
18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

Ezekiel 16
7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

When he says you who were naked and bare (past tense) he is referring to the time when they had rebelled and practised detestable things but then god came and saved them and made them grow into beautiful jewels. In this verse naked and bare is associated with the people rebelling against god.

In isaiah his nakedness is a sign that the israelites were going to be captured and led away as slaves as shown in the following passage

Isaiah 20
4 so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared-to Egypt's shame.

Here nakedness is again associated with shame.

Exodus 20v26
And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.


Isaiah 47
2 Take millstones and grind flour;
take off your veil.
Lift up your skirts, bare your legs,
and wade through the streams.
3 Your nakedness will be exposed
and your shame uncovered.
I will take vengeance;
I will spare no one."

Isaiah 57
7 You have made your bed on a high and lofty hill;
there you went up to offer your sacrifices.
8 Behind your doors and your doorposts
you have put your pagan symbols.
Forsaking me, you uncovered your bed,
you climbed into it and opened it wide;
you made a pact with those whose beds you love,
and you looked on their nakedness.

Here nakedness is associated with worshipping other gods.

Lamentations 1v8
Jerusalem has sinned greatly and so has become unclean. All who honored her despise her, for they have seen her nakedness; she herself groans and turns away.

Her nakedness is associated with sin and being unclean.

Lamentations 4 v21
Rejoice and be glad, O Daughter of Edom, you who live in the land of Uz. But to you also the cup will be passed; you will be drunk and stripped naked.

Again nakedness is seen as a punishment for those who reject god.

Ezekiel 16v8
'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD , and you became mine

Nakedness is representing those who are not part of gods people.
Ezekiel 16
35 " 'Therefore, you prostitute, hear the word of the LORD ! 36 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because you poured out your wealth and exposed your nakedness in your promiscuity with your lovers, and because of all your detestable idols, and because you gave them your children's blood, 37 therefore I am going to gather all your lovers, with whom you found pleasure, those you loved as well as those you hated. I will gather them against you from all around and will strip you in front of them, and they will see all your nakedness.

Here nakedness is associated with promiscuity and nakedness is seen as a punishment that is undesirable and will cause shame.


Ezekiel 23v18
When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister.

Nakedness is associated with prostitutes and immorality.

Ezekiel 23
28 "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am about to hand you over to those you hate, to those you turned away from in disgust. 29 They will deal with you in hatred and take away everything you have worked for. They will leave you naked and bare, and the shame of your prostitution will be exposed. Your lewdness and promiscuity 30 have brought this upon you, because you lusted after the nations and defiled yourself with their idols.

Nakedness is again seen as a punishemnt that leads to shame.

Micah 1
11 Pass on in nakedness and shame,
you who live in Shaphir. [1]
Those who live in Zaanan [2]
will not come out.
Beth Ezel is in mourning;
its protection is taken from you.

Nahum 3v5
"I am against you," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will lift your skirts over your face. I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame.

Yet again nakedness is a sign of shame.

Revelation 16v15
"Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed."

Revelation 17v 16
The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.


Nakedness in the bible is associated with shameful activities such as rebelling against God, sinful behaviour, punishment from god. The reason that nakedness is used as a metaphor is that nakedness is considered shameful and these two things nakedness and shame are clearly linked in the bible both by the writers of these passages AND BY GOD if nakedness wasn't shameful then a different metaphor would have to be used meaning that nakedness is undeniably and clearly shameful. These passages refer not to temporary nakedness such as that which occurrs in the shower but nakedness that occurrs in front of others.

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.

This means that we can never commit adultery in the overall context. Adultery is wrong, it is not a prohibition of sex as it is not talking about sex but adultery. Christians should not commit adultery and this is backed up elsewhere in scripture.

Or, a drunkard (as symbol) to say that we can never drink again.

You have again misunderstood it is clearly talking about drunkeness not drinking and NO i don't think christians are permitted to get drunk and this is again supported elsewhere in scripture.

Colossians 2
6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

Those who practice naturism have been taken captive by a hollow philosophy that depends on human tradition the origin of naturism was

Organized naturism was called Freikörperkultur (Free body culture) in Germany, the country of its origin. It first came onto the scene at the beginning of the present century. It was a time of awakening, of shedding stiff collars and the accompanying values; there came a need for lightness, air, a more natural style of living, as well as less restrictive clothing. Neinrich Pudor's book The Cult of the Nude appeared as a timely beacon. By 1903, Freilichtpark (Free-Light Park), the first known nudist club, was opened near Hamburg. Shortly after that, Heinrich Ungewitter published Die Nacktheit (Nakedness), a utopia of nude living. It went through several reprints.

The purpose of naturism is to promote wholesomeness and stability of the human body and mind. This comes most easily to those who shed the psychological and social encumbrance of clothing to see and respect the human body as created.
It is therefore associated with an enlightened, holistic approach to nutrition, physical activity, mental functioning, and social interaction.
It leads to healthier and more humane living: richer and simpler, enlightened by joy and freedom.

It has no biblical/christian base and it is clearly not related to christianity. Those who practise naturism have ignored this command and have been taken captive by a hollow philosophy that is in opposition to the bible and this will damage their christian testimony and may interfere with their christian life. Chrisitans do not need naturism as the christian principles given in the bible are all that is needed and we do not need naturism to gain enlightenment or freedom as the bible is the only source of these and its principles run in opposition to those of the bible.

We also have to remember

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


I have already quoted this verse at least twice and no one has even attempted to answer it. It Clearly and Undeniably states that there are parts of our body that are unpresentable to others and if this is the case then naturism is again ruled out and this is the second biblical command that has been broken by naturists.




Proverbs 6
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.


John 17
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:

Romans 16:17-18
"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple"

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Eph 4:1-3)

The fact remains that naturism has and will continue to cause division within the church which is against the will of god for the church and it is better that naturists stop practising naturism than that divisions be caused. I don't think that it would be a big sacrifice to make as when i asked earlier why people become naturists it was because it was free and more natural and i don't think that it would make a big difference to their lives if they stopped being naturists and naturism could be a distraction and a hindrance to someones christian faith and we should try not to be selfish and self centred as so many other people are. Being a naturist harms a christians testimony as outsiders may suspect that christians are swingers or that naturism is part of the christian religion and we are told that there is not to be even a hint of sexual immorality among believers which is another command broken by naturists. We also have to consider how naturism will effect non christians as if naturism becomes more prevalent it will lead to even more promiscuity and immorality as today the standards with respect are lower than ever for sex and we do not want them to drop any further. When we look at the statistics we find

About 40% of nudists are swingers quoted on the site and i also noticed
Where single men are welcome they outnumber the women at least 3 to 1, often more (10 to 1).

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).

They clearly support the view that naturism leads to even lower more unbiblical standards of sexual morality and so chrisitans should not encourage it. The biblical advice is to flee temptation and stay away from the sources of temptation and honour marriage this is what we should do to help combat the problem of immorality.

The final point I want to consider is why does the bible not say that naturism is wrong? when we look at the bible we find that that there is not a single instance of naturism ie christians walking about naked for the sake of it there are examples of nudity but these are signs to show Gods anger or displeasure with his people as shown by isaiah or saul. Other than this there are literally thousands of examples of people wearing clothes and this is never even called into question as in the bible it is assumed that people wear clothes in all normal situations, if this is the case
Should christians ignore the example of every single person in the bible and not wear clothes? obviously not if in doubt we should follow the example of those given in the bible and wear clothes, the fact that no one in the bible ever practised naturism is a clear sign that God doesn't want us to be naturists and as the saying goes actions speak louder than words and the examples of clothing being worn in all circumstances in the bible clearly show that God desires us to wear clothes and doesn't encourage us to be naturists.

 

[Clarity]

My first post was so long that it wouldnt let me post it so i had to put his paragraph in a second post.

In terms of those who say modestly is socially conditioned and changes every time fashion does i disagree the biblical standard of modesty is constant and does not change between different cultures much and nakedness cannot be modest as the bible says it is shameful and these two terms are mutually exclusive. When defining modesty i think we should look at how the people who wrote about modesty dressed so we can know their meaning as our definition of modesty may be completely different to the biblical idea of modesty although weather and new technology will mean that we will be dressed in a slightly different style.or way from those in the bible. When you look at the clothes they wore you notice they were loose not tight and covered nearly all their body so the only skin you could see was on their face and feet and they were certainly not naked and they lived in a hot climate but still did not go around skimpily clad.

 

[jewishprincess613]

But by your "logic", it should be.

Apparently you understand my logic very little!

No, it's not fact.

It is.

An opinion I disagree with

You don't have to agree. My purpose here is not to convince Bellman of his errors, it is rather to voice my OWN opinion on matters. Opinions that you will not change.

You can't cause someone to lust.

Yes you can. If people are lusting after you because you are dressed provactively, then you are causing this lust by dressing that way. Agree or not, that's my opinion, and the truth which I witness daily. You don't need to agree but don't expect me to change my opinions just because of that!

Sounds like the old "she had it coming" defense for a rapist.

What absurdity! And please don't place words into my mouth. I have already stated that it is not OKAY, but it is still what HAPPENS, and because it is what happens, people need to be more MODEST. No matter how they dress, they will attract some kind of attention. EVERYONE knows this, it's no hidden secret. They also know that dressing immodestly attracts bad attention. Yet people still dress that way anyway. They KNOW they are going to get the wrong type of attention from someone out there, yet they continue to do it. So YES, THEY are causing lust. Does that give the idiots whose hormones are working overtime the right to harrass anyone? No, it does not! HOWEVER, people need not attempt to flaunt themselves to attempt to prove this point, because the fact of the matter is, there will STILL be these idiots out there lurking around, and if you want to avoid them, you can dress respectively. (I know there are rapists out there, who don't care what you are wearing, and who do what they do for power, not sex. I am not referring to these people. I am referring to those who lust. Nor do I condone rapists at all. Dressed like a **** or not, no still means no. I am referring to LUST itself and that's all.) No, I am not siding with these lusters, I am just saying that if someone doesn't WANT this kind of attention, then it IS necessary to dress in an appropriate manner.

No, it is viewed as such because our society decrees it to be so.

You hold onto that if you like. I will continue to disagree though, so we're going to have to AGREE to disagree, or else you can just sit here arguing with yourself. Your choice.

One of the reasons our society has such an obsession with sex is precisely because of people like you who find there is something wrong or sinful with the human body.

Actually, this is a flat out lie and you know it. Perhaps it is from someone like you who supports (or at least helps since you are "pro-choice" on the matter) the degrading industry of pornography. THAT is where the sex obsession came from, and it is with THOSE people (and their supporters) who continue the trend. Sorry to burst your overly inflated bubble, but I am not obsessed with sex, nor do I walk around talking about it, joking about it, or obsessing over other naked people on TV and in magazines. I am persistent here yes, because this is what the thread is about, but no, I do not talk about sex in everyday life.

Wearing clothes YOU happen to think are modest.

There is a line between modest and immodest, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out:

classy=Modest
******=immodest
long skirts, long sleeved shirts=modest
mini skirts and tube tops=immodest
Even though I do not believe women should dress this way, I would even put non-form-fitting pants and a loose-ish t-shirt with modest compared to the tank tops and short shorts!
as for men, dress pants, and sweater or button up shirt=modest
pants pulled down to their thighs=immodest

There is a line there, and it doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not.

In my opinion, your beliefs are rubbish, and harmful rubbish at that.

I happen to think YOUR beliefs are VERY harmful as well. However, I wouldn't sink as low as calling them rubbish. I may think of them as such, but it is apparent to me, that it helps none whatsoever to sit here are say that (and then to repeat it over and over again in some weird attempt at proving how maturity I have)!

If you don't like people disagreeing with you, don't post your opinion.

I expected people to disagree with me. But I expected them to do it maturely. Sorry, but you didn't reach that goal of mine. I stay true that calling someone down is not mature, and it is a low move.

In my opinion it's rubbish, and harmful rubbish.

And in my opinion, you are still being rude. Very rude.

And yes, I can be very rude at times.

I've noticed!

In response to your posts, I have not been rude in the slightest.

You most certainly have. It would be interesting to know your definition of rude.

 

[The Bellman]

Apparently you understand my logic very little!

I understand your "logic" very well. You want to make arbitrary rules that suit you, and completely ignore logic altogether.

It is.

No, it's not.

You don't have to agree. My purpose here is not to convince Bellman of his errors, it is rather to voice my OWN opinion on matters. Opinions that you will not change.

Gee, thanks for your permission to disagree.

Yes you can. If people are lusting after you because you are dressed provactively, then you are causing this lust by dressing that way. Agree or not, that's my opinion, and the truth which I witness daily. You don't need to agree but don't expect me to change my opinions just because of that!

No, you cannot. People lust after others for a variety of reasons; the lust is in the luster, not the one lusting.

What absurdity! And please don't place words into my mouth. I have already stated that it is not OKAY, but it is still what HAPPENS, and because it is what happens, people need to be more MODEST. No matter how they dress, they will attract some kind of attention. EVERYONE knows this, it's no hidden secret. They also know that dressing immodestly attracts bad attention. Yet people still dress that way anyway. They KNOW they are going to get the wrong type of attention from someone out there, yet they continue to do it. So YES, THEY are causing lust. Does that give the idiots whose hormones are working overtime the right to harrass anyone? No, it does not! HOWEVER, people need not attempt to flaunt themselves to attempt to prove this point, because the fact of the matter is, there will STILL be these idiots out there lurking around, and if you want to avoid them, you can dress respectively. (I know there are rapists out there, who don't care what you are wearing, and who do what they do for power, not sex. I am not referring to these people. I am referring to those who lust. Nor do I condone rapists at all. Dressed like a **** or not, no still means no. I am referring to LUST itself and that's all.) No, I am not siding with these lusters, I am just saying that if someone doesn't WANT this kind of attention, then it IS necessary to dress in an appropriate manner.

If someone doesn't want this kind of attention, it is necessary to stop those who give it. The fault lies with them, not with the person exercising their freedom to dress as they want. Your solution of "don't dress 'immodestly'" follows exactly the same logic as those who say rape victims "had it coming".

You hold onto that if you like. I will continue to disagree though, so we're going to have to AGREE to disagree, or else you can just sit here arguing with yourself. Your choice.

I'm arguing with YOU, not with myself. It may have escaped your notice, but that is a big purpose of forums like this.

Actually, this is a flat out lie and you know it.

No, it is not a lie. It's a simple fact - which, of course, you don't like.

Perhaps it is from someone like you who supports (or at least helps since you are "pro-choice" on the matter) the degrading industry of pornography. THAT is where the sex obsession came from, and it is with THOSE people (and their supporters) who continue the trend. Sorry to burst your overly inflated bubble, but I am not obsessed with sex, nor do I walk around talking about it, joking about it, or obsessing over other naked people on TV and in magazines. I am persistent here yes, because this is what the thread is about, but no, I do not talk about sex in everyday life.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, you are obsessed with sex, or you wouldn't be here crusading against people dressing "immodestly" lest they "cause" someone else to lust. Like many, you are a product of your society. Sad, really.

There is a line between modest and immodest, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out:

classy=Modest
******=immodest
long skirts, long sleeved shirts=modest
mini skirts and tube tops=immodest
Even though I do not believe women should dress this way, I would even put non-form-fitting pants and a loose-ish t-shirt with modest compared to the tank tops and short shorts!
as for men, dress pants, and sweater or button up shirt=modest
pants pulled down to their thighs=immodest

There is a line there, and it doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not.

How ridiculous. All you are talking about is what this society decrees. In other societies, completely different standards of dress are "modest" and "immodest". This demonstrates that there is nothing intrinsically modest or immodest about any mode of dress; that our society's decision on what is modest and immodest is arbitrary. Two solutions to that - either do as you want, and make everybody dress (what YOU think is) modestly, or change society so that people are free (there's that awful word again!) to dress as they please. Guess which alternative I like (hint...that word 'free').

I happen to think YOUR beliefs are VERY harmful as well. However, I wouldn't sink as low as calling them rubbish. I may think of them as such, but it is apparent to me, that it helps none whatsoever to sit here are say that (and then to repeat it over and over again in some weird attempt at proving how maturity I have)!

Sorry to again burst your bubble, but identifying something as rubbish when you think it is rubbish isn't an attempt to prove anything about maturity. It's merely an expression of opinion.

I expected people to disagree with me. But I expected them to do it maturely. Sorry, but you didn't reach that goal of mine. I stay true that calling someone down is not mature, and it is a low move.

I haven't "called you down". I have made statements about your opinions. If you don't like it, your'e in the wrong place.

And in my opinion, you are still being rude. Very rude.

Then your opinion is wrong.

I've noticed!

No, you haven't.

You most certainly have. It would be interesting to know your definition of rude.

No, I have not. Consult any dictionary.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

I will respond to just one of the multiple passages you have cited, (everytime you came across the word naked/nakedness in the Bible). This is typical of most of your examples.

Ezekiel 16v8
'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD , and you became mine

Nakedness is representing those who are not part of gods people.

This is twisting Scripture to meet your own end. This is an allegorical message about how the Lord came upon Jerusalem and nurtured and cared for them from their infancy and raised and cared for them and then they turned to another. This means He provided everything they needed, including clothes and food and shelter. Did they need clothes, yes..do we need clothes, yes the environment dictates that we wear them on some occasions. This does not make it a sin to go without clothes.

To say that people that enjoy nakedness are not part of God's people is a complete distortion of the text.

Nakedness in the bible is associated with shameful activities such as rebelling against God, sinful behaviour, punishment from god. These passages refer not to temporary nakedness such as that which occurrs in the shower but nakedness that occurrs in front of others.

Such as the Garden? Such as David? Such as Peter? Such as the Shulimite girl? (Song. 6:13)

Temporary nakedness??? At what point does it become sin? 10 min? 15 min? Can my wife see me naked? Can I take a shower outside? Can I go swimming in the nude? What if my sister walks in on me while I'm in the shower? Have I sinned? Has She? Can we see the ridiculous nature of this kind of thinking?

This means that we can never commit adultery in the overall context. Adultery is wrong, it is not a prohibition of sex as it is not talking about sex but adultery. Christians should not commit adultery and this is backed up elsewhere in scripture.

Exactly! In God's use of Isaiah he's not talking about the nakedness of Egypt. He's not condemning them because they where not wearing enough clothes.

You have again misunderstood it is clearly talking about drunkeness not drinking and NO i don't think christians are permitted to get drunk and this is again supported elsewhere in scripture.

Exactly! We're talking about nakedness, not the misuse of it! Just as Christians can drink without abusing the priviledge so can they become naked without abusing the priviledge.

It has no biblical/christian base and it is clearly not related to christianity.

This was God's original plan! No base? This is how He designed us to be, naked was our perfect state. The very beginning of humanity demobstrate that God's preference for man and woman, is that they be naked exactly as all othe living creatures are.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Eph. 3:20]

We have a picture and it is developing much clearer of a legalistic approach; this one happens to take a stand against nudity and manner of dress, but it could just as easily be about smoking, drinking, seeing a "R" rated movie etc...

Man is the ultimate legalist. He makes laws about anything from the sublime to the ridiculous. This is the greatest curse to those who want to worship God without human regulation. Jesus warred with these types in His day. The Pharisees, Sadducees and the Jewish lawyers specialized in making religious law where God had made none. Jesus' curse against them can be read in Matt. 23. The modern church still strives against the overwhelming tide of human law that chokes the life out of a simple pursuit of God. Legalism finds God's laws insufficient to lead humanity to complete righteousness, therefore religous professionals and lay people must plug the gaps by making church law. This purely human law regulates nearly every facet of church life. God's law has effectively disappeared under the pile.

"Defilement" does not come from the act of using and enjoying any of God's creation. It comes from within. Christian asceticism has plagued us since the beginning of the church. Ascetics vow to dress and act in such fashion that they do not come into contact with "unclean" things. Thus, some disavow nudity and even sex because it's "dirty" and "unclean" and "unholy." Others wear clothing that is uncomfortable because to wear something that might be more comfortable would be "immodest."

Paul fought this kind of foolishness into the Colossian church, (Col. 2:8-23). Church leaders and laity cannot resist the urge to set for themselves and others "rules of holiness" that are not from God, (vs. 8,16,18,20-22). Almost as if we think God did not do a thorough job of warning us about everything sinful, we are compelled to devise regulations for every conceivable action and situation, impost those regulations on everyone around us, then measure "holiness" of "faithfulness" on the basis of those human regulations.

The passage that was mis-interpreted was actually telling the Colossians to refuse to allow other people to lead them into spiritual bondage "through philosophy...deception...and the tradition of men...rather than according to Christ." (vs. 8)

Here's the background on the preceeding passage...
The Colossians where commanded to reject human judgment of their enjoyment of "food and drink" or with respect to "festival or new moon or Sabbath day." (vs. 16). Both then and now church leaders make rules for us that condemn various religious days. Yet Paul says we are to reject such human rules. Other leaders condemn drinking and eating "unclean" foods, women wearing jewelery, cutting their hair, wearing form fitting pants, dancing etc... Paul's inspired advice is to ignore such ascetic worthless regulations. Not a single one of them has the slightest thing to do with holiness or devotion to God. To honor them is to honor, not God's authority, but human authority and to do so is to actually dishonor God.. It is to give up our freedom in Christ to make up our own minds about such things, and to return to the bondage of legalism.

All human interpretations of and rules for "true holiness" or "real commitment" of "faithfulness" are worthless for anything, especially for overcoming the flesh, (vs. 23) Most man-made rules and restrictions have a strong "appearance of wisdom in self made religion and self abasement and severe treatment of the body." That is their whole appeal. Our folly is transparently displayed in the way we view people on the basis of merely outward appearance. We attribute great holiness to someone who rises up early and spends much time praying and reading the word. We exalt to high status those who come to every church meeting, who fast often and who tithe largely. If others desire to know how to be truly holy we then set for them a path of "severity to the body" consisting of little sleep, minimal sex, much fasting, much praying etc... All those are valuable when persued because one loves God. But not even sacrificial commitment to such activities will qualify one as holy in God's sight if love is not the motive. God rejects what is not filled with and motivated by love (1 Cor. 13: 1-3). Following strict rules of dress and the like will not get us any closer to God. What will help is persuading God to fill our hearts with more of His love.

Spiritual fulfillment is not found in any kind of clothing. We are "complete in Christ" (vs. 8, 10, 17) that is in relationship with Him. All rules and regulations that get between us and Christ-rules and regulations tha focus on self and how well we do, how sacrificial we are, how modest we dress, are antithetical to the gospel. The soul that is driven by performance based religion will never find what it seeks. None of things can satisfy us.

Please don't mis-understand me..This is not an appeal to abandon all spiritual discipline. Spiritual self-discipline that one undertakes voluntarily is good. But attaching "holiness" or "faithfulness" to it is pretense. It is nothing more than a fair show in the flesh.

To those that have hears, let them hear this...
Nothing that pertains to holiness, derives from the human mind.
Any spiritual rule that men make is a spiritually worthless rule. No holiness is involved in keeping them.

The value is in the relationship, not in the method or vehicle of the journey.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Clarity]

All rules and regulations that get between us and Christ-rules and regulations tha focus on self and how well we do, how sacrificial we are, how modest we dress, are antithetical to the gospel.

1 Timothy 2
8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

The passages i quoted are saying that nakedness is shameful not that it was a sin and your argument about adultery and drunkeness means that christians are permitted to commit adultery and get drunk. When metaphors of drunkeness, adultery, nakedness , prostitution are used to describe israel he is talking about adultery, drunkeness, nakedness and prostitution being wrong in the same way that israel is wrong. ie israel is wrong but so are the other things he used to describe israel. The only way your argument works is if adultery and drunkeness are permitted which they are not.

Such as David? Such as Peter? Such as the Shulimite girl? (Song. 6:13)

None of these people were naked and so are irrelevant.

You have failed again to answer my argument about

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

Legalism can occurr but this does not mean that we are to reject all laws that are based on christian principles and in order to prove i am a legalist you have to prove that my ideas are unbiblical and unchristian. I do not believe that we get to heaven by keeping certain laws as legalists do but i do believe that it is Gods will that we wear clothes and as a christian I desire to do Gods will.

Proverbs 1
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

 

[immersedingrace]

That would be equal to God calling the Nation of Israel an Adulteress,

umm...read the book of Hosea lately? God DOES equate the Nation of Israel with a prostitute/adulteress.

The fact remains, No Scripture exist that calls nudity a sin. God legislates against what He does not permit. Everything else is permitted.

I disagree, but let's just say this is correct....

A righteous person will do nothing that harms the conscience and faith of another.

THIS is STILL correct...

"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)

and so is this...which makes it WRONG and SINFUL for someone to go around in public nude. Meaning that for YOU (or any other Christian) to go around nude, "harms the conscience and faith" of ME, and many others. It's dispicable, it's ugly, and it's misused. I for one, would love to see the day when this weren't true. I much prefer not having to get dressed, do laundry, and shop for new clothes, but until our society is less sinful, and less lustful it is the way it is.

I believe you are dangerously close in making up religious rules of conduct, where God has not.

This left me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. Christians have been interpreting scripture differently since the early church. The above verse you quoted tells me that Christ doesn't necessarily want us all to agree, but rather to RESPECT each other and to get along in a manner befitting who we represent. I for one, hope I truly do represent THE ONE who gave me eternal life, if I do not, all the rest is folly.

blessings.

 

[Archivist]

Immersedingrace,

I am curious about your most recent post.

First you describe Eph. 3:20's view that is is not sinful to go nude in public--a position with which I happen to agree--with such terms as "dispicable" and "ugly."

Then you say that we need "to RESPECT each other and to get along in a manner befitting who we represent."

I have trouble rectifying these two statements.

 

[immersedingrace]

First you describe Eph. 3:20's view that is is not sinful to go nude in public--a position with which I happen to agree--with such terms as "dispicable" and "ugly."

I believe said "that for YOU (or any other Christian) to go around nude, 'harms the conscience and faith' of ME, and many others." This was in response to:

A righteous person will do nothing that harms the conscience and faith of another.

By his own admission, it would be so, if his above statement were correct.

"It's dispicable, it's ugly, and it's misused. " is in response to PUBLIC NUDITY, not his ideas. He's entitled to his opinion, and I RESPECT his OPINION, just don't agree with him on public nudity. I am also entitled to my opinion, and deserve it to be respected.

Then you say that we need "to RESPECT each other and to get along in a manner befitting who we represent."

I have trouble rectifying these two statements.

We need to respect each other's opinions, whether or not we disagree with them. I happen to believe biblically, that PUBLIC NUDITY is sinful. I believe it should be illegal. I also believe that we can disagree without name calling, without being rude, and, without accusing other Christians of making up "religious rules of conduct", which is what prompted my response in the first place. I understand it's not always easy, and I'm not immune to being "rude" or unchrist-like in my attitudes, I'm just saying that we should STRIVE to be that.

blessings

 

[Archivist]

I definitely did NOT say that going nude in public is not sinful, it IS sinful. I said "that for YOU (or any other Christian) to go around nude, 'harms the conscience and faith' of ME, and many others. It's dispicable, it's ugly, and it's misused. "


We need to respect each other's opinions, whether or not we disagree with them. I happen to believe biblically, that PUBLIC NUDITY is sinful. I believe it should be illegal. I also believe that we can disagree without name calling, without being rude, and, without accusing other Christians of making up "religious rules of conduct", which is what prompted my response in the first place. I understand it's not always easy, and I'm not immune to being "rude" or unchrist-like in my attitudes, I'm just saying that we should STRIVE to be that.

blessings

Please go back and re-raed my post! I NEVER SAID THAT YOU SAID THAT GOING NUDE IN PUBLIC IS NOT SINFUL! That is the position that eph. 3:20 hold. I know it isn't your position. Obviously you didn't pay any attention to what I wrote.

Again, please re-read my post

 

[immersedingrace]

Please go back and re-raed my post! I NEVER SAID THAT YOU SAID THAT GOING NUDE IN PUBLIC IS NOT SINFUL! That is the position that eph. 3:20 hold. I know it isn't your position. Obviously you didn't pay any attention to what I wrote.

Again, please re-read my post

Yes, I realize that, which is why I was editing my post as you were writing that ...I realized that I had initially read your post wrong. I apologize.

Blessings.

 

[Archivist]

I understand what you are saying now--I just wanted to clarify as your original post wasn't clear.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Hello Immerced...
Thanks for your insights and observations.

Please, I don't want you to get the wrong idea that I am propigating a "nudity at all cost" mentality. It is far from that. And I don't want to give you the impression that I don't respect the opinions of others...I do, but like you, I don't happen to agree. Be it far from to me cast judgment on those that have a different opinion. We are each responsible before God for the conduct of our lives. If Clarity and others think it is sin to be naked, then it is for them. (Rom 14) This post has been so long that you might have missed some of my earlier remarks...

______________________
Post 351...

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.


Post 360...

"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."

(to Clarity)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)"

_____________________

We should all stand fast in the faith that we have. I'm not asking anybody to follow me and my convictions. I try to teach the principles on which the Bible is based and ask that you evaluate it, that you read the word and apply it to your life as you believe the Lord would want you to. If Clarity thinks it's sin, then He has an obligation to follow his beliefs, and God bless him for it.

What I completely disagree with is the issue of legalism. Where human rules of conduct are put on an equal level with God's commandments on many items that God didn't feel worthy of commenting on, and then holding others accountable to those human convictions. It was wrong when the Pharisees did it in Jesus' day and it is still wrong today. I don't desire to get too far off topic and perhaps the "legalism" issue will become a seperate thread.

I wish you all the best with your Christian walk, and respect your opinions even when they differ with mine.

Blessings,

Eph. 3:20

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Clarity, I've been gone for a while. I'm not ignoring you or your question about 1 Cor. 12, I've been busy in other areas. Let me address that your question now.

The 1 Cor. passage taken "in context" isn't addressing nudity or the modesty of dress. Paul is addressing the proper function of spiritual gifts and how everybody has our individual gifts and we all function together as the church body. He was making a anology to the human body and while some of it's minor parts are looked over they are indeed vital to the function of the overall body. The Church at Corinth was having a difficult time with Spiritual gifts. They all wanted the gifts of tongues (as it was one of the most visible gifts) so they could parade their good works in front of others. Thier intention was not love and the edification of others, it was the promotion of their own spirituality. They were seeking the "show-off" gifts and placing the other gifts to the place of "unimportant." I believe the following translation will clear up any misconceptions.

"The old labels we once used to indentify ourselves-labels like Jew of Greek, slave of free-are no longer useful. We need something larger, more comprehensive.

I want you to think about how all this makes you more signifcant, not less. A body isn't just a single part blown up into something huge. It's all the different-but similair part s arranged and functioning together. If the foot said, "I'm not elegant like the hand, embellished with rings; I guess I don't belong to the body." would that make it so? If Ear said, " I'm not beautiful like Eye. limpid and expressive; I don't deserve to be on the head," would you want to remove it from the body? If the body was all eye, how could it hear? If all ear, how could it smell? As it is, we see that God has carefully placed each part of the body right where He wanted it.

But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up inot self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn't be a body, but a monster. What we have is one body with many parts, each it's proper size and in it's proper place. No part is important on it's own. Can you imagine the Eye telling Hand, "Get lost, I don't need you"? Or, Head telling Foot, "You're fired; your job has been phased out."? As a matter of fact, in practice it works the other way-the "lower" the part, the more basic, and therefore necessary. You can live with out an eye, for instance, but not without a stomach. When it's part of your own body you are concerned with, it makes no difference whether the part is visible or clothed, higher or lower. You give it dignity and honor just as it is, without comparisons. If anything, you have more concern for the lower parts than the higher. If you had to chose, wouldn't you prefer good digestion to full-bodied hair?

The way God designed our bodies is a model for understanding our lives together as a church; every part dependent on every other part, the parts we mention and the parts we don't. the parts we see and the parts we don't. If one part hurts, every other part is involved in the hurt, and in the healing. If one part flourishes, every other part enters into the exuberance.

You are Christ body-that's who you are! You must never forget this. Only as you accept your part of that body does your "part" mean anything." (1 Cor. 12: 13-28, The Message)

Clarity, may you be blessed in your walk

Eph. 3:20

 

[Clarity]

This was God's original plan! No base? This is how He designed us to be, naked was our perfect state. The very beginning of humanity demobstrate that God's preference for man and woman, is that they be naked exactly as all othe living creatures are.

Adam and Eve were married and so i think nudity is fine within the context of marriage and this is supported elsewhere in scripture but you cannot use adam and eve who were married to justify nudity between strangers who are not married as this is different.

Genesis 9
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [1] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

26 He also said,

"Blessed be the LORD , the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem. [2]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth [3] ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his [4] slave."

Nudity between married couples is fine but even a grown son should not see his father naked as shown by hams sin of seeing his father naked and so family naturism is excluded for christians as sons should not see their father naked. The sin was that ham saw his father naked there is no hint of any other kind of sexual behaviour as people often twist this verse, the reason that shem and japeth hadn't sinned was because they turned away and didn't look at their fathers nakedness and so should we turn away and not look if someone is naked as they were blessed because of this.

In terms of your answer to 1 corinthians 12 you are right in saying that most of the other verses do not deal with nudity but with gifts but the verse i quoted does deal with nudity although the others do not and it has been put in as it fits with the analogy as when he talks of the parts that are unpresentable what gifts is he talking about? It doesn't make sense if he is talking about gifts as all gifts are to be used to glorify god not kept hidden. The reason is that he is not dealing with gifts but with nudity.

If nudity were acceptable then there wouldn't be a reference to unpresentable parts as all the parts of our body would be presentable and the only context in which this verse makes sense is if nudity were unacceptable.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Adam and Eve were married and so i think nudity is fine within the context of marriage and this is supported elsewhere in scripture but you cannot use adam and eve who were married to justify nudity between strangers who are not married as this is different.

Remember, this was in response to your statement that nudity between people had no Christian foundation. Nudity was at the very foundation of the human race. If it weren't for the fall of mankind, we would all still be naked, as this was God's original design. Nudity between strangers isn't even addressed by God, so why should we put our human rules where God put none? Do we think He did a inadequate job? It has been stated many times before that there are guiding principles by which we can use our freedom. Here they are again:

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.


Post 360...

"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.

Genesis 9
21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.


Nudity between married couples is fine but even a grown son should not see his father naked as shown by hams sin of seeing his father naked and so family naturism is excluded for christians as sons should not see their father naked. The sin was that ham saw his father naked there is no hint of any other kind of sexual behaviour as people often twist this verse, the reason that shem and japeth hadn't sinned was because they turned away and didn't look at their fathers nakedness and so should we turn away and not look if someone is naked as they were blessed because of this.

I think you might want to take another look into this passage and check into some commentaries on the passage and the Hebrew phrase "uncover the nakedness."

" Uncover his nakedness This is a euphenism for sexual relations." (John MacAurther Study Bible)

"In Hebrew usage "nakedness" is often a euphenism for sexual relations (cf. Lev. 18). This usage helps to explain the incident as Gen. 9:20-27, where Ham apparently took advantage of his father's drunken state and had sexual realtions with him." (Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, pg. 746)

" Uncover his nakedness in Lev. 18 and 20 refers to incest. It also refers to the results of incest, ie. bringing shame upon the aggrieved party." (International Standard Bible Encylopedia, vol.3 pg. 480)

Notice also that the curse is a direct reflection of the nature of the sin. For a curse to be justifiable, Noah should either have cursed Ham's eyes because he ogled at his nakedness, or cursed his brain (mental faculty) for he made light of his nakedness. And, if Ham had forced himself upon Noah when Noah was drunk, then a curse upon Ham's reproductive organ would be justified. Remember the Word says: "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exod.21:23-25). In the end, we have Noah's curse directly impacting Ham's reproduction (his seed) in his son Canaan which points to some kind of sin that was sexual in nature.

In terms of your answer to 1 corinthians 12 you are right in saying that most of the other verses do not deal with nudity but with gifts but the verse i quoted does deal with nudity although the others do not and it has been put in as it fits with the analogy as when he talks of the parts that are unpresentable what gifts is he talking about? It doesn't make sense if he is talking about gifts as all gifts are to be used to glorify god not kept hidden. The reason is that he is not dealing with gifts but with nudity.

If nudity were acceptable then there wouldn't be a reference to unpresentable parts as all the parts of our body would be presentable and the only context in which this verse makes sense is if nudity were unacceptable.

I'm sorry Clarity, I think more study is needed. So what your saying is that Paul is discussing the issue of abuse of spiritual gifts at the Church at Corinth, and then right in the middle of it he deals with nudity and then he jumps back and continues with the spiritual gift dialogue?

I think you need to think this through a little bit. Paul is a very "themed" writer. He starts with an issue and then develops his thoughts and gives his answers or suggestions. He is not one to arbitrarily interject an abstract thought in the middle of his dialogue. How would his readers know that all of the sudden he has switched topics and is now talking about nudity or that he has switched back to spiritual gifts?

When he spoke of our "unpresentable parts" he is speaking of the parts of the body that the outside world doesn't see-our internal organs. The world sees our external portions, but some of the most critical portions to the life of our body (and a church) are those portions you never see, though they are perhaps small (modest) and keep our body functioning properly. He wraps up his dialogue for chapter 12 by saying, " But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show a more excellent way." And he goes on to talk about love. For lovelessness was at the root spiritual problem at the church at Corinth.

Hope this helps.

Eph. 3:20