Why is nudity offensive?

jamandcrumpets said:

hmmm wasnt it King David in the bible who saw the woman washing on the roof and couldn't help himself - he had to have her. And then it lead to murder etc...? And he surely had enough wives that he should have been able to "control" himself.... Nudity here led to a lot of sin, and I'm sure it started out innocently enough...

Click to expand...

You're placing the blame in the wrong place.

jamandcrumpets said:

I'm sure I've read somewhere that rape tends to actually be more about "control" than sexual desire, so the clothing or lack of, is probably not an issue there... but a beautiful naked person can elicit desire... maybe not so much when they are cold and passed out on an operating theatre table, but alive and moving... that's another thing altogether! I'm a STRICTLY one man girl, and when I'm in a loving relationship, I don't look at other men with any lust whatsoever.... but at the moment it's been a LONG time for me and if I saw a hunky naked man walking down the street, I'd be feeling it...

Click to expand...

Because of conditioning and it not being a common thing in our society. Anything out of the ordinary affects how we act.

MarkSB said:

I'm not going to argue any specific viewpoint here but I would like to touch on these scriptures because I think they are being misrepresented.

In 2 Samuel 6:14 David did not dance naked before the Lord but rather:

"David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the Lord with all his might."

A linen ephod is a hip-length sleeveless pullover which was worn by those who served the Lord at His sanctuary, and is to be distinguished from the ephod to be worn by the high priest. Several verses later, in 2 Samuel 6:20, Michal the daughter of Saul objects to David's dancing:

"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!'"

Michal is objecting to the fact that David was wearing only a linen ephod instead of his royal robe. David responds by saying, in essence, that the robe is to exalt himself, but David was seeking to exalt the Lord.

Also, in regards to the prophets preaching naked, the only prophet I know of who preached naked was Isaiah (though TBH I am not very familiar with the books of the prophets). Isaiah 20:1-4 reads:

"In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it, at the same time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, 'Go, and remove the sackcloth from your body, and take your sandals off your feet.' And he did so, walking stripped and barefoot."

"Then the LORD said, 'Just as My servant Isaiah has walked stripped and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder against Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as prisoners and the Ethiopians as captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt."

So Isaiah's nudity was meant to be a representation of the shame which was to come upon Egypt and Ethiopia. Public nudity in the Bible is often used as a sign of shame. It is why the soldiers stripped Jesus of his garments at the cross.

In regards to nudity, I don't think it is something that can be said to be all good or all bad. Being raised in western society, I personally believe that most displays of public nudity are inappropriate. Some people might go to a nude beach and not have a problem with it, but I would prefer to be / have a spouse who is a little more modest.

Also, I would caution against arriving at a conclusion on an issue like this and then going to the Bible to find verses to support that conclusion. What often happens is, as you see here, things end up being read into the scriptures which aren't really there.

Click to expand...

IOW you're not secure.

A little late but:

Amber.ly said:

Tell that to the porn industry and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition Imagination not needed and yet the end result is the same...

Click to expand...

I have to entirely disagree with that. There is a huge difference between "nudity" and "pornography." Yes, the human form can be sexual... it can also be threatening. That doesn't inherently mean that if a woman takes off her top, you should immediately assume she wants to hurt you.


To the OP: Nudity is generally offensive in America because it's taboo. By being taboo, people have formed an unhealthy, guilty obsession about it, making it more taboo. This is why it's "shocking." Because of that illogical state of mind, it ends up -actually- being immoral to walk around naked in most of america because you would be offending people or leading their perverted minds in the wrong direction. But that's entirely society based and some communities will be entirely different than others. For example, in some areas, if a girl went into a store in a bikini top or bra, people would be SHOCKED! Meanwhile in places like florida and california where a lot of people come for the beach... people are used to it, it's common place and no one would think a second thought about it. If our society had a healthier viewpoint of the human body, it wouldn't shock people and therefore there would be nothing wrong with it.

... good luck.

jamandcrumpets said:

This is a topic that I have had affect me greatly... I personally don't find anything wrong with nudity or a naked body... beautiful... but private.... and definitely not a public thing... I don't care how beautiful nudity is, the world cannot handle it... simple... except for maybe when we have heaven on earth and sin has been removed??? Until then, nudity creates lust and sin... I used to feel like my ex-husband "cheated" on me when he looked at other women naked (tv, beach, etc)... and it hurt... I don't think this world is perfect enough to be able to deal with nudity in it's pure form....

Just a thought.... does anyone think Angel's are naked? I would be interested to see if God even clothes his angels - even though we don't see them (all the time I mean )????

Click to expand...

I don't know you at all and this isn't a persoanl attack. I would wager there were other things that were problems besides nudity. The mental and emotional aspects of a relationsip are often over looked. I don't think a relationship based on sexual raltionships will last, ever.

welshman said:

This comes up all the time on here.

The bottom line I feel is this: those who seem to suggest that there is nothing wrong with nudity and are all for it (nude art, looking at drivel like Sports Illustrated front covers with models on the front with the sorry excuse that it's "tasteful", saying it is a "cultural" thing)...
Tomorrow morning - don't bother putting clothes on, just get out of bed and go to work, uni (or wherever in public) naked and I will interested to see if anyone comes back on here saying they did. Seems they are all for it, but won't walk the talk. If there really is no moral obligation or Biblical passages condemning it...do it. And see how far you get.

No amount of Bible verses will convince some people nudity (aside from exceptional circumstances such as doctors, carers etc) is sinful outside of marriage.

Click to expand...

Remove the curent consequences and I wager that one would see a different picture and would indeed see people naked in public daily.

Ever hear about a Farmer's tan?

MacFall said:

God didn't clothe them because they were naked. He clothed them because they were ashamed to be naked. It was an act of mercy, not a moral prescription.

Click to expand...

I would disagree. I think it is more for protection outside the garden.

from scratch said:

IOW you're not secure.

Click to expand...

And that would mean what exaclty?

Nudity is art is no problem and not sinful. Posing for art or photography is ok as long as it is not pornographic. The human body in its God created natural state is beautiful, inspiring, magnificent, awesome, and holy.
Thanks, Rev. Ross

From scratch - I think your posts are missing the point in other peoples post's. And I don't think your comment to MarkSB was very well thought out either.

Dear Jam, thanks for the input. I will read things twice before I post. -Thanks Rev. Ross

Hi Rev Ross - I was actually referring to the poster "FromScratch" ... not you... did I post it correctly? Maybe I am meant to say @fromscratch? Advice would be appreciated?

I will take a reminder as well. God bless you. Rev. Ross

To Rev Ross - reading your posts I think to myself "finding a partner who genuinely feels no sexual attraction to the opposite sex other than your wife" is a most admirable and desirable trait... I would love to be able to appreciate that sentiment. My last bf and I had some issues over this subject and that is why I am getting so much out of this thread... I am not sure I can really believe it is possible though. It was my inability to handle seeing nudity thrown at me via the telly, on the beach, in magazines, etc that caused me quite a bit of anxiety... Due to past pain with a partner and pornography my reactions are most definitely OVER-reactions, but tend to only be present when I am in a relationship and I feel as though the partner is cheating by looking and appreciating (or not appreciating as may be claimed).

I would LOVE to be FREE of this, but I know I am hardly alone in feeling this way and have read numerous books on the subject and talked with many other people who feel this way... (mainly women surprisingly)...

In and of itself, I do not find nudity bad or offensive and it was certainly not the only issue in the relationship! It was a very small part of our relationship, but a pimple none the less!

That being said, the nudity I am talking about is SEXUALISED nudity and used in movies, etc with the intent to titillate and my spirit is very sensitive to this area of sin, having been exposed to it quite extensively...

And yet in other regards, I really would hate it if the world was a big nudist colony... there is lust in this world (how many non-puritan people are REALLY out there) and disease (ugh hygiene could be a huge issue - think even of herpes and thrush, etc) to consider this a tangible reality surely... not to mention no-one can discern the thoughts of a person (apart from God), and I would never send my beautiful girls out in the world naked to be exposed to who knows what?...

from scratch said:

I would disagree. I think it is more for protection outside the garden.

Click to expand...

In which case it would still be an act of mercy.

Yes, the human body has been oversexualized and made pornographic by movies and TV and magazines. I can say woman is beautiful with lusting. I can say that a guy is handsome without being gay. To be honest I struggled for a few years with porn exposure, and then I asked God to show me a better way. I start with my wife and love her and her body. From there, I see all people and their bodies as being made in God's image. I have no desire to see people making love, or doing perverted things. If I walk on a beach and see a nude woman, I might think she is a good looking woman and keep walking without staring or lusting. Someday I would like to take a vacation at a nudist resort just to get more comfortable around nude people in a non-sexualized way. I have seen some nude statues by the great sculptors and they are magnificent and give glory to God. Some of the great paintings of the world are nudes and they are quite beautiful in a non-sexual way. I honestly think that more exposure to nudity in a non-sexual way is a good thing, like communal baths, real massages or spas (like in Europe). Going to a nude beach to enjoy your own nude body in nature is not a bad thing. When my wife and I lived on a farm once. We had a private pond, and we swam nude in it. we really enjoyed it. If someone would have wandered in to the pond, we would have invited them in. The more normal nudity is, the better it is. All of this being said, I like my wife's body the best and always will. If I see a nude woman somewhere, I'll just smile and say God bless you. If I ever had a chance to share the Gospel with her, I would do it without lusting after her. There are nude missionaries who hit the beaches of Europe and witness to people. They wear nothing except to carry a small cross around their neck and carry a Bible. Some people get saved and truly accept Christ. I knew a Pentecostal couple who witnessed on a nude beach, and they said they saw nothing wrong with the people being nude. They were well received. All of the bad experiences we both had had, we can just give them to God. He will make all things new for us. Part of that may be to just accept our nude bodies and those around us in non-sexual ways. This would give a lot fo glory to God. Just some of my rambling thoughts.
God bless you, Rev. Ross

jamandcrumpets said:

To Rev Ross - reading your posts I think to myself "finding a partner who genuinely feels no sexual attraction to the opposite sex other than your wife" is a most admirable and desirable trait... I would love to be able to appreciate that sentiment. My last bf and I had some issues over this subject and that is why I am getting so much out of this thread... I am not sure I can really believe it is possible though. It was my inability to handle seeing nudity thrown at me via the telly, on the beach, in magazines, etc that caused me quite a bit of anxiety... Due to past pain with a partner and pornography my reactions are most definitely OVER-reactions, but tend to only be present when I am in a relationship and I feel as though the partner is cheating by looking and appreciating (or not appreciating as may be claimed).

...

That being said, the nudity I am talking about is SEXUALISED nudity and used in movies, etc with the intent to titillate and my spirit is very sensitive to this area of sin, having been exposed to it quite extensively...

And yet in other regards, I really would hate it if the world was a big nudist colony... there is lust in this world (how many non-puritan people are REALLY out there) and disease (ugh hygiene could be a huge issue - think even of herpes and thrush, etc) to consider this a tangible reality surely... not to mention no-one can discern the thoughts of a person (apart from God), and I would never send my beautiful girls out in the world naked to be exposed to who knows what?...

Click to expand...

I wanted to break up my response a bit, the first part will be about Scripture, the second part will be about your post I quoted.
-
First, concerning Scripture on nudity, the Bible says:

In the Garden~ "25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." (Gen. 2:25). And "31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. ..." (Gen. 1:31). And "8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day..." (Gen. 3:8).

From these Scriptures we see that mankind was nude in the Garden, that God saw it and said that it was very good and that he made it that way, and that it appears God walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the Garden, which means, as far as we can see, that Adam and Eve would have been nude while doing so.

The Bible also says:

"8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Hebrews 13:8). And "6 I the LORD do not change. ..." (Malachi 3:6).

If God doesn't change, if his nature is always the same, then that would mean his moral beliefs concerning the human body haven't changed. How could they? If God changed his morals, he would be a different god. That said, if God doesn't change, then the only thing that could have possibly changed are the circumstances God is handling, because God can choose to make different choices based on the best appropriate options given to him with the circumstance he has to react to.

Now, a lot of people say that the circumstance that happened in the Garden, with the fall of mankind, made it illegal for man to walk around nude. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that walking around nude is sinful/wrong, outside of for Jews walking up an altar back in the Old Testament (if memory serves me correct). There was a lot of symbolism in the Old Testament, and if fact, even the verse in the Bible before that altar command is blatantly symbolic (Exodus 20:25-26). The verse before it speaks of not cutting the stones used to make the altar, which of course makes no logical sense because cutting the stones so that they fit properly would normally be able to make a much more snug fit and potentially secure/stable altar. This isn't much to go on for those who support clothing-mandatory.

The other main verse, since there isn't another verse forbidding public nudity, that 'mandatory clothing' advocates use to try to say social nudity is sinful is 1 Tim. 2:9. It states: "9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,". The very first problem with this passage is that people interpret it however they want. I would have to say that most Christians I know choose to use the first part of the verse "women to dress modestly" while they completely ignore the second part of the verse "not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes." Why is this? Because they feel like it. They still braid they hair; they still wear gold; and they most certainly still wear expensive clothes (pop Christian culture, anyone?). That said, if the majority of active Christians condemn public nudity and are okay with flashy clothes and gold jewelry, then how is the Scripture really supposed to be interpreted? First off, one of the problems that gets a lot of people into trouble when making doctrines/rules about morality up is that they do not take the Scripture into context. I dare people to look at the rest of 1 Timothy 2 and tell me where in any of that chapter Paul happens to bring up sexual temptation concerning this clothing issue. It isn't there. As well, there is a verse almost exactly like 1 Tim. 2:9, and that verse is 1 Peter 3:3. 1 Peter 3:3 breaks down the arguments used for mandatory clothing from 1 Tim. 2:9 that people often try to up bring. 1 Peter 3:3 states (verse 4 included for context): "3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight." 1 Peter 3:3 is directed at wives again. But what we see is, is that the focus of this passage wasn't sexual temptation of men, it was where were these women deriving their personal value from? 1 Peter 3:3's secondary destruction to 'mandatory clothing' arguments is that there is at least one error in translation (in the NIV version) and that there is at least 1 added word. The error in translation is that the word "adornment" in the passage is not the word for "dress" at all. The word in Greek that they translate "adornment" is actually the word "kosmos." That's right, like universe. It can also be translated as "world", either as the whole population of the human race, or what the "world" believes/how they act. The passage should read in that section "Your beauty should not come from the outside world". This alone seems to show what the apostle/apostles were dealing with when they were writing. Also, the added word in the NIV translation of this passage happens to be the word "fine", which is placed before the word "clothes." Feel free to research whether the word "fine" is actually in that passage in the Greek, it's not. This means the passage doesn't directly mention expensive clothing, but simply any clothing. 'Your beauty shouldn't come from the kind of clothing you wear'. Seems like a straightforward to statement to me, and it certainly isn't a condemnation of nudity. Seeing as how modesty has more than one meaning, I would have to say the modesty that Paul was addressing, and that Peter re-states, was modesty in how much one was spending, in time and money (in this case specifically on beauty). 1 Peter 3 also has no indication in the rest of the chapter about sexual temptation from dress, which whittles down the 'clothing-mandatory' argument even more.

So I've dealt with the biggest questionable verses of Scripture in both the Old and New Testament, and on top of both of them not condemning social nudity as a practice as a whole, neither of them appear to mandate clothing must be worn either, when the Scriptures are read together with the other Scriptures around them. As well, in the least, the NT Scriptures would only be mandating that women wear clothing, which doesn't seem like a valid command to me if there was going to be equality.

Now, back to an argument that I was making earlier- God doesn't change. If God doesn't change, then the only beings that changed what we are allowed to do/capable of doing is us. Many people say that in that Fall man lost his innocence and is now incapable of getting back to where we were. May I ask- where does it say their statement in the Bible? God did say "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Gen. 3:22). But then later God sent us Jesus so that we could have eternal life. So what is it? Are we to have eternal life or are we not? Are we capable of living holy, or are we not? Are we able to get into heaven (through Christ), or are we not? Can we attain what we lost before the Fall (bad memories and past failures aside), or can we not? I ask- Why did Christ give us his Spirit if not for us to start walking holy again? Is that same power that raised Jesus from the dead not enough to enable us to walk holy? If it isn't, those Christians who belief that idea serve a small God. I choose to belief that I serve a big God, who has the power to enable me to walk holy again, and that expects me to grow in holiness. I say that the "lust" that so many Christian men feel isn't because of what is natural, but because of the unnatural and sinful teachings that they have been raised in within the world's society and culture. When society has women flaunting their bodies as sex objects, when society glorifies sex as a object to be viewed for personal pleasure, when the divine artistic creation of the human body is called taboo and inappropriate to be viewed by both many sectors of society and the church itself, these things are why men are perverted in their minds. For if I tell a person a scary story about a section of woods, and they knowingly or unknowingly believe me, and so they become scared as they enter or try to walk through those woods, are not those bodily reactions due to a lie that they believed? In the same way, men and women become sexually aroused when viewing a nude human body because of a lie that they believed. The nude human form, in and of itself, was not created to inspire sexual desire or lust. The viewing of it isn't needed to cause sexual arousal to happen, because communication can do that very well- "Hey honey, ...meeeeoooow." At the same time, it doesn't mean the human body won't inspire awe in a person, because the body is a creation of God, and with that much detail present, has no problem creating artistic wonder/admiration (though this isn't sexual, and can be compared to how one sometimes stop to admire a particular tree or the fine-detailing in a blade of grass).

The answer to the problems we are facing is that we need to regain a healthy mindset toward the body. That comes from putting it back in its right place, and it means that people have to be around nude bodies that are in non-sexual contexts. A respectable nudist park (as there are some posers, just like there are fake churches) is a decent place to do this.

And since this post was so long, I will get to directly talking about the quote I quoted from you, jam, in another post.

In response to the quote I quoted from you jam, sexual desire can have a lot of intertwined issues that go with it. There are a lot of issues that can make is more sexually vunerable/inappropriately willing. One of the big ones that is out there is the world's concept of love. It equates love with "finding the right one." As if a person isn't complete if they don't have a partner. The world (I'm speaking on behalf of American culture) also equates love with physical intimacy. How many Disney movies that children watch don't have a man and a woman, or a boy and a girl, kissing at some point in the movie if a male/female relationship is involved? Sometimes the movie is all about action and adventure and blowing stuff up, but for some reason a guy and girl still end kissing for some reason. People get trained early on to value physical intimacy. Of course when they go seeking a relationship with someone (how many people reading that phrase just connected physical intimacy with the word "relationship" as they read it?), because they don't know how to have a successful relationship with someone, and they don't know how to determine what kind of person they should truly be looking for or where to draw the lines between friends and romantic interests (how many times does it simply come down to how physically beautiful the person is?), these kids end up getting way more physically involved than they should, sometimes getting into full-on sexual intercourse. So one of our pitfalls is how we have been trained to view relationships and act in them, and it makes us more susceptible to falling into having sex.

Another issue that intertwines with sexuality and can make us more sexually prone is the issue of acceptance. It is tied into finding "the one", as the idea of having "the one" makes us feel more approved of as far as society goes, and it also says to us "you have someone who values you enough to want to be with you individually." But, because we make ourselves so vunerable and open to this one other person we assume is amazing, we are more willing to do what they suggest, because we either don't want to lose the approval we are getting, or we figure that since this other person is "the one" that we will be with them forever so getting sexually involved early doesn't matter.

Yet another issue that ties to sexuality is stress. Because sexual arousal and interaction releases chemicals in the brain that give pleasure and help to relief stress, when our body is stressed or very stressed, which seems to happen so much in this broken world, our bodies respond that much more positively/strongly toward pleasure. Our bodies are starving for rest, and sex gives our bodies a sense of that rest and pleasure. This might be part of the reason why very busy businessmen seek out prostitutes, because they have more money but too much stress, and getting sex on a regular basis, especially when out of town, helps to keep their bodies from overloading from too much stress. It is also of note that people are less likely to want to view the human body as non-sexual because they don't want to give up the sexual chemicals and high that come with viewing the body as a sexual object. While some may be less likely to give up the 'sexual enjoyment of the viewing of the human body' mindset, it doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, at least when it comes to general day-to-day activities (excluding the topic of the marriage bed).

All three of these things play large parts in the weaknesses we have when it comes to our sexual sides. And a last one of note is how separated society has made women and men in their associations together. Men do sports with men, women shop with women, men and women are suppose to not understand each other, men and women wears different clothing, they aren't suppose to have the same kind of personalities, even in church the men are suppose to pray with the men and women with women. Since we cut off 50% of the population from having normal friendships with the other 50% of the population, how do we expect them to have normal friendships? How do we expect them to not turn what should be a friendship into a physically/romantically (I don't like the word romantic, but it's what people know) involved relationship? If one close relationship per year (or less than one per year) is all they have when it comes to close relationships with the opposite sex, how do we expect them to not value that relationship as something "special", treating it like a rare treasure to be hoarded?

And there you have it. That's my shpeal. If you want to improve, my general advice would be to look at the four areas I have mentioned and see where your weaknesses might be coming from, and then perhaps pray for God to help strengthen you in those areas. Improving a bit might be as simple as God bringing you a guy friend who is attractive but that you know is not interested in you at all, as you could start to feel comfortable and sexually self-controlled around attractive guys. Obviously one has to be careful when working on this stuff though, as a wrong scenario could drag a person down just as much as a right scenario could bring a person up.

And honestly, I think a nudist park could help (help a lot of people). Contrary to what some people might envision, nudist parks aren't filled with a bunch of supermodels. On the contrary, the supermodels are the ones that are rare. Most nudist parks in America have the majority of people there being older, often retired or 50+ in age. Nudist parks also, if they are big enough, usually have people of all ages, including infants and children. A person can see the spectrum of all of society, and this helps to make the context non-sexual all the more. When grandma and grandpa are nude, when the moms and dads are nude, when the babies are nude (okay, so typically the babies have a diaper so they don't mess everywhere, but nudity wouldn't be an issue if bowel functions weren't a concern), it shows a society nude, and it helps one to realize that it can be "just part of life" and that it's no big deal. And this helps tear down the false mindset that people have been living in concerning the sexuality of the human body. I would say that it would be more beneficial to go to a nudist park with a friend/acquaintance, as traveling with a buddy most places in the world is safer, (and it also provides a friend to talk to and bump feedback off of), but it certainly isn't 100% necessary, especially after a person has been to a nudist park a couple times and so is a bit more confident in their surroundings.

And I will add that I have been out at a nudist park that is near me every weekend this summer since Memorial Day. What are some of the things I do there? Play hours of volleyball, chat with friends, read. I could go in the pool, the hot tub, the sauna, play tennis, go on the trails. It's nice to be able to not have to worry about clothing- no soggy swimtrunk, no sand stuck in your shorts, no clothing to move or take off when hopping in the shower. Advantage. Anywho...

After reading many posts on here; in particular, the 2 posts above, I want to respond with my own thoughts.

To me...and this is just my opinion, it really boggles my mind how any Christian could think that public nudity is not sinful. I know it's a strong opinion, but it really is out of all sincerity and genuine study of the Bible.

Firstly, there is a lot of "definition switching" going on in some of the posts. No-one, at least I don't think so anyway would say that "nudity" e.g. the naked body is sinful. That is a common argument for those who are nudists to put forward. That those who are against it suggest that the human body is sinful. It's not.

You would be stupid to say it is when the Bible says in Psalm 139:14 "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."

What we must not do is try to suggest that nudity between a husband and wife, and nudity being promoted at some public nudist beach is the same. It's not. It's never even promoted once in scripture.

Secondly, people will quote that Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden of Eden, which they were. However there are at least 3 reasons why that argument is null and void.
A.) They probably were not "naked" as we think of the term. The Bible does hint that Adam and Eve were clothed with "light" before the fall. (this can be and usually is a long argument so I will leave people to look it up for themselves)
B.) They were man and wife. Nobody else saw either of them naked outside of the marriage bed. They were not playing tennis or volleyball with a load of other people to feel "free" or to "de-stress".
C.) Once sin entered the world, things changed and God saw fit to banish them from the Garden (notice how when they were kicked out they were given coats of skin). This may suggest that their garments of light were taken away as they would no longer be in the Lord's presence. They became aware of their nakedness. This seems to me anyway to back up the claim that they were clothed in light beforehand. Surely they would have realised before the fall that they had no clothes on (they weren't blind or stupid). I'm digressing...When they did sin...they moved out of the period (some call it "dispensation") of "innocence" and from that point on, the Bible makes nakedness (in the sense of public nudity outside of marriage) a symbol of shame.

Thirdly, there are so many instances and examples from scripture from the point of the "fall" onwards that I cannot include them all in here or I would be all day to back up the view that "nakedness" (in public) is compared to shame. One of these is found in Hab 2:15 "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!"

If nudity (as what some are calling it i.e. being naked in public) is not wrong, then why does this verse use the term "neighbour" (someone other than your wife/husband) and also use the phrase "woe unto him"? Surely there is no way of trying to justify or change this verse to mean any other thing?

Even the Lord Himself seems to quite clearly condemn people being naked in public when He said in Matthew 6:28-32 "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things."

While Jesus was talking about not seeking material things in this life, He Himself says that we have "need" of clothing. Why? If public nudity was acceptable why did He go to such lengths to tell others that we need clothes?

He also says in Matthew 25:34-45 "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."

Again, these verses spoken by Jesus strongly suggest at the very least that we should clothe those who are naked. Why? Because nakedness is a symbol of shame.

I have a feeling though, that no matter how much scripture people on my side of the argument use, all others will do is simply try and say we have taken it "out of context" or try and justify public nudity.

I'm sorry, but the non-Biblical arguments such as someone feeling "free" or not having the pain of ending up with "sand in their shorts" is absolute and utter nonsense. Sorry...I know some people on here might think that's a bit strong...but it is. Maybe some just won't say it. Sometimes I feel even the non-believers in the world look at us and think..."what on earth is he/she doing?" Even they wouldn't go play volleyball or tennis naked because they know it's just...wrong (and I'll be honest...I find it weird)

For what it's worth, those are my opinions on it anyway.

And to those who do support it on here...honestly...I mean no offence or want anyone to think I am specifically judging them as a person. Everyone to their own opinion.