Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well 2 can play this one easily:
"ya, but it doesn't give people the thrill of forcing others to have to watch them, what's the pleasure of it if you aren't shoving your immorality down people's throats?"
You don't see a problem with alot of things others do here... it doesn't make your view correct does it?
Go join a nudist colony for all I care - they have beach areas and all kinds of open nudity - heck they probly have towns & bars;golly, you could go shopping without tops on. woohoo!
LOL
Well, speaking of "roll to play"... would you want to see your mom or younger sister parading around topless?Is it really any less modest than a woman in skimpy bikini bottoms and a skimpy bikini top?
Or, and heres something for you to ponder, a case where "modesty" is not the issue... maybe, just MAYBE the women who want to go topless do so because they enjoy the sensation of sun, sand and surf on a bare chest? Maybe its something that makes them feel good, and the modesty or lack thereof has nothing to do with it? Now, sure, if people were actively flashing in the street, going out of their way to expose their flesh in intentionally seductive ways with the intention of luring men into sin, well, that would certainly be poor form... but is a woman lying on a beach enjoying the sun REALLY comparable to a pole dancing stripper?
Or could it be that context has more of a roll to play here than you are allowing for?
Actually Genesis 3 disproves this statement singlehandedly; nevermind the biblical examples of BEING CLOTHED (which go ignored)! Adam & Eve prove you wrong by their own actions once sin enters the picture.I honestly think the problem we have with so called lust connected to body parts is a problem the church created. By making the natural body sin and all the legalism and tradition behind it, it actually created the problem. It took away natural sexuality and replaced it with myths and taboo. It created a mindset that resulted in sexuality becoming preverted.
Legalism -- legalism isn't being against open nudity for your information.Again, in areas not effected by legalism and religious tradition, body parts don't make people fall into a sexual stupor. My one visit to Africa, actually with a church mission group, we came upon nothing but naked people. The only people affected by it were those in our group. They don't look at each other in steaming lust, even while naked. They actually have a healthy respect and strong family values with all running around naked. Having no hang up with the body, they used deeper reasoning when seeking a marriage partner.
LOL Back 40 jungle tribes are now our standard of example to copy. I've seen it all!Throughout history, these many tribes never had problems with lust, jealousy, sexual rage or rape crimes, until they converted. They were then taught the body is dirty, sexually bad and had to be covered. Family stuctures that lasted for generations came apart, crime went up over hate and jealously, ect.
That's just plain FALSE. Other cultures who cover up do NOT have Americas sexual addictions. This is a totally bias and false observation. I can list many normal cultures who don't have Americas sex addiction. And it isn't covering up that produces it, it's immoral people who want sex and feed off widespread pornography for starters.Many Christian, unbiblical principles, actually caused the problems with sexuality. We feel guilty over our body parts because of tradition and misguided teachings. That guilt is actually what has resulted in the host of sexual problems and crimes we have today.
Wrong again - what "biblical knowledge" have you used here but to look at Africa in some remote tribe and decide that since they go naked, it's ok.The debate that its' what "God says" over culture is silly. It shows lack of biblical knowledge, putting early church teaching that were used to control people over actual truth.
Well, speaking of "roll to play"... would you want to see your mom or younger sister parading around topless?
Personally, I have an even greater aversion towards the thought of seeing my blood relatives naked in public.
I wonder if anyone else does too - not just naked (or 1/2 naked), but having other people watch a younger sister or mom 1/2 naked in public.
Just asking (not that its any litmus test or that I expect much in the replies - & hopefully people would be honest)
Actually Genesis 3 disproves this statement singlehandedly; nevermind the biblical examples of BEING CLOTHED (which go ignored)! Adam & Eve prove you wrong by their own actions once sin enters the picture.
They immediately know they're naked and go get covering.
There were NO other people on the earth yet but those 2. It was the OPEN NUDITY they recognized. So there was no other audience to see them naked other than God, and GOD put the animal skin over their bodies to cover them up. (which seems to go unnoticed).
It's called DESENSITIZATION. But where in the bible are people seen going around nude? You always have to go back to AFRICA as if Africa has it RIGHT. Africa is FULL of problems - serious ones. I can't say that I look there to see the standards of right and wrong.
Legalism -- legalism isn't being against open nudity for your information.
Next thing you know, "legalists" are the ones who are against legalized prostitution and open pornography. In a liberalists eyes, a legalist is anybody who wants a moral restriction that they disagree with.
Please go do some study on what legalism is.
Adam & Eve had a "hangup" with the body - and GOD clothed them. So it would seem to me that the ones that have the problem are the ones going naked which shows an open rebellious spirit to what we know innately is wrong.
And this is the source of the problem - as I've mentioned before, the MAJORITY of the world wears clothing and knows to cover up their bodies. It is a majority and there's a reason for that.
Adam & Eve brought the same mindset at the fall (which we all inherited by nature).
LOL Back 40 jungle tribes are now our standard of example to copy. I've seen it all!
Ever notice how many kids they have - kids they can't hardly even support? Obviously the men are stimulated on a regular basis. (yes I know there's no birth control) - still, they aren't THAT "immune" to her body it would seem would it?
That's just plain FALSE. Other cultures who cover up do NOT have Americas sexual addictions. This is a totally bias and false observation. I can list many normal cultures who don't have Americas sex addiction. And it isn't covering up that produces it, it's immoral people who want sex and feed off widespread pornography for starters.
This is the liberalist approach to everything - just give everybody an "open season" pass on everything they want & let them have it to excess - that'll solve the problem!In actuality it does NOT solve the problem, becuz it creates bondages & vices that lead to others, AND IT'S SIN.
Sin doesn't end - and the flesh is never satisfied; we always need more to satisfy it.
Further, the dress code in America is extremely exposing in and of itself. The more skin they show, the more turned on they get; it would actually prove opposite your observation and proposed liberal "remedy". Until people learn self control here, (better yet, turn to Christ and repent) you will see the immorality continue or get worse.
How is it a CHRISTIAN worldview to say "just make everyone naked and give them what they want". God says we're to do just the opposite. The reason it doesn't work is that in order to start out your little "fix it program" with just going nude to desensitize them to the female body, there are rampant sexual urges and lust that it brings in the meantime until this so called "not caring about it" manifests.
So as a Christian, I'm to embrace this? And if I don't I'm considered "legalistic"? This goes against God's teachings and it's promoting sin and temptation and stumbling.How about as a Christian, you leave it alone? There comes a time where even the most zealous should step back and say, "well, it's none of my business..."
And by all means, call me a legalist! They called Jesus worse.
The difference being, Jesus was falsely accused. Funny how you forgot that...
Wrong again - what "biblical knowledge" have you used here but to look at Africa in some remote tribe and decide that since they go naked, it's ok.
Maybe, just maybe... the Bible doesn't have every answer to every situation. Just a thought.
Here's some biblical knowledge for you:
Genesis 9:23
But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father.
Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their fathers nakedness.
Noah's own male offspring wouldn't look at their father naked when he was incapacitated in the tent. There's a direct example that open nudity was not flaunted, it was shameful. And the son who called the 2 brothers to go into the tent & look at their father naked was cursed for it.
Daddy doesn't like it when the kids see him passed out drunk... imagine that.
The Corinthian church did alot of immoral things IN THE CHURCH and Paul had to reprimand them & set them straight - just becuz people do things doesn't make it right. Namely in the advanced, modern, technical age we live in - we aren't a pigmy tribe in the back 40 jungles - we've gotten a little more advanced to where we aren't spearing gophers for dinner now.
We're also not stoning witches and locking menustrating women in huts. Again... perhaps the Bible isn't always the answer?
We're also not stoning witches and locking menustrating women in huts. Again... perhaps the Bible isn't always the answer?
Um considering this thread is in "Christian philosophy and ethics" then the discussion is SUPPOSE to be on how CHRISTIANS beliefs correspond to this - did you forget where you are?Appeal to facts is more valid than appeal to your own religious beliefs.
Where? I havent seen one post that has made that claim.I've seen some people in this thread who already claim that their understanding of the Bible is absolutely perfect and infallible...
So, the fact that we are capable of bringing life into this world makes us inferior?
Did you forget what you wrote again? Your post was about making a private decision and my post was that the decision isnt private when it affects everyone else.Apparantly the people of Denmark have decided that particular choice need not be private... who are you to tell them otherwise?
And if it were just showing and no baby was present - think the same thing would happen?I saw a lady breast feeding in public with most of her boob showing. I didn't fall into sexual stupor, because I don't have all the traditional hang ups taught by a church.
Um, maybe you can show me which passage you're referring to, I know of this one:And yet David danced naked before the Lord......in front of people.
It's not cultural. And again, it isn't just OUR culture that makes breasts sexual objects, they are even spoken of in scripture as objects of sexual desire more than once. This is just basic biology and I'm amazed people are even ignoring such facts.Again, it's a cultural issue. No, I don't think our culture is ready for women to go topless. Frankly, I like the mystery of a covered brest. I don't want to look at most boobs. I think it would be a sin to show some of em...but's that's because our culture through religion made breast sexual items.
We CAN call it sin in the contexts being presented here for sure - I don't speak for the back 40 pygmy tribes in Africa, God knows their situation and mentality and what they know of His truth (revelation given them which would be alot more limited than here).However, we can't call it sin across the board, where other cultures do not have the sexual hang ups that we have. Were they put emotion and character over body parts.
With anything, once you drive a natural desire or process underground or into the sin pile, the behavior still continues, it just becomes perverted.
When you forbid the natural process, the result will always become harmful.
I'm not even going to go into this, other than to say, you probly took a good long look lol no?I saw a lady breast feeding in public with most of her boob showing. I didn't fall into sexual stupor, because I don't have all the traditional hang ups taught by a church.
I don't have a sister, but I do have a daughter.Well, speaking of "roll to play"... would you want to see your mom or younger sister parading around topless?
Personally, I have an even greater aversion towards the thought of seeing my blood relatives naked in public.
I wonder if anyone else does too - not just naked (or 1/2 naked), but having other people watch a younger sister or mom 1/2 naked in public.
Just asking (not that its any litmus test or that I expect much in the replies - & hopefully people would be honest)
The site is buggy, I'll submit first, then add just in case it doesn't load.
Ok it did post, will reply to your post later =)
What, specifically, about seeing another woman's boobs would ruin your day? Could you please try to explain this to me? I really don't see why seeing someone elses body is such a bad thing. I mean, do you find breasts aesthetically displeasing? Or does it just make you uncomfortable because its something you yourself wouldn't do?Alot of men don't get 'turned on' by seeing that by the way, a baby kinda "kills it" for them, however some do. It doesn't matter what you did or didn't do, the point is it shouldn't be in people's faces in public and I shouldn't have to be forced to see women's boobs when I'm out trying have to a nice day.
Um, maybe you can show me which passage you're referring to, I know of this one:
2 Samuel 6:14
Then David danced before the LORD with all his might;
and David was wearing a linen ephod.
He's wearing a priestly garment of linen there.... so he wasn't dancing around neked in front of people in that instance.
It's not cultural. And again, it isn't just OUR culture that makes breasts sexual objects, they are even spoken of in scripture as objects of sexual desire more than once. This is just basic biology and I'm amazed people are even ignoring such facts.
Men are hardwired to be attracted to the female body - that's top & bottom and even the female form itself. We shouldn't have to go over the basics of anatomy 101 as adults I wouldn't think.lol
*is this where I mention "stumbling" again? which is a sin to lead others to be tempted?
We CAN call it sin in the contexts being presented here for sure - I don't speak for the back 40 pygmy tribes in Africa, God knows their situation and mentality and what they know of His truth (revelation given them which would be alot more limited than here).
He'll deal with that.
WE however are not them. And if God considered it sin to get tattoo's, piercings, shaving the heads or beards, etc., then no it isn't just a culture thing when it concerns open nudity.
Nudity is NOT promoted in scripture as any state to be in casually.
Additionally, Amsterday legalizes prostitution & street drugs - it doesn't make that culturally admissible to indulge in just becuz they do it either. MODESTY is not open nudity.
This is just FALSE opinion - you cannot even prove this. If you were correct, then God should let us all just indulge in what turns us on; if we see it enough or do it enough or have it enough, 'IT'LL STOP BEING A BIG DEAL". Tell people that with food addictions - they see & are around food all day long - does putting MORE in their face turn them off from it?
no.
Additionally, PORN should stop this addiction too - just see women's private parts enough & POOOOOOOOOF, he's cured! LOL
We all know that's false.
I'm not even going to go into this, other than to say, you probly took a good long look lol no?
Alot of men don't get 'turned on' by seeing that by the way, a baby kinda "kills it" for them, however some do. It doesn't matter what you did or didn't do, the point is it shouldn't be in people's faces in public and I shouldn't have to be forced to see women's boobs when I'm out trying have to a nice day.
I don't have a sister, but I do have a daughter.
I hope she grows up secure enough in her own body image to wear clothes that she finds both comfortable and appropriate. I would hope that if she were to go out with friends to dinner and a movie, say, she would dress to look nice, and if she went to the beach,m then I would expect her to wear swimmers, pursuant to the fashion of the time. Now, if she went to a topless or nudist beach, well, I admit I might find that confronting, because it would mean my little girl was growing up and becoming aware of her body and cat's in the cradle type stuff... but I wouldn't find anything disgusting about it.
As for my mother, my Mum is a big girl and she can make her own decisions. Personally I wouldn't find anything particularly aesthetic about my mother topless, but, as I said before, I don't think this is an issue entirely about aesthetics, its as much about freedom and comfort. So if my Mum REALLY wanted to go to topless beaches and let it all hang out, good luck to her.
Again, see my comparison between women re;laxing topless in the sun, and topless pole dancers... there is a big difference in context. I would be much more comfortable with the idea of either my mother or daughter topless on a beach than I would be with the idea of them intentionally acting provocatively while topless.
I think thats the real crux... blatantly provocative nudity is not comparable to everyday run of the mill nudity... or at least, it shouldn't be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?