Topless women have equal rights!

[timothyu]

I was naked and you clothed me....

Is that how we were when He said it was good.. clothed? We decided differently so He clothed us. There was probably a shortage of fig leaves outside the Garden.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

We should care that laws in our society are based in Bible principles and common sense- or we'll be endorsing the public shame of nakedness like you are doing or be requiring unrealistic oppressive standards like the Saudi Arabians do.

How do you think societies get to "unrealistic oppressive standards" ?

They get there by having a fundamentalist minority sticking their perceived morals to others bit by bit.

You have whatever right if you ever go to beach to wear burka for decency whatever you are male or female. You have zero right to demand others wear it while feeling morally superior for holding your understanding of faith as superior to others.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The "lines" are not to be drawn by society, nor with any of society's influence.

Yahuweh (The Creator) has stated the truth. It is sufficient and enough, and disregards pernicious rebellious flesh and society.

Ever think about how already you are constrained here in these forums at what you can say by the society (moderators in this instance) whatever you think of as truth.

We live in a society with a set of norms. If you think you are somehow outside of it with your pure faith you are deluded.

 

[timothyu]

The way of the world of man has always been oppression. Jesus' fans were the oppressed but certainly not the oppressors.

 

[ajcarey]

How do you think societies get to "unrealistic oppressive standards" ?

They get there by having a fundamentalist minority sticking their perceived morals to others bit by bit.

You have whatever right if you ever go to beach to wear burka for decency whatever you are male or female. You have zero right to demand others wear it while feeling morally superior for holding your understanding of faith as superior to others.

You have zero right to show your private parts in public and you have zero right to demand that others tolerate this. It is a form of oppression and a form of rape by forcing your sexuality on others. Any society that isn't entirely gone into perversion will legislate against this and punish those who do this. And even if society fails to do this, God will surely cast those into hell who forsake the proper modesty and discretion that His Law which is written on every man's heart, and nature itself, bears witness to. The Bible uses the term "uncover the nakedness" to imply sexual relations; and for one to uncover their nakedness publicly is making a public sexual display of enticement and essentially demanding others put up with this- this is rightly termed public lewdness. And you are using the strawman of Islamic standards to justify public lewdness. What a shame! And you and the others who are advocating that others put up with public lewdness are the ones considering yourself morally superior to others, as if you are enlightened to do something which most societies throughout history, and every society influenced by righteous Judeo-Christian morality, have condemned as immoral and a threat to the public well-being. You're not going to improve upon Biblical moral standards; and any and all who think they can are the self-righteous ones who consider themselves morally superior to those who look to Biblical standards to determine what is morally right.

Isaiah 5:20-24 "20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! 22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: 23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! 24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel."

 

[ajcarey]

Ever think about how already you are constrained here in these forums at what you can say by the society (moderators in this instance) whatever you think of as truth.

We live in a society with a set of norms. If you think you are somehow outside of it with your pure faith you are deluded.

Your own post here bears witness that it's proper that public nudity be legislated against and that those who think they should not be bound by the norm of clothing over the private parts because of their false concepts of liberty are deluded.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ever think about how already you are constrained here in these forums at what you can say by the society (moderators in this instance) whatever you think of as truth.

We live in a society with a set of norms. If you think you are somehow outside of it with your pure faith you are deluded.

The "norms" of society are sinful, opposed to Yahuweh, like the religious practices of most 'churches' I think you are aware of and know about.

Jesus was in the world, but not of the world.
I'm with Him, 'with pure faith', not polluted or abominable beliefs of the world or of society.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm concerned about Biblical standards; and you ought to know that societies aren't God and any society which allows public nudity is a heathen society,

When Peter was fishing and the Risen Lord saw him and the other disciples fishing, if you read the text correctly, you will understand Peter was buck naked in the boat. No big deal. So you are saying the disciples were a heathen society?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When Peter was fishing and the Risen Lord saw him and the other disciples fishing, if you read the text correctly, you will understand Peter was buck naked in the boat. No big deal. So you are saying the disciples were a heathen society?

Encouraging sin to many readers who might already be inclined to sin (for pleasure or whatever reason), might lead to severe judgement.

 

[Dave-W]

Encouraging sin to many readers who might already be inclined to sin (for pleasure or whatever reason), might lead to severe judgement.

If it was sinful, would not the Risen Lord have corrected him on his clothing?

Since HE did not, who are we to say it was sinful?

 

[JackRT]

Ancient Hebrew/Jewish society was extremely prudish even to the point that they lacked names for sexual body parts and functions. They compensated by the use of euphemisms like "thigh" for sexual organs or "he knew her" to refer to sexual intercourse. At the same time they were a very earthy society with frequent marital relations being almost mandatory. In addition to all this they were an intensely patriarchal society that controlled female sexuality from cradle to grave. For the man sexual intercourse outside of marriage was overlooked so long as it did not compromise the bride price of a virgin daughter or total ownership of another man's wife. It was a society of many contradictions. I suppose the closest modern equivalent might be a tribal Muslim society in the hill country of Afghanistan.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If it was sinful, would not the Risen Lord have corrected him on his clothing?

Since HE did not, who are we to say it was sinful?

Again,
trying in vain or in actuality to approve of and potentially leading others to sin with
an example that is not applicable today to probably anyone now reading
is sinful. It might not matter much if most readers are already living in sin, but still, I think that
it would be best not to promote sin...
...or worse maybe, to cause men and women weak in faith, or children who don't know better , to stumble .....

 

[ajcarey]

When Peter was fishing and the Risen Lord saw him and the other disciples fishing, if you read the text correctly, you will understand Peter was buck naked in the boat. No big deal. So you are saying the disciples were a heathen society?

Peter was not totally naked, only so in comparison to how he would have dressed out in public. And even if he was, though he wasn't, he was out in a boat in the middle of the sea with only straight men and fishes around him before the Lord called to him from land. And did you not read that he put on his fisher's coat and thus covered his whole body when He approached the Lord and went back onto land??? Where would the public nakedness be here? This passage actually shows that Peter's mindset was against the acceptability of this and that he considered being publicly naked himself unthinkable..

This is similar to what happened in Acts chapter 12 when Peter escaped from prison. Look at how Peter was directed by the angel of the Lord to fully clothe himself, though he was obviously not totally unclothed as it was.

Acts 12:6-8 "And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison. And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me."

Some here though think the angel of the Lord was constraining Peter to do something unnecessary and oppressive. They can plead it with God on Judgment Day when they are exposed as bankrupt and naked spiritually and morally before Him, and as rebels against His right ways.

"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." (Revelation 16:15)

 

[ajcarey]

Ancient Hebrew/Jewish society was extremely prudish even to the point that they lacked names for sexual body parts and functions. They compensated by the use of euphemisms like "thigh" for sexual organs or "he knew her" to refer to sexual intercourse. At the same time they were a very earthy society with frequent marital relations being almost mandatory. In addition to all this they were an intensely patriarchal society that controlled female sexuality from cradle to grave. For the man sexual intercourse outside of marriage was overlooked so long as it did not compromise the bride price of a virgin daughter or total ownership of another man's wife. It was a society of many contradictions. I suppose the closest modern equivalent might be a tribal Muslim society in the hill country of Afghanistan.

God's Law did not overlook sexual intercourse in males outside of marriage in any context. You are making this up and cannot prove it. What you call prudish is either proper according to God or you looking for accusation against God's Law so you can speak ill of it. The Bible over and over teaches the Headship of the male over the female, but that there was patriarchal control of a female's sexuality is a lie unless you are implying promiscuity is acceptable. Women under God's Law had a choice on whether they married and over who they married. You speak as if women were forced into marriage and that was not so. And then to profess to be a Christian while comparing Israel's society under God's Law to a tribal Muslim society in the hill country of Afghanistan is utterly contradictory and ridiculous. Why do you call yourself a Christian at all when the very term implies you are a follower of the One who gave the Law through Moses?

 

[JackRT]

Ancient Hebrew/Jewish society was extremely prudish even to the point that they lacked names for sexual body parts and functions. They compensated by the use of euphemisms like "thigh" for sexual organs or "he knew her" to refer to sexual intercourse. At the same time they were a very earthy society with frequent marital relations being almost mandatory. In addition to all this they were an intensely patriarchal society that controlled female sexuality from cradle to grave. For the man sexual intercourse outside of marriage was overlooked so long as it did not compromise the bride price of a virgin daughter or total ownership of another man's wife. It was a society of many contradictions. I suppose the closest modern equivalent might be a tribal Muslim society in the hill country of Afghanistan.

God's Law did not overlook sexual intercourse in males outside of marriage in any context. You are making this up and cannot prove it. What you call prudish is either proper according to God or you looking for accusation against God's Law so you can speak ill of it. The Bible over and over teaches the Headship of the male over the female, but that there was patriarchal control of a female's sexuality is a lie unless you are implying promiscuity is acceptable. Women under God's Law had a choice on whether they married and over who they married. You speak as if women were forced into marriage and that was not so. And then to profess to be a Christian while comparing Israel's society under God's Law to a tribal Muslim society in the hill country of Afghanistan is utterly contradictory and ridiculous. Why do you call yourself a Christian at all when the very term implies you are a follower of the One who gave the Law through Moses?

To me being a Christian does not involve rejecting historical evidence or even looking at it through rose coloured glasses.

 

[Sam91]

To me being a Christian does not involve rejecting historical evidence or even looking at it through rose coloured glasses.

Too right. Some fairly recent UK history.

Historical Analysis: Women as the "the Sex" During the Victorian Era

 

[JackRT]

Too right. Some fairly recent UK history.

Historical Analysis: Women as the "the Sex" During the Victorian Era

Thanks for posting that analysis of sexuality in the Victorian era. It is virtually indistinguishable from the patriarchy of the early Christian era as supported by the Greek philosophy of dualism.

 

[ajcarey]

To me being a Christian does not involve rejecting historical evidence or even looking at it through rose coloured glasses.

According to God and the Bible being a Christian means accepting and subjecting yourself to the Bible; and believing that any supposed problems with the Bible can be cleared up and the judgments therein vindicated as far as what God does and says therein upon closer inspection and better understanding. And it sure means believing that the true God of Israel would set up a better society with better laws than the deluded Mohammedans have. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God and the Word of God means believing that He is the Word (which includes the Law of Moses) made flesh, that his Father is the God who gave the Law to Moses, and that He is the Lamb of God who is the perfect atonement for sin (which He would not be if the Law of God was in anyway errant or could be improved upon in anyway). Otherwise you don't believe in the God of Israel and your jesus therefore is not the Jesus of the Bible.

I still don't see where males in the Bible are entitled to fornicate in any circumstance; and the patriarchy the Bible prescribes is one where the male is given a heavy responsibility to love, serve, and care well for his wife. There were judges set up in ancient Israel for (truly) oppressed and/or neglected women to appeal to. The very same judges who had a responsibility to flog (or worse) miscreants who practiced and/or promoted lasciviousness through public nudity and/or other means.

Psalm 119:126-128: "126 It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law. 127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. 128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way."

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

You have zero right to show your private parts in public and you have zero right to demand that others tolerate this. It is a form of oppression and a form of rape by forcing your sexuality on others.

So a woman sighing when seeing a muscular guy without a shirt on his morning run is oppressed and raped in an instant ? Funny world you live in.

And if we get to argument that men`s chest is not sexual but woman`s is then we are just dealing with our cultural package.

Do you really think that some tribes on amazon where women have no need to cover their breasts are
someones who

who forsake the proper modesty and discretion that His Law which is written on every man's heart, and nature itself

You would think they were bit closer to nature then we are....

There are places where going topless is fine like the beach. There are places where it is not. Like going to church or gala night, but you will not see any men topless there either. In either case it is not a matter of sex that makes the situation inappropriate. It is the place and time.

The next was copy/pasted form Bare Oaks Family Naturist Park

"Fear of nudity has an official name – Gymnophobia.

Most people in North American society appear to suffer from a phobia of nudity – either their own or of seeing that of others. The problem with this fear is that is leads people to be uncomfortable with their own bodies. It results in them being ashamed, embarrassed, and even offended by their own image. The emotional reaction can negatively impact self-esteem and self-confidence"

Something to think about at least even if you do not share their values.

 

[ajcarey]

So a woman sighing when seeing a muscular guy without a shirt on his morning run is oppressed and raped in an instant ? Funny world you live in.

And if we get to argument that men`s chest is not sexual but woman`s is then we are just dealing with our cultural package.

Do you really think that some tribes on amazon where women have no need to cover their breasts are
someones who



You would think they were bit closer to nature then we are....

There are places where going topless is fine like the beach. There are places where it is not. Like going to church or gala night, but you will not see any men topless there either. In either case it is not a matter of sex that makes the situation inappropriate. It is the place and time.

The next was copy/pasted form Bare Oaks Family Naturist Park

"Fear of nudity has an official name – Gymnophobia.

Most people in North American society appear to suffer from a phobia of nudity – either their own or of seeing that of others. The problem with this fear is that is leads people to be uncomfortable with their own bodies. It results in them being ashamed, embarrassed, and even offended by their own image. The emotional reaction can negatively impact self-esteem and self-confidence"

Something to think about at least even if you do not share their values.

Well I sure don't have an interest in the money they are making off their business.

But the issue isn't being ashamed or not of one's own body. Whether someone is confident or not confident in their body shouldn't alter much at all how they dress. A person's nakedness is their nakedness- and it is not fitting to discover that to others whom they are not intimate with or perhaps in situations where there is no reasonable, significant chance of enticing anyone else or desensitizing someone else to something they shouldn't think it normal to see (i.e. guys changing in front of each other in a locker room would be an example of such a situation).

If it is acceptable to be topless at the beach, then why not a church or gala night? What time and place would make nudity before the general public acceptable if it weren't always acceptable?

You didn't finish typing your question about women in the amazon, but whatever you meant to write, I'd ask what was the history of their culture which led to toplessness being acceptable? I can guarantee it is a history full of idolatry and promiscuity which led to that- and that the knowledge of the true God was among these people at one time and was at some point cast away (not Christianity likely, but the worship of God which Noah taught and which was known to all every people group, as all descended from Noah's sons).

Regarding the muscular guy in public with his shirt off: I don't think it is right, and I wouldn't take my shirt off in public no matter how attractive or unattractive I was at the moment with my shirt off, but women's breasts are sexual in a way that men's chests are not. I believe the Bible confirms this (Song of Solomon 8:8 for example) and nature itself teaches this. Nevertheless many stores and offices will not let men come in without shirts and a man without a shirt on can be disgusting or defrauding (i.e. advertising something attractive which can never be righteously obtained). It isn't right to do before females. The topic of the thread yet remains what it is and my contention in this context is that female toplessness legalized in America is a new low and crosses a line which puts us on a fast track to nudity being allowed in just about any and every public place. That is truly something to fear, especially for innocent children.

Relevant Bible verses for all of this.
1 Thessalonians 4:3-8: "3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. 8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit."