Nudism

[Johnnz]

The issue of lust is a real one for Christians. The relationship between lust and nudity needs discussion.



The traditional view is that nudity results in lust. Therefore Christians must oppose, or at least reject public nudity as sinful behaviour.



There are two separate issues to evaluate.



What is lust?



We must distinguish between normal, healthy sexual feelings and those that are wrong – lustful. Naturally occurring hormones create sexual feelings. That is a God designed process. It is normal and healthy to be aware of sexual feelings. These will include an interest in one’s developing body, wet dreams, erections and associated sexual tensions. Interest in the opposite sex begins. Young people may experience romantic thoughts, realise that they want to be married one day, and generally will begin to associate with the opposite sex, which often includes dating. Most guys and many girls find a natural attraction in each others’ bodies.



It is only when normal sexual urges assume too high a priority (obsessive or too time consuming) that the issue of lust arises. Many young people feel guilty with these normal sexual feelings, regarding them as lustful. That is sad and unnecessary. Also, involvement in wrong material, such as pornography is to be avoided.



All societies have erotic symbols. Once it was female ankles, then knees in western society. Now it is breasts and the rest of the female body that have been eroticised. Sexual arousal to erotic stimuli is not wrong in itself. Sexual activity takes place in marriage and often involves erotic (sexually stimulating) behaviour. That’s what can make it so much fun for secure couples.



What is forbidden by the word lust in Scripture



This is an important issue. Unfortunately, there are several words used in the Greek that are translated lust. The most common word means a deep desire. Jesus used this word when he said that he “deeply desired to have this meal with you,” speaking of the last supper. In this case not all usages of the word connote the sinful.



Then there are three other words that occur in the letters of the New Testament. These words do refer to desires that are sinful, and they have a much stronger connotation of wrongness for Christians. These words are not used very often.



These are the two contexts within which the issue of nakedness and lust must be discussed.



Nudists claim, that public nudity eliminates the cultural eroticism associated with nudity. Public nudity in their view is not sexually arousing or ‘lustful’. It is unreasonable to automatically discredit the amount of testimony from nudists, and especially Christian nudist on this matter.



However, the matter is not that simple. Nudists are people who, generally, have done quite a lot of thinking through the matter before engaging in public nudism. For the average Christian guy, from hormone laden teenagers to many much older men, the thought, let alone the sight of a naked female body will be arousing. On this matter people such as Clarity are right. Few guys could go ‘cold turkey’ into public nudity, especially if younger females are present. Arousal would be instant and obvious. It is not hard to see why he/she equates nudity with arousal and lust.



Unless consideration is given to the testimony especially of Christian nudists, and there is an understanding of the process by which they accepted and became comfortable with public nudity, there will always be Christians of both sexes who have good reason to ascribe nudity with arousal (lust). These two factors are critical to the debate. I consider that they are largely ignored by both parties, but more significantly by those holding the traditional viewpoint. Consequently, the parties speak past each other.



The other issue is that of living with our normal sexuality. This IS an issue, a very big one. The overwhelming interest in forum posts on sexual matters, including this one is clear evidence of this fact. To equate all sexual feelings as lustful is erroneous and potentially harmful.



The testimony of Christian nudists is that public nudity is not erotic for its regular participants, and that issues of body image and shame become irrelevant. If that is so, and I have no doubt that it is, then those people are saying something that is of vital importance for a vast number of people. That testimony cannot be ignored or simply dismissed. That expresses a sub-christian value.



The matters I have raised need greater detail and debate. But I trust that I have made a useful contribution. I can accept that many Christians will never accept public nudity. But I do wish that those who do could become accepted within their local churches with their views. The interaction then would be much more productive and healthy.



John

NZ

 

[Johnnz]

Clarity,

You want to be biblically centred. Fine. But please stick to what is there and don't interpolate your views into scripture.

When Adam and Eve sinned the record does not say they were ashamed. It says that when they heard God walking in the Garden they were afraid and hid - from Him.

I have dealt with the Genesis story in more detail earlier in this, or a similar post. I am interested only in having a biblical position for my faith. That requires that scripture is interpreted as accurately as possible.

John
NZ

 

[Clarity]

I have read the post about genesis and i dont think that it is very accurate or well argued.

When Adam and Eve sinned the record does not say they were ashamed.

Genesis 3
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

They did not want anyone to see their nakedness and so they sewed fig leaves together to cover it, or in other words, they were ashamed of their nakedness and did not want anyone to see their naked body.

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

Adam was afraid of god seeing his nakedness because he was ashamed of it and so he hid as he now thought that nakedness was no longer appropriate.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

The fact is that there is no indication that the animal skins have anything to do with a sacrifice as they could have come from anywhere it could have been wool from a sheep, skins from a dead animal or god could have created the animal skins from the dust of the ground. The point this makes is that it was no longer appropriate for adam and eve to be naked after they had sinned and this shows how god no longer desired them to go around naked but wanted them to wear clothes and from this time on everyone in the bible wore clothes.

It is only when normal sexual urges assume too high a priority (obsessive or too time consuming) that the issue of lust arises.

I agree fully. Is going to a naturist club a couple of times a week to enjoy other peoples nakedness too high a priority?

2 Chronicles 6
40 "Now, my God, may your eyes be open and your ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place.

41 "Now arise, O LORD God, and come to your resting place,
you and the ark of your might.
May your priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation,
may your saints rejoice in your goodness.
42 O LORD God, do not reject your anointed one.
Remember the great love promised to David your servant."


Notice it does not say to be naked with salvation. I cannot see how naturism is a sign of christianity as there is no biblical command telling us to be naked and it is never mentionned as one of the signs of a christian and it in no way indicates that you are a christian as there are many non christians and swingers who also practise naturism and for these people it is not a sign of being a christian, the only way it would be a sign of christianity was if you were able to distinguish christians by it ie it was distinctively christian which it is certainly not. It also has nothing to do with being changed by the holy spirit if it is the holy spirit has only started to do it in the past couple of years. The fact is that it is a sign of shame.

The symbolism of clothes in Eden​

Nakedness in the garden represented the fact that adam and eve were sinless but when they sinned they put on clothes to represent that they were no longer perfect and needed something to cover their sins such as the blood of a sacrifice or Christs blood and that they were ashamed of their sins and their nakedness. Unless you are perfect and need no covering for sin then you should not be naked metaphorically speaking. There are even those who think that the story of adam and eve is to be taken metaphorically not literally and that adam and eve were not really naked but i disagree with this view.

For the average Christian guy, from hormone laden teenagers to many much older men, the thought, let alone the sight of a naked female body will be arousing. On this matter people such as Clarity are right. Few guys could go ‘cold turkey’ into public nudity, especially if younger females are present. Arousal would be instant and obvious. It is not hard to see why he/she equates nudity with arousal and lust.

I also agree with this but would add that over time nudists become desensitised to nudity in the same way that people become desensitised to porn eg initially someone is aroused by the sight of the naked body(softcore porn) but then he becomes desensitised to this and has to look at hardcore pornography to become aroused. Just because the person has become desensitised to soft core porn does this now mean that there is now nothing wrong with looking at softcore porn? Just because naturists lose their feelings of shame and sexual arousal over time does this make naturism right? Just because they are no longer aroused or ashamed does not make it right. The same scenario can be applied to almost anything eg just because a robber no longer feels guilt when he steals something does this make stealing right?
We should not use our feelings to try and judge whether something is wrong as we can become desensitised so something that is wrong and feels wrong slowly begins to feel right over time.

 

[Natman]

Genesis 3 ...

The topic of the Genesis account has been discussed in this thread, with Clarity , ad-nausium.

Is going to a naturist club a couple of times a week to enjoy other peoples nakedness too high a priority?

If there are other naturist-Christian out there that could comment on this, it would be appreciated.

I do not believe that many "naturists" have the time or resources to go to a "club" two or three times a week. I sure don't. And, I highly doubt that they are there for the sole purpose of "enjoying other peoples nakedness". Most that I have talked to are there for reasons that you yourself might consider for joining a camping club, a chess club, a sailing club, a gardening club, a volleyball, basketball or softball team. They are there to relax, to get some sun, some exercise and some social interaction. Most visit only during some well needed vacation time.

In reality, the "average" body is nothing to get excited about. Most carry the scars of life... childbirth, surgerys, the ravages of cyclic weight gain and loss, excess or missing hair, often in unexpected places. Too fat, too skinny, too tall too short, too dark, too pale, too hairy, too bald...The variety is astounding. What is amazing is that after about fifteen seconds, all of that doesn't matter. Without the false status of clothing, it becomes much easier to talk with the "person", about things that really matter, or simply relax.

2 Chronicles 6
41 ...May your priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation,
may your saints rejoice in your goodness.

Notice it does not say to be naked with salvation.

Also notice that it does NOT say "be clothed with salvation, and rags and skins."

Back to my premise. If we ARE clothed in salvation provided by the shed blood of Christ Jesus on the cross, we have been restored to the newness of life, back to the ORIGINAL relationship God intended for us in the beginning, completely open in our lives, exposed to His glory, "naked and unashamed".

I also agree with this but would add that over time nudists become desensitised to nudity in the same way that people become desensitised to porn...

Why shouldn't we be "desensitized" to nudity (Please note that I said "nudity", not "sexual immorality"). It has been pointed out over and over again on this thread, that it was man's reaction to "nakedness" (openness about our sin, to God) that has developed into a sense of shame, nothing God did or commanded. God did not command us to wear rags or skins, but He provided some for our protection. "Desensitizing" merely brings us closer to the original plan. In fact, based on some of the studies mentioned in earlier posts, "desensitizing" actually helps to eleminate some of the social ills related to sexual immorality.

This, however is nothing like the "desensetizing" that occurs with pornography or any addictive behavior. Pornography is designed to draw you in with a lie ("This person wants to have sex with you.") and keeps drawing you deeper with ever increasing lies ("You deserve me. You need me. You can't live without me".) Naturism, on the other hand, exposes us to the truth... "God made us naked before the fall. He's STILL making us naked after the fall. He makes each of us unique, in all shapes, sizes and personalities. He gave us a unique environment that allows us to exist as He created us, with few exceptions. Being completely open, to Him and others gives us peace."

A person that is sold out to pornography will likely be VERY disappointed by what he or she finds in a naturist environment.

We should not use our feelings to try and judge whether something is wrong as we can become desensitised so something that is wrong and feels wrong slowly begins to feel right over time.

I agree, feelings are often misleading. But, I also realize that this works in both directions. R.C.Sproul has a series on this very topic. He breaks us down into four categories:
1. Those that are guilty and know they are guilty.
2. Those that are not gulity and know they are not guilty.
3. Those that are guilty and think (feel) they are not guilty.
4. Those that are not guilty and think (feel) they are guilty.

For this reason, I desire above all, to use what the Scriptures say (or don't say) to determine my thoughts and actions, not merely my "feelings".

Particularly in the "Christian" world, we have people condemning and even killing others for something they are doing or not doing, as sinful, when nowhere in scripture does it say so. Some examples that come to mind are Catholicism vs. Protestanism (Ireland), speaking in tongues, music styles, women in the pulpit, involvement in politics... the list goes on and on.

We should love the Lord our God with ALL our heart, ALL our mind and ALL our spirit... then do what we WANT to do. (Think about it.)

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[UberLutheran]

Do you think public nudism is a sin?

I'm sure for some people, nudism is a sin.

I know that other people have no problem with it.

I rather envy the people who have no problem with it. I have a friend, here at work, who goes to a nude beach very nearly every weekend (you can do that in South Texas!), and he has invited me several times to go with him.

I'm really not afraid of a surprise "sexual situation" because I've been told that is very strongly discouraged (in fact, it's grounds for removal) -- but I haven't been able to make myself go because of my own feelings about my body.

Let's just say the years haven't been particularly kind: several surgeries, thyroid irradiation (with the concomitant weight gain), gray (now approaching white) hair. I'm supposed to take off my clothes in front of a group of people, when I can't bring myself to take off my shirt?

I also know that to at least some extent, I have internalized society's fear and disgust towards aging. Granted: you couldn't pay me enough money to go back and re-live my teens or 20s (or even most of my 30s); and my 40s were TERRIFIC (I'd do those again in a heartbeat! 50 feels strange. (I'm now as old as my father was when I was 20!)

For me, it's not about nudity being "sinful": it's more about having problems accepting the reality of aging, of being "middle-aged", about perceived body image. I really do envy the people who are comfortable enough with themselves -- physically, emotionally, and spiritually -- to be able to take off their clothes around other people and feel OK about doing so.

While I'm doing a "wish list" -- I'd also like to be able to have the ability (or reclaim the ability) to cry. I got through a very difficult childhood by steeling myself so I would give abusers the satisfaction of watching me cry; ditto when I was in equally difficult relationships as a younger adult. I got through being widowed, and everything that goes with it, without shedding a tear. A friend of mine, a Lutheran pastor, has the ability to cry freely -- and for the life of me, I don't understand how he does it.

 

[aggie03]

Hi Uberlutheran! I don't see nudity as a Romans 14 issue. I don't believe that we are given the liberty to walk around naked. While we have the liberty to choose between eating and not eating meat (i.e. God is pleased with either choice), I don't believe that we have the liberty of being nude in public.

I am curious as to where you would draw this liberty from the Scriptures. If you wouldn't mind show me an example from the New Testament where we are given this liberty, I would greatly appreciate it

I hope to hear from you soon

 

[Natman]

[UberLutheran (I like that name. I believe it means "Super Luteran" in German, sort of.)

Based on your profile, does your friend work with you at church. If so, I am not surprised. I have spoken to several Christian pastors and ministers that have no problem with non-sexual nudity.

As you mention, for some, nudity is a sin, but only if they approach it with sinful intent. The same can be said about eating, drinking, owning material goods or any activity that takes our focus off of our dependence on God.

'Sorry to read about your distaste for your own body. It is, after all, the one thing that God created and gave to you and you alone. This distaste is not something you were born with, but the result of years of western indoctrination. "If we can't have the PERFECT-10 body, then it should never see the light of day". The truth is that you, like most of us, have "battle" scars and trophies from wars waged, won and lost. Some of us are ashamed of them. Some are proud and display them with dignity. They are all hard won.

Why would you concern yourself about growing old. Most of the most beautiful I know are older and greyer than I am. Sure they have a wrinkle here or an extra flap of skin there, but they are beautiful in that they know Jesus Christ and He shines through them. I'm not quite 50, but I thank God for every grey hair I have, and appreciate the cost I paid to get it.

As far as crying, all I have to think about are all the people I didn't witness to because I was afraid to open my mouth, that may spend eternity apart from God. All I have to think about are the millions of babies each year that are yanked piece by piece from their mothers womb and thrown in dumpsters. All I have to do is think about the nail-scarred hands and feet, the thorn encrusted brow and the body beaten beyond recognition of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as He hung in MY place on the cross, and I cry.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Clarity]

If we ARE clothed in salvation provided by the shed blood of Christ Jesus on the cross, we have been restored to the newness of life, back to the ORIGINAL relationship God intended for us in the beginning, completely open in our lives, exposed to His glory, "naked and unashamed".

Our clothes represent the fact that Jesus blood has covered our sins and when we are saved we do not revert back to a perfect sinless life with god such as in eden. Unless you are perfect and need no covering for sin then you should not be naked, as in this state you have no need of a covering for sin as you never have or will sin, symbolically speaking. Nakedness represents those who have sinned but have NOT had their sins atoned for by jesus death as well as those who have never sinned and need no covering for sin but not those who have sinned and then gained repentance.



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 representing those 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 symbolising those who have turned away from god by sinning and become unclean ie their sin has not been atoned for.

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. Before they became gods people they were naked and after they become gods people they become clothed representing the fact that god had covered and atoned for their sins.

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.


I have already quoted most of these points before but they have been ignored.

Catholicism vs. Protestanism (Ireland),

I come from northern ireland and can tell you that the violence nowadays has very little to do with religion in fact many of those involved in the terrorism are atheists or have never been to church in their lives and it is more political and due to religious traditions that peoples grandparents had. Despite not believing in god or going to church people would still call themselves catholics or protestants depending on where they live or what their parents claimed to be, it was originally a religious conflict but it isn't any longer and it has changed completely from what it was originally, being a catholic/protestant is like expressing support for a certain side in a war and usually says nothing about a persons religious beliefs but merely expresses which side they support and nothing more.

 

[Natman]

Hi Uberlutheran! I don't see nudity as a Romans 14 issue. I don't believe that we are given the liberty to walk around naked. While we have the liberty to choose between eating and not eating meat (i.e. God is pleased with either choice), I don't believe that we have the liberty of being nude in public.

I am curious as to where you would draw this liberty from the Scriptures. If you wouldn't mind show me an example from the New Testament where we are given this liberty, I would greatly appreciate it

I hope to hear from you soon

Aggie03,

If you read this thread from top to bottom, you might get an understanding of where we derive our freedom to "walk around naked".
As far as Romans 14 is concerned, for myself and, I'm certain many other Christian naturists, casting off the shame of "nakedness" that man first placed upon himself, is an acknowledgement of the complete work of Christ on the Cross. If nakedness was not a sin in the beginning, God went so far as to state about His "naked" creation "It is VERY GOOD", and nakedness has not been declared sinful after the fall (why would it, as God never changes), then it is a fabrication of man (or Satan). If Christ's blood covers our sins, past, present and future, and we are said to be "restored" to the "newness of life", then, apart from the fact that we are still in a fallen world, we are restored to the relationship with God for which we were created, "naked and unashamed".

Most Biblical scholars would probably say that "nakedness" (non-sexual nudity) is not a sin and that nowhere in the Bible does God condemn it, unless, through it's abuse, it leads to sexual immorality. This thread contains references to studies that show that social nudity, or "naturism", no more leads to sexual immorality, than eating healthy foods leads to obesity or taking an asperine leads to drug addiction. In fact, the opposite is shown to be true.

I believe that God knew EXACTLY what He was doing when He created us, how He created us. We are the ones that messed with His plan. The best part is that He provided the path to get back to His perfect plan. All we have to do is accept it.

Son-cerely,
Nate

PS. Our son wants to be an Aggie.

 

[Natman]

Our clothes represent the fact that Jesus blood has covered our sins and when we are saved we do not revert back to a perfect sinless life with god such as in eden. Unless you are perfect and need no covering for sin then you should not be naked, as in this state you have no need of a covering for sin as you never have or will sin, symbolically speaking. Nakedness represents those who have sinned but have NOT had their sins atoned for by jesus death as well as those who have never sinned and need no covering for sin but not those who have sinned and then gained repentance.

Man! Where do you get this stuff?

Where does it say that our "clothes" (rags and skins) represent Christ's blood? There is not a one-to-one relationship between Christ's blood and covering our bodies with rags and skins... ANYWHERE. Although, some commentaries propose that God's provision of "skins" to Adam and Eve can possibly be considered a "precursor" to ritual animal sacrifice abolished once and for all by Christs provision of His own blood on the Cross. Further, as Christians, we should already KNOW that we are not sinless unto our own power, but "positionally" sinless only by the power of Jesus death on the cross.

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.

Actually, this verse uses "naked and bare" to describe the beauty ("most beautiful jewels") and pure innocence of God's people at first. Obviously all of that changed by the next set of verses.


Ezekiel 16:8
"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"

This still has NOTHING to do with clothing. This is about sins and transgressions.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[immersedingrace]

As you mention, for some, nudity is a sin, but only if they approach it with sinful intent. Son-cerely, Nate

I view "public" nudity as a sin. I do NOT approach it with a sinful intent. I happen to believe it's offensive to God, and that He would have us clothed in public. Not only do I view it as a sin, I also do not wish to see a naked 300 pound man frequenting my corner deli, a naked 98 pound man in the library, a 175 pound naked waitress, etc. etc. etc. I do not wish to see it or subject my children to it. As much as I disagree with public nudity, if you want to parade around at a private nudist beach, colony, WHEREVER, by all means, do. I just should not have to be subjected to it and I thank God that the laws in most places support me in this. PUBLIC nudity is the issue here, and I still hold that it is wrong.

 

[Johnnz]

Over 5,000 viewers on this post. Let the debate continue!

One of the great things about the forum is that there are often vigourous exchanges of beliefs. Viewers are exposed to a range of information and conclusions. Clarity can propound on her views, others can confound them. Viewers will decide who to believe.

There are those, such as Clarity, who will not accept any other viewpoint than what is already held. Others will have a genuine openness to read, ponder, and conclude.

You will not get this debate and exchange of information in churches. The fact that threads on sexual matters receive such wide interest and participation seems to suggest that traditional, bible believing churches are not the sources and bastions of sexual teaching that many people have need of.

Between the basic sexual moral values that we should uphold and the reality of the pressing questions raised by so many Christians there is a huge gap in credibility and acceptance by many young people, Christian and non christian. That gap will never be successfully bridged unless we first recognise the message implicit in this forum, and genuinely engage in openhearted analysis and dialogue.

The forum opens up the wider debate, but it must move into local congregations with just as much freedom if we are to give young people, Christian and non christian, a message that will motivate them into a godly lifestyle. Sadly, I don't have too much confidence that it will happen.

John
NZ

 

[Natman]

I view "public" nudity as a sin. I do NOT approach it with a sinful intent. I happen to believe it's offensive to God, and that He would have us clothed in public. Not only do I view it as a sin, I also do not wish to see a naked 300 pound man frequenting my corner deli, a naked 98 pound man in the library, a 175 pound naked waitress, etc. etc. etc. I do not wish to see it or subject my children to it. As much as I disagree with public nudity, if you want to parade around at a private nudist beach, colony, WHEREVER, by all means, do. I just should not have to be subjected to it and I thank God that the laws in most places support me in this. PUBLIC nudity is the issue here, and I still hold that it is wrong.

So what you are saying is that you have total disgust for something created by God, which He then proclaimed to be "very good". I would tread very carefully here.

I would submit that you hold this position, not because nakedness or even public nakedness is actually sinful (which it is not), but because you are not accustomed to seeing people in their natural state. We would be equally shocked to see any other of God's creatures WITH clothing.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

How do you find out how many people have read a post or a thread?

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[immersedingrace]

So what you are saying is that you have total disgust for something created by God, which He then proclaimed to be "very good". I would tread very carefully here.

I'm saying I have total disgust for flaunting something that was never meant to be flaunted in public. I also don't think that God would look down and say "well done" for someone to abuse their bodies the way we humans do.

As for treading carefully, I have no problem whatsoever for the way I'm "treading". I stand by my beliefs, and do not fear that I'm "treading" on dangerous ground or carelessly.

Blessings

 

[Natman]

Never mind. I just found it.

 

[immersedingrace]

How do you find out how many people have read a post or a thread?Son-cerely,
Nate

For this particular thread, go to philosophy & morality where they have all the threads listed. It'll tell you how many people have replied and also how many have viewed.

blessings.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

I view "public" nudity as a sin. I do NOT approach it with a sinful intent. I happen to believe it's offensive to God, and that He would have us clothed in public. Not only do I view it as a sin, I also do not wish to see a naked 300 pound man frequenting my corner deli, a naked 98 pound man in the library, a 175 pound naked waitress, etc. etc. etc. I do not wish to see it or subject my children to it. As much as I disagree with public nudity, if you want to parade around at a private nudist beach, colony, WHEREVER, by all means, do. I just should not have to be subjected to it and I thank God that the laws in most places support me in this. PUBLIC nudity is the issue here, and I still hold that it is wrong.

Isn't intent the whole issue? If a man is around others (public) who are not offended by nakedness and he takes off his shirt, it's no big deal right? Now if that man moves his pants past his hips down to his ankles, has it has become sin? Now I'm talking about the physical act of moving clothing, the moving from hips to ankles. If this is sin why was it different from when he removed his shirt? Is there is something sinful in the actual movement of clothing?

It's the intent by which he does so. And it's the intent that Jesus and the NT writers talk about that's at the heart of all that we do. Remember when the Pharisees came against Jesus for the disciples failure to wash their hands? They considered it to be unholy. Jesus said "Listen and understand." when He said this He always gave them a guiding fundamental principle. He said " It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles the man, it's what comes out of his mouth, that's what makes him unclean," and "But things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make the man unclean. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery...." (Matt 16:15)

The pure act of movement of clothing has no inherent sinful value, whether it's the movement of a shirt, socks, gloves or pants. It's the intent and purpose behind the things we choose to do. I'll repeat this from a previous post:

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

If the purpose of nakedness is to entice into sexual sin (like the adulterous harlots), then nakedness is a sin.

If the purpose of nakedness is to expose anyone against their will for sexual exploitation, then it is sin.

If the purpose of nakedness is to "rub people's nose in it" by flaunting nakedness in the face of a society where it is unacceptable (and against the law), then it is sin.

If the effect of nakedness upon others is to hinder their conscience and cause them to sin, then nakedness is a sin.

But, if the purpose of nakedness is to enjoy the normal state of God's original creation, and to enjoy the freedom of being in the open air, under the brilliant sun, unhindered and unhidden by clothing, then it is not a sin.

And if the effect has no negative bearing on the lives of others, then it is not a sin.

There is no law that exist in God's word that makes public nudity sinful. Since God did not condemn nakedness as such, even in fallen man, but condemned only it's misuses, then God does not forbid the practice of nudity in those situations where it can be enjoyed without harming the conscience of another person.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Let me add this.

The purpose of a God's laws in the sexual area was always to protect the rights of individuals. I cannot take from you what you are unwilling to give. I cannot subject you to something that you do not want to be subjected to. My decisions are to be made out of my love for God and love for others. (Matt. 22:37) I always must have others in mind before I am to meet my own needs, it is this selfless love for others that we are to demonstrate as Christians.

God is so masterful...by doing this God insures that you have your rights protected, if you choose not to look at others nakedness, and the people that are following the principle of "love for others" still maintain their right to practice nakedness as long as they don't offend those that do not want to be subjected to it. It is when there is a mis-use of this "love for others" principle that creates the "violation."

Eph. 3:20

 

[immersedingrace]

Isn't intent the whole issue? If a man is around others (public) who are not offended by nakedness and he takes off his shirt, it's no big deal right? Now if that man moves his pants past his hips down to his ankles, has it has become sin? Now I'm talking about the physical act of moving clothing, the moving from hips to ankles. If this is sin why was it different from when he removed his shirt?

I, and other women I know, think men should keep their shirts on in public, so this argument will not work here with me.

is no law that exist in God's word that makes public nudity sinful. Since God did not condemn nakedness as such, even in fallen man, but condemned only it's misuses, then God does not forbid the practice of nudity in those situations where it can be enjoyed without harming the conscience of another person.
Eph. 3:20

Again, as I believe I've said IT DOES OFFEND MY CONSCIENCE!!!!