Topless Danes

[Iskra]

I hate to tell you this, BUT THAT IS NOT A SUPPORT FOR TOPLESSNESS.

You could use that picture to say bottomless/full nudity is fine too; it wouldn't be a support.

But you certainly don't look at her as a sex symbol or pay attn. to her body do you? So actually, she's doing the right thing even tho it's out of modern styles today.

& if that was the CULTURE back then when it was taken, why do you mock her now? That WAS in style at that time - isn't that what you're pushing here? To be "current" with the times as they change???

Actually your little stunt here backfires on a few levels and is no support for nudity of any kind.

Aren't you the one saying there is an absolute definition of modest? The Kellerman example was used to show that one thing that is utterly imodest in one culture/time/context might be very modest in another culture/time/context. If you absolutistic argument about modesty was true then Kellermans swinsuite should be just as imodest today as it was at the time the picture was taken.

 

[Iskra]

False, this isn't about ME doing it, it's about it being IMPOSED ON ME and my spouse when we're out and about anywhere it's legal for them to strip down.
/.../
A BIT WIERD AT FIRST....... that's called desensitization dear. wake up
YOU HATED IT at first - you didn't like it, it made you uncomfortable.

If the question is about you feeling bad when your husband sees other women, then this whole discission is a totally different one. Then we aren't discussing modesty at all, but your personal feelings and your relation to your husband. I am sorry if you feel uncomfortable on a beach, but that is your personal issue and nothing other people has to take responsibility for. Just like if I was bold and had a complex about it, maybe I would feel uncomfortable when my wife saw young men with thick hair. This wouldn't mean that I can force these men to wear a hat, does it?

You are aware that you as well are desensitized? One hundred years ago women could not show their ancles, since it wasn't modest. You have no problem walking in a long skirt but no socks, or do you?

 

[Iskra]

Do you honestly believe that God would be pleased with women going topless in a public pool area or on a beach?

That is not an argument. You might just as well say "do you honestly think that God cares what I wear?"

 

[Iskra]

One more post

I agree, lets desexualize breasts, so that my husband isn't fascinated with mine anymore, nor will he take pleasure in them in the bedroom... just so that I can feel the air on my breasts(or show them off to other men)

Parts of the body being seen as sexual is a bad thing now? Not in the proper circumstances.

That argument means that we should sexualize our entire bodies, why not? Why be happy with only parts of the body as tabooized sexual symbols?

 

[Tenebrae]

In Amsterdam DRUGS are good and ok.

In America, abortion - infanticide is fine and legal

Again, this doesn't hold up, and it IS in scripture - you guys just want to bypass it by ignoring what Paul is speaking of in MODEST APPAREL.
Modesty at the time he was speaking DID NOT INCLUDE WOMEN, or did it?

Did women in Israel go topless? you tell me

Infanticide is the killing of a child post natally in other words once the baby has left the womb and no I seriously doubt that it would be ok in the States. depending on whether there was malice and forsight I believe it would be first degree murder



Abortion is the killing of the child pre natally, in other words before the baby has left the womb. And while it may be murder it has been legislated by the government


There is a big difference between the two

 

[*Starlight*]

Actually, women breasts are sexualized because men are simple creatures and get turned on even when they think they see a breast... even the ones who are very good at self control... (sorry men, but you know it's true, you are simple creatures because that is how God made you in this way/area).

I really hope you're not being serious here. Because if you are, then I'm about to totally lose faith in human reason and ability to discern stereotypes from facts.... *faints*

But see, the point to me isn't really about what men want or what women want.. .the point to me is this... what does God want? Can you honestly and sincerely and deeply from your heart of hearts believe that it is pleasing to God for us to be publicly nude or half nude on a beach or by a pool?

Personally, I think God's indifferent to it. I don't see why it would be anything important

If God truly didn't have a problem with us being nude, why did Eve and Adam feel the need to cover up after they ate the forbidden fruit and heard God coming?

Because they wanted to be covered up, in the same way as some other people don't want to be covered up? People aren't clones, and like different things.. it's all a matter of personal taste.

Because we are called to holiness. Do you honestly believe that it is holy to walk around on a public beach or a public pool half naked?

Not any more or less holy than walking around in clothes.

I believe that God has called us to represent Christ... to be Christlike, I believe that because of this, we are called to a higher standard.

I think that being Christlike is about treating people with love, not about your style of clothing...

We are not of this world even though we live in this world. Living in this world does not condone or allow us to take part of the world's way of doing things like this.

There's no such thing as "world's way of doing things". The world is full of many different worldviews, and your worldview is one of them.

 

[Nadiine]

I really hope you're not being serious here. Because if you are, then I'm about to totally lose faith in human reason and ability to discern stereotypes from facts.... *faints*

In all fairness, I haven't seen very good arguments come from you by way of human reason either - nevermind scripture comprehension issues.

Because they wanted to be covered up, in the same way as some other people don't want to be covered up? People aren't clones, and like different things.. it's all a matter of personal taste.

No it is NOT an issue of preference. IF it were, then the cultures to follow would have all gone nude. Instead, historically PEOPLE WORE CLOTHING from this time on in the bible and in secular cultures.
Sorry, this reasoning doesn't float - why attack D'anns when yours has flaws?
Further, it was not Preference when you read the REASON they covered up and hid. You probly missed that. And Romans 2 explains how we know God's moral laws inwardly to do them. Everyone knows right and wrong becuz God has put it in us to know by conscience.

Not any more or less holy than walking around in clothes.

I think that being Christlike is about treating people with love, not about your style of clothing...

You "think" that's what it's about? Try the Bible. Is that how you're spiritually guided? Just by what you "think"? We don't follow feelings, we obey God thru His word given to us. (that's why it's called FAITH, not feeling).
And our conduct is directly related to love of others and God - SELFISHNESS (ie. lack of care) causes us to do things we WANT to do w/out considering others feelings or thoughts or pain - and without considering our witness as ambassadors for Christ.
Namely, women demanding "rights" to strip 1/2 naked - without caring of those they stumble or harm.
That is not love of others or putting them first, it's love of SELF, pride. Clothing says alot about us - so does the lack of it.

There's no such thing as "world's way of doing things". The world is full of many different worldviews, and your worldview is one of them.

Really? This is a Christian section, the Bible spells out that there is the world's way and then a Christian's way only. (try a word study on "world" sometime).
There are 2 groups scripture teaches about, the world and the Christian and they are opposed to one another becuz one embraces their sin nature and lives by the flesh, the Christian lives to God and 'carries their cross' - putting their sin nature to death in order to obey God while in this world.

Try reading the bible - I don't get or accept spiritual truth from your opinions, I get it from GOD which includes His Spirit within me and from His written word thru eyewitnesses who testified of Him.
Until you can top their Live testimony, I'll continue to reject your mere opinions when they counter scripture.

 

[Nadiine]

Infanticide is the killing of a child post natally in other words once the baby has left the womb and no I seriously doubt that it would be ok in the States. depending on whether there was malice and forsight I believe it would be first degree murder



Abortion is the killing of the child pre natally, in other words before the baby has left the womb. And while it may be murder it has been legislated by the government


There is a big difference between the two

I see no difference of infanticide and abortion. That infant/human being is being murdered - the location they are murdered in doesn't change anything imo.

But that is not the topic here, so I won't go down this road.

 

[LightHorseman]

It can never be murder if its legal.

 

[Nadiine]

That is not an argument. You might just as well say "do you honestly think that God cares what I wear?"

Actually, it IS an argument, since scripture talks alot about our conduct - and that Christians are 'ambassadors' of Christ that includes our dress codes.
Paul directly spoke on female apparel - and there are numerous verses on "nakedness" - body exposure which are linked to judgment, spiritual decay, shame, dishonour, etc. It isn't promoted in either testament as a matter of fact.
I'd still like someone to show me Israel going topless as "modesty".

But God cares about EVERYTHING we do - more importantly He cares WHY we do them. Motive of our hearts will be judged when we meet up with Him at the judgment seat.

 

[*Starlight*]

In all fairness, I haven't seen very good arguments come from you by way of human reason either - nevermind scripture comprehension issues.

Can you tell me where exactly I said something that's unreasonable?

No it is NOT an issue of preference.

It is. Some people (most) don't like to be naked. But some other people do. That's why it's a personal preference.

IF it were, then the cultures to follow would have all gone nude.

Why? That would be if humans were clones. Since people aren't clones, they have different personal preferences.

Instead, historically PEOPLE WORE CLOTHING from this time on in the bible and in secular cultures.

Yes... so what?

Sorry, this reasoning doesn't float - why attack D'anns when yours has flaws?
Further, it was not Preference when you read the REASON they covered up and hid. You probly missed that. And Romans 2 explains how we know God's moral laws inwardly to do them. Everyone knows right and wrong becuz God has put it in us to know by conscience.

So, everyone knows right or wrong, but being clothed or naked is a personal preference, that means that it's not a matter of right or wrong, but simply a matter of personal taste.

You "think" that's what it's about? Try the Bible. Is that how you're spiritually guided? Just by what you "think"? We don't follow feelings, we obey God thru His word given to us. (that's why it's called FAITH, not feeling).
And our conduct is directly related to love of others and God - SELFISHNESS (ie. lack of care) causes us to do things we WANT to do w/out considering others feelings or thoughts or pain - and without considering our witness as ambassadors for Christ.
Namely, women demanding "rights" to strip 1/2 naked - without caring of those they stumble or harm.

How does that harm anyone?

That is not love of others or putting them first, it's love of SELF, pride. Clothing says alot about us - so does the lack of it.

It only shows what kind of style a person likes, and that's good.

Really? This is a Christian section, the Bible spells out that there is the world's way and then a Christian's way only. (try a word study on "world" sometime).

As I said before, the world is full of many different worldviews, and it's a fact. Your worldview is one of them. You can even see it on CF... many different people with many different worldviews. And I don't see how the fact that this is the Christian section makes it any different...

There are 2 groups scripture teaches about, the world and the Christian and they are opposed to one another becuz one embraces their sin nature and lives by the flesh, the Christian lives to God and 'carries their cross' - putting their sin nature to death in order to obey God while in this world.

But every person is different and unique. It's not true that there are only two kinds of people in the world and they are opposed to each other. It's true that there are people who don't care about others, and there are people who try to be good towards others, but that has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

 

[Nadiine]

For the first, what in the world has drug use to do with sunbathing? You talk about apples and oranges, well here they are. And also (though it is OT) why always Amsterdam? Coffeeshops exist in all of Netherlands.

Well it appears you've completely missed the point. Let me spell it out again.
Since people here are pointing to other cultures that go topless and claiming that we should all be able to do the same, then they are deciding morality (right and wrong) BASED ON WHAT OTHERS DO IN THEIR CULTURES - rather than basing it on God's standard of right and wrong.

So if a culture legalizes street drugs, and you judge what's moral by what other cultures are doing (and it seems not to harm anyone & work just fine for them), then legalizing street drugs must be moral.

As a reminder, this IS a Christian discussion section (I often have to remind myself of that when reading posts around here)- so some of us do include God's standards & teachings.

As far as I know the Bible never defines axactly what cothes are modest. So modesty is in other words dressing in a way that is not sexually provocative. What is sexually provocative varies in different cultures, that is a fact.

K, this goes to what we already covered pages ago - yes it DOES define modest by way of cultural example at the time Paul wrote the instruction to the church and by the other written statements on nudity that appear in scripture.

WERE THEY CUSTIMARILY TOPLESS/NUDE? No they were not. They were covered up modestly which sets the standard
for what is modest. That means it doesn't include a 1/2 naked torso in public.
The problem is in reasoning. Taking this to "how much can we undress" instead of "how much clothing should we cover up with".
That's where this discussion goes terribly wrong and why the whole extreme "burqa" argument fails.
Using 1 extreme of people's hyper-modesty never warrents the complete opposite extreme of stripping naked. One doesn't warrent the other.

Since when did Paul state or imply that modesty meant going 1/2 nude and women to bear their breasts?
They did not dress that way - neither did the OT Jews.

Why do you judge what is right and not? Are you, from an american anglo-saxon cultural point of view the judge of the world? The Bible doesn't say whether or not all people all over the world in all contexts are supposed to loose their senses over a pair of boobs, or does it?

I'd start by asking, why DON'T you judge what is right and not?! We're called to discern good and evil and be on guard. We don't just 'shut down' and go on auto pilot as Christians & take holidays & go with the flow of culture.
God tells us that we're in spiritual battle every single day with an enemy seeking to wipe us out along with our faith.

That seems to be the problem I'm seeing today; people's casual attitudes towards faith and God. I personally find it extremely apathetic.

But... who's "losing their senses over a pair of boobs"? sorry I don't get your point here?.

 

[LightHorseman]

Nadiine... Many people simply don't believe that the Bible is necesarily anything to do with "God's standards of right and wrong"... even the Christians amongst us. Personally, I think God's standards of right and wrong are entirely encapsulated by Jesus' new comandment... which failed to mention nudity in any way.

I asked in a different thread for you to clarify something for me... do you believe that the Bible in general, and the writings of Paul in particular, are the drect "word of God", and literally inerrant?

I'd start by asking, why DON'T you judge what is right and not?!

Pretty sure that Jesus said something about "Judge not, lest you be judged"? Vengeance is the lords alone, and let him without sin cast the first stone? I might be wrong, but they seem like a fairly good place to start when explaining why we shouldn't judge others, especially about arbitrary stuff like boobs.

 

[The Lady Kate]

from post 378
Karisma:
I don't have a right NOT to see boobs when I'm out in public?

Can you point to anything in the Constitution which would say you did?

If that's the case, then none of us have any right Not to see people's genitals in our faces either. In that case, everybody should be forced to have nudity anywhere and everywhere in public.

Now how do you go from "not having the right not to..." to mandatory nudity? Is there no such thing as "choice" in your world?

This is one of the most bizarre statements I've read in a long time (and I've seen plenty).

One of the more bizarre ones you've written as well, FWIW.

And since I read that you stated you smoked pot and find nothing wrong it it, I see no point in continuing w/ you further. The bible is clear on drug taking (pharmakia) as well.

Swallow an Aspirin = burn in hell?

But, hey, to many they don't care what it says anyways.

I care a whole lot about what it doesn't say... how about you?

 

[The Lady Kate]

But see, the point to me isn't really about what men want or what women want.. .the point to me is this... what does God want? Can you honestly and sincerely and deeply from your heart of hearts believe that it is pleasing to God for us to be publicly nude or half nude on a beach or by a pool?

How long has God been ashamed of His own handiwork? Of His own image?

If God truly didn't have a problem with us being nude, why did Eve and Adam feel the need to cover up after they ate the forbidden fruit and heard God coming?

In literature... and we must concede that the Bible is a literary work... nudity is often used symbolically... someone naked has "nothing to hide" in every sense of the word. Such was the condition of Adam and Eve pre-Apple.

Of course, once they tasted the fruit, they attempted (in vain) to hide their disobedience. Of course, symbolically speaking, a stratigically-placed fig leaf and ducking behind some shrubbery is no match for a God who sees all and knows all, is it?

There's a lesson to be learned in that... you can't hide anything from God.... so don't even try.

 

[drstevej]

How long has God been ashamed of His own handiwork? Of His own image?



In literature... and we must concede that the Bible is a literary work... nudity is often used symbolically... someone naked has "nothing to hide" in every sense of the word. Such was the condition of Adam and Eve pre-Apple.

Of course, once they tasted the fruit, they attempted (in vain) to hide their disobedience. Of course, symbolically speaking, a stratigically-placed fig leaf and ducking behind some shrubbery is no match for a God who sees all and knows all, is it?

There's a lesson to be learned in that... you can't hide anything from God.... so don't even try.

Proverbs 11:22, As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Proverbs 11:22, As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

Are you interpreting "discretion" to mean "sufficient clothing to satisfy the public mores"?

 

[drstevej]

Are you interpreting "discretion" to mean "sufficient clothing to satisfy the public mores"?

Would you enjoy visiting a nude retirement center or nude day care center?

 

[LightHorseman]

actually I've been to quite a few childcare centres and play areas where very young children are frequently topless (which is, after all, the topic) and even a few where nudity of the very young is acceptible.

Personally I think the only reason to expect children (who we look at asexually) to be covered up is to protect them from the elements. Anyone who finds something distasteful or suggestive about a 2 year old running around without a shirt on has got some issues that warrant professional intervention

ditto I'd feel uncomfortable about anyone wndering around a retirement centre on the look out for sexually suggestive poses, be the elder person in question fully clothed or not

 

[Angel4Truth]

Nadiine... Many people simply don't believe that the Bible is necesarily anything to do with "God's standards of right and wrong"... even the Christians amongst us. Personally, I think God's standards of right and wrong are entirely encapsulated by Jesus' new comandment... which failed to mention nudity in any way.

I wonder why one could believe the commandment of Christ yet not believe the rest ... if the bible isnt the standard of anything for a christian how would they know how or what makes them a christian?

I asked in a different thread for you to clarify something for me... do you believe that the Bible in general, and the writings of Paul in particular, are the drect "word of God", and literally inerrant?Pretty sure that Jesus said something about "Judge not, lest you be judged"? Vengeance is the lords alone, and let him without sin cast the first stone? I might be wrong, but they seem like a fairly good place to start when explaining why we shouldn't judge others, especially about arbitrary stuff like boobs.

Judge not yet ye be judged by the same measure you use - people conveiniently leave that part off - if the word of God is the measure being used (instead of ones own thoughts) there isnt a problem is there since its Gods measure we will be judged by when we stand before Him.