Topless Danes

[Angel4Truth]

Do you not think the things of God are for all generations?

 

[Angel4Truth]

20 When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"
21 David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD's people Israel—I will celebrate before the LORD. 22 I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor." 23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.

The fact is today we connect nudity with sexuality in everyway, but that was not such an extreme in early generations.

Lets look again shall we ?
14. Then David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod. (he wasnt completely undressed for one)
15. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting and with the sound of the trumpet.
16. And as the ark of the Lord came into the City of David, Michal, Saul's daughter, looked through a window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart.
17. So they brought the ark of the Lord, and set it in its place in the midst of the tabernacle that David had erected for it. Then David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.
18. And when David had finished offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.
19. Then he distributed among all the people, among the whole multitude of Israel, both the women and the men, to everyone a loaf of bread, a piece of meat, and a cake of raisins. So all the people departed, everyone to his house.
20. Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, "How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!'' (*she lied and was punished for it- he was seen by her through a window not in front of others*)
21. So David said to Michal, "It was before the Lord, who chose me instead of your father and all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel. Therefore I will play music before the Lord.
22. "And I will be even more undignified than this, and will be humble in my own sight. But as for the maidservants of whom you have spoken, by them I will be held in honor.''
23. Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.

 

[LightHorseman]

Do you not think the things of God are for all generations?

What? Like stoning disobedient children to death, slavery, praying inplace of medical care and genocide? All things endorsed by the OT?

I hope not.

 

[Angel4Truth]

What? Like stoning disobedient children to death, slavery, praying inplace of medical care and genocide? All things endorsed by the OT?

I hope not.

I would be happy to discuss the reasoning behind and the spiritual applications of all those things with you lighthorseman but not in this thread as they are very detailed and your issues you keep presenting are way off topic - so point me again to another thread where you would like to discuss them.

 

[LightHorseman]

You asked a general question, and I gave a general answer. No, the things of God are NOT for all generations, otherwise we'd be continuing such barbarous practices as above today.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Actually you listed a couple of things not ordered by God in anyway and that have no bearing on this conversation. Please try to stick to the topic.

 

[LightHorseman]

Actually you listed a couple of things not ordered by God in anyway and that have no bearing on this conversation. Please try to stick to the topic.

Really? for example?

How about we quite the tapdancing, and start again.

No, the Bible is not universal and ageless, things change with time, and things that were appropriate in the OT are not applicable now.

 

[Nadiine]

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.

Well when men at the beach are turned on by boobs or are oogling women's bodies, you wouldn't appreciate it as a dad then I'm sure.
But I was more talking about you being there with her or your mom or sister (blood relative) type of scenario.

Technically I shouldn't ask that becuz asking 1 person who thinks open nudity is fine is very likely not to mind seeing their own family naked either; which would prove no point either way (as to right and wrong).

I was just asking out of curiosity becuz I know my own inward aversion to seeing even my own sister or mom topless; it would seriously affect me in a negative way (for them... not an anger issue - a shame issue).

 

[LightHorseman]

Well when men at the beach are turned on by boobs or are oogling women's bodies, you wouldn't appreciate it as a dad then I'm sure.

See... I just don't think men do tat, not really. Sure, we'l see an attractive woman and think "hey, shes CUTE", but thats a long way from being turned on, or oggling... even if shes topless, again, context has a lot to do with it. I'm sure you yourself can look at and appreciate an attractive man without getting "turned on" right? Well, same thing.

Technically I shouldn't ask that becuz asking 1 person who thinks open nudity is fine is very likely not to mind seeing their own family naked either; which would prove no point either way (as to right and wrong).

See... I just don't think that basing morals on a first, visceral reaction is always the way to go... so sure, maybe some people, at first thought, think "no, my sister should never do that..." but is that reaction, in and of itself, enough to consider it immorral? Personally, I like to base morality on a logical sequence of answers to the question "why"? People's initial gut reaction rarely turns out to be fully appropriate on deeper inspection.

I was just asking out of curiosity becuz I know my own inward aversion to seeing even my own sister or mom topless; it would seriously affect me in a negative way (for them... not an anger issue - a shame issue).

I am sincerely curious about this. why? Why would you feel shame at seeing your sister or mother naked? Have you never shared a dressing room, or bathroom with others? After my experience in the Army, 40 men in a group shower type thing, that did a lot to kill any lingering sense of naked being bad or shameful for me, but growing up, I had baths and showers with parents, friends and even family, and no one made a huge issue out of it.

Again, I think thats the problem, if you make a huge issue of nudity, then it becomes a huge issue. If everyone is just quietly respectful, and sensible, then whats the harm?

You keep saying that seeing someone elses boobs would "ruin your day" and this sounds like a serious issue, I'm really curious to hear more about why? Seriously, so, you see someone topless, how does that effect you in any way adversely, unless you let it affect you?

 

[Nadiine]

Really? for example?

How about we quite the tapdancing, and start again.

No, the Bible is not universal and ageless, things change with time, and things that were appropriate in the OT are not applicable now.

This is why learning how to study the Bible IS necessary.

Yes she's correct; it is ageless and timeless and current for everyone today.
I say that becuz until you understand law and grace (the changes that took place in which parts of God's command system, etc.), you will not grasp what applies to you and what does not when it pertains to the OT and today. (which I've already seen you mess up a few times).
You think that becuz it talks about a mildew law that doesn't apply to you today, then you can just toss out the Bible as irrelevant and even useless. WRONG.
This is a study issue, you use it to pull a few verses out of a hat when you find it handy and useful for yourself, then dismiss it when it restricts or judges anything you dislike or want.
You basically make up your own Christianity by manipulating it instead of giving it proper study and sitting under some educated teachers to give you some teaching about it.

With that said, the PRINCIPLES, TEACHINGS, TRUTHS & COMMANDS of those biblical situations & scenarios that many not deal with you directly in a literal, relational way, DO affect you directly in how to conduct yourself PRINCIPALLY.

Let's take the farming/crop laws of the OT - do they apply to you? No. But God first taught crop rotation there which is extremely important in farming. The PRINCIPLE is taught that you should do this (but then, God made it law to establish it for them; they didn't know WHY rotation was important, just to do it).
Same with most of the dietary & medical laws - God first taught quarentining of the sick and to bathe in Running water - not stagnant water which is full of bacteria/germs etc. It's LAW then, but we know the medical implications of why today. We're talking 6000 yrs ago - primitive, yet the principles are vital to health & prosperity & spiritual health.

The NT spells out what the sin nature is and the moral law is reiterated in it from the OT. ALL moral laws of the OT are in tact today - they never changed and you will not find them changed (overturned/reversed) in the NT. (instead, the OT is the detailed listing of the general terms used to cover them in the NT: sexual immorality = ALL the detailed sexual sins in the OT).
Rom. 2:14-15 shows us that even without being handed a written version of the Law (becuz the Jews were given in to fully adhere to), the gentiles/pagan/heathen who DID obey the moral laws they knew in their heart were obeying God and it would be credited to them as "righteousness" in how they lived according to the moral law we all inwardly know.
All of us know pedophilia is evil, rape is evil - how do we ALL know this as humans? God's moral code in us.
Romans 1 addresses this as well (and even adds that people INVENT ways to sin and new sins to commit). And when people reject God's truth & laws, God eventually turns them over to their sin to commit it - they lose a guilty conscience over it & no longer feel it's wrong anymore; AND they approve of others doing the same.

This is why it's relevant today - the few things that may not be to you directly, can still be taken as an overall observation to learn from - plus many use verses that you would find pointless in spiritual warfare; it's FULL of information on how to battle darkness in it etc.
It teaches us some of the spiritual laws so we can know why things happen the way they do, etc.

And becuz you MISS all the important nuggets it holds, you think it's irrelevant and pointless except for a few things, "love & peace"....
What escapes you is that TRUE & GENUINE love & peace don't come without God's standards being applied by humanity; they don't come with SIN and disobedience as you see in this world as it plunges deeper into immorality and selfishness. One sin breeds the next & the further they get from God's design and will.

Until you sit down and study God's word with an open heart and mind, eager to learn from Him, you will continue to strain out the gnats & swallow whole camels (as it were). Missing the forest for the tree and that Bible will be useless except to toss out a few pet verses you like that support your worldview; but never forget, for the few you think you have, that many and MORE refute it.

 

[LightHorseman]

And becuz you MISS all the important nuggets it holds, you think it's irrelevant and pointless except for a few things, "love & peace"....
What escapes you is that TRUE & GENUINE love & peace don't come without God's standards being applied by humanity; they don't come with SIN and disobedience as you see in this world as it plunges deeper into immorality and selfishness. One sin breeds the next & the further they get from God's design and will.

I think you're coming at it from the wrong direction.

If you have love and peace, lawfulness will follow. You seem to think that by imposing the law, love and peace will follow.

Yes she's correct; it is ageless and timeless and current for everyone today.

So, you support slavery and forced abortions for unfaithful spouses?

and that Bible will be useless except to toss out a few pet verses you like that support your worldview;

if its all ageless and timeless and inerrant, than how can my pet verses be any less relevant than the ones that counter them? Indeed, if the Bible is inerrant, how can there be ANY verses that refute other verses? Doesn't Bible verses refuting other Bible verses indicate something other than inerrancy?

 

[Iskra]

Well when men at the beach are turned on by boobs or are oogling women's bodies, you wouldn't appreciate it as a dad then I'm sure.

Do you seriously think that men on beaches in Scandinavia walks around turned on by women sunbathing topless around them?

 

[Nadiine]

See... I just don't think men do tat, not really. Sure, we'l see an attractive woman and think "hey, shes CUTE", but thats a long way from being turned on, or oggling... even if shes topless, again, context has a lot to do with it.

First off, I think men DO do that- but even if they don't, it doesn't make it morally acceptable for nudity. (men's reaction doesn't dictate what is moral, God does).

I wouldn't necessarily "google" men's privates in any sexual way honestly (and let's face it, esp. if I thought he was ugly or had a disgusting body lol). But male nudity whether I'm oogling it or not isn't the issue, it's still inappropriate to be publically naked.
And in 1 way I DO agree with you (to a point - as 1 aspect), context DOES have something to do with it - CULTURE does not, context does. Context goes right to motive & that is what God knows & judges.

And yes, context may to some degree include culture, but that is not any license for open nudity of any sort when it comes to casual lounging in public.
Romans 1:18-32 shows us that people who are turned over to a reprobate mind CAN and WILL live in open rebellion and feel no shame - the conscience can be seared (desensitized/dulled to wrongdoing).

So even in cases where you lift up this notion of "it doesn't bother them any, so it's "right" for them", I can use scripture to point to that & say, 'of course it doesn't bother them, they're in rebellion and feel no guilt or shame about it anymore. Just like married couples who swap spouses are ok with what they do, etc etc. ad nauseum.

I'm sure you yourself can look at and appreciate an attractive man without getting "turned on" right?

Biologically, that's a general rule for females, yes.

At the same time, the attn. IS drawn right to the body in a topless situation; and namely when they're in nothing more but a skimpy bikini bottom.
It doesn't matter if you aren't 'aroused' sexually, the focus & attn. is on bodies which Paul was aiming at with his modesty instructions. The whole point was to draw AWAY from body & drawing attn. to yourself in general.

However, sexual arousal/non arousal is NOT the entire basis for what is modest or moral or not. The fact that nudity IS present, it creates the environment FOR IT - so you can speak for yourself and Armistead can speak for himself - BUT YOU CANNOT SPEAK FOR ALL OTHER MALES that you have no clue what they think or lust over in their minds.
Or what they do when they go home & are alone visualizing the women they saw that day, etc. That stuff you cannot possibly know - you can't know if it leads them to gain interest in pornography either.

Your views are on some (who you use to support your case), BUT WHAT OF ALL THE OTHERS?? I can find any exceptions to a rule - that doesn't make something right in and of itself just becuz some aren't percieved to be affected.

Well, same thing.See... I just don't think that basing morals on a first, visceral reaction is always the way to go...

Biblically, here's how it works: there is blatant spelled out sin given in direct commands (ie. forbidden as sin), and then there are Christian liberties we can engage in that are not spelled out as sin, but they can be sinful in the way we use them and if they violate our God given conscience individually.
1 Thessalonians 5:19
Do not quench the Spirit.

so sure, maybe some people, at first thought, think "no, my sister should never do that..." but is that reaction, in and of itself, enough to consider it immorral?

Actually you SHOULD listen to that, and it's the calloused world that 'conditions' you to stop hearing that inner conscience and just do whatever you want instead, OR try to rationalize, justify & reason it away according to the postmodern culture you now live in.

Your FIRST reaction (esp. when doing it the first time) should be your guide. That's where and how the Holy Spirit works is us - thru that vehicle. & it's the people who keep shutting off that conscience within them/that initial inner feeling we get that eventually just block it out completely to live how they want.
That's when God's Spirit stops working in them anymore and "turns them over" to the depravity they've chosen. They become the Romans 1 "reprobates" God stops working with.
When that conscience is GONE is when the person is in the most spiritual trouble - probly too far gone by then to hear God to turn around.

Personally, I like to base morality on a logical sequence of answers to the question "why"?

If we base morality on that, then kids have every right to usurp a parent becuz of how THEY view any given situation or parental 'order'.

The main problem I see with your statement is that you've shut God's word right out of your moral assessement process. Where is He??
Our human nature is corrupted thru sin, and you want to use IT to judge what's wrong?? I think we all know how good we are at justifying everything we do, including sin. (I DO, I seem to be an expert at it in fact LOL). I can "logically" turn anything I do into a well thought out excuse.

But what does GOD SAY?? To a person who's shut off their inward conscience to God's working, how are they going to assess "sin"? (much less CARE if they do?). And becuz they are shut off to God's truth, how do you declare what they do is "moral" just becuz they're ok with something?
It doesn't make adultery right; even if BOTH partners are swappers! It's still adultery no matter what recipee you want to make around it.

People's initial gut reaction rarely turns out to be fully appropriate on deeper inspection.I am sincerely curious about this. why? Why would you feel shame at seeing your sister or mother naked? Have you never shared a dressing room, or bathroom with others?

Yes I have shared one w/ both when I was still living at home w/ my family. And my initial reaction was "oh that's what she looks like under there" and I felt love for her (deep love in a sense of her vulnerability and uniqueness as my mom - and I felt awkward and some shame. Not negative shame as in "this isn't PROPER", but that she was exposed / the vulnerability part.).

Now, I can assure you that if in public, it would be 1000 times intensified and I would have shame FOR HER in that vulnerability in anyone seeing her that way. I would want to run & cover her to protect her dignity.
I am very close with my mother; to this day I think she remains my best and closest friend and I have the utmost honour and respect for her.


The way I feel w/ her open nudity would be the Noah story w/ the 2 sons:

1. Genesis 9:22
   And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
   Genesis 9:21-23 (in Context) Genesis 9 (Whole Chapter)
2. 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 father’s nakedness.
   Genesis 9:22-24 (in Context) Genesis 9

After my experience in the Army, 40 men in a group shower type thing, that did a lot to kill any lingering sense of naked being bad or shameful for me, but growing up, I had baths and showers with parents, friends and even family, and no one made a huge issue out of it.

Again, I think thats the problem, if you make a huge issue of nudity, then it becomes a huge issue. If everyone is just quietly respectful, and sensible, then whats the harm?

Well again I lift up the majority of all humanity - the majority do NOT go naked or feel comfortable doing so publically. THAT should tell us something right there. (hardwiring again). Ask WHY (as you put it).

Again, this started in Gen. 3 with Adam & Eve (and since I already went into that in detail, I won't repeat it all) - but the key there is that once they fell thru disobedience, the FIRST thought that came was their nakedness / their bodies exposed openly. They covered up their exposure and ran to hide. (no public around yet)
This is our makeup - of course people can be "trained" to think it's ok. Look at Radical Muslims raising their children to hate and kill 'infidels' - to be martyrs!
But it truly doesn't matter if they think it's right or if they're raised to be ok with it, IT IS STILL WRONG.
(that leads to a whole topic on God's revelation to man - what they know and what He shows them).

You keep saying that seeing someone elses boobs would "ruin your day" and this sounds like a serious issue, I'm really curious to hear more about why? Seriously, so, you see someone topless, how does that effect you in any way adversely, unless you let it affect you?

That's a long story probly -- but in general, I'm mainly speaking about being with my husband in those scenarios and I'm sure I don't need to elaborate on all the details of why I don't appreciate it and why I shouldn't have to be forced into such situations while I'm out trying to enjoy the day/nite.

If I was by myself or w/ a girlfriend, yes it would bother me becuz it's WRONG. Becuz of how it's affecting society overall. Just like you wouldn't be too happy sitting around a pool with a bunch of women in Amish garb pushing their morals onto you.
It isn't just the nudity; it's the message the nudity sends - the moral (or I would say, Immorality) is being pushed onto me where it shouldn't be..
It's what it represents that's forced onto me and onto society.
I see it as one more barrier pushed down so that the next one can be tackled.
That is what this is all about. When do say enough is enough? When do you know when to stop? the World doesn't stop pushing the envelope.

THAT is what I see, and it doesn't help me have an enjoyable day in my spirit as I watch social decay parading around in my face.
I'd call it grieving in my spirit - it grieves me deeply to watch what's going on today.
& No, I don't want to live in "Little house on the prairie" - but I also don't want to live in Sodom & Gomorrah either.

 

[The Lady Kate]

First off, I think men DO do that- but even if they don't, it doesn't make it morally acceptable for nudity. (men's reaction doesn't dictate what is moral, God does).

I wouldn't necessarily "google" men's privates in any sexual way honestly (and let's face it, esp. if I thought he was ugly or had a disgusting body lol). But male nudity whether I'm oogling it or not isn't the issue, it's still inappropriate to be publically naked.

According to the public... but I thought you were against what the world thought?

And in 1 way I DO agree with you (to a point - as 1 aspect), context DOES have something to do with it - CULTURE does not, context does. Context goes right to motive & that is what God knows & judges.

Then since God knows my motive is not to be lewd, but rather, to avoid tan lines, He won't have any objections to me going topless at a Danish pool, will He?

And yes, context may to some degree include culture, but that is not any license for open nudity of any sort when it comes to casual lounging in public.

Why not?

Romans 1:18-32 shows us that people who are turned over to a reprobate mind CAN and WILL live in open rebellion and feel no shame - the conscience can be seared (desensitized/dulled to wrongdoing).

And yet I see no reason to think that the people of Denmark are any less Christian, nor have they been rollicking in moral anarchy, AFAIK.

Perhaps Romans was referring to the Romans and not the Danes?

So even in cases where you lift up this notion of "it doesn't bother them any, so it's "right" for them", I can use scripture to point to that & say, 'of course it doesn't bother them, they're in rebellion and feel no guilt or shame about it anymore. Just like married couples who swap spouses are ok with what they do, etc etc. ad nauseum.

Ad nauseam indeed. You can't prove they're in rebellion to God, only that they're in rebellion to your own morals.

Biologically, that's a general rule for females, yes.

Stereotypically, you mean.

At the same time, the attn. IS drawn right to the body in a topless situation; and namely when they're in nothing more but a skimpy bikini bottom.

This is true... esp. when I see a cute guy in a swimsuit.

Perhaps the solution isn't to allow women to go topless, but to forbid men to do so?

It doesn't matter if you aren't 'aroused' sexually, the focus & attn. is on bodies which Paul was aiming at with his modesty instructions. The whole point was to draw AWAY from body & drawing attn. to yourself in general.

Because the body is inherently sinful and evil? Sorry, that's one of Paul's hang-ups some of us choose not to share.

However, sexual arousal/non arousal is NOT the entire basis for what is modest or moral or not. The fact that nudity IS present, it creates the environment FOR IT - so you can speak for yourself and Armistead can speak for himself - BUT YOU CANNOT SPEAK FOR ALL OTHER MALES that you have no clue what they think or lust over in their minds.

So long as you don't either...

Or what they do when they go home & are alone visualizing the women they saw that day, etc. That stuff you cannot possibly know - you can't know if it leads them to gain interest in pornography either.

Well, that's between them and God, isn't it?

There's a skit in the old "Benny Hill" show that always sticks out in my mind: The scene is a beach, and a women wearing an average summer dress is walking along the boardwalk. Hill and his cronies, playing the parts of lecherous old men (not much of a stretch) continually try to sneak peeks up her dress, down her blouse, etc.

In frustration, the woman storms into a changing booth and comes out in a string bikini, leaving very little to the imagination. the stereotypical "dirty old men" lose interest and walk away, now that looking at her is no longer "naughty" or forbidden.

I always thought it was funny because it was true.

Your views are on some (who you use to support your case), BUT WHAT OF ALL THE OTHERS?? I can find any exceptions to a rule - that doesn't make something right in and of itself just becuz some aren't percieved to be affected.

Can you find such exceptions to youe own rules?

Biblically, here's how it works: there is blatant spelled out sin given in direct commands (ie. forbidden as sin), and then there are Christian liberties we can engage in that are not spelled out as sin, but they can be sinful in the way we use them and if they violate our God given conscience individually.
1 Thessalonians 5:19
Do not quench the Spirit.

My spirit is unquenched... thank you for ansking.

Actually you SHOULD listen to that, and it's the calloused world that 'conditions' you to stop hearing that inner conscience and just do whatever you want instead, OR try to rationalize, justify & reason it away according to the postmodern culture you now live in.

Your FIRST reaction (esp. when doing it the first time) should be your guide. That's where and how the Holy Spirit works is us - thru that vehicle. & it's the people who keep shutting off that conscience within them/that initial inner feeling we get that eventually just block it out completely to live how they want.
That's when God's Spirit stops working in them anymore and "turns them over" to the depravity they've chosen. They become the Romans 1 "reprobates" God stops working with.
When that conscience is GONE is when the person is in the most spiritual trouble - probly too far gone by then to hear God to turn around.

So, our first impression is always the correct one?

If we base morality on that, then kids have every right to usurp a parent becuz of how THEY view any given situation or parental 'order'.

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER... except when your first impression tells you otherwise...

The main problem I see with your statement is that you've shut God's word right out of your moral assessement process. Where is He??

Closer to the situation than you are.

 

[Archivist]

She's stating that you cannot use shirtless men as an equality standard when you are not physically identical to the male anatomy. The 2 sexes are not physically the same nor do they visually react identically to the same stimulus. Male breasts are not viewed equally as female breasts which are sexual objects of arousal. Ie. comparing apples to oranges to make a case.

And nevermind this, you have a woman on a beach with nothing but a pair of skimpy bikini bottoms - how is this "modest" in any meaning of the term.
It's not and we all know it.

Until the eraly 1900's it was illllegal for either sex to go toplesss in most of the United States. The laws prohibiting male toplessness were abolished after World war I largely because men started ignoring them.

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post 511, which was as follows:

1 Timothy 2:9 tells us "n like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."

This clearly defines modesty in terms of wearing braided hair, jewelery and expensive clothing. It does not address what body parts a women should or should not cover. I assume that those in this thread who are arguing that "modesty" forbids nudity regularly style their hair and wear jewelery and expensive clothing, in direct violation of Paul's words to Timothy.

Contrary to what some have said in this thread, history shows us that "the ancient world seems to have had a more relaxed attitude toward nudity" (quoting "Baptism in the Patristic Period" by Everett Ferguson,
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/...1/Ferguson.htm).
We know, for example, that Peter stripped naked to fish--John 21:7 tells us "[n]ow when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea." Likewise we know that Bathsheba was bathing naked where she could be seen from the sorrounding roofs (2 Samuel 11:2).

In addition, we have to take note of the fact that Paul was writing to Timothy, the son of a Greek father and a converted Jewish mother. Being Greek, Timothy would have had an even more relaxed attitude towards nudity, nudity being common in Greek art and culture. Therefore he would not have equated "modesty" with "nudity."

A further example of this relaxed attitude towrards nudity in Biblical times in the fact that baptisms were performed nude in the early Christian church. Artwork found in the ancient Christian Catacombs of Rome show Christians being baptized in the nude (see http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/...1/Ferguson.htm).

Likewise, we know that it was (as still is) common for women to go topless in Ethiopia. However, that was never condemed by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, one of the oldest churches in Christiendom. It was European and American missionaries who tried stop this and force their western values on the Ethiopians. Yet today many African churches have experienced regrowth by restoring such cultural values as traditional African dress which had been surpressed by the missionaries (source: Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity).

The fact is that our European friends have a much healthier attitude towards the human body because topless bathing has become common throughout much of Europe. In my opinion, it would be a good thing for America to allow topless bathing for both sexes for this very reason. Contrary to what some have said (even when they rudly say it IN ALL CAPS), there certainly is nothing in Scripture that condemns such behavior.

 

[Archivist]

How about this:

Those who prefer clothed beaches go to them, and those who don't care about nudity or prefer to go topless can go to beaches were topless or even nude swimming is an option.

There. Problem solved.

On a side note, I've realized that people who are less worried about what other people are wearing are also often less likely to go all lustful and rightous. Perhaps there is something to nurture over nature in this case...

However, this is a matter of equal rights. What if I would rephrase your statement like this: "Those who are white can sit in the front of the bus and those who are black can go to the back. Problem solved."

That was common thinking among many at one time, and very sadly there are still some who continue to think that way.

 

[The Lady Kate]

However, this is a matter of equal rights. What if I would rephrase your statement like this: "Those who are white can sit in the front of the bus and those who are black can go to the back. Problem solved."

That was common thinking among many at one time, and very sadly there are still some who continue to think that way.

Equal rights indeed. Whites always had the option of sitting anywhere on the bus they pleased... blacks did not.

Similarly, men have always had the option of taking their shirts off at public pools... women do not. The Danes saw this as an inequality, and decided to fix it.

Please note that nobody is requiring nudity for anyone... I'll be the first to agree that there are many people, male and female, whom I think should remain fully clothed at all times.

But that decision is and should be in the hands of the individual, not some self-appointed moralist.

 

[Anglian]

Likewise, we know that it was (as still is) common for women to go topless in Ethiopia. However, that was never condemed by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, one of the oldest churches in Christiendom. It was European and American missionaries who tried stop this and force their western values on the Ethiopians. Yet today many African churches have experienced regrowth by restoring such cultural values as traditional African dress which had been surpressed by the missionaries (source: Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity).

Dear Archivist,

Good arguments. On this issue though I stop and wonder. The Ethiopians are overwhelmingly Oriental Orthodox and I would be amazed if their women ever went around half undressed - it is just so counter to the Orthodox ethos. The Orthodox take St. Paul's injunctions very seriously and the societies in which they are predominant are usually old-fashioned in their social mores.

Until the 1960s the Ethiopian Church appointed its patriarchs from Alexandria, which, heavily influenced by the Muslim society in which it has found itself these many centuries, has always taken a very strict view about modest dress for women (and men for that matter). Orthodox women have always worn the headscarf or other covering for the Anaphora, and I find it difficult to think they ever did that whilst bearing their breasts. Are you sure on this one?

For the rest, it is in part culturally conditioned; but most Christian cultures have taken the view that half naked women are part of the home life rather than the public life.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[IamRedeemed]

Love and peace only comes from the Lord. The peace of God comes from being reconciled to Him. And unfortunately having peace with God does not necessarily mean we will have peace with the world as the world hates God and hates His ways, as is highly evidenced in these forums even by those who confess they are His children. There are many who have exalted the second commandment above the first, so their understanding is out of order and is distorted as their understanding is flawed.

They told you that in the last times there would be scoffers whose purpose in life is to satisfy their ungodly desires. These people are the ones who are creating divisions among you. They follow
their natural instincts because they do not have God’s Spirit in them. Jude 1:18-19

There is much promotion of horizontal relationships, unfortunately much of this promotion is at the expense of the vertical relationship with God and at the elimination of the first commandment.
The Word of God says that "he who is a friend of the world's makes himself an ENEMY of God's." (James 4:4) Therefore, it is evident that there is a confusion as to what "loving thy neighbor" REALLY means.

The world's definition of love as is displayed in these forums, leads to lawlessness and ungodliness and all the things that Christ went to the cross to free those who will be freed from. It leads to folks making themselves enemies of God's. Jesus said, I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me. He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it." -Jesus (Matthew 10:34-39)

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit,(Ephesians 6:17),which sweeps across the threshing floor. It separates the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats. The thoughts and intents of the heart are exposed when the Word of God is spoken. As Jesus said, "My sheep know my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
John 10:27

I think you're coming at it from the wrong direction.

If you have love and peace, lawfulness will follow. You seem to think that by imposing the law, love and peace will follow.So, you support slavery and forced abortions for unfaithful spouses? if its all ageless and timeless and inerrant, than how can my pet verses be any less relevant than the ones that counter them? Indeed, if the Bible is inerrant, how can there be ANY verses that refute other verses? Doesn't Bible verses refuting other Bible verses indicate something other than inerrancy?

 

[Nadiine]

Equal rights indeed. Whites always had the option of sitting anywhere on the bus they pleased... blacks did not.

Similarly, men have always had the option of taking their shirts off at public pools... women do not. The Danes saw this as an inequality, and decided to fix it.

Please note that nobody is requiring nudity for anyone... I'll be the first to agree that there are many people, male and female, whom I think should remain fully clothed at all times.

But that decision is and should be in the hands of the individual, not some self-appointed moralist.

YOU are that self apointed moralist when you decide for others that partial nudity should be status quo for anybody who feels like stripping down.
I always love how people point at conservatives as if we're the moral police - when actually, their IMMORALITY is pushed with the same agenda in the opposite direction.

YOU are that person setting moral standards over others when you vote in the voting booth for things like this or promote them publically.
That means EVERYONE is a self appointed moralist in some way unless they live in a communist society and have no power over moral laws.

They fixed nothing except letting people see their boobs and it's no victory, it's a disgrace. God will deal with all this when the time comes. Thankfully I'm not responsible for other's immorality.