Nudists and Christianity.

[Sheep dog]

And would the people who saw him with all his man bits hanging out there sin in doing so? If so, that would have been leading the people into sin. Does God do that?

Did Michelangelo sin when he sculpted a nude King David?
Is that "inappropriate content?"
Would it have been inappropriate content if he was depicted with a large erection?

I've noted statues with coverings on nasty bits. Doesn't that promote illicit thinking?

 

[JackRT]

I've noted statues with coverings on nasty bits. Doesn't that promote illicit thinking?

Only when you think of them as "nasty bits".

 

[Dave-W]

I've noted statues with coverings on nasty bits. Doesn't that promote illicit thinking?

It probably depends on the individual.

I have seen video clips of middle age and older women seeing statues like David where they are out in the public venue going up and getting rather "handy" with those exposed male parts.

But those who promote nudity say that covering up those bits make them more enticing to lust and sin.

 

[Dave-W]

Only when you think of them as "nasty bits".

Indeed. If God made us male and female (with those "bits" differentiating us) and HE called it "very good," (Gen 1.31) then those "bits" should never be seen as nasty. They are part of what made creation "very good."

 

[Sheep dog]

Indeed. If God made us male and female (with those "bits" differentiating us) and HE called it "very good," (Gen 1.31) then those "bits" should never be seen as nasty. They are part of what made creation "very good."

Unfortunately every good thing can be used for evil.

 

[Dave-W]

Unfortunately every good thing can be used for evil.

So which do we do: focus on the good - and glorify God in it; or focus on the evil - and glorify the devil?

 

[Sheep dog]

So which do we do: focus on the good - and glorify God in it; or focus on the evil - and glorify the devil?

Most focus on the things they don't like so they can tear down others trying to make themselves important or good. The pharisees did this to the max.

 

[Dave-W]

Most focus on the things they don't like so they can tear down others trying to make themselves important or good. The pharisees did this to the max.

Yeah, at least some of them did. (Pharisees were not monolithic)

But a lot of modern day Christian legalists want to do that too. The longer I walk with the Lord the more I do not like legalism.

Note: legalism and obedience are NOT the same thing.

 

[Dave-W]

Speaking of Pharisees, I had a very earthshaking shift in perspective over 20 years ago when God instructed me and my wife to go learn about Judaism at a local synagogue.

It had to do with the nature of what constitutes "sin." One of the categories of SIN in Pharasaic/Rabbinic Judaism is to NOT enjoy the pleasures God has put in your path. That was so in conflict with our Holiness background which stated that enjoying anything was probably sinful.

Rabbi Shub explained it this way: If you give your child a gift for Chanukkah or a birthday, you want them to enjoy playing with it.

 

[dayhiker]

That really puts God's gifts in perspective ....

 

[Sheep dog]

Speaking of Pharisees, I had a very earthshaking shift in perspective over 20 years ago when God instructed me and my wife to go learn about Judaism at a local synagogue.

It had to do with the nature of what constitutes "sin." One of the categories of SIN in Pharasaic/Rabbinic Judaism is to NOT enjoy the pleasures God has put in your path. That was so in conflict with our Holiness background which stated that enjoying anything was probably sinful.

Rabbi Shub explained it this way: If you give your child a gift for Chanukkah or a birthday, you want them to enjoy playing with it.

This was the unspoken attitude I was raised with. No wonder so many are turned off by religious (for lack of a better communicative expression) activity.

 

[Sheep dog]

It probably depends on the individual.

I have seen video clips of middle age and older women seeing statues like David where they are out in the public venue going up and getting rather "handy" with those exposed male parts.

But those who promote nudity say that covering up those bits make them more enticing to lust and sin.

People! are interesting critters.

 

[bugkiller]

Interesting thing about the 'stumbling' based arguments. Contextually they always speak of causing a weaker brother or a child to stumble. However, they seem to mostly be asserted by people who consider themselves strong in the faith. I have never had a week person or a non Christian "stumble" over someone being a nudist (assuming they are doing so in a proper place, not on the city streets). It seems to be the "strong warriors of the faith" who stumble over this one. The only people questioning the salvation of nudists seem to be those who should know it is not their place to question such things.

How can what is discussed here cause anyone to stumble? Each is here by choice.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I can hear the nay-sayers now:

"But America is the Godly west. Those other places will cover up as soon as they repent and believe the gospel."

[/sarcasm]

Only the spoon fed ones.

bugkiller

 

[Sheep dog]

So which do we do: focus on the good - and glorify God in it; or focus on the evil - and glorify the devil?

Good question, I guess. Some will answer it affirmative either way.

 

[Sheep dog]

Yeah, at least some of them did. (Pharisees were not monolithic)

But a lot of modern day Christian legalists want to do that too. The longer I walk with the Lord the more I do not like legalism.

Note: legalism and obedience are NOT the same thing.

Depends. Not taking about underwear either.

 

[Dave-W]

Good question, I guess. Some will answer it affirmative either way.

Perhaps you are right.
But why would a person who claims to be a Christian want to glorify the devil?

 

[bugkiller]

Yeah, at least some of them did. (Pharisees were not monolithic)

But a lot of modern day Christian legalists want to do that too. The longer I walk with the Lord the more I do not like legalism.

Note: legalism and obedience are NOT the same thing.

Great reason to become a hermit.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Speaking of Pharisees, I had a very earthshaking shift in perspective over 20 years ago when God instructed me and my wife to go learn about Judaism at a local synagogue.

It had to do with the nature of what constitutes "sin." One of the categories of SIN in Pharasaic/Rabbinic Judaism is to NOT enjoy the pleasures God has put in your path. That was so in conflict with our Holiness background which stated that enjoying anything was probably sinful.

Rabbi Shub explained it this way: If you give your child a gift for Chanukkah or a birthday, you want them to enjoy playing with it.

Every thing was wrong except work and church. No room for pleasure when I grew up.

bugkiller

 

[pat34lee]

Interesting thing about the 'stumbling' based arguments. Contextually they always speak of causing a weaker brother or a child to stumble. However, they seem to mostly be asserted by people who consider themselves strong in the faith. I have never had a week person or a non Christian "stumble" over someone being a nudist (assuming they are doing so in a proper place, not on the city streets). It seems to be the "strong warriors of the faith" who stumble over this one. The only people questioning the salvation of nudists seem to be those who should know it is not their place to question such things.

The strong don't stumble, they tell you it's wrong and why.

Actually it is our place as part of the status quo, to question
those crossing the lines. Either to let them know why such
things are wrong, or to find out why they should be permitted.
There is no excuse for public nudity for adults or most children.