Nudism

[Shane Roach]

Shane,

I don't think we are supposed to be as "tolerant" of "sin" as we are to be "tolerant" and loving to the "sinner".


I'm hoping this thread will help highlight what is and isn't "beyond reproach", Biblically, not socially.

Son-cerely,
Nate

The concept of behaving in ways that are beyond reproach has to do with avoiding even the appearance of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

Here again, you keep finding something to be confused about here without offering me any indication that there is confusion to be had. Eph 3:20 does much the same, claiming silence on the part of the Bible when many indications of the shame of the nude body have been provided. Most of us are familiar with the concepts concerning not carying that shame too far, but it seems you do not even acknowledge the repeated context of how nudity is associated with shame, from original sin on down the line.

As I said, I just don't see where you find any reason at all to imagine that any sort of casual public nudity could be anything other than sin. Mortal sin? Going to hell in a handbasket sin? Maybe not. But why must we search for the line and ride it when right here in Thessalonians I read to avoid even the appearance of evil?

It seems all too clear to me. Sorry.

 

[Natman]

Shane,

Thus far, ALL of the verses you and others have provided in this thread as evidence of the Bible's relationship to "shame" and "nakedness" have only been "metaphoric" in style. They display "nakedness" (the removal of protection; see #4 & #5 below) as a "result" of some OTHER shameful behavior (idolatry, adultery, fornication etc.), but not as shameful in and of itself.

God provided the Law as the model and measure of how we are to live our lives. He was explicit in His commandments as to what should and should not be done.

Do...
Keep the sabbath.
Honor your mother and father.
Don't...
Don't Worship other gods.
Don't Make idols.
Don't Use the Lords name in vain.
Don't Murder.
Don't commit adultery.
Don't steal.
Don't lie.
Don't covet the belongings of others.

Try as I may, I could not find "Do Not be Naked." commanded, implied or inferred. What I did find were the Levitical commands "Do not expose the nakedness of..." (a euphamism for "do not have sexual relations with". Even if taken in their literal sense, these verses state what we should not do to OTHERS. They imply that exposing SOMEONE ELSE is shameful for the person that is doing the exposing, not for the one being "exposed".

I think we need to focus on hermeneutics - the art and science of Biblical interpretation to really understand the situation.


From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: na·ked
Pronunciation: 'nA-k&d, esp Southern 'ne-k&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English nacod; akin to Old High German nackot naked, Latin nudus, Greek gymnos
1 : not covered by clothing : [size=-1]NUDE[/size]
2 : devoid of customary or natural covering : [size=-1]BARE[/size]: as a : not enclosed in a sheath or scabbard b : not provided with a shade c of a plant or one of its parts : lacking pubescence or enveloping or subtending parts d : lacking foliage or vegetation e of an animal or one of its parts : lacking an external covering (as of hair, feathers, or shell)
3 a : scantily supplied or furnished b : lacking embellishment : [size=-1]UNADORNED[/size]
4 : [size=-1]UNARMED[/size], [size=-1]DEFENSELESS[/size]
5 : lacking confirmation or support
6 : devoid of concealment or disguise
7 : unaided by any optical device or instrument <visible to the naked eye>
8 : not backed by the writer's ownership of the commodity contract or security



Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Eph. 3:20]

The concept of behaving in ways that are beyond reproach has to do with avoiding even the appearance of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

I like the way NASB puts Eph. 5:3,4: "Do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints, and let there be no filthiness or silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks."

Paul is not talking about thing others might simply "think" are in those categories. For example, I have actually heard people condemn light-hearted jesting, and joking as being "silly talk" on the basis of vs.4. And, taken absolutely literally, vs. 4 condemns any conversation other than "giving of thanks." Others condemn as "greed" what is merely hard work and legitimate ambition to do well.

I think Paul is warning saints about ACTUAL immorality, impurity, greed, filthiness, silly talk, and coarse jesting. To leave any of these things, (or any other matter of morality) at the mercy of other people's opinions, totally eliminates any liberty at all. People will find fault with anything one does. Example, the early Church's Love Feast were considered to be orgiastic.

Paul gives his true feelings about being put into bondage by other's opinions, in Gal. 2:4,5. He refused to "yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." The principle is, that if one neither judges others for what they either allow or disallow, nor shoves one's liberty in other's faces, (cf. Rom. 14:1-21), and if one is living in good conscience about the things he allows (cf. Rom. 14:22), and then one may exercise one's liberty fully.

So one merely needs to discover how God actually defines "immorality" etc, and then live on that basis, rather than on the basis of what others "think" about those actions. This means that one is at full liberty to pursue freedom in a way that does not intentionally upset other people's spiritual walk. We must be aware that our lifestyle will come under scrutiny, and take whatever precautions you feel might somewhat mitigate criticism. Then when criticism comes, refuse as Paul did, to yield your liberty to those who would bring you under bondage. Such action is not unloving of others. It is rather love of the "gospel" of true liberty in Christ, which Paul would not compromise "even for an hour."

Eph. 3:20

 

[Shane Roach]

Shane,

Thus far, ALL of the verses you and others have provided in this thread as evidence of the Bible's relationship to "shame" and "nakedness" have only been "metaphoric" in style. They display "nakedness" (the removal of protection; see #4 & #5 below) as a "result" of some OTHER shameful behavior (idolatry, adultery, fornication etc.), but not as shameful in and of itself.

God provided the Law as the model and measure of how we are to live our lives. He was explicit in His commandments as to what should and should not be done.

Do...
Keep the sabbath.
Honor your mother and father.
Don't...
Don't Worship other gods.
Don't Make idols.
Don't Use the Lords name in vain.
Don't Murder.
Don't commit adultery.
Don't steal.
Don't lie.
Don't covet the belongings of others.

Try as I may, I could not find "Do Not be Naked." commanded, implied or inferred. What I did find were the Levitical commands "Do not expose the nakedness of..." (a euphamism for "do not have sexual relations with". Even if taken in their literal sense, these verses state what we should not do to OTHERS. They imply that exposing SOMEONE ELSE is shameful for the person that is doing the exposing, not for the one being "exposed".

I think we need to focus on hermeneutics - the art and science of Biblical interpretation to really understand the situation.


From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: na·ked
Pronunciation: 'nA-k&d, esp Southern 'ne-k&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English nacod; akin to Old High German nackot naked, Latin nudus, Greek gymnos
1 : not covered by clothing : [size=-1]NUDE[/size]
2 : devoid of customary or natural covering : [size=-1]BARE[/size]: as a : not enclosed in a sheath or scabbard b : not provided with a shade c of a plant or one of its parts : lacking pubescence or enveloping or subtending parts d : lacking foliage or vegetation e of an animal or one of its parts : lacking an external covering (as of hair, feathers, or shell)
3 a : scantily supplied or furnished b : lacking embellishment : [size=-1]UNADORNED[/size]
4 : [size=-1]UNARMED[/size], [size=-1]DEFENSELESS[/size]
5 : lacking confirmation or support
6 : devoid of concealment or disguise
7 : unaided by any optical device or instrument <visible to the naked eye>
8 : not backed by the writer's ownership of the commodity contract or security



Son-cerely,Nate

xSo where did the "e

So why does the term "expose the nakedness of" mean "have sex with"? Because of the common understanding of what happens after one exposes ones self. Again, where is the mystery?

 

[Shane Roach]

I like the way NASB puts Eph. 5:3,4: "Do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints, and let there be no filthiness or silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks."

Paul is not talking about thing others might simply "think" are in those categories. For example, I have actually heard people condemn light-hearted jesting, and joking as being "silly talk" on the basis of vs.4. And, taken absolutely literally, vs. 4 condemns any conversation other than "giving of thanks." Others condemn as "greed" what is merely hard work and legitimate ambition to do well.

I think Paul is warning saints about ACTUAL immorality, impurity, greed, filthiness, silly talk, and coarse jesting. To leave any of these things, (or any other matter of morality) at the mercy of other people's opinions, totally eliminates any liberty at all. People will find fault with anything one does. Example, the early Church's Love Feast were considered to be orgiastic.

Paul gives his true feelings about being put into bondage by other's opinions, in Gal. 2:4,5. He refused to "yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." The principle is, that if one neither judges others for what they either allow or disallow, nor shoves one's liberty in other's faces, (cf. Rom. 14:1-21), and if one is living in good conscience about the things he allows (cf. Rom. 14:22), and then one may exercise one's liberty fully.

So one merely needs to discover how God actually defines "immorality" etc, and then live on that basis, rather than on the basis of what others "think" about those actions. This means that one is at full liberty to pursue freedom in a way that does not intentionally upset other people's spiritual walk. We must be aware that our lifestyle will come under scrutiny, and take whatever precautions you feel might somewhat mitigate criticism. Then when criticism comes, refuse as Paul did, to yield your liberty to those who would bring you under bondage. Such action is not unloving of others. It is rather love of the "gospel" of true liberty in Christ, which Paul would not compromise "even for an hour."

Eph. 3:20

I am not arguing that some will find fault where there is none, I am pointing out that there appears to be no real doubt as to why exposing ones self publicly would fit under the auspices of something to be avoided. So far all that has been offered here is some supposed cofusion about the verses that refer to nudity. I fail to see the confusion.

 

[Shane Roach]

I like the way NASB puts Eph. 5:3,4: "Do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints, and let there be no filthiness or silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks."



Eph. 3:20

I used 1 Thess because it has an application directly to this debate that your verse doesn't have. It says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." So, in addition to knowing what God does and doesn't think is evil, it also behooves us to understand the sorts of things that look evil, even though when one applies a vigorous study to them, one may find that sometimes it is evil, and sometimes no. One can have pretty much this exact same conversation about everything from theft to murder if one wants, but I for one would concede that for example, all the times I have been to topless bars and nude beaches were not good things for me to have been doing, whether or not I was technically "sinning" just by being there.

If you teach otherwise, that's your business, but I am at present uncomfortable with such teachings and those who espouse them because of verses having to do with how to discern false teachers from true teachers of Godliness. I don't see any reason to stretch people's understanding or tolerance in this matter, when we are instructed actually to err in the other direction, not in the direction of "liberty", but of love and concern for our own conscience and the conscience's of our fellow Christians.

 

[Natman]

So why does the term "expose the nakedness of" mean "have sex with"? Because of the common understanding of what happens after one exposes ones self. Again, where is the mystery?

ALL of the commentaries I have read on the Levitical euphamism "expose the nakedness of" state that the term is equivalant to "have sexual relations with". The context of the verses has to do with establishment of sexual morality in relation to close family (incest).

In my last post, I brought up the topic of "hermeneutics" - the art and science of biblical interpretation. From www.equip .org, I got the following guides to properly interpresting scripture...

Excerpted from http://www.equip.org/free/DI501-1.htm
and http://www.equip.org/free/DI501-2.htm
Meaning and Use of Words in Context, Grammar and Syntax of the Biblical Languages
1. The original languages of the Bible. The Bible was not originally written in English. We must understand the meaning of the words and sentences in the languages in which they were originally written.

Historical Background, Cultural Background
2. The historical/cultural settings of the Bible. The various authors of the books of the Bible lived at a time in history and in a culture that was, in many respects, quite different from our modern techno-culture. Communication is highly influenced by one’s culture and place in history.
3. The literary genres of the Bible. The word genre means kind. Literary genre simply means different kinds of literature. Poetry, for example, is a different kind of literature than historical narrative, and there are different principles for understanding it. Since the Bible contains different kinds of literature, we must take into consideration how meaning is expressed differently in each kind.

4. The universal and particular principles of communication and understanding. There are certain principles that govern the way people communicate. Some of these principles are universal: they are the same for all people at all times regardless of their language, ethnic background, culture, or point of view. All people who want to communicate, for example, assume that the claim they are making cannot be both true and false in the same sense. This is called the principle of non-contradiction. Everyone who communicates does so on the basis of this principle. Some principles are peculiar to the fact that we are interpreting the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired (God-breathed) and inerrant then our interpretation must take this into consideration.

5. The preunderstanding and presuppositions of the interpreter. These words, preunderstanding and presuppositions, refer to the points of view, the perspectives, the background, and the assumptions of the reader. A person who assumes that God does not exist, for example, will interpret the Bible quite differently from a person who believes that God does exist. Our assumptions and perspectives play a significant role when we try to understand the meaning of the text.

Additionally, you must consider "theme" and "consistancy".

You are struggling here with a combination of #1, #2 and "theme".

Many errors are generated by trying to apply contempory meanings to words and phrases that were written long ago. A good example is the contemporary word "love". We only have one word for several different types of love, while the ancient languages had several... "phileo", "eros" and "agape". When we are told to "love" our neighbors, are we being commanded to have sex with them (eros)? I don't think so.

We can also make the Bible say just about anything we want if we take verses out of context. Here are some common examples.

Matthew 7:8
"For everyone who asks, receives."

Matthew 21:22
"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

John 14:13-14
"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

Taken out of context, many interprest these to say "Name it and claim it, no matter what, as long as you ask praying and believing."

They usually forget that this is preceeded by...

Matthew 6:33
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Buzz Dixon]

If you have to bake a cookie before it's baked, to you have to nake in order to be naked? And in the middle of the process, while the cookie is baking, are you naking?

 

[Eph. 3:20]

If you have to bake a cookie before it's baked, to you have to nake in order to be naked? And in the middle of the process, while the cookie is baking, are you naking?

Buzz,
You have the unique ability to insert your own special insights in the middle of a serious Theological discussion...I love it! We could all use a little more humor.

Thank you.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Risen Tree]

I used 1 Thess because it has an application directly to this debate that your verse doesn't have. It says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." So, in addition to knowing what God does and doesn't think is evil, it also behooves us to understand the sorts of things that look evil, even though when one applies a vigorous study to them, one may find that sometimes it is evil, and sometimes no. One can have pretty much this exact same conversation about everything from theft to murder if one wants, but I for one would concede that for example, all the times I have been to topless bars and nude beaches were not good things for me to have been doing, whether or not I was technically "sinning" just by being there.

Have you ever stopped to ponder whether these feelings were simply the result of false guilt that you were bringing on yourself?

If you teach otherwise, that's your business, but I am at present uncomfortable with such teachings and those who espouse them because of verses having to do with how to discern false teachers from true teachers of Godliness. I don't see any reason to stretch people's understanding or tolerance in this matter, when we are instructed actually to err in the other direction, not in the direction of "liberty", but of love and concern for our own conscience and the conscience's of our fellow Christians.

Love and liberty are opposites?

 

[crashedman]

xSo where did the "e

So why does the term "expose the nakedness of" mean "have sex with"? Because of the common understanding of what happens after one exposes ones self. Again, where is the mystery?

Not true, depending on the situation. You don't have to get naked to have sex. It is possible to do it sitting down on a chair or on a bed fully dressed. Let's look at some situations:

Flashing your genitals to young children on a street corner = mixed emotions of amusement and shock, with the possibility of getting nicked by the police and having a criminal record.

Exposing yourself to a doctor or a gynaecologist = medical check-up to ensure that you do not have cancer or some terminal disease.

Exposing yourself to a lover = sex, or being asked to lose some weight.

Exposing yourself on a beach with other like-minded nude people: freedom and innocent fun.

Do you think that people who go to nude beaches and clubs automatically engage in a full-scale mass orgy when they remove their clothes?

Come on. ;-)


Crashedman

 

[Shane Roach]

ALL of the commentaries I have read on the Levitical euphamism "expose the nakedness of" state that the term is equivalant to "have sexual relations with". The context of the verses has to do with establishment of sexual morality in relation to close family (incest).

In my last post, I brought up the topic of "hermeneutics" - the art and science of biblical interpretation. From www.equip .org, I got the following guides to properly interpresting scripture...

Additionally, you must consider "theme" and "consistancy".

You are struggling here with a combination of #1, #2 and "theme".

Many errors are generated by trying to apply contempory meanings to words and phrases that were written long ago. A good example is the contemporary word "love". We only have one word for several different types of love, while the ancient languages had several... "phileo", "eros" and "agape". When we are told to "love" our neighbors, are we being commanded to have sex with them (eros)? I don't think so.

We can also make the Bible say just about anything we want if we take verses out of context. Here are some common examples.

Matthew 7:8
"For everyone who asks, receives."

Matthew 21:22
"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

John 14:13-14
"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

Taken out of context, many interprest these to say "Name it and claim it, no matter what, as long as you ask praying and believing."

They usually forget that this is preceeded by...

Matthew 6:33
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

Son-cerely,
Nate

I don't see that you merely stating that I have some sort of context problem here makes it suddenly so. As I said, the reason for why something like "expose the nakedness of" can be translated into "have sex with" exists. These studies you refer to must have mentioned them. All of language involves the use of metaphor, and the reasons for the relationship between nakedness and sex are pretty straightforeward.

 

[Shane Roach]

Not true, depending on the situation. You don't have to get naked to have sex. It is possible to do it sitting down on a chair or on a bed fully dressed. Let's look at some situations:

Flashing your genitals to young children on a street corner = mixed emotions of amusement and shock, with the possibility of getting nicked by the police and having a criminal record.

Exposing yourself to a doctor or a gynaecologist = medical check-up to ensure that you do not have cancer or some terminal disease.

Exposing yourself to a lover = sex, or being asked to lose some weight.

Exposing yourself on a beach with other like-minded nude people: freedom and innocent fun.

Do you think that people who go to nude beaches and clubs automatically engage in a full-scale mass orgy when they remove their clothes?

Come on. ;-)


Crashedman

Most of your examples involve some sort of either accidental or strange twisting of anything I or any other person I have seen post here has meant. We were speaking here specifically of why the phrase "expose the nakedness of" is being translated as "having sex with." Obviously, if that is how that phrase is understood by translaters, it doesn't involve any of the sorts of examples you are trying to insert here.

 

[Shane Roach]

Have you ever stopped to ponder whether these feelings were simply the result of false guilt that you were bringing on yourself?

Love and liberty are opposites?

Yes, I have thought about those things, but I have pointed out already some Bible verses that seem to me to lead away from such a conclusion. I never said love and liberty are opposites. I have no idea where you are getting that from. I do know verses that instruct us not to abuse our liberty though, so it is possible for liberty to be exercised outside of love. That much seems clear.

 

[Risen Tree]

Yes, I have thought about those things, but I have pointed out already some Bible verses that seem to me to lead away from such a conclusion. I never said love and liberty are opposites. I have no idea where you are getting that from. I do know verses that instruct us not to abuse our liberty though, so it is possible for liberty to be exercised outside of love. That much seems clear.

I got it from this:

If you teach otherwise, that's your business, but I am at present uncomfortable with such teachings and those who espouse them because of verses having to do with how to discern false teachers from true teachers of Godliness. I don't see any reason to stretch people's understanding or tolerance in this matter, when we are instructed actually to err in the other direction, not in the direction of "liberty", but of love and concern for our own conscience and the conscience's of our fellow Christians.

 

[Shane Roach]

I got it from this:

In which case, I repeat, it is possible for liberty to be given too much weight and be exercised outside of love, yes. That doesn't make liberty and love mutually exclusive. I don't understand where you get that from what I have said. I merely suggest that too much emphasis on liberty twists the overall message of the Bible, just as too much emphasis on the law can.

I note as well that none of the scriptures that have to do with liberty have a thing to do with nudity. They have to do with points of the law concerning food or circumcision, whereas sexual sin has been specifically excluded in the New Testament from those things which are unnecessary for believers. Most importantly, the sign of a false teacher, among others, is that they involve themselves in sin of this nature. Jude describes for us teachers who are "foaming out their shame" and "walking after their own lusts". The motive? They have position and popularity in mind, so the Bible says, and I am reminded as I look at this that nudity and shame are often associated. And we have all heard that "sex sells."

Much more love can be shown by taking an interest in those who are in need than encouraging folk to engage in questionable activities of a sensual nature, I believe, and as I said, it just is too close to behavior we are taught repeatedly to avoid.

I think the concept of Christian liberty is being used a lot nowadays outside its original purpose, which was simply to remove the barriers errected by some that certain people absolutely could not be Christian without certain cultural trappings of the Jewish religion being adopted. There were people blocking the entrance to the family of Christ by false teachings, not people suggesting that we should behave with modesty in love.

 

[Risen Tree]

In which case, I repeat, it is possible for liberty to be given too much weight and be exercised outside of love, yes. That doesn't make liberty and love mutually exclusive. I don't understand where you get that from what I have said. I merely suggest that too much emphasis on liberty twists the overall message of the Bible, just as too much emphasis on the law can.

To state that we should have less liberty and more love is to imply that the two are opposites. Perhaps you only meant it for this case.

I note as well that none of the scriptures that have to do with liberty have a thing to do with nudity. They have to do with points of the law concerning food or circumcision, whereas sexual sin has been specifically excluded in the New Testament from those things which are unnecessary for believers. Most importantly, the sign of a false teacher, among others, is that they involve themselves in sin of this nature. Jude describes for us teachers who are "foaming out their shame" and "walking after their own lusts". The motive? They have position and popularity in mind, so the Bible says, and I am reminded as I look at this that nudity and shame are often associated. And we have all heard that "sex sells."

1. The Bible does not explicity advocate the equality of the races. So would it be unbiblical?

2. Public nudity was common in biblical times. The fact that the Bible does not expressly condemn it should tell us something.

3. The equation of nudity and sex is cultural.

Much more love can be shown by taking an interest in those who are in need than encouraging folk to engage in questionable activities of a sensual nature, I believe, and as I said, it just is too close to behavior we are taught repeatedly to avoid.

1. "Sensual" simply means satisfying one or more of the five senses. Why is this such a bad thing?

2. You imply that nudists are sexually disfunctional. This is false. http://www.naturist.com/resources/205_029.htm

I think the concept of Christian liberty is being used a lot nowadays outside its original purpose, which was simply to remove the barriers errected by some that certain people absolutely could not be Christian without certain cultural trappings of the Jewish religion being adopted. There were people blocking the entrance to the family of Christ by false teachings, not people suggesting that we should behave with modesty in love.

Right back at you.

 

[Shane Roach]

To state that we should have less liberty and more love is to imply that the two are opposites. Perhaps you only meant it for this case.

I suppose if that was what I had said, it might be true, perhaps, but I think I have specifically clarified twice now that all liberty is to be exercised with love, and have provided the Biblical verses to explain that.

1. The Bible does not explicity advocate the equality of the races. So would it be unbiblical?

Actually it does. The OT clearly states the foreigner is to be treated as justly as the Jew, and the erasure of all of race as a consideration is clear in the NT as well. Still, your example, even if it were true, seems to have nothing to do with anything I have said.

2. Public nudity was common in biblical times. The fact that the Bible does not expressly condemn it should tell us something.

I've yet to see anything to indicate that nudity was common, and have seen numerous references in the Bible to the shame of nudity, the explanations for which that supporters of public nudity have given having fallen very short in my opinion.

3. The equation of nudity and sex is cultural.

First, I am not sure that is true, and secondly, so what if it is? We are told, as I have already pointed out, to avoid even the appearance of evil, and to consider the conscience of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

1. "Sensual" simply means satisfying one or more of the five senses. Why is this such a bad thing?

I don't know exactly why it is so bad, I just read a lot in the Bible about not feeding the lusts of the flesh, and about the works and deeds of the flesh passing away. Perhaps that is something we could all concentrate more on. I think it starts though with concentrating on things that are more spiritual and turning ones back on the sensual. This is not to say that all pleasure is bad. The Bible, unlike ascetic religions, does not advocate self denial simply for its own sake. Still, there is an identifiable thread throughout the Bible regarding the difference between worldly and spiritual concerns.

2. You imply that nudists are sexually disfunctional. This is false. http://www.naturist.com/resources/205_029.htm.

I am not sure what I did or did not imply, but what I can tell you from what I have experienced both on nude beaches and in speaking to people here and elsewhere, that the general percentage of people that feel the need to expose themselved in public have ideas about sex and love and so forth that I find far distanced from what is Biblical. I'll confess, I didn't read your link. If there is something specific there you think I ought to know, post it or maybe pm it to me. I am not interested in going to a nudist website and being exposed to the very thing I have experienced in the past and that I am sitting here saying I find very suspicious to be taught as if it were a Christian value.

Right back at you.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think you will find any Biblical verses that tell me that I must accept any teaching that is offered, or that refraining from exercising my liberty out of concern for others is going to get me into trouble?

 

[Shane Roach]

The fairly simple question that I and others have asked that seems to be getting the silent treatment, again, is if all these examples of the shame of nudity are actually about something other than nudity, you still need to explain why nudity is such a handy metaphor for shame. As yet I have seen nothing at all on how you explain this away.

 

[Natman]

The fairly simple question that I and others have asked that seems to be getting the silent treatment, again, is if all these examples of the shame of nudity are actually about something other than nudity, you still need to explain why nudity is such a handy metaphor for shame. As yet I have seen nothing at all on how you explain this away.

Shane,

If you go back to my Oct 1. 3:33PM response to Clarity, I tried to show the "nakedness" was the RESULT, not the cause of shameful or sinful activity. In each case God lifted His hand of protection thereby leaving the Israelites or the church exposed (naked) to the wrath of others or Himself.


Revelation 3
Refers to the church at Laodicea's sin of complacency, not missing clothing.

From John Wesley's comentary...
"Gold purified in the fire - True, living faith, which is purified in the furnace of affliction. And white raiment - True holiness. And eyesalve - Spiritual illumination; the "unction of the Holy One," which teacheth all things."

Isaiah 47
Refers to God lifting His hand of protection from Israel.
Verse 2 instructs them to prepare to travel for they will be taken captive and forcibly "stripped" of their defenses and their honor among nations BECAUSE OF THEIR PRIOR SINS AGAINST GOD..

From Geneva Study Bible...
"You will be brought to most vile servitude: for to turn the mill was the office of slaves.
The things in which she sets her greatest pride, will be made vile, even from the head to the foot.
I will use no humanity nor pity toward you."


Lamentations 1:8
"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."
"Nakedness" here is a RESULT of Jeruslem's PRIOR sins against God, not a reference to missing clothing.

Ezekiel 23
The story of two "adulterous" sisters, Oholah and Oholibah that had given themselves up to prostitution with men of every nation as a metephore of Israel's "prostituting" itself to other nations. "Nakedness", exposure to the wrath of other nations, is a RESULT of the sin of embracing false gods and pagan rituals, not missing clothing.

Ezekiel 16
Same as Ezekiel 23, comparing Jeruslem's desire to mingle with other nations to "prostitution", not missing clothing.

Isaiah 20:4
This is not "willfull nakedness" ("naturism",the point of this thread) but the result of being forcibly "stripped naked", removed of all defenses, exposed to the wrath of the capturing nation, as was common then and even now.

Micah 1:11
Again, God has lifted His hand of protection form Israel leaving them exposed ("naked") to the wrathful hands of other nations.

Nahum 3:5
Talking about God's wrath against Ninevah for worshipping false gods.
Once again, God removes His hand of protection, leaving them "exposed" and without defense ("naked") against the wrath of neighboring nations

Revelation 16:15
This is saying "Be prepared. Get your affairs in order NOW. Accept the covering of righteousness afforded by Christ Jesus' death on the cross this very moment, because the Lord could return at any time, like a thief in the night. If we have not yet accepted Jesus' salvation, we are exposed ("naked), God can see ALL of our sins (our "shame"), therefore we cannot hide from His eternal wrath, as He is Right and Just to punish us."


As far as "uncover the nakedness of..." from Leviticus 18:6 etc

TRANSLATIONS
King James:
"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD"

NASB:
"None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD."

NIV:
"No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD."

AMPLIFIED:
"None of you shall approach anyone close of kin to him to have sexual relations. I am the Lord."



COMMENTARIES
From the "Geneva Study Bible Commentary"...
"18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to c uncover [their] nakedness: I [am] the LORD.
(c) That is, to lie with her, though it be under title of marriage."


From "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible"
6. "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him--Very great laxity prevailed amongst the Egyptians in their sentiments and practice about the conjugal relation, as they not only openly sanctioned marriages between brothers and sisters, but even between parents and children. Such incestuous alliances Moses wisely prohibited, and his laws form the basis upon which the marriage regulations of this and other Christian nations are chiefly founded. This verse contains a general summary of all the particular prohibitions; and the forbidden intercourse is pointed out by the phrase, "to approach to." In the specified prohibitions that follow, all of which are included in this general summary, the prohibited familiarity is indicated by the phrases, to "uncover the nakedness" [Leviticus 18:12-17], to "take" [Leviticus 18:17,18], and to "lie with" [Leviticus 18:22,23]. The phrase in this sixth verse, therefore, has the same identical meaning with each of the other three, and the marriages in reference to which it is used are those of consanguinity or too close affinity, amounting to incestuous connections."


From "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible"
Lev 18:Verses 6-18 "[font=Arial, Helvetica]These laws relate to the seventh commandment, and, no doubt, are obligatory on us under the gospel, for they are consonant to the very light and law of nature: one of the articles, that of a man’s having his father’s wife, the apostle speaks of as a sin not so much as named among the Gentiles, 1 Co. 5:1. Though some of the incests here forbidden were practised by some particular persons among the heathen, yet they were disallowed and detested, unless among those nations who had become barbarous, and were quite given up to vile affections. Observe, I. That which is forbidden as to the relations here specified is approaching to them to uncover their nakedness, v. 6. 1. It is chiefly intended to forbid the marrying of any of these relations." [/font]


From "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible"
"To uncover their nakedness - I think Mr. Free has made it highly probable, that this phrase does not mean marriage, but fornication, throughout this chapter. So it unquestionably means in the twentieth chapter."


From www.bible.org commentary by Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.
"Leviticus 18:6-29 has a very simple structure and message. Its intent is to define the boundaries of godly human sexual relationships. There are three of them, which I call the inner, middle, and outer boundaries of godly sexuality. Verses 6 through 18 define the “inner boundary,” prohibiting sexual relationships with close relatives. Verses 19 and 20 define the “middle boundary,” which limits sexual relations within marriage and prohibits them outside marriage. Verses 21 through 23 define the “outer boundary” of unnatural sexual relations. Verses 24 through 29 tell us about God’s judgment upon a nation that crosses these boundaries. They clearly tell us that God’s judgment for sexual sin is all nations, not just the covenant nation of Israel."

As you can PLAINLY see, the phrase is used to refer to "sexual relations", not merely the omission of clothing.

Son-cerely,
Nate