Topless women have equal rights!

[Sam91]

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."

With reference to Songs 8:8. Breasts are mentioned 3 times within the chapter. The first is wishing the guy had been her brother. That reference is not sexual it is about breastfeeding.

The second mention is the one you quoted about her sister not having breasts. I read that as her being sad that her sister is a child. The third one sounds like she is saying she is of a grown age. I think breasts are being used symbolically to show life stages.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

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?

It is acceptable to wear swimming suit in the beach. Why is this not acceptable on church or gala night ? Answer is that we have certain social norms we adhere to.

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.

That is solely your contention and probably largely result of aforementioned gymnophobia.

I do not fear seeing a woman`s breast...

I fear people who make children seeing woman`s breast to be something sinful instead of the most natural thing in the world and just about the first thing apart from human hands the babies get comfort from when they enter the world.

 

[ajcarey]

With reference to Songs 8:8. Breasts are mentioned 3 times within the chapter. The first is wishing the guy had been her brother. That reference is not sexual it is about breastfeeding.

The second mention is the one you quoted about her sister not having breasts. I read that as her being sad that her sister is a child. The third one sounds like she is saying she is of a grown age. I think breasts are being used symbolically to show life stages.

Not saying you're wrong about showing life stages, but in verses 8 and10 they are spoke of in relation to desirability for marriage.

The apparel Jewish women wore and considered acceptable were loose and layered and concealed the breasts.

 

[ajcarey]

"That is solely your contention and probably largely result of aforementioned gymnophobia.

I do not fear seeing a woman`s breast...

I fear people who make children seeing woman`s breast to be something sinful instead of the most natural thing in the world and just about the first thing apart from human hands the babies get comfort from when they enter the world.[/QUOTE]

Who said a woman's breast was something sinful or that babies ought not to get comfort from their mother's milk? I'd fear such assertions too if they were being made and taken seriously by a multitude. But that isn't what we're talking about here. I fear God and His judgments against a society I live in that is increasingly not concerned that things which ought not to be in the open are legally brought out into the open; and that my society had abandoned the knowledge of God to the point of permitting public toplessness in women.

And if I didn't fear seeing a woman's breast it would mean that 1) I had lost my attraction to women and there was no chance I'd lust after her in seeing her nudity. b) That I was so desensitized to lust that having an object in front of me which provoked me to that wouldn't cause me to turn away nor cause me guilt if I didn't turn away.

 

[ajcarey]

But where is the definition of an acceptable social norm derived from? And is not the topic in this thread about changing a social norm? Is a societal norm something to be kept or changed? If to be kept, then why the backlash over those who are against public toplessness for women being legalized. And who had the right then to change societies throughout the ages, and especially western culture in the past century, away from the societal norm of first century Judea which set the norm for the Christian churches which the Apostles planted throughout the Roman Empire? If to be changed, then who decides when they should be changed and what they ought to changed to?

Edit: In reply to the first half of Jonathan's most recent post. Still not sure how to work all the copying and quoting functions here.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Society`s norms change as the society does. It does not need any "right" from anyone. It simply takes enough people to believe something.

Like we no longer believe as a society in segregation, slavery, stoning gays or having demons inside your head instead of people being mentally ill.

Certainly there are people who would be quite ready to stone a lesbian couple, or burn some old woman who looked them funny for being a witch, but they are not norms that most of the people believe anymore and we have laws that reflect that.

Laws that define what is acceptable behaviour whatever your own beliefs may be.

The nudity issue in US is mostly the puritan heritage from the 17th century. Most of the norms from that time have changed for some degree or the other. It might be time to let this one go as well.

Feeling guilty at seeing nudity is not a healthy sign whatever you might lie to yourself.

 

[Sam91]

Society`s norms change as the society does. It does not need any "right" from anyone. It simply takes enough people to believe something.

Like we no longer believe as a society in segregation, slavery, stoning gays or having demons inside your head instead of people being mentally ill.

Certainly there are people who would be quite ready to stone a lesbian couple, or burn some old woman who looked them funny for being a witch, but they are not norms that most of the people believe anymore and we have laws that reflect that.

Laws that define what is acceptable behaviour whatever your own beliefs may be.

The nudity issue in US is mostly the puritan heritage from the 17th century. Most of the norms from that time have changed for some degree or the other. It might be time to let this one go as well.

Feeling guilty at seeing nudity is not a healthy sign whatever you might lie to yourself.

I think the secular issue isn't whether nudity is right or wrong but that it is one rule for one gender and not for the other.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I think the secular issue isn't whether it is nudity is right or wrong but that it is one rule for one gender and not for the other.

Indeed. Gender equality is one of those new norms we have figured out that seems like worth retaining.

 

[JackRT]

I think the secular issue isn't whether nudity is right or wrong but that it is one rule for one gender and not for the other.

In the case of the Supreme Court ruling in Ontario some 25 years ago the basis of the decision was that a law cannot be framed that applies to one gender but not the other. That seems quite reasonable to me.

 

[ajcarey]

Society`s norms change as the society does. It does not need any "right" from anyone. It simply takes enough people to believe something.

Like we no longer believe as a society in segregation, slavery, stoning gays or having demons inside your head instead of people being mentally ill.

Certainly there are people who would be quite ready to stone a lesbian couple, or burn some old woman who looked them funny for being a witch, but they are not norms that most of the people believe anymore and we have laws that reflect that.

Laws that define what is acceptable behaviour whatever your own beliefs may be.

The nudity issue in US is mostly the puritan heritage from the 17th century. Most of the norms from that time have changed for some degree or the other. It might be time to let this one go as well.

Feeling guilty at seeing nudity is not a healthy sign whatever you might lie to yourself.

So as long as the majority in a society believes it then, that makes it okay. Your logic justifies segregation, the holocaust, the Salem witch trials, the widows in India being required to burn themselves on their dead husband's funeral pyre, slavery (as we've known it America which involves kidnapping the innocent, which is not Biblical slavery), and every and any abominable thing which any society has, does, or ever will legalize. If the devil through some cunning servants of his can trick us into thinking something is okay, then it is okay. Everything we do is progress and we are immune from descending into evil and reaping God's judgment as long as enough people decide that what we do is okay. There are no such thing as liars, propaganda artists, and con-men serving the devil to beware of. No society's practices have ever stemmed from these things and honest men who stand on the principles of the Word of God and the established Judeo-Christian influence are prudish, oversensitive morons who ought to be laughed at, ignored, or taken to prison or worse if they raise their voice and stand against those innovating contrary to this and forcing their innovations on everyone else.

Thank you for admitting that the basis for your belief is sinking sand. I suggest you read about the tactics which the Communists have implemented to prepare society to give into Communism. It has much to do with convincing us that immorality and licentiousness is freedom and enlightenment so chaos, debauchery, and lack of self-control will reign among the population, and anarchy will ensue, so people will be willing to give total control of their civil liberties over to the Communists so they can remedy the problem their influence has created through total control being handed over to them and us becoming their slaves.

And by the way: God's Law in the Bible never let people take the law into their own hands so people could of their own accord try and condemn alleged lesbians and witches. But even the need for due process of law is just a thing which society might take or leave according to your philosophy.

 

[timothyu]

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).

Or they were seen as savages by misguided missionaries who called them savages because they had not yet encountered the European spirit of God, fir if they had already done so they would have invented bras and high fashion.. Actually by their lifestyles I would say they were already living closer to the will of God in their simple communal ways.

 

[ajcarey]

Or they were seen as savages by misguided missionaries who called them savages because they had not yet encountered the European spirit of God, fir if they had already done so they would have invented bras and high fashion.. Actually by their lifestyles I would say they were already living closer to the will of God in their simple communal ways.

Jewish morality and modesty was around long before European Christians, as that was the morality and modesty derived from the worship God had instituted before Moses and through the Law of Moses. You can try to justify your enmity with God's ways through the strawman of European Christians, but it is not hard to see.

According to your viewpoint then the man Jesus cast the legion of devils out of was closer to God when he was running around naked before he had the legion of devils cast out of him then afterwards when he came to his right mind, put on clothes, and sat on Jesus' feet. The devils gave him godly liberty and Jesus made him unnecessarily ashamed I suppose

Luke 8:26-28 "26 And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. 27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs. 28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not."

Luke 8:32-35: "32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them. 33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked. 34 When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country. 35 Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid."

 

[timothyu]

Jewish morality and modesty was around long before European Christians

Not many European Christians gave a fig about Jewish sensibilities, having turned Christianity onto themselves a long time previous.

According to your viewpoint then the man Jesus cast the legion of devils out of was closer to God when he was running around naked

If you recall I was talking about living in the communal ways God intended. But then again these people did not know and care about the sensibilities of others until they were imposed upon them. They didn't have the sexual hangups that a bare chest might inflict upon others because to them there was nothing sexual about it.

That is often a learned thing and the more one makes it taboo the more desirable to mankind it becomes.

 

[Resha Caner]

When people play stupid games they win stupid prizes.

This needs to go on t-shirts and bumper stickers … or has it already?

 

[ajcarey]

Not many European Christians gave a fig about Jewish sensibilities, having turned Christianity onto themselves a long time previous.


If you recall I was talking about living in the communal ways God intended. But then again these people did not know and care about the sensibilities of others until they were imposed upon them. They didn't have the sexual hangups that a bare chest might inflict upon others because to them there was nothing sexual about it.

That is often a learned thing and the more one makes it taboo the more desirable to mankind it becomes.

You talk about people turning Christianity onto themselves as you espouse the unbiblical nonsense you do. You care less about Biblical Jewish sensibilities than the white Europeans whom you so stereotypically categorize and put all in the same camp. You Leftist social justice types can be among the most racist people on earth. And way to accuse God of making sin desirable to mankind. He is the one who commands modest clothing to be worn repeatedly in the Scriptures and calls public nakedness a shame. Yet you say He is just making the naked bodies of others who are not one's spouse more desirable by His own commandments and principles.
And why didn't you address the obvious lesson from the demon-possessed man in Luke chapter 8 honestly? Why are you dishonestly putting aside the whole counsel of God's Word? And one more word about the Europeans and I am out as the Bible was not written by Europeans; and what they did or didn't do has no bearing on what the Scriptures teach about this.

 

[timothyu]

As you continue to twists and reverse my words, I think out for the both of us would be a good idea.

 

[ajcarey]

That 2nd phrase is something we're agreed on God is the Judge.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

So as long as the majority in a society believes it then, that makes it okay. Your logic justifies segregation, the holocaust, the Salem witch trials, the widows in India being required to burn themselves on their dead husband's funeral pyre, slavery (as we've known it America which involves kidnapping the innocent, which is not Biblical slavery), and every and any abominable thing which any society has, does, or ever will legalize.

Your reading comprehension is lacking. Feel free to quote where I have said that some outdated norms like slavery are ok. The whole point was that in history there has been teachings and practices that were frankly disgusting and are now outdated like slavery, believing in witches and killing them, segregation or blaming demons for mentally ill people...or gender inequality in front of the law.

That being said something being morally ill does not have anything to do with something being a social norm. Slavery was a social norm, until we begin to be enlightened enough to realize how dehumanizing and wrong it was.

Just like treating women as second class citizens , or property or as someone with less rights to decide what they wear than men do.

We have progressed. We no longer have societal norms of some patriarchal Jews from Middle East. Most people count that as a good thing although your mileage may vary.

Some people still love to see witches and demons around every corner as being handy way of not dealing with real problems in rational manner.

 

[ajcarey]

Your reading comprehension is lacking. Feel free to quote where I have said that some outdated norms like slavery are ok. The whole point was that in history there has been teachings and practices that were frankly disgusting and are now outdated like slavery, believing in witches and killing them, segregation or blaming demons for mentally ill people...or gender inequality in front of the law.

That being said something being morally ill does not have anything to do with something being a social norm. Slavery was a social norm, until we begin to be enlightened enough to realize how dehumanizing and wrong it was.

Just like treating women as second class citizens , or property or as someone with less rights to decide what they wear than men do.

We have progressed. We no longer have societal norms of some patriarchal Jews from Middle East. Most people count that as a good thing although your mileage may vary.

Some people still love to see witches and demons around every corner as being handy way of not dealing with real problems in rational manner.

You said as much when you said that as long as enough people in society believe something, then it is okay. In post #126 you said the following: "Society`s norms change as the society does. It does not need any "right" from anyone. It simply takes enough people to believe something." You then continued to express that thougt throughout post #126.

You've implied then that anything society believes in and does is progress, and that would indeed justify the holocaust (Germans didn't scapegoat the Jews in previous generations like they did in Hitler's day), the Salem witch trials (which were not even killing of witches, but of average professing Christians falsely accused of being witches- that had not been done in the previous generations of Puritans), segregation (many nations didn't believe in and practice this before it was practiced in the USA- I'm sure the Americans who believed in it and put it into law labelled segregation as progress). And I could go on and on.

What is your standard of immorality sir? You use the term morally ill. Who or what defines moral ill? Is it society or something else? Please enlighten me.

 

[Brightmoon]

Germans and other Europeans did scapegoat the Jews previous to the Holocaust of WW2 and had done so for centuries. Biblical based slavery is just as immoral and abusive as non biblical based slavery. Only men were freed and they lost their families if the owner owned them . Unless the man wanted his family then he was made permanently into a slave