Nudism

[Clarity]

What makes it sinful is the purpose of the nakedness, and it's effects upon other's.

I think it is more accurate to say what makes it sinful is what Gods word the bible has to say about it.

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

It often is such as in leviticus but when you look at the fact that Shem and japeth refused to look at their fathers nakedness and turned away it means that hams looking at his fathers nakedness was hams sin not sexual relations. If it was talking of sexual relations why does the passage specifically mention shem and japeth looking away the reason this is here is to contrast the reactions ie hams wrong action with the right behaviour of the other brothers. Why are the brothers blessed is it for not having sexual relations with their father or for looking away? It is for looking away. The verse about looking away has no meaning unless hams sin was seeing his father naked and this is why nearly all version of the bible translate this passage to mean look at nudity rather than sexual relations.

If it weren't for the fall of mankind, we would all still be naked, as this was God's original design.

You are assuming that once adam and eve had children they would remain naked with their children however it is possible that they may have began to wear a clothes as soon as they had children. Notice once they realised they were naked god did not try to stop them clothing themselves but gave them clothes and from this point onwards shame and nudity are always associated in the bible.

The phrase "uncover his nakedness" again highlights the fact that having sex and seeing someone naked are related in the hebrew language ie it suggests that the only time you see someone naked is when you have sex with them.

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.

How can you treat your internal organs with special modesty? This doesn't make sense especially when you notice that no other internal organs are mentionned he talks of the eye, the ear, the hand etc but did the writer even know much about the internal organs it seems unlikely that he is talking of internal organs but it seems much more probable that he is referring to parts of the body that are outside.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

I think it is more accurate to say what makes it sinful is what Gods word the bible has to say about it.

Yes this is true, but don't quote me out of context. God's word is always the final word. Where God does not speak directly to the issue we are to employ Jesus' rule of love to find it's Biblical acceptability.

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

It often is such as in leviticus but when you look at the fact that Shem and japeth refused to look at their fathers nakedness and turned away it means that hams looking at his fathers nakedness was hams sin not sexual relations. If it was talking of sexual relations why does the passage specifically mention shem and japeth looking away the reason this is here is to contrast the reactions ie hams wrong action with the right behaviour of the other brothers. Why are the brothers blessed is it for not having sexual relations with their father or for looking away? It is for looking away. The verse about looking away has no meaning unless hams sin was seeing his father naked

I think we need to keep in mind the Scripture speaks to things outside of our modern perceptions or interpretations. We have the same author of both books and yet you admit that he uses "uncovering his nakedness" in Lev. for sexual realtions, but then you say he changes "uncovering his nakedness" in Gen. to mean something different. This is poor Heurmeneutics at best. We have the same author using the same phrase to explain the same thing..incest. The penalty through the curse of Ham's seed bears this out. Why his brothers turned their back on his nakedness is probably because they didn't want anything to do with it, but at the same time want to cover up their father, lest he be exposed and have to bare any more shame or ridicule over what just happened. This is all speculation because Scripture doesn't explain it either way.

and this is why nearly all version of the bible translate this passage to mean look at nudity rather than sexual relations.

This is a presumptious quote. First, I gave you three interpretations that said it was some sort of sexual relations. Second, you said "translate this passage to mean"??? I think your getting translation and interpretation confused. Perhaps your trying to make this passage mean looking at a naked parent. You realize that if you take this interpretation, it therefore becomes sin for a child to see his parent naked and comment about it. Isn't this rather absurd? Does this mean that I can't help my crippled elderly mom dress herself or what about care givers for the elderly? Do they sin if they see their patients naked???

You are assuming that once adam and eve had children they would remain naked with their children however it is possible that they may have began to wear a clothes as soon as they had children. Notice once they realised they were naked god did not try to stop them clothing themselves but gave them clothes and from this point onwards shame and nudity are always associated in the bible.

Again, this is pure speculation. God saw all He created and sayed it was very good. If you want to think that Adam had to add to God's already good creation, have at it. Can you see you're developing scenarios to try to justify your belief? You obviously missed my post about why God made clothes in the first place..here it is again:

********************
"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-{b} to put something artifical around them and hide among the trees.[/b] 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."
********************

The phrase "uncover his nakedness" again highlights the fact that having sex and seeing someone naked are related in the hebrew language

Yes, when they had illegal sex, they took off their clothes. The sin was not in the nakedness itself, it was incest. Their nakedness was necessary to carry on their sin of incest. You're missing the bigger issue of incest to try to make a issue of their nakedness.

it suggests that the only time you see someone naked is when you have sex with them.

This is just plain silly. I think you better think this one through, and I'll give you the opportunity to rescend this statement. God saw Adam and Eve...no sex. If you make an exclusion here, can you tell me from Scripture why?

You mean if I go to the gym and I see someone naked I have sinned??? Have they??? What about a doctor and nurse and their patients??? Every time I get a physical I've sinned??? What about the artist painting nudes or a message therapist or chiropractor or high school and college gyms???

How can you treat your internal organs with special modesty? This doesn't make sense especially when you notice that no other internal organs are mentionned he talks of the eye, the ear, the hand etc but did the writer even know much about the internal organs it seems unlikely that he is talking of internal organs but it seems much more probable that he is referring to parts of the body that are outside.

That's what he's talking about...know one sees anything but the eye, the ear etc... but the body is dependent upon the smaller (modest) parts of the body to sustain life. Just as there are gifts in the church in which everyone takes notice (tongues, prophecy etc...), there are a multitude of gifts that take place within the church that are vital to sustain the life of the church. He was telling them not to ignore the lesser, but vital gifts. The context is clearly spiritual gifts. To insert a nudity principle in the middle of his spiritual gift dialouge demonstrates poor heurmeneutical skills and then to say that they didn't know much about the internal organs, is well.....absurd. His whole analogy is to say that God designed our bodies as a model for understanding our lives together as a church; every part dependent on every other part. I would say he had a pretty good grasp on the importance of internal organs.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Clarity]

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.

This is man's guesswork and has zero authority.

Can you see you're developing scenarios to try to justify your belief?

I think you are contradicting yourself accusing me of guesswork before suggesting clothes are a practical issue.

This is just plain silly. I think you better think this one through, and I'll give you the opportunity to rescend this statement. God saw Adam and Eve...no sex. If you make an exclusion here, can you tell me from Scripture why?

I also don't think Adam and Eve are the main issue as they lived in a perfect sinless state in the garden which is completely different from the world we live in today and so nudity in the garden is a different issue from nudity today as we live in a fallen sinful world where nudity can lead to sin. I think we should concentrate on what the bible says about nudity in our fallen sinful world today rather than what happened in the garden. When you look at nudity adressed after the fall it is seen differently from in Eden and is no longer seen as being good.

1 corinthains 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,


If he is talking of internal organs why does he mention treating them with special modesty as only outward organs can be treated with modesty and it doesn't make sense to say that we should treat our pancreas, liver etc with special modesty as only outward visible organs can be treated with special modesty and so this cannot mean the inward organs and this is in keeping with the fact that only outward visible organs are used in the rest of the analogy. Notice it is translated unpresentable not internal or unseeable. Other translations of this passage are

1 Corinthians 12
22In fact, we cannot get along without the parts of the body that seem to be the weakest. 23We take special care to dress up some parts of our bodies. We are modest about our personal parts, 24but we don't have to be modest about other parts.
God put our bodies together in such a way that even the parts that seem the least important are valuable. (Contemporary english version)

1 Corinthians 12
22But instead, there is [absolute] necessity for the parts of the body that are considered the more weak.
23And those [parts] of the body which we consider rather ignoble are [the very parts] which we invest with additional honor, and our unseemly parts and those unsuitable for exposure are treated with seemliness (modesty and decorum),
24Which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so adjusted (mingled, harmonized, and subtly proportioned the parts of) the whole body, giving the greater honor and richer endowment to the inferior parts which lack [apparent importance],
(amplified version)

1 Corinthians 12
22In fact, some of the parts that seem weakest and least important are really the most necessary. 23And the parts we regard as less honorable are those we clothe with the greatest care. So we carefully protect from the eyes of others those parts that should not be seen, 24while other parts do not require this special care. So God has put the body together in such a way that extra honor and care are given to those parts that have less dignity. (new living translation)

The fact that the analogy mentions unpresentable parts is a clear indication that the writer believed that nudity should not be practised as if nudity were right as you suggest then there wouldn't be a reference to unpresentable parts as all parts would be presentable and this is another clear biblical indication that christians should not practise naturism whether you choose to accept it or not?

I will admit that hams sin is rather unclear and it could have been incest or seeing nakedness but what is clear is that the other sons reaction of looking away is the right course of action to be taken when nudity occurrs as they were blessed because of it.

To insert a nudity principle in the middle of his spiritual gift dialouge demonstrates poor heurmeneutical skills

It wasn't me who inserted the nudity principle but the writer of corinthians.

PS Just curious but have you ever practised naturism/nudity?

 

[Eph. 3:20]

we live in a fallen sinful world where nudity can lead to sin

Yes we live in a fallen world. Many things can lead to sin... eating, drinking, dancing, driving a car. Each of these in itself (as with nudity) as no moral implication. None of these have any immorality inherent within them. I had written this for another post, but it might address the foundational problem..

"...Now when Paul says "I know and am persuaded in the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks it to be unclean, to him it is unclean," (Rom. 14:14) we seem compelled to explain away its force with such arguements as "he's talking about meat sacrificed to idols" or "he's not talking about sexual matters" etc. But Paul is talking about religious days (vs. 5,6) and wine (vs. 21), and "anything else" by which a brother is made to stumble (vs. 21). WIne and feast days are merely specific examples of Paul's general point the nothing is inherently unclean but can become a stumbling block to others if used indiscriminately. And Paul literally says, "nothing is unclean in itself." For emphasis he says "All things are clean,, but evil for him who eats and gives offense," (vs.20). "All things" and "nothing" are totally inclusive. The Holy Spirit did not err in these statements. Add to this the statement that, "To the pure all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both thier mind and consciences are defiled," (Titus 1:15). His point is that "things" in themselves have no inherent moral quality. What makes something pure or impure is the attitude and motive of the person invovled. Even what we would consider pure becomes impure in the hands of those whose hearts are impure. In five different epistles (1 Cor., Rom., Eph., 1 Tim., Titus), Paul makes exactly the same point.

Consider what Paul says, "All things are indeed lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be masterd by anything," (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Paul didn't say that it was sin to chose what was not pofitable. What is profitable to me may not be profitable to another. Each person must decide for themselves what they approve of. They are free to choose becuase "all things are indeed lawful." It is circumstance that makes inherently lawful deeds either profitable of unprofitable. To drink wine in the presence of one who conscience might be compromised by my example would be unprofitable to that person and to myself. But to drink wine in different circumstances might be profitable to me."

1 corinthains 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,

(Contemporary english version)(amplified version) (new living translation)

Hmmm. This is a dilema. We have three variant translations on each side. Some talking about "unseen things" some talking about "private parts." Let me ask you Clarity...how do we attain "clarity" in this situation? I would say that you have to look at the context of the passage to see what the subject matter is. What is clear is that he is adressing things that are "unseen", within the realm of spiritual gifts of the church. If you take that to mean private parts that's your call.

Again if you think Paul's intent is mandating clothes in this passage, I think you're wrong, but have at it. He is adressing spritual gifts and the abuses thereof. With your translations, it is more likely that he is referencing the fact that they wore clothes that covered thier private parts, as is customary.

Clarity- again, if you think that nudity is wrong; then it's wrong for you. But don't condemn others for practicing something that they believe to be a acceptable practice. Especially in light of the fact that we have no command from God that says nudity is a sin and in light of the fact that it does not breach our love for God or for our fellow man which is the barometer for morality and our Christian conduct (Matt. 7:12; 22:36-40) and is the summation of "all the law and the prophets." Remember Paul tells us,"Where there is no law there is no transgression." (Rom. 4:15)

PS Just curious but have you ever practised naturism/nudity?

No. I have a multitude of things that occupy my time and it doesn't rank high on my scale of things I must accomplish. Hopefully one day, when things settle down I'll be able to enjoy more of the freedoms that are availabe to us through Christ.


"Christ has set us free to live a free life. So take your stand! Never again let anyone put a harness of slavery on you. I am emphatic about this. The moment anyone of you submits to circumsision or any other man made rule-keeping system, at that same moment Christ's hard-won gift of freedom is squandered." (Gal. 5: 1,2 The Message)


Eph. 3:20

 

[Johnnz]

I have never been convinced that being naked socially is against biblical principles, provided it is respectful, consensual and not unduly imposed on others. This meets the biblical criteria re concern for others, stumbling blocks etc.

Having arrived at that conclusion I then considered that I should follow through on my beliefs as a matter of consistency following on from my studies that had led me to that conclusion.

My first social experince was as a fully clothed member of a christian group attending an alternative festival for evangelistic purposes. Most attendees were naked, all christians remained clothed. The atmosphere was completely non erotic and restful. Yet, according to traditional teaching the christian guys should have been in a state of constant sexual arousal and lust. This one wasn't - an experimental rebuttal of that position.

Then, quite some time later I went to local free beach. I needed to validate my beliefs against a personal experience.

For me, the sheer sensual enjoyment of sun, fresh air and water was exhilarating. Swimming naked is the only way to go. I had already done this with my wife when we were alone from time to time. Walking in the sun and wind naked in front of other people is so freeing. To no longer have all those inhibitions of being seen naked, and to be with like minded people lifted years of negative input from me. Wonderful.

The other major feeling was one of utter frustration that I had taken so long to do it, because of my upbringing. That then spilled over into an attitude “Why is there so much fuss about public nudity?” The critics are just sooo wrong. It is a liberating, healthy non erotic, sensual affirmation of who I am – this includes the only body I will ever have. And to be with other people who are essentially saying “I don’t mind other people looking at my body. I know I am safe to be naked before you. Let’s share our freedom and pleasure together” is somehow very wholesome and relaxing. As a guy I find a naked woman far easier to be around than a woman bursting out of revealing clothing. Does she want to draw my attention to her, and if so how is she going to interpret it?

No, I am not a regular nudist. Circumstances make that impractical at present. But I am convinced of the validity of the views and practices of Christians who practice nudity in some way, from the privacy of their homes to open social interaction. For me doctine (theory) and practice concur.

My greatest aches are against uninformed rejection of nudist beliefs, the fear what the effects of nudism will be, in spite of so many real life testimonies by Christians to the contrary, and the xreality that so many Christian young people, driven by hormones and natural curiosity, are practising nudists within the context of a 'loving relationship'. I consider this widespread situation far more destructive of christian moral values than respectful public nudity

John
NZ

 

[Clarity]

For me, the sheer sensual enjoyment of sun, fresh air and water was exhilarating.

Are you sure that seeing other people naked was not causing your sensual enjoyment and exhiliration as this seems the more likely cause.

“I don’t mind other people looking at my body. I know I am safe to be naked before you. Let’s share our freedom and pleasure together” is somehow very wholesome and relaxing.

So you get pleasure from seeing other woman naked this sounds rather like lust to me. The reason it appears wholesome and relaxing is because it arouses you sexually although you seem not to have realised this.

Jeremiah 17
9 The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?

The fact is that it can often appear that you are not sexually aroused or sinning when you actually are.

1 Corinthians 6
17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Do you honestly believe nudity is a way of fleeing away from temptation or is it a way of running towards it?

Especially in light of the fact that we have no command from God that says nudity is a sin and in light of the fact that it does not breach our love for God or for our fellow man which is the barometer for morality and our Christian conduct

I would debate this as i have already quoted 15 bible verses where nudity is seen as being shameful and not good like in eden and one in corinthians where it states that it is wrong and we cannot just use verses about love,stumbling blocks etc in every debate, but we need to examine the passages where the topic is mentionned and using deconstrustion ie where you twist applicable passages of scripture so that they are not applicable and then use general principles which are easy to manipulate is not good hermeneutics as this is the most common method to justify things such as abortion, pornography(is pornography wrong if naturism is right?No it becomes easy to justify), homosexuality etc. I also think it does not show love for our fellow man as I have already shown how naturism leads to more promiscuity especially among non christians and is associated with swingers etc and can harm a christians testimony(there is not to be a hint of sexual immorality) and cause divisions within the church and can become a distraction from christianity and so i think i am justified in calling it wrong and if you do not then you are entitled to your opinion and this is my last post as the debate has been exhausted and there is nothing more to discuss but i hope you will think long and hard about these things and come to a conclusion that is correct.

 

[Natman]

I have been enjoying reading this tread immensely.

Like several others on this thread, I have been studying this topic for some time, as a result of a challenge presented to me several years ago, and have come to the conclusion that "nakedness" (or "nudity") in and of itself is not sinful. But, just like all things created by God for our good such as food (gluttony), drink (drunkenness), medicine (addiction), sex (fornication, adultery, perversion), it can be misused in sinful ways.

As a result of that challenge, my wife and I now enjoy being "naked" as much as possible and reasonable, first as a matter of physical comfort and second as a matter of acknowledging the final work of Christ on the cross as the "complete remission of our sins". We acknowledge that the "shame of nakedness" was a "man-made" response to sinning against our beloved Father God and that accepting the payment of Jesus' death is supposed to bring us back into holy communion with God. To maintain shame in something that God originally call "very good" is to deny the complete and permanent work of the Blood.

I concur completely with Eph 3:30 and Johnnz above.

Are you sure that seeing other people naked was not causing your sensual enjoyment and exhiliration as this seems the more likely cause.

Speaking from experience, I can say that I have been naked and in the presence of many other naked people in my life at times in my life. There IS "sensual enjoyment" and "exhilaration" in feeling unencumbered by clothing, feeling the touch of the air on every part of your body, and realizing that you are exactly as God made you. I have NEVER-NEVER-NEVER had a sexual thought about any of these people, except my wife, and that was in the privacy of our home.

So you get pleasure from seeing other woman naked this sounds rather like lust to me. The reason it appears wholesome and relaxing is because it arouses you sexually although you seem not to have realised this.

I cannot speak for Eps 3:20, Johnnz or anyone else, but the "pleasure" I get from seeing women naked (or men for that matter) has absolutely NOTHING to do with "lust". It is more like the pleasure you might get by looking at the design of fine architecture or a painting. It's like looking at great artwork and knowing the Artist personally... knowing that EVERY piece He produces is a Masterpiece, in every detail. Also, there is GREAT "pleasure" seeing something functioning in the manner in which it was designed.

The fact is that it can often appear that you are not sexually aroused or sinning when you actually are.

I believe I can tell when I am "sexually aroused", and so could everyone around me, if I were naked at the time. The fact is that it is far easier to hide arousal when clothed, so it is far easier to be in self-denial.

1 Corinthians 6
17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Do you honestly believe nudity is a way of fleeing away from temptation or is it a way of running towards it?

ABSOLUTELY!



Once we understand that...

1. "NAKEDNESS" DOES NOT EQUAL "SEX"; 2. Sex is only BEST WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF MARRIAGE;
3. GOD MADE EVERY ONE OF US "NAKED AND UNASHAMED"
(Even you Clarity);
4. We developed our sense of SHAME FROM OUR PARENTS,
NOT GOD;
5. Christ's Blood washed away our sins and therefore our shame;
6. Being "naked" is being completely open, hiding nothing, just as God made us.
​

then we are able to look at a naked person of the opposite gender and not see an object of sexual gratification, but a person, a human being with thoughts and feelings, care and sorrows, being as God initially intended.

I would debate this as i have already quoted 15 bible verses where nudity is seen as being shameful and not good like in eden and one in corinthians where it states that it is wrong and we cannot just use verses about love,stumbling blocks etc in every debate, but we need to examine the passages where the topic is mentionned and using deconstrustion ie where you twist applicable passages of scripture so that they are not applicable and then use general principles which are easy to manipulate is not good hermeneutics as this is the most common method to justify things such as abortion, pornography(is pornography wrong if naturism is right?No it becomes easy to justify), homosexuality etc. I also think it does not show love for our fellow man as I have already shown how naturism leads to more promiscuity especially among non christians and is associated with swingers etc and can harm a christians testimony(there is not to be a hint of sexual immorality) and cause divisions within the church and can become a distraction from christianity and so i think i am justified in calling it wrong and if you do not then you are entitled to your opinion and this is my last post as the debate has been exhausted and there is nothing more to discuss but i hope you will think long and hard about these things and come to a conclusion that is correct.

I believe it is you who have "twisted" the scriptures to show your point of view, and that Eph 3:20 has done an EXCELLENT job of using good hermeneutics (the art and science of Biblical interpretation) to point this out in every case.

Justification of "nakedness" doesn't in any way compare to justification of actions that are clearly admonished in scripture such as abortion (murder), pornography, sexual perversion (any form of sexual involvement outside of marriage). Also, YOU may say that "naturism leads to more promiscuity", but that is not what the statistics indicate, relative to families raised in "naturist" environments, Christian or not. In fact, the statistics absolutely refute that statement.

Further, you state that "naturism" harms one's witness. I also thought that to be the case at one time. However, I have been able to affectively witness about the "completeness" of Christ's atonement by using "naturism" as an example of the freedom one inherits when they accept Jesus as their Savior. I have had the support of several members of my Baptist congregation as we have discussed the issue in Sunday school and in small groups.

Can you imagine the affect of witnessing to a Muslim, who's faith affords no freedom, no joy and no hope?

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Johnnz]

Dear Clarity,

I have been alive long enough to recognise when I am and when I am not sexually aroused. Sadly, you are in the position where your own views determine what must be true for another person.

The verses you have quoted are all capable of different interpretations - that is why the debate continues. I can live with your understanding without seeing you as bigoted, doctrinally in error and so on. Christians who are also nudists just want the same acceptance given to them. After all, we live in a Christian community that has different views on many matters, from church government to end time doctrines.

Let the debate continue, but please don't assign other peoples' personal expriences to the trash can because they do not 'fit in' withyour own views. That is what religious leaders did to Jesus when He healed the blind man - the facts were unacceptable to them.

John
NZ

 

[Clarity]

that "naturism leads to more promiscuity", but that is not what the statistics indicate, relative to families raised in "naturist" environments, Christian or not. In fact, the statistics absolutely refute that statement.

Why dont you quote the statistics then? i have already quoted two statistics in favour of my point the fact that you don't quote statistics leads me to believe they dont exist as i have already had someone claiming the statistics say otherwise who was unable to quote a single statistic.

 

[Archivist]

Clarity,

We have seen several well-reasoned posts by Natman, Johnz, Eph. 3:20 and others on this thread all showing that public nudity is not, in and of itself, a sin. I fully understand that you do not accept this view which is fine. If you feel that way just don't go nude in public. You stated several posts ago that "i am justified in calling it wrong and if you do not then you are entitled to your opinion."

Why do you appear to be so intent on proving yourself right rather than simply agreeing that this is an issue upon which Christians can disagree?

Archivist

 

[Natman]

Clarity,

We have seen several well-reasoned posts by Natman, Johnz, Eph. 3:20 and others on this thread all showing that public nudity is not, in and of itself, a sin. I fully understand that you do not accept this view which is fine. If you feel that way just don't go nude in public. You stated several posts ago that "i am justified in calling it wrong and if you do not then you are entitled to your opinion."

Why do you appear to be so intent on proving yourself right rather than simply agreeing that this is an issue upon which Christians can disagree?

Archivist

Archivist,

I admire Clarity for taking the time to stand up for his/her position and too seek out the scriptures that he/she feels support that position. If anything, this discussion helps to clarify our thinking on this and many other doctrinal issues. That is one reason forums such as this are so popular. There is open dialog and discussion. Otherwise, we would be preaching to the choir.

I am hoping that Clarity and others that hold differing views do not get frustrated, and that we all can learn something new about God through this.
Otherwise, why waste our time?

My wife and I are doing a Beth Moore Bible study every morning. This mornings study focused on "testing our faith". This doesn't happen when we merely "stand in our faith", but when we are challenged, pushed to the edge, forced to take God out of our pre-concieved box. Our faith becomes elastic and pliable. That's when we can say we have "WALKED in our faith".

Son-cerely.
Nate

 

[Clarity]

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.

For me, the sheer sensual enjoyment of sun, fresh air and water was exhilarating. Swimming naked is the only way to go. I had already done this with my wife when we were alone from time to time. Walking in the sun and wind naked in front of other people is so freeing.

but the "pleasure" I get from seeing women naked (or men for that matter) has absolutely NOTHING to do with "lust". It is more like the pleasure you might get by looking at the design of fine architecture or a painting. It's like looking at great artwork and knowing the Artist personally... knowing that EVERY piece He produces is a Masterpiece, in every detail. Also, there is GREAT "pleasure" seeing something functioning in the manner in which it was designed.

The fundamental question that i think has arisen is
Is it right to derive pleasure from the nakedness of others?
Naturists clearly derive pleasure from being naked around others although they all give it a different name( eg sensual enjoyment, freedom etc)
I think the biblical answer is no you should not derive pleasure from anothers nakedness whether it be from looking at playboy, going to a strip club or going to a naturist club. There is an exception however when you look at scripture you find
Proverbs 5
15 Drink water from your own cistern,
running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer-
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.
20 Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?
Wesleys commentary
[15] Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.
Drink — Content thyself with those delights which God alloweth thee in the sober use of the marriage-bed.
Is it right to seek pleasure from nakedness outside marriage i don't think so as we should be content with the wife god has given us instead of seeking pleasure from the nakedness of strangers.

Song of Solomon 4
Lover
1 How beautiful you are, my darling!
Oh, how beautiful!
Your eyes behind your veil are doves.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
descending from Mount Gilead.
2 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn,
coming up from the washing.
Each has its twin;
not one of them is alone.
3 Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon;
your mouth is lovely.
Your temples behind your veil
are like the halves of a pomegranate.
4 Your neck is like the tower of David,
built with elegance [1] ;
on it hang a thousand shields,
all of them shields of warriors.
5 Your two breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle
that browse among the lilies.
6 Until the day breaks
and the shadows flee,
I will go to the mountain of myrrh
and to the hill of incense.
7 All beautiful you are, my darling;
there is no flaw in you.
8 Come with me from Lebanon, my bride,
come with me from Lebanon.
Descend from the crest of Amana,
from the top of Senir, the summit of Hermon,
from the lions' dens
and the mountain haunts of the leopards.
9 You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
10 How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!
11 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon.
12 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.
13 Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates
with choice fruits,
with henna and nard,
14 nard and saffron,
calamus and cinnamon,
with every kind of incense tree,
with myrrh and aloes
and all the finest spices.
15 You are [2] a garden fountain,
a well of flowing water
streaming down from Lebanon.

1 Corinthians 7
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

In Genesis God even says that nudity between Adam and his wife Eve was good and so there is nothing wrong with enjoying the nudity of your husband or wife.

The only person from who you can derive pleasure from their nakedness is from your wife and this is the only time it is permitted in the bible.
This explains why in all other circumstances nudity is shameful and not allowed as other circumstances where you are allowed to derive pleasure from anothers nakedness are never mentionned in the bible. I can't stress this too strongly that the one and only circumstance where pleasure can be derived from anothers nakedness is within marriage and there are no other circumstances where this is acceptable as the bible only permits this one instance and no others including naturism.

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.
It was shameful for israel to expose their buttocks to Egypt. If so why is it not shameful for naturists to expose their nakedness to the watching public?
Exodus 20v26
And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.
Nakedness is not appropriate near the altar of god.
2 chronicles 28:15
The men designated by name took the prisoners, and from the plunder they clothed all who were naked. They provided them with clothes and sandals, food and drink, and healing balm. All those who were weak they put on donkeys. So they took them back to their fellow countrymen at Jericho, the City of Palms, and returned to Samaria.
Job 24
7 Lacking clothes, they spend the night naked;
they have nothing to cover themselves in the cold.
8 They are drenched by mountain rains
and hug the rocks for lack of shelter.
9 The fatherless child is snatched from the breast;
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
10 Lacking clothes, they go about naked;
they carry the sheaves, but still go hungry.

If nakedness is unavoidable due to poverty or necessary for some other reason such as taking a shower then it is not condemned and this is a second circumstance in which it is acceptable.
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.

Looking at the nakedness of those whom you love but to whom you are not married is also sinful.
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.

To look at a naked prostitute is sinful and shameful because it is again an attempt to derive pleasure from the nakedness of someone to whom you are not married.
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.

For Jerusalem to expose her nakedness to other nations is also sinful. If Jerusalem exposing her nakedness is sinful Why is it not sinful for christians to expose their nakedness to the world?
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.

For those who live in shaphir to expose their nakedness is shameful as they are not exposing it to someone to whom they are married. Again if it is shameful for Shaphir to expose its nakedness to zaanan why is it not shameful for christians to expose their nakedness to others?

When i looked for the definition of lust i found this

(3) Ta'awah, "a delight" "a longing satisfaction," and so it came to mean "sinful pleasure." Translated in Ps 78:30, "that which they desired," intensely longed for, referring to Yahweh's provision of food in the wilderness. Also in Nu 11:4 concerning "flesh to eat" it is said the multitude "lusted exceedingly" i.e. "craved eagerly.
(4) Chamadh, the verb meaning "to delight in," "greatly belove," "covet," probably for evil purposes. The young man is warned against the evil woman (Pr 6:25): "Lust not after her beauty." Here the bad sense is evident, for in the same connection are used such expressions as "harlot," "adulteress," "evil woman."

KJV translation of Greek epithumia, “desire, lust.” The Greeks used the term to mean excitement about something in a neutral sense and then in an evil sense of wrongly valuing earthly things. The New Testament knows desire can be good (Matthew 13:17; Luke 22:15; Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:17). In fact, the New Testament uses the verb form more often in a good sense than in a bad.

The bad sense of epithumia is desire controlled by sin and worldly instincts rather than by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16). Everyone has been controlled by such desires before their commitment to Christ (Ephesians 2:3; Titus 3:3). Such desire is part of the old life without Christ and is deceitful (Ephesians 4:22). Such desire can be for sex (Matthew 5:28), material goods (Mark 4:19), riches (1 Timothy 6:9), and drunkenness (1 Peter 4:3). The Christian life then is a war between desires of the old life and desire to follow the Spirit (Galatians 5:15-24; 1 Peter 2:11), the Spirit-led life crucifying worldly desires (Galatians 5:24). (Note the list of fleshly desires in (Galatians 5:19-21.) As the new life comes through the Spirit, so old desires come through Satan (John 8:44) and the world of which he is prince (1 John 2:16). Such desires can make slaves of people (2 Peter 2:18-20). Desire brings temptation, leading to sin, resulting in death (James 1:14-15). People cannot blame God, for He allows them freedom to choose and gives them over to what they choose (Romans 1:24). God did give the law which defined wrong desires as concupiscence or sin. The power of sin then changed the good commandment into an instrument to arouse human desires to experience new arenas of life. Thus they sin and die rather than trust God's guidance through the law that such arenas are outside God's plan for life and thus should not be experienced (Romans 7:7-8).

Lust in not just coveting a woman and wanting her for yourself but being excited by her(or her nakedness) and being controlled by sin and worldly instincts.

 

[Clarity]

Galations 5

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Look at clarkes commnetary on this.

Verse 19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest] By flesh we are to understand the evil and fallen state of the soul, no longer under the guidance of God's Spirit and right reason, but under the animal passions; and they are even rendered more irregular and turbulent by the influence of sin; so that man is in a worse state than the brute: and so all-commanding is this evil nature that it leads men into all kinds of crimes; and among them the following, which are manifest - known to all, and most prevalent; and, though these are most solemnly forbidden by your law, the observance of its ordinances gives no power to overcome them, and provides no pardon for the guilt and condemnation produced by them.

I cannot see how naturism is not an act of the flesh again looking at luthers commentary.

VERSE 17. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh.

When Paul declares that "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh," he means to say that we are not to think, speak or do the things to which the flesh incites us. "I know," he says, "that the flesh courts sin. The thing for you to do is to resist the flesh by the Spirit. But if you abandon the leadership of the Spirit for that of the flesh, you are going to fulfill the lust of the flesh and die in your sins."

VERSE 17. And these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

These two leaders, the flesh and the Spirit, are bitter opponents. Of this opposition the Apostle writes in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans: "I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into the captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

VERSE 24. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

True believers are no hypocrites. They crucify the flesh with its evil desires and lusts. Inasmuch as they have not altogether put off the sinful flesh they are inclined to sin. They do not fear or love God as they should. They are likely to be provoked to anger, to envy, to impatience, to carnal lust, and other emotions. But they will not do the things to which the flesh incites them. They crucify the flesh with its evil desires and lusts by fasting and exercise and, above all, by a walk in the Spirit.

Do naturists practice naturism because it excites their flesh, animal desires or because it is pleasing to god? From what i have heard it is the former. Is naturism a sign of being changed by the holy spirit or of worldly desire as this is a crucial question?

I would also like to add a comment about the sin of noahs son ham as it says that the two brothers shem and japeth refused to look at their fathers nakedness and the only possible reason for this was that they believed it would be sinful to look at their fathers nakedness and so they covered his nakedness up and they were blessed and i would agree with their view that it would be shameful to look at their fathers nakedness and possibly derive pleasure and that the right thing to do was to avoid looking at his nakedness as it is sinful as they are not married to him and it could have been avoided by looking away and covering him as they did.

The sin of naturists is that they are using gods gift of nudity giving pleasure outside of marriage which is not what god intends, as it is to be saved solely for marriage.

 

[Natman]

Why dont you quote the statistics then? i have already quoted two statistics in favour of my point the fact that you don't quote statistics leads me to believe they dont exist as i have already had someone claiming the statistics say otherwise who was unable to quote a single statistic.

I will try to dig out the specific numeric statistics. In the mean time, this is a summarized list of societal benefits of "naturism" culled from the 20 studies listed below under "References:". The number and page at the end of each line refers to the study.

I have highlighted ones that I thought of important to Christian family morality in read.



Naturists:

- are relatively immune from: anxiety, sexual difficulties, social introversion, depression, and low levels of self-esteem. 15 p273.

- are more likely to be more aware. 15 p272.
- are less likely to deny their feelings. 1 p235.
- are significantly more secure than average. 4 p24.
- have less anxiety and insecurity. 11 p55.
- are more mentally sound. 11 p2.
- are likely to be more altruistic and positive than average. 11 p40.
- are less likely to blame others, for any negative state of their own. 1p151.
- see clothes as a mere social adaptation, and tend to deny their worth for defence. 4 p23.
- are less hostile and threatening than average. 1 p99.
- show low hostility and aggression. 5 p502.
- feel inherently loveable and confident.3 p126.
- suffer less body boundary dysfunction. 14 p8.
- are less psychologically dysfunctional than average. 14 pxiii.
- have less 'morbid restlessness' and faulty imagery. 15 p273.
- are more pain-tolerant and stress-tolerant than average. 11 p59.
- are less likely to be 'in denial' about their body. 5 p317.
- are more likely to have an 'alive' body; thus more joy and satisfaction. 1 p233.
- have more extensive options for how they conduct themselves. 4 p345.
- are less susceptible to socially aberrant sexual behaviour. 1 p93.
- are less inclined to be perverse, experiment with drugs, or be promiscuous. 1 p99.
- are less likely to be paranoid or schizoid. 1 p197.
- are much less likely to have been delinquent. 11 p77.
- are much less likely to have been delinquents. 5 p132.
- are the antithesis of rapists. 13 p151.
- are better readers. 5 p369.
- are less likely to be authoritarian. Authoritarians have trouble realising the value of naturism. 5 p630.


​

Furthermore:

- Delinquents will fear naturism. 1 p260.

- If the average male had the characteristics of naturist males, there’d be around a ¼ less aggression in society. 19
Chronic schizophrenics would be more treatable, if they were naturists. 11 p51.
- Naturist novices show an enduring four-fold improvement in self-esteem, over the average of control groups. 10
- Non-naturist males are more likely to be dissatisfied with the genital aspect of their body-image. 5 p124.
- Naturism is more fundamentally attractive to males, than females. 11 p55.
- Non-naturist males are more likely to be dissatisfied with the genital aspect of their body-image. 5 p124.
- Novice naturists have significant 'boundary' score improvement: a more valuable set of attitudes. 5 p513.
- Community awareness of the need for openness about the body, especially for the sake of children; is required. 15
- Naturist’s children are less judgmental about their bodies. 5 p61.
- Children of naturists are likely to suffer less from psychopathies originating from abuse. 1 p198.
- Children of naturists are likely to better withstand teasing than average. 14 p16.
- Children of non-naturists are likely to dislike their genitals. 7
- Naturist's children, as adults, show no sexual maladjustment problems. 8
- Naturist children have a significant developmental advantage. 18
- Children's exposure to social nudity is definitively beneficial. 17
- Children are negatively impacted by guilt, in proportion to the clothes-compulsiveness of their culture. 18
- Naturist families are more likely to reflect 'family values' than be disrupted. 14 p16.
- Naturist negatives: perceived to be sometimes deviant and/or unacceptably self-expressive in some settings. 5 p527.


​

References:

1 The Betrayal of the Body, by Alexander Lowen MD, an analytical psychotherapist, (MacMillan 1967).


2 The SELF in Growth, Feeling, and Learning. Selected Readings, edited by Hamachek (Prentice-Hall, 1965), page 394, citing Secord & Jourard (1953) published by the American Psychological Association in Journal of Consulting Psychology, Volume 17, pages 343-347.

​

3 Solitude, a Return to the Self by Anthony Storr, Clinical Lecturer in Psychiatry, Oxford University (Free Press/MacMillan 1988)



4 Body Image and Personality by Seymour Fisher and Sidney Cleveland (D. Van Nostrand & Co., 1958)

5 Development and Structure of the Body Image, Seymour Fisher (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1986), 'a detailed review and analysis of the body-image literature from 1969 to 1985.'

6 Body Disclosure and Self-Disclosure: Relating Two Modes of Interpersonal Encounter Sussman, (Journal of Clinical Psychology, Oct 1977, V331N4, 1146-1148), 'to investigate the hypothesis that self-disclosure and body-disclosure are directly related.'

7 Factors Associated With More Positive Body Self-Concepts in Preschool Children, Story, (Journal of Social Psychology, 1979, Vol 108:49-56).

8 The Relationship Between Adult Sexual Adjustment And Childhood Experiences Regarding Exposure To Nakedness, Sleeping In The Parental Bed, And Parental Attitudes Toward Sexuality Lewis and Janda, (Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Vol 17/4, 1988).

9 Body Cathexis, Secord and Jourard, Journal of Consulting Psychology, Volume 17, Number 5, (1953) pages 343-347.

10 Body Disclosure and Self-Disclosure – Relating Two Modes of Interpersonal Encounter, Sussman under the aegis of Jourard, Journal of Clinical Psychology, October 1977, Volume 33. p1146.

11 Body Schema and Body Image, Donwe Tiemersma (Swets & Zeitlinger, 1989).

12 Social Naturism & Body Concept, De Goede, Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume 45, Number 12, June 1985:

13 Sexual Aggression, edited by Hall, Hirschman, Graham, Zaragoza (Taylor & Francis, 1993).

14 Body Image Disturbance, Assessment and Treatment, by Thompson (Pergamon, 1990).

15 Body Images: Development, Deviance and Change, edited by Cash & Pruzinsky (Guilford, 1990).

16 Article 12.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for example.

17 Parents and the sexuality of preschool children, by Aquilino and Ely. Pediatric Nursing 11(1) p44-46 (1985)

18 Children's perception of clothes and nakedness: a cross-national study, Goldman and Goldman. Genetic Psychology Monographs 104 p163-185 (1981)

19 MMPI profiles, Analysis by John P. Brantner PhD, Professor of Psychology, University of Minnesota Medical School; In Nudist Society, William E. Hartman, Ph. D., Marilyn Fithian and Donald Johnson. Crown Publishers I Avon, NY, p103-110; (1970).

20 Decartes' Error, by Antonio Damasio. Grosset /Putnam. (1994).

​

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

The fundamental question that i think has arisen is
Is it right to derive pleasure from the nakedness of others?

Naturists clearly derive pleasure from being naked around others although they all give it a different name( eg sensual enjoyment, freedom etc)

Naturists derive pleasure from many things, just like non-naturists. Some of the things they enjoy... family time, gardening, home improvement, sports, cars, sewing, sailing, hiking, climbing, cooking, eating (one of MY favorites) and spending time studying God's word (my ABSOLUTE favorite). They are simply comfortable of more comfortable with the way God made them, without the pretence of clothes.

Clarity, you don't seem to be able to get past the issues of "lust" and "sex".

I would answer no you should not derive pleasure from anothers nakedness whether it be from looking at playboy, going to a strip club or going to a naturist club. There is an exception however when you look at scripture you find

There is a HUGE difference between "Playboy", (Hustler or any pornographic magazine), a strip joint and a naturist club.

Perveyors of pornographic material and "gentleman's clubs" (anything but gentlemanly) are selling the concept of free-sex, promiscuious sex, perverse sex. Naturism has NOTHING to do with sex at all.

Again the verses you bring up have to do with "sexual" immorality, not mere nakedness. Proverbs 5 is dealing with maintaining the sexual relationship withing a marriage and not being promiscuious, having extra-marital affairs.

Is it right to seek pleasure from nakedness outside marriage i don't think so as we should be content with the wife god has given us...

I agree with you 150% on this section of you statement. Sex and "sexual" pleasure is Biblically confined to the marriage. The "pleasure I referred to in and earler post is NOT "sexual" pleasure, but appreciation for the handiwork of God.

Song of Solomon 4 is a beautiful description of the "sexual" relationship between husband and wife. Irrelevant for this discussion.

1 Corinthians 7
In this verse, Paul is acknowledging that "singleness" is not a "bad" thing in that it allows a person to focus full-time on doing God's work without the destractions of married life. Irrelevant for this discussion.


I'll use the definition that you brought up "lust":

(3) Ta'awah, "a delight" "a longing satisfaction," and so it came to mean "sinful pleasure." Translated in Ps 78:30, "that which they desired," intensely longed for, referring to Yahweh's provision of food in the wilderness. Also in Nu 11:4 concerning "flesh to eat" it is said the multitude "lusted exceedingly" i.e. "craved eagerly.

(4) Chamadh, the verb meaning "to delight in," "greatly belove," "covet," probably for evil purposes. The young man is warned against the evil woman (Pr 6:25): "Lust not after her beauty." Here the bad sense is evident, for in the same connection are used such expressions as "harlot," "adulteress," "evil woman."

KJV translation of Greek epithumia, “desire, lust.” The Greeks used the term to mean excitement about something in a neutral sense and then in an evil sense of wrongly valuing earthly things. The New Testament knows desire can be good (Matthew 13:17; Luke 22:15; Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:17). In fact, the New Testament uses the verb form more often in a good sense than in a bad.

The bad sense of epithumia is desire controlled by sin and worldly instincts rather than by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16). Everyone has been controlled by such desires before their commitment to Christ (Ephesians 2:3; Titus 3:3). Such desire is part of the old life without Christ and is deceitful (Ephesians 4:22). Such desire can be for sex (Matthew 5:28), material goods (Mark 4:19), riches (1 Timothy 6:9), and drunkenness (1 Peter 4:3). The Christian life then is a war between desires of the old life and desire to follow the Spirit (Galatians 5:15-24; 1 Peter 2:11), the Spirit-led life crucifying worldly desires (Galatians 5:24). (Note the list of fleshly desires in (Galatians 5:19-21.) As the new life comes through the Spirit, so old desires come through Satan (John 8:44) and the world of which he is prince (1 John 2:16). Such desires can make slaves of people (2 Peter 2:18-20). Desire brings temptation, leading to sin, resulting in death (James 1:14-15). People cannot blame God, for He allows them freedom to choose and gives them over to what they choose (Romans 1:24). God did give the law which defined wrong desires as concupiscence or sin. The power of sin then changed the good commandment into an instrument to arouse human desires to experience new arenas of life. Thus they sin and die rather than trust God's guidance through the law that such arenas are outside God's plan for life and thus should not be experienced (Romans 7:7-8). Either sin brings death, or believers in Christ murder evil lusts (Colossians 3:5).

Lust in not just coveting a woman and wanting her for yourself but being excited by her(or her nakedness) and being controlled by sin and worldly instincts.

Once again, appreciation for God's creation is not the same thing as "lusting" for something you do not or should not have. "Nakedness" DOES NOT EQUAL "lust", and "nakedness" DOES NOT EQUAL "sex". "Nakedness" EQUALS being EXACTLY as God made us, nothing more, nothing less.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

Clarity,

At least you are consistent.

Galations 5:19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies... none of these have anything to do with "naturism".

Yes, there are those that call themselves "naturists" that are individually involved is some or even all of these things, but then again there are those that call themselves "Christians" that are also involved in some or all of these. So then should we declare Christians "immoral". I hope not!

...22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to believe that being "naked" or seeing "nakedness" for what it is, as God intended, deprives one of any of these fruits, and, I have talked to several people that have exclaimed the ABOUNDANCE of these very fruits to be found in a naturist environment, even an environment that is not explicitly Christian.

VERSE 24. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

You nailed my point right here. By Christ's Blood, we have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. By realizing the cost and accepting God's payment for our sins, those "lusts" have been nailed to the cross... forever.

True believers are no hypocrites.

You hit the nail on the head again. Have you ever thought of a career in construction?

I can not say that I love the Lord with all my heart, all my strength and all my soul, then deny that the way He created me and my fellow humans was, in His words "very good". I can not say that I am "washed in the blood", "crucified in the flesh", "forgiven, past, present and future", "born again", "renewed" and "restored", then say that all of that was isufficient to bring me back to the ORIGINAL relationship God intended us to have with Him, close, intimate, "naked and unashamed". THAT would be "HYPOCRACY".

Do naturists practice naturism because it excites their flesh, animal desires or because it is pleasing to god? From what i have heard it is the former. Is naturism a sign of being changed by the holy spirit or of worldly desire as this is a crucial question?

Just WHO (or is it "whom") are you listening to? For me and many others, naturism IS a sign of being changed by the Holy Spirit. We no longer try to hide any part of our lives from God. We enjoy that perfect union He designed us to have with Him, even when surrounded by a fallen world, because we are IN the world, not OF the world.

I would also like to add a comment about the sin of noahs son...

I believe that Eph 3:20 did an excellent job of explaining this. No more comments are necesary.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Vintero]

Frankly I really dont want to look at some old persons naked body...so forget nudism...unless there are tons of hot girls..and only me!

 

[Clarity]

naturism IS a sign of being changed by the Holy Spirit.

That is strange it is never said to be a sign of being changed in the bible when you look at the fruits of the spirit naturism is not mentionned in fact it is a sign of insanity as shown by the demon possesed man who was naked then was healed and went back to wearing clothes and it is also a sign of shame in numerous passages but it is never said to be a sign of being changed by the holy spirit. Many people may think you are an exhibitionist or a swinger or some sort of sexual deviant if they see you walking about naked. Does that mean that those who dont walk about naked have not been changed by the holy spirit?

The "pleasure I referred to in and earler post is NOT "sexual" pleasure, but appreciation for the handiwork of God.

Why cant we appreciate gods handiwork by going to a strip club or looking at playboy? as if your motive is to appreciate gods handiwork then these things are fine by your argument, it is only if your motive is to lust or is related to sex that these things become wrong by your reasoning and surely they could easily say like you have, going to a strip joint does not equal sex neither does looking at playboy as the same argument works perfectly.

God did create Adam and Eve to be naked and unashamed but not us in fact as soon as sin entered the world Adam and eve were no longer naked and unashamed but became ashamed of their nakedness and I dont think this has changed since then we are no longer naked and unashamed as adam and eve were but have become naked and ashamed.

If nakedness has so many benefits as you claim why does everyone in the bible wear clothes as surely god wants what is best for his children and if nudity were best he would have told us or shown us by example which he has not.

Once again, appreciation for God's creation is not the same thing as "lusting"

I disagree and this was the whole point of the post. If nakedness causes excitement/delight/sensual arousal/a feeling of freedom) then you are lusting as shown by my definitions.
Where does appreciation end and lust begin if they are different?

PS I have added some points to my earlier posts on this page Nat.

 

[Natman]

That is strange it is never said to be a sign of being changed in the bible when you look at the fruits of the spirit naturism is not mentionned. In fact many people may think you are an exhibitionist or a swinger or some sort of sexual deviant if they see you walking about naked. Does that mean that those who dont walk about naked have not been changed by the holy spirit?

No. I said "for me and many others". It is merely an outward sign if the freedom we have in Christ, like closing our eyes and raising our hands during praise and worship music, like showing kindness to someone that has wronged us, like hungering and "lusting" (there's that word again) for the Word of God.

Why cant we appreciate gods handiwork by going to a strip club or looking at playboy? as if your motive is to appreciate gods handiwork then these things are fine by your argument, it is only if your motive is to lust or is related to sex that these things become wrong by your reasoning and surely they could easily say like you have, going to a strip joint does not equal sex neither does looking at playboy as the same argument works perfectly.

It is very difficult to see the handiwork of God in pornographic magazines, websites or strip clubs because those things typically present man's handiwork instead, a distorted view of His creation. Airbrushing, filtering, digital enhancements, tons of makeup and special lighting all are intended to distort and enhance the "illusion" that the person in the image or on the stage is ready to have fantastic sex with you and only you, right now. They are designed to distort God's perfect plan of monogamous, lasting love between one man and one woman, with the poligamous love of the world.

God did create Adam and Eve to be naked and unashamed but not us in fact as soon as sin entered the world Adam and eve were no longer naked and unashamed but became ashamed of their nakedness and I dont think this has changed since then we are no longer naked and unashamed as adam and eve were but have become naked and ashamed.

Go back to the first post in this thread and read through everything... do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

If nakedness has so many benefits as you claim why does everyone in the bible wear clothes as surely god wants what is best for his children and if nudity were best he would have told us or shown us by example which he has not.

As stated in several of the prior posts, not everybody in the Bible wore clothing all of the time. Some of these include Adam and Eve, Noah, Job, Saul, David, Isaiah and many of the prophets, Peter, early recievers of baptism and finally Jesus Himself. Yes, Jesus gave Himself freely to be stripped naked, beaten and hung on a cross. Did He sin? I hope not because then all is for not, all hope is lost, we would have no savior.

Finally, in response to your last sentence... "surely God wants what is best for His children". I believe with all my heart that He made us in the manner that He felt was "best for His children", "naked and unashamed".

There is an old tongue-in-cheek saying...
"If God would have wanted us to be naked, He would have nade us that way!"

P.S.... He did.
Thank You Lord.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

appreciation
ap·pre·ci·a·tion
Pronunciation: &-"prE-shE-'A-sh&n, -"pri- also -"prE-sE-
Function: noun
1 a : JUDGMENT, EVALUATION; especially : a favorable critical estimate b : sensitive awareness; especially : recognition of aesthetic values c : an expression of admiration, approval, or gratitude
2 : increase in value



lust
Pronunciation: 'l&st
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German lust pleasure and perhaps to Latin lascivus wanton
1 obsolete a : PLEASURE, DELIGHT b : personal inclination : WISH
2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS
3 a : an intense longing : CRAVING b : ENTHUSIASM, EAGERNESS

I don't know about you, but I can "appreciate" something without "lusting" after it. If you can't then there are some other areas in this forum you might want to visit, such as the area dealing with "self-control".

Son-cerely,
Nate