Topless Danes

[Angel4Truth]

If you are going to play the "if you don't believe that the Bible is universal and timeless, your beliefs are invalid" trump card, I would think that it is incredibly relevant to inquire as to whether you truly believe that the Bible is universal and ageless. So if, for example, you believe that women should keep their mouths shut on matters of faith and morality (See, e.g., 1 Cor. 14:34-35) and should keep their distance from other people during their time of the month (See, e.g., Lev. 15:19-30), then, however much we may disagree with you, we could at least accept that you really do believe the Bible is universal and ageless. If you don't believe such things as these, then we would have to conclude that you are no different than those of us who do not believe that the Bible was meant to be read as a timeless and universal moral trump card.

Seriously, you can't use a given notion about Scriptural authority to question the legitimacy of other people's understandings and then complain that it is off topic to question the sincerity of your own belief in that same notion.

1) women being silent in the church has already been discussed ad nauseum - application is out of context and has been shown and is off topic.

2) Im not who keep bringing up the off topic issues

3)Can we get a mod in here to remind members to keep this thread on topic instead of people consistantly ignoring points brought up and then taking it off topic? Thanks

 

[LightHorseman]

So you say that the Bible allowing slavery is an issue of context?

I say the alleged condemnation of topless bathing is an issue of context.

 

[dies-l]

1) women being silent in the church has already been discussed ad nauseum - application is out of context and has been shown and is off topic.

2) Im not who keep bringing up the off topic issues

3)Can we get a mod in here to remind members to keep this thread on topic instead of people consistantly ignoring points brought up and then taking it off topic? Thanks

.

 

[LightHorseman]

What he said

 

[Angel4Truth]

Moderators please go back the last 5 pages and read this thread in context - thank you

 

[stumpjumper]

MOD HAT POST

Let's address the post and topic not the poster or person. I would recommend that people look at their own posts and perhaps edit out those portions that are directed against other people rather than against the position or topic that person has presented in their post.

If you don't edit your posts and remove the personal remarks, we will do so for you.

Thank you.

 

[DamianWarS]

Id' also add to read the bible where Paul is clear about the modest aparrel women should wear

we can quote all kinds of verses but we need to properly take these verses in their context. paul does clearly state things like the "modest aparrel women should wear" but he also says we are to "become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some". This issue comes down to a matter of culture not a matter of how we think things need to be done. Paul's example of what women should wear is in reference to the culture he was in and also is an example of becoming all things to all men. We cannot just pull a verse like that out and apply it to any culture saying this is the way it should be. To avoid stereo types i won't single out one culture but im sure we can all think of cultures where clothing is very much different and in some cases we may even call "primitive". But because a people group doesn't dress like another people group doesn't make it wrong.

As I guy i will admit that women's breast are an attractive feature of them. I am also raised in a culture that puts that sort of sexual value upon women. If I am to become all things to all men I need to be able to step outside my "cultural box" and separate what is truly the gospel message and what my cultural idiosyncrasies are whether they are a part of my upbringing, denomination or whatever else influences culture. Once I am outside my cultural box I am now free to step inside any other culture and come a part of it because i recognize my liberties in Jesus Christ.

There will be situations where I am free to drink, smoke, swear, go topless (in the case of women) or many other "non issues" that always causes so much controversy but only when they are practiced in the right context. You need to be a very aware of your limits of your freedom in the context you are in and always above all show the love of Christ in all things you do allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you not your desires to do something.

If you don't feel comfortable doing something then don't do it but don't boast about the way you think and promote Christian arrogance. Showing love in Christ is always the most important thing we can do and will always shine above all these other things.

 

[IamRedeemed]

DamianWarS,

So then, your interpretation of what Paul meant by 'becoming all things to all men, that he might win some', was that he was advocating Apostles and Disciples of Christ to become as the world, even though that is not in alignment with the fullness of Scripture in the least? In other words, Paul was advocating for instance going to a bath house and committing sodomy that he might win homosexuals? Or going into a brothel and partying it up and bedding prostitutes, that he might win some prostitutes? Or committing pedophilia that he might win some pedophiles?

I realize we are not talking about those particular things, but if you are going to use a Scripture
in that way, would it not then apply in the same way to the things I named above and is this
what you are suggesting that Paul was saying?

 

[DamianWarS]

IamRedeemed i think you misunderstood the point i was trying to make. Some of those issues you brought up suggesting that I would see them ok in the name of the verse I quoted are things very clearly talked about in scripture as being sinful. I know that almost makes it sound like i contradicting myself saying this part of scripture is to be applied to the culture of the time but another is to be still taken seriously today. But then again there are some universal cultural ethics that you will find in every culture. I haven't found too many cultures that approve of pedophilia for example. But above all the gospel transcends culture and that is the point I was trying to make.

You need to be a very aware of your limits of your freedom in the context you are in and always above all show the love of Christ in all things you do allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you not your desires to do something.

Love is the most important thing you can show and if by your acts you can not show the love of Christ than you should not be doing them. I have read about very goldy people participating in bar ministry and doing really amazing things through God. No, not by standing on a bar stool and preaching but also not by sleeping around and getting drunk, but by "hanging" out with people and showing them that God accepts them. That sort of ministry takes a special person and so what if they sit down and have a beer with someone while they share with them about the love of Christ.

I do not advocate sexual immorality, drunkenness, homosexuality or whatever else you were accusing me of doing. But I do advocate love to people who are sexually immoral or a drunkard, or homosexual.

The verse I quoted was 1 Corinthians 9:22. But that whole chapter and chaper 8 as well are great in reference to our freedom with Christ. such as 1 Corinthians 9:21 "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law". We are still under Christ's law and we still need to show Christ's love in all things we do but if you are doing that then you are free to go into any environment and become a powerful witness as long as they are the desires of Christ not just desires of your own.

 

[Nadiine]

1) women being silent in the church has already been discussed ad nauseum - application is out of context and has been shown and is off topic.

2) Im not who keep bringing up the off topic issues

3)Can we get a mod in here to remind members to keep this thread on topic instead of people consistantly ignoring points brought up and then taking it off topic? Thanks

I agree.

 

[Nadiine]

IamRedeemed i think you misunderstood the point i was trying to make. Some of those issues you brought up suggesting that I would see them ok in the name of the verse I quoted are things very clearly talked about in scripture as being sinful. I know that almost makes it sound like i contradicting myself saying this part of scripture is to be applied to the culture of the time but another is to be still taken seriously today. But then again there are some universal cultural ethics that you will find in every culture. I haven't found too many cultures that approve of pedophilia for example. But above all the gospel transcends culture and that is the point I was trying to make.

Using that measure of calculating culture vs. what is "sin", we can take the predominance of cultures to say that casual nudity and partial nudity are also not predominant in the majority of cultures - esp. historically.

So by that, I think we can surmize that casual nudity is NOT the normative in the world - and ESP. full nudity.

Love is the most important thing you can show and if by your acts you can not show the love of Christ than you should not be doing them. I have read about very goldy people participating in bar ministry and doing really amazing things through God. No, not by standing on a bar stool and preaching but also not by sleeping around and getting drunk, but by "hanging" out with people and showing them that God accepts them. That sort of ministry takes a special person and so what if they sit down and have a beer with someone while they share with them about the love of Christ.

I don't know what all they do in those types of ministries - all I do know is that people with good intentions can still be witnessing wrongly, or putting themselves in spiritual jeopardy... I don't automatically look at self proclaiming Christians who are doing things in God's name (or preaching things in God's name) as if what they're doing is right & God called them to say or do those things.

People think God leads them to do things that I question Him leading them into. In the case of open casual nudity, I consider it wrong anytime. the principle of Paul's are very clear; namely in the culture it was given.

I do not advocate sexual immorality, drunkenness, homosexuality or whatever else you were accusing me of doing. But I do advocate love to people who are sexually immoral or a drunkard, or homosexual.

& so does any genuine Christian, this goes without saying. (the issue becomes what the definition of "love" is and entails.
Today, we're seeing a host of people at CF who are telling us that love essentially entails condoning & accepting what they're doing/how they're living. Also that just claiming something "is sin", is hateful and unloving.
Biblically they're way off & That's where it all goes down the proverbial toilet.

The verse I quoted was 1 Corinthians 9:22. But that whole chapter and chaper 8 as well are great in reference to our freedom with Christ. such as 1 Corinthians 9:21 "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law". We are still under Christ's law and we still need to show Christ's love in all things we do but if you are doing that then you are free to go into any environment and become a powerful witness as long as they are the desires of Christ not just desires of your own.

Are you suggesting they strip 1/2 naked or go fully naked to witness Christ to people in these environments?
I'd also bring up something here that I mentioned above, God does NOT call everyone to go witness where they think He is.

I'm the first 1 to claim liberties in Christ and attack legalism in its tracks, but I do not believe casual pubic nudity is any liberty in Christ - it's a stumbling block to the majority.

 

[DarkLegend28]

How silly. Would anyone here be old enough to recall a time when women showing their ankles was horribly immodest?

 

[DamianWarS]

Are you suggesting they strip 1/2 naked or go fully naked to witness Christ to people in these environments?
I'd also bring up something here that I mentioned above, God does NOT call everyone to go witness where they think He is.

I don't remember suggesting to anyone to strip ½ naked or go fully naked to witness Christ. And I don't mean to have what I say interpreted that way either.

I'm the first 1 to claim liberties in Christ and attack legalism in its tracks, but I do not believe casual pubic nudity is any liberty in Christ

I have never been to Denmark and I haven't a clue about their culture. I'm not qualified to say a blanket statement like that just for any culture.

So by that, I think we can surmize that casual nudity is NOT the normative in the world - and ESP. full nudity.

It may not be the normative in the world but i'm not trying to generalize the world into rules that I think are right just because its how I have been told to do things in my culture (see blanket statement above)

- it's a stumbling block to the majority.

Can I assume from this statement that if it is a stumbling block for the majority then it is not a stumbling block for the minority? It sounds like by your use of the word "majority" you identify different people groups who have different values or at the very least have different thoughts on this subject. Could it be possible that the minority in your culture is a majority in another?

When you engage in an act that causes a stumbling block the sin is not the act that you engaged in the sin is the causing of the stumbling block. (see 1 Corinthians 8) Paul says that we need to take caution with our liberties so that we don't cause stumbling blocks for those that are weak. But he does not say to stop what you are doing.

we're seeing a host of people at CF who are telling us that love essentially entails condoning & accepting what they're doing/how they're living.

Love (in Christ) is not accepting the act it is accepting the person. This particular act is not something spoken against in the bible (hence the discussion)

don't know what all they do in those types of ministries - all I do know is that people with good intentions can still be witnessing wrongly, or putting themselves in spiritual jeopardy... I don't automatically look at self proclaiming Christians who are doing things in God's name (or preaching things in God's name) as if what they're doing is right & God called them to say or do those things.

You're right but I'm not trying to promote our intentions, i'm trying to promote God's intentions. Its unfortunate that someone would try and take their own intentions above God's but im not suggesting to go ahead and do that. Jesus Himself hung out with prostitutes, drunkards and people considered immoral.

Is partial nudity wrong, if so why? God has made our bodies the way they are and so they are good. The reasons why it will be wrong is not because God is offended or because God is weak by seeing our naked bodies. It is because someone who sees you is offended or is weak. But what if no one is offended and no one is weak then where is the sin?

I am not saying this issue is right... or that it is wrong. I'm saying that because we are grown up in a value system and see certain acts as "sin" don't assume that other systems will see the same act as sin. In the same way just because your value system says something is right don't think that it is right in God's eyes.

 

[Nadiine]

I don't remember suggesting to anyone to strip ½ naked or go fully naked to witness Christ. And I don't mean to have what I say interpreted that way either.

K, that's why I asked the question - for clarity.

Can I assume from this statement that if it is a stumbling block for the majority then it is not a stumbling block for the minority? It sounds like by your use of the word "majority" you identify different people groups who have different values or at the very least have different thoughts on this subject. Could it be possible that the minority in your culture is a majority in another?

I was only referring to the majority of males who ARE hardwired to be sexually attracted to female breasts - they are most likely a majority.
I don't think a woman is stumbling just 1 or 2 men, but MANY in open nudity of any kind. Worse, we're ignoring the females (like myself) who do not in any way appreciate 1/2 naked women parading around our husbands. I think it's even more natural as women not to want our men viewing other naked women??

This whole issue is about "my rights" instead of a Christian thinking "what IS righteous". One stems from selfish gain for power of (excuse of) "equality", the other is concerned with what it might do to others.

When you engage in an act that causes a stumbling block the sin is not the act that you engaged in the sin is the causing of the stumbling block. (see 1 Corinthians 8) Paul says that we need to take caution with our liberties so that we don't cause stumbling blocks for those that are weak. But he does not say to stop what you are doing.

Frankly, I don't view casual public nudity as a liberty of ANY born again Believer (all the African pygmy jungle stuff aside which doesn't apply to us here) - committing sin/appearance of evil openly is an obvious stumbling block & should not be continued.
1 Thessalonians 5:22
Abstain from every form of evil (appearance of evil)

Love (in Christ) is not accepting the act it is accepting the person. This particular act is not something spoken against in the bible (hence the discussion)

Yes I'm aware of that, however the problem is that alot of people at CF displaying Christian icons are pumping us full of that rhetoric.
And it IS spoken against in the WHOLE of scripture - both by MODEST APARREL (ie. Adam & Eve knowing to cover themselves) and the example of Israel's dress customs which were modest, as well as common sense (and spiritual conviction) in realizing how men are visually stimulated... just for starters.
The reason it isn't normal by majority to go casually naked in every day life is becuz we know right and wrong. These are all indicators of what we know inwardly and know of God's word.

The NT use of 'Immorality' and 'uncleanness' & 'sensuality' would work to cover partial/full casual public nudity becuz of what we know.
(Gal 5:19).

You're right but I'm not trying to promote our intentions, i'm trying to promote God's intentions. Its unfortunate that someone would try and take their own intentions above God's but im not suggesting to go ahead and do that. Jesus Himself hung out with prostitutes, drunkards and people considered immoral

Yes He sure did. The ones He did not hang out with were the ones directly working against (in rebellion to) His truth & ministry.
He didn't hang out with scoffers & false teachers.
He didn't pat the moneychangers (sinners) on the back either... He rebuked them w/ righteous anger, turning over tables, cracking a whip He had made.

In any case, yes, but that doesn't mean God leads each one of us to hang out with certain ones of any one "sinful" bent/group. But knowing God's will for them is something we most likely wouldn't know.... until they probly fell into the sin later on. Not for me to judge that.

Is partial nudity wrong, if so why? God has made our bodies the way they are and so they are good. The reasons why it will be wrong is not because God is offended or because God is weak by seeing our naked bodies. It is because someone who sees you is offended or is weak. But what if no one is offended and no one is weak then where is the sin?

K, this has been covered many times. The main post points are Adam & Eve immediately covered up when sin came & knowledge of evil was made aware - they were not in public & knew to cover up anyways.

Men's hardwiring to be sexually stimulated by eyesite; showing more of the female (esp. a body sexual body part) leads to lust and/or focus on the BODY or sex. Focus is an issue.

Biblical example - we don't see casual nudity in the culture for God's people. God also isn't promoting it as common - in fact it's usually associated w/ shame, depravity, poverty, judgment or punishment.
Not as any good casual status.
In fact, in the OT., God explicitly commanded them NOT to do what the heathen nations did around them. Also, Paul taught modesty. Nudity does not fit into the category of "modest in moderation with propriety" esp. by example of the current culture it was written in.

I am not saying this issue is right... or that it is wrong. I'm saying that because we are grown up in a value system and see certain acts as "sin" don't assume that other systems will see the same act as sin. In the same way just because your value system says something is right don't think that it is right in God's eyes.

Yes I realize that & agree. But many people view sin as "good"...
& people here keep pointing at CULTURE as if culture is supposed to be the litmust test for right and wrong. As if the Danish legalize toplessness, then it automatically means its right for the Danes..

Exodus 23:2
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil;

I don't expect systems to embrace God's moral code whatsoever actually. But I DO expect Christians to be set apart to God & uphold what is good and moral in the Spirit of written scripture that we have & know.

I'm not shocked at what the systems do - they're doing what comes naturally to them as unsaved souls & we have to expect that; my disdain is more towards people claiming God yet morally you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from the unsaved.

 

[IamRedeemed]

[/size][/size]
K, that's why I asked the question - for clarity.



I was only referring to the majority of males who ARE hardwired to be sexually attracted to female breasts - they are most likely a majority.
I don't think a woman is stumbling just 1 or 2 men, but MANY in open nudity of any kind. Worse, we're ignoring the females (like myself) who do not in any way appreciate 1/2 naked women parading around our husbands. I think it's even more natural as women not to want our men viewing other naked women??

This whole issue is about "my rights" instead of a Christian thinking "what IS righteous". One stems from selfish gain for power of (excuse of) "equality", the other is concerned with what it might do to others.


Frankly, I don't view casual public nudity as a liberty of ANY born again Believer (all the African pygmy jungle stuff aside which doesn't apply to us here) - committing sin/appearance of evil openly is an obvious stumbling block & should not be continued.
1 Thessalonians 5:22
Abstain from every form of evil (appearance of evil)


Yes I'm aware of that, however the problem is that alot of people at CF displaying Christian icons are pumping us full of that rhetoric.
And it IS spoken against in the WHOLE of scripture - both by MODEST APARREL (ie. Adam & Eve knowing to cover themselves) and the example of Israel's dress customs which were modest, as well as common sense (and spiritual conviction) in realizing how men are visually stimulated... just for starters.
The reason it isn't normal by majority to go casually naked in every day life is becuz we know right and wrong. These are all indicators of what we know inwardly and know of God's word.

The NT use of 'Immorality' and 'uncleanness' & 'sensuality' would work to cover partial/full casual public nudity becuz of what we know.
(Gal 5:19).


Yes He sure did. The ones He did not hang out with were the ones directly working against (in rebellion to) His truth & ministry.
He didn't hang out with scoffers & false teachers.
He didn't pat the moneychangers (sinners) on the back either... He rebuked them w/ righteous anger, turning over tables, cracking a whip He had made.

In any case, yes, but that doesn't mean God leads each one of us to hang out with certain ones of any one "sinful" bent/group. But knowing God's will for them is something we most likely wouldn't know.... until they probly fell into the sin later on. Not for me to judge that.


K, this has been covered many times. The main post points are Adam & Eve immediately covered up when sin came & knowledge of evil was made aware - they were not in public & knew to cover up anyways.

Men's hardwiring to be sexually stimulated by eyesite; showing more of the female (esp. a body sexual body part) leads to lust and/or focus on the BODY or sex. Focus is an issue.

Biblical example - we don't see casual nudity in the culture for God's people. God also isn't promoting it as common - in fact it's usually associated w/ shame, depravity, poverty, judgment or punishment.
Not as any good casual status.
In fact, in the OT., God explicitly commanded them NOT to do what the heathen nations did around them. Also, Paul taught modesty. Nudity does not fit into the category of "modest in moderation with propriety" esp. by example of the current culture it was written in.


Yes I realize that & agree. But many people view sin as "good"...
& people here keep pointing at CULTURE as if culture is supposed to be the litmust test for right and wrong. As if the Danish legalize toplessness, then it automatically means its right for the Danes..

Exodus 23:2
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil;

I don't expect systems to embrace God's moral code whatsoever actually. But I DO expect Christians to be set apart to God & uphold what is good and moral in the Spirit of written scripture that we have & know.

I'm not shocked at what the systems do - they're doing what comes naturally to them as unsaved souls & we have to expect that; my disdain is more towards people claiming God yet morally you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from the unsaved.

 

[LightHorseman]

1) women being silent in the church has already been discussed ad nauseum - application is out of context and has been shown and is off topic.

*LOL* saying "out of context"... the ubiquitous refuge of the unrepentant cherry picker

 

[The Lady Kate]

How silly. Would anyone here be old enough to recall a time when women showing their ankles was horribly immodest?

If no such person here is old enough to remember it, does that mean it never happened?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Any chance for a recap? Has any headway been made in condemning the wicked, wicked people of Denmark, or are we still in the hand-wringing phase of things?

 

[Nadiine]

Any chance for a recap? Has any headway been made in condemning the wicked, wicked people of Denmark, or are we still in the hand-wringing phase of things?

OR,.... are we in the sarcastic phase where we just mock people?

 

[Nadiine]

*LOL* saying "out of context"... the ubiquitous refuge of the unrepentant cherry picker

it actually IS off topic - nevermind that in its context it doesn't apply either.
Nobody is Pastoring or leading here, it's equal debate. The teaching in those scriptures is to hold a position of authority over [namely her husband], not discuss in a forum.

back to our regularly scheduled program