Nudism

[Natman]

I am unsure what you are saying but i think the biblical answer is the second one and I am not talking literally when I say we are created naked and ashamed but metaphorically/symbolically. Taking into account that the bible states nudity is shameful I am highlighting what our reaction should be not what it is.

Why SHOULD our reaction to "nakedness" be "shame"?

Again, it is not a "natural" reaction or even the reaction God expects of us, jugding by His query of Adam "Who told you you were naked?". It is not imprinted on our hearts like God's other commands. For example: Although children may attempt to take things that do not belong to them when they are young, they quickly learn the moral implications when someone else reacts with anger or physical retribution for their actions, or attempts to take something of theirs.

The BIBLE never states that "nudity is shameful". If it did, that would make God out to be a sinner (for commanding nakedness to his Prophets), a liar, or two faced at the minimum (for calling it "very good" one day, then "shamefull" the next). We know that He is none of these because He "is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow".

You have not produced a single verse that states that mere "nudity" or "nakedness", in the absence of immorality, is "shameful" or "sinful" in the eyes of God.

Instead you have given plenty of verses that refer to "immorality" or "lust".

You have given many verses that use "nakedness" as a metaphore for "exposure", as in being "unprotected" or "unprepared", or as in having ones SINS exposed.

What is the difference between appreciating a woman and being sexually aroused by her? .... As i have already said i think it is wrong to be excited/aroused/get sensual enjoyment/appreciate the nakedness of someone whom you are not married to.

I can appreciate the "design" of a woman without getting "excited" or "arroused".

I can appreciate the fact that God made them to be both "similar" yet "complementary" to men.

I can appreciate that though they are "the weaker vessel" in some areas, they are much stronger in others.

I can appreciate that their bodies are made for nurturing, carrying and delivering and caressing their babies, with phenomenal resilience.

I am in awe whenever I have witnessed the miracle of the delivery of a newborn child, whenever I see a mother nursing (yes, it still happens, in public, in America. I saw one this last weekend, in a restaurant.), whenever I feel a kick, a bump or a grind against an exposed tummy.

I can appreciate the fact that women can think with both side of their heads... at the same time, enabling them to truly multi-task, when I seem to be only able to think out of one side...period.

I can appreciate the softness and smoothness of their skin and the gentle curves of their back, lines and motions of their arms and hands, and the opposing proportion of their shoulders and hips to mine.

I can appreciate that God gave me a woman of my very own to love, honor and cherish "til death do us part" and that non other shall occupy that place in God's design.

I can appreciate every aspect about them that screams out "MADE BY GOD", without being "excited" or "aroused" or wanting what God does not want me to have... because they are made for someone else.

...the job will only be complete,and our relationship will not be restored, until we go to heaven.

It says it in loads of places and is a central biblical doctrine.

"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him" (I Corinthians 2:9).

"He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying; and there shall be nor more pain, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:3-4).

"I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43

"You fill me with joy in your presence; with eternal pleasures at your right hand" (Psalm 16:11).

Revelation 20
10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

These verses talk about Heaven and Hell to come. They do not address the "finished work of Christ on the cross", right HERE, right NOW.

2 Corinthians 5:16
"16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a NEW creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:

19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation."

John 19:30
30"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

"It is finished!" The work Jesus started in us was finished on the cross, when we accept that work as the complete and final payment for our sins.

Romans 5:1-2
1"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand."

The work is FINISHED TODAY... not at some point in the distant future. TODAY we stand redeemed, reconciled and justified before the Lord our God.

Although the "world" still contains sin, WE are NEW CREATURES.

Yes, we must wait for the coming of our Lord Jesus to retore the world to a "NEW HEAVEN" and a "NEW EARTH", but the His work is already done in US.

So you think increased lust, rape etc has virtually nothing to do with wearing clothing/naturism in recent years but is mainly due to other influences?
However I am not saying that there is definitely no link, just that these factors are not contributing to influence current trends as nearly everyone wears clothes. However if nudity was more acceptable I do not think this would help to decrease rape,lust etc. Anyway i think we need to concentrate more on the bible and less on statistics and complex analysis of these as unlike statistics the bible is never wrong.

No. I stand to reason that sexual immorality and clothing are actually DIRECTLY and INVERSELY related. The more we have tried to hide the "TRUTH" of God's creation by denying it or covering it up, the more man has sought to uncover it, with ever increasingly devestaing results.

Although you seem to hate statistics, God does not call us to be BLIND to the facts or reason.

Matthew 10:16
"Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves"

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Clarity]

The BIBLE never states that "nudity is shameful"

Rubbish!! have you not read any of my posts. I have quoted over 10 yes over 10 verses where the bible says it is shameful.

If it did, that would make God out to be a sinner (for commanding nakedness to his Prophets), a liar, or two faced at the minimum (for calling it "very good" one day, then "shamefull" the next).

The fact is that he has done this.
He called his creation very good however this does not necessarily include nudity as this was not one of the things he created. He called the animals,people,stars etc and called these good but it may not necessarily include nudity. Anyway even if it does as you will not doubt assume, just because he called nudity right in one circumstance does not make it right in all circumstances the fact is that nudity in Eden and nudity in our sinful world are completely different issues as mans nature is totally different meaning that it does not meant that nudity is right today. With the prophets god commanded them to do it but he has not commanded us to do it, God also commanded prophets to destroy and go to war with other nations but this does not mean that it is right to go to war with other nations or go around naked in all circumstances but only in particular unusual circumstances are these things accepted. I have listed these on my post on pg 40.

PS did anyone read the article at the site in my last post if not you should as it is very good.

"Who told you you were naked?"

They knew they were naked because they had eaten from the tree and nobody told them but it was because they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It is not imprinted on our hearts like God's other commands.

Again just because it is natural does not make it right i have already explained this you cant decide gods will from examining your feelings.

I stand to reason that sexual immorality and clothing are actually DIRECTLY and INVERSELY related. The more we have tried to hide the "TRUTH" of God's creation by denying it or covering it up, the more man has sought to uncover it, with ever increasingly devestaing results.

There is not a shred of evidence to support this hypothesis, it is just wishful thinking on your part.

I can appreciate the "design" of a woman without getting "excited" or "arroused".

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.

You are clearly contradicting yourself as you have already said in an earlier post that nudity causes you to feel sensual enjoyment and exhilaration . The question is not can you appreciate the nudity of a woman? but Is it right to appreciate the nudity of a woman to whom you are not married?.

These verses talk about Heaven and Hell to come. They do not address the "finished work of Christ on the cross", right HERE, right NOW.

What i mean is that we do not have a relationship with god Like Adam and Eve did, what i mean is that only if we had a similar relationship and lived in a sinless world would nudity be acceptable as in the garden of eden. Gods work of santification begins on earth but is finally completed and perfected when you go to heaven but this is a whole different topic.

Just a final note to say i have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion but think that i now fully understand the issue and for those who want to read my main post read page 40. I may post one more huge post to sum everything up but i dont have time to do much more in the forum and this debate has finally ended for me at least.

 

[crashedman]

Why SHOULD our reaction to "nakedness" be "shame"?

Mine isn't. Depending on the context it can either be normal (at a beach or swim club I attend), or amusing such as the recent Spencer Tunick film 'Nude Adrift' where he gets the Russian guy to pose nude outside the cathedral with a space helmet on, or disgust like the recent degradation of the Iraqi prisoners who were not only forced to be naked in the prison cells but also perform sexual acts on each other to the amusement of their captors. But sexually exciting? No.

Again, it is not a "natural" reaction or even the reaction God expects of us, jugding by His query of Adam "Who told you you were naked?". It is not imprinted on our hearts like God's other commands. For example: Although children may attempt to take things that do not belong to them when they are young, they quickly learn the moral implications when someone else reacts with anger or physical retribution for their actions, or attempts to take something of theirs.

True.

The BIBLE never states that "nudity is shameful". If it did, that would make God out to be a sinner (for commanding nakedness to his Prophets), a liar, or two faced at the minimum (for calling it "very good" one day, then "shamefull" the next). We know that He is none of these because He "is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow".

You have not produced a single verse that states that mere "nudity" or "nakedness", in the absence of immorality, is "shameful" or "sinful" in the eyes of God.

Instead you have given plenty of verses that refer to "immorality" or "lust".

In American culture, the 'normal' response to nakedness is lust. There is very little that as Christians combined we can do anything to change that paradigm and I don't think anyone wants to.

You have given many verses that use "nakedness" as a metaphore for "exposure", as in being "unprotected" or "unprepared", or as in having ones SINS exposed.

True. When someone is naked, they can make themselves vulnerable to many things - cold, ridicule, risk of arrest. Then again, I can say that this happens in any situation.

At the last major rock concert I went to three years ago, a lady next to me had some guy rub himself up against her whilst her boyfriend was watching above all things!!

I can appreciate the "design" of a woman without getting "excited" or "arroused".

I can appreciate the fact that God made them to be both "similar" yet "complementary" to men.

Great! I don't get excited or aroused either, but then again I am also at an age where my testosterone level is significantly lower than what it was 12 years ago.

I can appreciate that though they are "the weaker vessel" in some areas, they are much stronger in others.

How are they stronger in others?

I can appreciate that their bodies are made for nurturing, carrying and delivering and caressing their babies, with phenomenal resilience.

I am in awe whenever I have witnessed the miracle of the delivery of a newborn child, whenever I see a mother nursing (yes, it still happens, in public, in America. I saw one this last weekend, in a restaurant.), whenever I feel a kick, a bump or a grind against an exposed tummy.

I can appreciate the fact that women can think with both side of their heads... at the same time, enabling them to truly multi-task, when I seem to be only able to think out of one side...period.

I can appreciate the softness and smoothness of their skin and the gentle curves of their back, lines and motions of their arms and hands, and the opposing proportion of their shoulders and hips to mine.

I can appreciate that God gave me a woman of my very own to love, honor and cherish "til death do us part" and that non other shall occupy that place in God's design.

It's great that you can. You must be truly blessed to be able to think that way.

I can appreciate every aspect about them that screams out "MADE BY GOD", without being "excited" or "aroused" or wanting what God does not want me to have... because they are made for someone else.


These verses talk about Heaven and Hell to come. They do not address the "finished work of Christ on the cross", right HERE, right NOW.

2 Corinthians 5:16
"16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a NEW creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

They want to know, do you have to be a nudist as a proof of that?

18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:

19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation."

John 19:30
30"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

"It is finished!" The work Jesus started in us was finished on the cross, when we accept that work as the complete and final payment for our sins.

Romans 5:1-2
1"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand."

The work is FINISHED TODAY... not at some point in the distant future. TODAY we stand redeemed, reconciled and justified before the Lord our God.

Although the "world" still contains sin, WE are NEW CREATURES.

Yes, we must wait for the coming of our Lord Jesus to retore the world to a "NEW HEAVEN" and a "NEW EARTH", but the His work is already done in US.

If one becomes a nudist after renouncing addiction to alcohol, drugs, or abusive sexual behaviour then great. For me, it has been in patches. I can't say that I've ever been an alcoholic or been a drug addict but I used to act really pepped up and hyperactive when I first joined a nudist group.

No. I stand to reason that sexual immorality and clothing are actually DIRECTLY and INVERSELY related. The more we have tried to hide the "TRUTH" of God's creation by denying it or covering it up, the more man has sought to uncover it, with ever increasingly devestaing results.

Some clothing might be. If you get tempted to sin by seeing clothed people than you do by seeing people who are fully naked, then you are very exceptional.

How do you account for some nudists who are into pretty horrid stuff like incest, kid porn, swinging, older men who use chat rooms to chase younger women?

Although you seem to hate statistics, God does not call us to be BLIND to the facts or reason.

Matthew 10:16
"Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves"

Good advice!


Crashedman

 

[fashionably_lonely]

How do you account for the fact non-nudists do the exact same things?

 

[Natman]

Rubbish!! have you not read any of my posts. I have quoted over 10 yes over 10 verses where the bible says it is shameful.

Yes I have. And I have refuted every single one of them as either taken out of context or irrelevant to the discussion of the "sinfulness" of "nakedness".

The fact is that he has done this.
He called his creation very good however this does not necessarily include nudity as this was not one of the things he created.
...just because he called nudity right in one circumstance does not make it right in all circumstances. The fact is that nudity in Eden and nudity in our sinful world are completely different issues as mans nature is totally different meaning that it does not meant that nudity is right today. With the prophets god commanded them to do it but he has not commanded us to do it,

So, in one paragraph you are calling God a "liar" and "two-faced", subject to change at whim, despite the fact that the Bible explicitly states otherwise.

Mal 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not;"


Heb 13:8 "Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."


​

You are also calling God a "sinner" because He COMMANDED the prophets to preach "naked". To command one to sin is no less than committing the sin yourself. By your definition, "nakedness" is a sin, so commanding someone to be "naked" is a sin... therefore (by your definition) God is a "sinner".

God also commanded prophets to destroy and go to war with other nations but this does not mean that it is right to go to war with other nations or go around naked in all circumstances but only in particular unusual circumstances are these things accepted. I have listed these on my post on pg 40.

The Bible does not say "Thou shalt not kill". The original word was the word for "murder". When God commands destruction and war, it is not considered "murder" because God has the soveriegn authority to demand the destruction of life and property. "Killing" becomes "murder" when it occurs outside of God's soveriegn will.

There is not a shred of evidence to support this hypothesis, it is just wishful thinking on your part.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE list of studies that provide evidence to the facts that "nakedness" has social, psycholgical and physical health benefits. If you have time, go to the library yourself and look up the references listed.

I can appreciate the "design" of a woman without getting "excited" or "arroused".

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.

You are clearly contradicting yourself as you have already said in an earlier post that nudity causes you to feel sensual enjoyment and exhilaration . The question is not can you appreciate the nudity of a woman? but Is it right to appreciate the nudity of a woman to whom you are not married?.
What i mean is that we do not have a relationship with god Like Adam and Eve did, what i mean is that only if we had a similar relationship and lived in a sinless world would nudity be acceptable as in the garden of eden. Gods work of santification begins on earth but is finally completed and perfected when you go to heaven but this is a whole different topic.

I am NOT contradicting myself. There is a huge difference between "sensual enjoyment" and "exhiliration", and "excited" and "aroused" (sexual terms). When I am naked, and free to move about, all of my "senses" are elevated, particularly my sense of touch, as the fresh air or water hits my body. THAT is "exhilerating". It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sexuality or lust and EVERTHING to do with FREEDOM.

BTW, you mentioned "page 40", but I do not have 40 pages in this thread, nor do I have you as the poster to post #40.

What post# and/or sub-forum are you referring to?

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

In American culture, the 'normal' response to nakedness is lust.

Or disgust, laughter and sometimes "awe".

There is very little that as Christians combined we can do anything to change that paradigm and I don't think anyone wants to.

THAT is the whole reason behind this thread, on this forum...

too make other Christians aware that, after salvation through Jesus Christ, we are posititionally RESTORED to the same relationship with the Father that Adam and Eve had at creation, even though our physical bodies are still subject to a fallen world. We should then be free to be once again...

"naked and unashamed". ​

How are they stronger in others?

Women tend to be MUCH stronger at dealing with human nurturing needs. Just ask the next guy you meet to go change your baby's poopy diaper, or to change a bed-pan, or to bathe an incapacitated elderly person. 99% will head straight for the hills babbling. Also, watch to see which gender reacts the fastest in time of emenant danger or crisis for one of their children. Women tend to jump right in. Men contemplate the odds first.

Some clothing might be. If you get tempted to sin by seeing clothed people than you do by seeing people who are fully naked, then you are very exceptional.

If you are referring to "provocative" apparel, I can agree with you. They tend to focus attention on the genital areas.

How do you account for some nudists who are into pretty horrid stuff like incest, kid porn, swinging, older men who use chat rooms to chase younger women?

They are sick puppies and definately in need of some psychological (or institutional) help.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Jes' thot I'd throw this into the mix (from the UK Guardian):

Nude Sunbather Dies in Calif. Bar Fight



[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
Wednesday September 29, 2004 9:46 PM[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A man sunbathing nude on the terrace of a bar died after getting into a fight with a patron who complained.

Jay Carbone, 52, fell and hit his head during the scuffle at the Pendulum bar in the city's Castro District, police said. He died Saturday, two days later.

According to police, Carbone ordered drinks and disrobed. After about an hour, another man complained and asked Carbone to put his clothes on. Police said Carbone replied, ``If you don't like it, get out.'' No immediate charges were filed.
[/font]

 

[Natman]

Jes' thot I'd throw this into the mix (from the UK Guardian):
Nude Sunbather Dies in Calif. Bar Fight
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Wednesday September 29, 2004 9:46 PM[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A man sunbathing nude on the terrace of a bar died after getting into a fight with a patron who complained.

Jay Carbone, 52, fell and hit his head during the scuffle at the Pendulum bar in the city's Castro District, police said. He died Saturday, two days later.

According to police, Carbone ordered drinks and disrobed. After about an hour, another man complained and asked Carbone to put his clothes on. Police said Carbone replied, ``If you don't like it, get out.'' No immediate charges were filed.
[/font]

What can you say?
Was he drunk?
Was he being billigerant?
Was he within his rights to be naked on the sun deck?
Was he breaking any ordanances?
Was the other man directly responsible for his death?
(Doesn't sound like it.)
Did he trip and hit his head?

Most important question...
Did he know Jesus as his Lord and Savior?

Son-cerly,
Nate

 

[Johnnz]

Verses from the Old Testament that associate nakedness and shame have often been quoted in this discussion in support of opposing nakedness outside of a marriage. Those verses require further examination.



There are those occasions when the words are used in the context of God’s judgment on Israel (e.g. Is 47:3;Ez 16:36-37, 23:8-10;Mic 1:11) It was customary for captives to be paraded naked by their enemies, and slaves were also presented for sale naked. In such a context nakedness was shameful in that it was associated with defeat and humiliation. To transfer shame to all nakedness from those verses is unjustified.



In Nah 3:5 we read “I am against you," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will lift your skirts over your face. I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame”. Israel’s practice of engaging in the religions of its surrounding cultures was often referred to by the prophets as being adulterous. In the above verse Micah graphically portrays Israel’s spiritual adultery by likening it to the behaviour of a soliciting prostitute. I doubt whether modern preachers would use such explicit imagery.



In Job 26:6 nakedness is referred to as being open, transparent. “Death is naked before God; Destruction lies uncovered.”



Is 58:7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter — when you see the naked , to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? This verse from Isaiah reflects a common biblical theme, of caring for the less fortunate. It is reasonable to assist the poor with food, shelter and clothing. In such a context nakedness is associated with poverty. Some people lacked clothing for warmth and protection from the elements, the basic reason we are a clothed society today. Revelation 3:17 refers to spiritual poverty in a similar way.



Thus, nakedness is used descriptively, as being open, as associated with judgement, as an image of spiritual adultery, and as a product of poverty. To extend the meaning of ‘naked’ and ‘nakedness’ beyond the contexts of such passages is unjustified and unhelpful.



There is a widespread discomfort with human nakedness in much of Western society. This discomfort has many components. There is the religious (nakedness=lust=sex =sin), there is body image and self acceptance, there is society’s almost universal association of nudity with sex. Paradoxically, there is intense interest in human nakedness as well in our society. Secular society rejects censorship, allows sexually explicit material to be readily available, yet is generally unaccepting of public nudity. It is a strange contradiction.



Our personal privacy is another potent factor. The more affluent in Western societies have considerable personal privacy compared with the less affluent in the world. This degree of personal privacy, which is historically comparatively recent, has contributed to our sense of body shame. Our levels of privacy were largely unknown in biblical times by the vast majority of the population. Small homes and large families prevented much personal space. The prophetic call to clothe the naked probably reflects the fact that many poor people worked with very little clothing on.



Christian naturists want to be accepted members of the christian community. They are not wanting to arrive at church naked! They respect other’s views sufficiently never to impose their beliefs and lifestyle on them. Respectful, discreet behaviour is part of their value system. Their arguments in support of their beliefs are not to persuade all Christians to be naked but they would like to be able to ‘come out’ about their beliefs. After all, if their practice of private nudity is not known by other christians, yet they are accepted within their churches as evidencing obvious christian character, cannot the testimony of their lives so far suffice to allow fellow church members to sincerely listen to their views?



Yeah, I can already hear the ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ verse coming.



John

NZ

 

[Shane Roach]

Really? What was the purpose of Jesus' life, death and resurection if not to restore us to our ORIGINAL relationship with God the Father? Did Jesus only do HALF of the job?

Since Paul describes a state in which the new man wages war against the old man within him, I have to say, the state of mankind is not as yet totally regenerated to the state prior to the fall.

Rev 3:18,Lam 1:8 and Isa 47 all use "nakedness" to describe the "exposure" of sin, NOT the sin of "exposure".

When we are "naked" before th Lord, He sees ALL of our sin. It is IMPOSSIBLE to HIDE ANYTHING from God... EVER.


I wonder who is streaching what here.

Son-cerely,
Nate

I don't see much in the way of proof that your assertion here is accurate.

 

[Shane Roach]

If what you are saying is true, then you better never take a bath, or a shower, or go th the gym, or go th the doctor, or change your clothing, or be born. You need to be naked for all of those situations, which means you are sinning.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Silliness. There are clear indications that purpose is considered in regard to sin, and conscious decision. The fact that original sin and the state of our bodies such that we should not expose ourselves publicly is something that is not consciously chosen does not excuse those who do indeed consciously choose to expose themselves.

Nakedness is shamefull, period, except in situations where it is described as acceptable. I find absolutely no confusion to be discussed here. You are simply ignoring the repeated, multiple verses that make this clear. It's not a difficult concept for me to grasp, and I will never believe you in the matter until you actually find a verse stating it is perfectly ok to walk around nude in public to refute the many that imply it is not.

Sorry.

 

[Shane Roach]

You are also calling God a "sinner" because He COMMANDED the prophets to preach "naked". To command one to sin is no less than committing the sin yourself. By your definition, "nakedness" is a sin, so commanding someone to be "naked" is a sin... therefore (by your definition) God is a "sinner".

The very verse you speak of makes it plain that the reason was to express shame. God at various times commands his prophets to do things that we, in our everyday lives, do not accept, including killing people. When you have a direct word from God on something, His purposes are being revealed. Being naked under the direct command of God is not the same thing as being rebellious and claiming that something God has repeatedly described as shamefull is not shamefull.

Once more, you try to create confusion where there is none. I do not accept your confusion and accusations. I will live my life according to clear descriptions of what is and is not acceptable, or at the very least I will confess sin when I sin and do not live up to those expectations, but I will not accept the teachings of those who constantly argue about the definitions of words and try to obscure the "pure milk of the word."

You do as you wish, but I do not believe your assertions.

 

[D-Lisch]

Normally, no. I think that in our society, no one can look at an unclothed body and not think sexually, or at least it's hard to. So, if you can keep a clean head... there's no problem with not wearing clohtes.

 

[markie]

What does nudity have to do with any concept of 'sin'?

Before they sinned they were naked and not ashamed, but after they sinned they were ashamed and they hid behind some trees so God wouldn''t see them. They were trying to hide from God.

 

[Johnnz]

Shane Roach,

One problem with having a specific verse on an issue is that life is far too complicated for that. More importantly, the Bible is about principles, not a rule book. Laws attempt to define. Principles can govern our lives much more successfully.

There is no one verse that says "You can walk around naked." The opposite is also true - there isn't a verse that says "You shall not walk around naked." Both you and Natman rely on each other's understanding of particular verses. The same rule must apply to both parties, not just you.

Much Christian morality relies on deduction from broad principles. The case for a "just war" is one example. Our tendency to 'fill in the gaps' between principles and specific behaviours has in the past led to condemnation of the wearing of nylon stockings, lipstick, bathing suits, going to the movies and dancing. This debate will suffer if this essential principle is not clearly recognised - that it is an arguement from broadly based understandings of several christian doctrines. No one will be able to produce a "knock out" verse.

Michael Novak, writing on economic matters wrote
"For candour’s sake, I must add that the emphasis upon Scripture studies during the past generation does not seem to have effected, as its sponsors hoped, the revitalization of Christian life and practice. There is a great gap between the Word of God and systems of economic, political, social, and cultural thought in modern societies. The human mind requires a powerful set of philosophical and theological concepts in order to relate the pure and simple Word of Scripture to the complex body of modern thought. By trying to take a shortcut around systematic philosophical and theological reflection, and by ignoring intellectual and social history, too many contemporary clergymen, theologians, and devout laypersons have ensnared themselves in pious simplicities which falsify reality. Quoting Scripture, they do not manage to relate the Word of God incarnationally to every fibre of modern civilization. They fail to understand that Scripture applied to the real world without exact intellectual analysis echoes emptily. Those who would apply Scripture to public policy cannot take shortcuts."

His comments care relevant to this debate.

John
NZ

 

[Natman]

Nakedness is shamefull, period, except in situations where it is described as acceptable. I find absolutely no confusion to be discussed here. You are simply ignoring the repeated, multiple verses that make this clear. It's not a difficult concept for me to grasp, and I will never believe you in the matter until you actually find a verse stating it is perfectly ok to walk around nude in public to refute the many that imply it is not.

The very fact that God commanded Isaiah to walk around preaching "naked" for three years is an indication the "nakedness" is NOT "shameful, period".





Isa 20:1-4

"1 In the year that the supreme commander, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it- 2 at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, "Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet." And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot.


3 Then the LORD said, "Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, [1] 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."


​

In this set of verses, God uses Isaiah's "nakedness" as a "sign of portent" (meaning "significance", "marvel", "prodigy"). If it was not only acceptable, but commanded by God for Isaiah to walk around naked, why should it not be acceptable for you or I to do the same.



Also in these verses is a reference to Assyria being "lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared-to Egypt's shame." It is the shame of other transgressions (not "nakedness") that has resulted in the king being lead away, stripped, exposed to the wrath of his captors.

It is one thing to be "willfully naked" (purposely open about ourselves emotionally, spiritually, physically) as in "wearing our hearts on our sleeves". It is quite another to be "stripped naked", forcefully removed of our defenses and exposed to the dangers and the wrath of an oppressor.

Son-cerely,
Nat

 

[Natman]

The very verse you speak of makes it plain that the reason was to express shame. God at various times commands his prophets to do things that we, in our everyday lives, do not accept, including killing people. When you have a direct word from God on something, His purposes are being revealed. Being naked under the direct command of God is not the same thing as being rebellious and claiming that something God has repeatedly described as shamefull is not shamefull.

To who's shame was it when Isaiah was naked... Isaiah's, God's, Egypt's, Cush's, Assyia's? None of the above. They are two separate inferences to the purpose of "nakedness". One is to give glory to God. The other is to remove honor from someone for past offenses against God.

Once more, you try to create confusion where there is none.
You do as you wish, but I do not believe your assertions.

The "confusion" you refer to has already been spread by man.

I and others have clearly refuted EVERY verse presented to condemn mere "nakedness" as either "out of context", "misuse of metaphore" or "irrelevant to the discussion".

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

Before they sinned they were naked and not ashamed, but after they sinned they were ashamed and they hid behind some trees so God wouldn''t see them. They were trying to hide from God.

You said it.

"They were trying to hide from God."



​

God was not trying to hide their bodies from Himself, either before or after the fall. THEY chose to cover themselves. THEY chose that path rather than simply fess up to their transgression, ask forgiveness and repent... the very same thing God asks of us today.


Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Clarity]

we are posititionally RESTORED to the same relationship with the Father that Adam and Eve had at creation, even though our physical bodies are still subject to a fallen world.

Adam and Eve are perfect are we perfect?
Adam and Eve walked in the Garden and talked to god Face to face do we do this?
Adam and Eve had no need to ask for forgiveness as they had never sinned is this the same for us?
Adam and Eve never had a sinful thought or desire and obeyed god perfectly and always did what was right which pleased god do we do this?
In fact Adam and Eve had a perfect relationship with god do all christians have a perfect relationship with god?

Mal 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not;"
Heb 13:8 "Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

Yes you are right if we were in the same situation as adam and eve, nudity would not be condemned but this is not the case which is why it is shameful.

Yes I have. And I have refuted every single one of them as either taken out of context or irrelevant to the discussion of the "sinfulness" of "nakedness".

Then why dont you refute them again as i have read previous posts and you have failed to refute the majority.

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

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

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.


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

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.

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.

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

If it is shameful for Egypt and Shaphir to expose their nakedness why is it not shameful for naturists to expose their nakedness?

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.

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

If nakedness is good why does god threaten to show the nations their nakedness as surely if nakedness was good it could not be used as a punishment?

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


Another Question Why is there not a single example of Christian naturism in the bible?
Why has there never been a single civilisation that has ever been fully clothes free and constantly practised naturism as you claim that naturism being wrong is not written on the hearts of man?Yet history clearly disproves this in fact there are very few examples of civilisations that did practise naturism.
Why does the bible clearly endorse naturism with your spouse but there is never a similar endorsement of naturism with anyone else?

And the statistics you have provided in no way whatsoever back up your hypothesis.

 

[Johnnz]

Clarity.

You are again refering to verses that both I and Natman have already commented on. Why can't you refer to our responses and show some breach of logic/fact/ etc rather than restating verses you have previously produced? Then we will have debate, not just talking over each other.

John
NZ